|
Post by Michael on Jan 16, 2010 20:53:33 GMT -5
I just don't know. History records the St. Valentine's Day massacre was master-minded by someone, but the actual perps are still to this day unknown. Why?
The Mafia used to employ street thugs to pull dirty jobs then kill them after it was done. Who were they?
We don't know the circumstances behind who masterminded, or how it was done. If Hauptmann isn't the mastermind then who brought him in? If someone is hired then brings in Hauptmann who's to say that isn't possible.
Let's say for arguments sake Hauptmann works on a few capentry jobs. During one job someone has him burn down a building for a couple of bucks. Then he's asked to do another. No one is caught and he doesn't talk. Now he's gained their trust. Inquiries are made, and someone trusted knows this guy who will do the job and is trustworthy and will never lead back to them. This guy knows someone else who will help but won't be told who is hiring them.
You can shift there "players" around and it still works. Fisch dies, and we still don't know enough about him. Hauptmann goes to the chair without saying very much at all.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 17, 2010 7:30:31 GMT -5
It would be nice to get some things off the table. One notion that it seems could be easily eliminated is that there wasn't a kidnapping in the first place. A minimum of Betty & resident's at CAL's home would have to have known that Jr. wasn't even at the house the night he was "kidnapped," and whoever knew where he really was, or that he was already dead would have to be involved. It's one thing to tell people, "never talk about this or you're in trouble," or buy them off somehow. It's quite another, though for those who know to remain silent when someone is executed for a thing that never even happened. Another point - logic says that if JFC were in fact a go between of an authentic kidnapping mob (or even an individual kidnapper) who had either accidently or purposfully murdered a baby (one of the most famous in the world by the way), and in fact a personal witness to the loner or one of the key perps, he wouldn't exist for very long. A perfect time to dust Jafsie would have been after he passed the money in the lonely cemetary and if a bodyguard or CAL or police interferred, they would have been dropped too. In reality, if dealing with a money hungry mob (lets eliminate acting mobs looking just for revenue) the money transfer would have been a perfect time to snatch Lindbergh and gotten some real cash. Jafsie either has to be involved, or he's dealing with the LCD of crime - gut feeling says that he's too eratic to have been involved and trusted, unless he came up with the entire plan which it seems he would have been too busy to attempt and accomplish. More on this to follow - a lot of this crime discussion which has been looked into a great deal over the years can be simply blue lined, while motive and the results (who really gained, or tried to gain) and coincidences (that horrible TC word!) of the crime have not been looked at enough.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 17, 2010 10:53:09 GMT -5
I think too many people propose theories that simply don't take into account the realities of the actions required for the execution of the crime. And then there is the total absence of the inclusion of Hauptmann or the disregard for how he would have been engaged. It's sort of thing made famous by Oliver Stone in JFK. It's easy enough to just say a shot came from the grassy knoll, it's a lot harder to show how exactly that could be achieved and how Oswald could have been integrated into the plot.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 18, 2010 7:07:40 GMT -5
Good post Jack:
1. I can't see anything which shows me he wasn't at Highfields. In fact, he needed to be there if this was going to happen. Too many people involved who say he was.
2. Condon believed he was going to be killed. But I think we must ask ourselves why he wasn't. Why he was selected in the first place.... etc.
3. He was brought in, and I believe knew much more. He was the person who secured the ransom while mis-directing the Police. A perfect choice if you think about it.
Kevin:
I wholeheartedly agree. However, I think certain lines should not be omitted simply because we are at present unaware of the nexus between Hauptmann and that line.
J. J. Faulkner is a great example. This angle brings in Schindler's car as well. But nothing as of yet to lead us to Hauptmann. We cannot abandon it since its directly tied to the crime - just not Hauptmann. One could argue that money goes to Hauptmann yet no one that I am aware of explains who or how its done. The name, the place, and the handwriting. Someone else is involved here as well.
Do you see my point here?
Sometimes we have to start from a different starting place in order to find out what we don't already know. This, in itself, may create new leads which eventually can be traced to Hauptmann. Siglinde is really good at this. Give her a name, a date, or a place, then she will find 100 connections to them as they relate to this case.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jan 18, 2010 9:10:38 GMT -5
Jack--good post/excellent points: With this many phoney set-ups its hard to unscramble the bits... Its like tacking into the wind with alot of hot air trying to blow you off course: - Its still possible that there was a kidnapping of sorts, only an inside job? Known only to a few? Like the Nursery scrubbers?
- Everyone sets way too high a bar that Anne not is involved too? She may have had PTSD? She's a tough cookie after all those round the world frights! It all hinges on motive.
- One dead give-a-way is Jafsie/CJ giving Red and Betty a free pass at Woodlawn--this is so lame its transparent... this for me is sure-fired evidence that they are IN!
- Also, it took so long to catch the Mastermind BRH, passing gold certs in his own car around NYC, that Violet, Henry Liepold and Whately's and others were long since dead. Red was never re-extradited to USA for his testimoney! Even Elizabeth Morrow was dead by October 1934.
- Only Betty Gow, played along to the bitter end? We can only guess that she was paid off, all alone, and terrified for her own personal safety. She ;never married or had children. Hard time.
- Others, like the former gardner--maybe Charlie Ellerson, who knew, went to Rev. Burns, who tried to blow the whistle but were stonewalled.
- Just like BRH, anything but silence bought your family a death sentence. What benefit was to be gained in telling the truth? Zero/nada/nothing! The wiser folks got out of towne fast--dont ask, dont tell!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 18, 2010 14:16:03 GMT -5
I'll never understand the notion that BRH and others kept silent for fear of harm to their families. If he was a walking threat, you would just eliminate him and anyone else, rather than hoping you could intimidate him into silence. And especially with Hauptmann, his elimination wouldn't be a blip on anyone's radar. Too much time is spent making the foot fit the shoe here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 18, 2010 17:24:30 GMT -5
I think its one possibility - if not one among others. I know one crime in Germany he took it under the chin when at least one other person was involved.
If we're talking Condon I think the same applies.
I absolutely disagree that their elimination would hardly be noticed. Hauptmann's arrest is what would create a need to murder him - if you didn't trust he would remain silent. Yet, that is what brings these types into the fold to begin with.
I think our approaches are so very different. Which, by the way, is a good thing. That way everyone is looking at it from a different angle.
If you study Fisch like I have its easy to understand his "hustle" and why he does it. He keeps his different "associates" apart, and most of the time anonymous from one another.
Try this scenario: Just imagine its Fisch who plans this. He pulls in Hauptmann who pulls in, say, Kloppenberg. At some point Hauptmann recommends Condon. Now those who helped Fisch on his end are unknown to Hauptmann, Kloppenberg, and Condon. Fisch dies. Hauptmann is arrested. Condon does everything he can to help Hauptmann. At some point Condon hints at Fisch's involvement. The Police catch on then threatened Condon. Condon has no choice but to then flip on Hauptmann. Hauptmann is then branded a Lone-Wolf.
What value does whacking Condon bring? Hauptmann only knows Kloppenberg. He goes to the electric chair knowing outting Condon may lead to Kloppenberg which he will not do, and proves his guilt which he will never admit to. There's no value in killing either Condon or Hauptmann because their murder(s) proves a conspiracy.... Not to mention any attempts on either Condon or Hauptmann will be met with immediate capture.
The end.
There are reasons why people do or don't do certain things. All possibilities must be considered then evaluated. In my opinion calling Hauptmann both a Master-Mind & a Lone-Wolf is making the foot fit the shoe. But that's just my two-cents. Again, our and anyone else's disagreements are a good thing in my opinion and its what directly led to the final conclusion concerning Rail 16.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 18, 2010 17:55:23 GMT -5
Sure that could work. You are keeping it at Hauptmann's level. Unfortunately, I don't think the finances work in that scenario. I was primarily addressing the large scale ( Lindbergh, Purple gang, etc, etc) scenarios which always seem to ignore Hauptmann. In those scenarios one must keep BRH in the loop and that's not easy since there is no evidence of any connection nor any reasonable explanation of how that connection could be established and maintained. I'm open to anything as long as it is based on reality and not flights of fancy or just bad info. As of now all I see is Hauptmann. If more were involved I really would have to believe they were close associates of his.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 19, 2010 6:55:00 GMT -5
I'm with you. However, I just think sometimes floating something out there is worthwhile so that it can be "popped." Or if its interesting but unsupported to allow someone to keep it in mind so that one day it can either be better supported or "popped." It's like this idea of CJr. not being in Hopewell over the weekend. I invite anyone to show me some type of proof to substantial this position. Until then I am not buying it. I think so due to the fact Hauptmann is operating from a supposedly near zero balance before this event but is spending money he doesn't have. There's something else that I plan on bringing out but at this pace someone may beat me to it. Sure, that could be possible as well as other possibilities or the combination thereof.... www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601127&sid=adpaYCtXwvnQThis was recently. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, of course, but consider switching players around and warping them back to 1932 under different circumstances. Someone once said truth was stranger then fiction. Sometimes it is.... Rick, don't you think Burn's would have eventually figured out if it were Ellerson? Even Gov. Hoffman pretty much disavowed Burns. Not saying we should too but Hoffman was willing to listen to anyone, knew Burns, and still wrote that in Confidential Memos about him.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jan 19, 2010 18:48:00 GMT -5
Michael--when a ladder falls in the woods and noone is listening...? Numerous special interest groups saw themselves as sacred cows that did not want to be drawn into the Trial--NJSP>Hoover & BI> Donovan & Thayer> detective agencies etc....or any reminder that for 30 solid months of blundering and a dead baby. They wanted thier package tied up neatly and efficiently without any loose ends to fester doubt. Truth and accomplices be damned. If you lied you got paid! Even if Burn's figured out who it was--so what? Noone was interested in Burn's story anyways? It didnt have much detail, more like a suspicion? And he was committed to keep the person's name a secret? Noone was interested in anyones stories, including the Fisch story, Abe Samuelsohn was present volunteered/etc?if it threatened the prepared dialogue like Curtis who was held up in Philly. All the main players, eg Wilintz, Reilly, Cal, William Randolph Hearst, were playing from a pre-written script and did not want any surprise witnesses to upset the apple cart. Hilda Braunlich was told to leave towne and go home! Hoffman's team likely figured it out--too little too late? Burns didnt get to read Arthur W. Jones' letter... [to some degree even Hoffman kept his own knowledge secret?] "I have the key to the case" said Hoffman in Preface to Hysteria? So what is it?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 20, 2010 10:25:36 GMT -5
Many good points, Rick! For starters, the Woodlawn comment about Red & Betty. Why would the kidnapper(s) not want to implicate someone else. There is, of course only Condon's word about the exonerative statement so it could be simply his blabbermouthing but . . . The crime went so smoothly and probably would never have been solved if BRH wouldn't have slipped at the gas station, that it seems to not be stretching things to say that the kidnapper had some inside help. Betty would have had the perfect opportunity when she was alone with Jr. - this even before CAL arrived home. The sound Charles heard has the ring of bogus or highly insignificant as a timeline point because he alone heard it, didn't even bother to investigate, and Anne didn't care to check on her "ill" child when he mentioned it. If BRH did it with assistance or some form of prompting, financially the numbers are so close to Richard's having spent all of the missing money, that it would seem the other perp's motives were not monetary. Threats probably wouldn't do the trick for such a bad crime (although they wouldn't know the baby was to die), but ruin would. Fisch could have been laundering money although, I know, I know, the teller didn't say that J.J. was a short guy who looked like Hogie Carmichle. There was a significant difference in the way the money was passed during the time between acceptance of the ransom, Fisch's exit, and Hauptmann's arrest. If only Geraldo would have found X-Rated photos of Red, Betty and Violet in Al Capone's Secret Vault!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 20, 2010 12:23:38 GMT -5
Betty could have made the strange and unaccountedfor noise (Charles said it sounded like it came from the kitchen) hoping someone else, probably Anne, would look in on the baby and discover the crime. Though Betty went upstairs, she stayed away from the child and her room which was nearly at the nursery. It always seemed that checking out Mrs. Whatley's new dress for over an hour sounded like a stall, and even if they weren't supposed to, peeking in on the sick child occasionally would seem a big temptation for her and the Mom.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jan 21, 2010 0:44:40 GMT -5
Jack--the LKC is not quite solved yet! Maybe piece meal-- but not yet in one single coherant package. My dad was a Marine fighter pilot in WWII (the big one)...the last guy in the fighter formation was called "tail-end Charlie"....that may be BRH's designated job. If so, who hired him? And what was he hired to do? Build a ladder? How many ladders does it take to stage a kidnap?
Yes, but there are so many different designated roles that Betty may have filled? [which Betty?] Betty and Anne may have kidnapped CJr in the afternoon before CAL came home? Or maybe Charlie was dead on Saturday and the whole kidnap was an inside job to coverup?
For my 2 ¢, Noel Behn comes closest to a comprehensive solution...he provides answers to more of those niggling, little, hanging-chad questions. It doesnt really matter if Jafsie is talking to himself...just as long as he keeps talking!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 21, 2010 7:04:24 GMT -5
Whatever Condon says...he says for a reason. To exonerate Red as coming from the mouth of CJ is something extremely important. Why does CJ care? Why, if its not true, does Condon care? If he's making it up, what if he's wrong? If Red is involved, then how does attempting to help him assist in getting Lindy his child back? After all, that is all Condon is trying to do - right?
There's only 2 people there. One of them is Condon. For some reason, those who want Hauptmann to be the "Lone-Wolf" the Prosecution presented excuse Condon's antics explaining he's coherent when they need him to be and nutz when they need that too. He's a "honest" in one respect but "forgetful" in others that don't show he is. He's in good enough shape to chase down CJ but old enough to become "confused" when it benefits him.
So let's say Hauptmann was CJ, and Condon told the truth when he said Red wasn't involved. Put this into proper perspective. Why would Hauptmann care more about Red then Charles Lindbergh Jr.? Why does Hauptmann care anything at all about Red? Why not say something like: "you'll never get anything out of Red" ....
Condon would later say that CJ told him "the people down soud" weren't the right party. Of course this was a bold faced lie due to the fact Curtis wasn't even in the picture at the time. Condon is trying to get the attention back on himself and away from Curtis. So he uses this AS A TACTIC to assist.
But again, if Condon's real goal is to get the child back, how does lying about what CJ said do that? What if Curtis was dealing with the right party? Then Condon would most definitely be obstructing justice by trying to steer the Police away from them by false & fictitious means.
So either Condon's goal isn't an honest one, or he knows something more about what is really going on.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 21, 2010 7:54:15 GMT -5
Perhaps, but who is qualified to determine what those reason(s) are? That's why I completely avoid the man. Anyone who wants to stay reasonably objective would be best to do the same.
In all fairness, let's not forget that those who try to exonerate Hauptmann or make this crime even more complicated do the same exact thing regarding Condon's statements and actions. It's an easy trap to fall into.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 21, 2010 16:38:21 GMT -5
Just some musings.....
I think Hauptmann was right. Condon did hold the key to his cell, in fact, I think he holds it to the entire case. I find him unavoidable. To evade his Character would be like reading a book and skipping a couple of the most important chapters. I just don't think one could possibly make his actions out to be more complicated then he already did himself.
I do think it a natural endeavor to either side with the Prosecution or side with the Defense. In doing so, most usually go with the "all or nothing" mentality behind whatever choice/road they decide to make/take.
However, many of us are in the advance stages of research where the "grey areas" of the Case are what's at stake. What "levels" of involvement and who knew "what" or more of "what" then what they led on. Who the "mystery" person(s) were who seem so obviously involved besides Hauptmann...
The Case is huge so dividing it up in order to properly research it seems like a good plan to me. But in doing so, and I am speaking from experience, you will miss some things contained in that angle which may help out with what interests you the most.
Know what I mean?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 21, 2010 16:56:57 GMT -5
Correct. Michael - for a variety or reasons Condon would not have made up the Betty & Red are innosent statement. And remember, that at this time perhaps only CJ and certainly not many would know that the baby is dead. Kidnapping is one thing, but the resulting child death very different. That leads to CJ perhaps really saying that when all of this comes down B&R were not involved in the murder/fatal accident. Of the many leads the various police agencies were following at that time, why pick out those two, whom there's no way CJ could have known nor given a rip about - unless perhaps he did know them? As Kevkon says, it seems we're dealing with a not particularly intelligent criminal who doesn't realize that mentioning anyone in any way will bring them to the forefront. Similarly to Rick's thoughts, I'd bet many figured right away that the parkneckers were involved.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 21, 2010 20:58:05 GMT -5
But that's exactly what you have with Condon, a book with missing chapters.
May I ask why? I only ask because I have never been very interested in the trial, only the mechanics of the crime. I guess that's why I don't understand the need to take sides.
Exactly why you have to always keep BRH in your sights.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jan 22, 2010 8:02:51 GMT -5
I cant resist raising the apparent competition for...Cal's attention or press attaention between two of the so-called kidnap gangs:
1. Condon's second gang--the one on the boat? [eg not the Rose in Spanish Harlem] Didnt Condon row or swim out to some boat and meet his own personal CJ-yacht-kidnap gang...and wasn't one of them named "Doc"? Didnt he hear CJr crying? I cant even remember where this non-event was recorded--maybe in the Bronx Home News? Anyways, what happened to this gang? Was it created only to compete with the gang down Soud? Wow, they even had guns? Maybe it was in Throgg's Neck Cove, L.I.? No way Kev--all this is front page headline news! [but I can see why you want to dissociate your credibilty from Jafsie's!]
2. The Curtis gang--hey this one is even bigger with women? Its got Sam, Neils, Eric, John, Hilda, Inez, cars, radios, yachts etc. and Kapitan Dynamite? ["my gang is bigger than your gang "] They drive all over the East coast, meet Curtis in NYC and Newark, drive to Highfields and Cape May NJ? Talk about a nice compact group for keeping a secret? Oh Henry would have loved this bunch? And some rocket-science jury and NJSP declareres later that this was the real kidnap gang and gives Curtis probation? Whered all these folks dissappear to after CJrs myterious death? Curtis can never find any of these persons or the safe houses where they meet? If you are going to tell a lie--always make it a really big one! What happened to all these folks after the fact? Did they too, only exist in the imagination of Curtis? But for what purpose to fool who? Other than all of us? This was CALs second pick for BFFs after the Condon gangs just petered out to naught with the $50K ransom of course?
3. Both Curtis and Condon avoided jail time for thier heroic efforts? I guess telling the truth and nothing but the truth isnt the way to go here? All these hijinks just keeps adding more and credibilty to the final solution.
4. CONCLUSION; The only kidnap gang posited by real persons with even the slimmest shed of credibility is the Purple one trying to contack Dudley Field Malone! [and not these two laughable yo-yos above]
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 22, 2010 16:48:16 GMT -5
Hey Rick, with all of these members of the gang it should be a cinch to make the connection to Hauptmann. Then you just have to tie the bow!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 22, 2010 19:08:02 GMT -5
Good point. CJ insinuating the baby was dead then asking what would happen to him if that were so..... Again, is this Condon or really CJ saying this?
Your next observation is very interesting, and one I had never before considered. I've seen this applied to Hauptmann himself when he says he wasn't guilty of the crime in which he was charged.
You really caught me off guard with this question....
I just think its as natural as "good & evil" or "guilty or not guilty." In the middle ground you can both be right and wrong at the same time so you don't get very far.
Taking the middle ground without the proper research would simply muddy the waters, therefore, you take up a position then learn from what works and what does not - THEN strike out to solve the grey area puzzles which were left unanswered by either side. It's how I was taught to research in College and so, I suppose, I simply assume its something everyone else does as well when first trying to tackle something like this.
In my opinion it works. Playing "devil's advocate" can work too. What doesn't work is when something is provable or obvious but rejected because of loyalty to a certain idea or theory. What also doesn't work is letting go of an idea without enough facts to support something to the contrary.
These are just my personal opinions on the matter. I've been both right and wrong in the past. And I concede I still have much to learn.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 22, 2010 19:26:03 GMT -5
I think A&M cover this well. Why weren't they treated the same? Perhaps the symbol? Again, Walsh was on the right track...too bad about the jealousy or the case, in my opinion, would have been cracked.
How so? What about this angle makes you think this?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 23, 2010 8:11:16 GMT -5
Finally!
I don't look at it as Good vs. Evil. More like The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Huge difference.
I guess I understand what you are saying, but what is the "proper research"? I have read and listened to a lot of people who extensively"researched" this crime, yet the fruit of all of that research is spoiled by the need or desire to fill in those "gray areas" with prejudicial nonsense which is completely unsupported by the evidence. At what point does the need to defend a position taken require one to make the facts fit the puzzle as opposed to letting the facts form the puzzle?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jan 23, 2010 12:36:31 GMT -5
Condon, Curtis and Means gangs never prove they actually have CJr....not even dead...which would have been easy to achieve. Dr. Lewellen F. Barker (Johns Hopkins) told Evalyn Walsh McClean she had been "hoaxed"! [these 3 gangs could have been interconnected by someone like a mastermind "kaiser soze" who is never captured] I think we can discount the secret symbol right off the bat...and the first ransom note as the ticket to CJrs safe return...since we know for sure it did not happen. That leaves us only Dudley Field Malone.....and the folks in Canada trying to connect with him? Of course, they too have an axe to grind--they want to get all thier family out of the Michigan State Prison?Owney Madden says they have the right stuff?...Cjrs birthmarks; and dont waste $50K on cemetary Joh? Madden would know and less likely to lie outright. Of course there are no quarantees here either--it could be hoax #4? I do like the fact that Rosner and Madden were scairt to death by the Nursery Note! Its so palpable!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 23, 2010 19:17:20 GMT -5
Another good question. I think the answer is completely in the eye of the beholder. It could be that someone has read the books. Or that someone has read all of the posts. Or someone is simply personally comfortable with whatever research they have done. I am fine with that and I know I can learn from each and everyone of those operating from a position of good faith. Mark reminded me the other day that I have been researching at the NJSP Archives for a decade now. I can't say enough to properly impress upon anyone interested how difficult researching this Case actually is. I once drove 3-1/2 hours to an Archive, spent 5 hours there only to find (1) document that I felt had any worth to my research.... So, have I wasted my time or still haven't done enough? Some may say yes, that all of this time and money was unnecessary. But I personally I answer that question each and every time I pick up a Report I've read at least 10 times but on the 11th find something new & important that I missed all those times before. Why did that happen? Two reasons: - Because I keep learning. I know more now then I did even during the last time I picked it up.
- I was in a different frame of mind. Sometimes when looking for something specific a fact you weren't looking for "slips through the cracks."
Additionally, sometimes we can get so immersed that simple or ordinary observations can be overlooked - by any/all of us for any reason. It's why I think our board is so important. Differing personalities, positions, and "levels" of research. All are needed. The tough questions are asked, positions challenged, and certain conclusions agreed upon. This is absolutely needed if any progress will ever be made...and we have - haven't we? What I find offensive is when someone misrepresents things. That is counterproductive to say the least. This Case will bring out bias and prejudice in all of us. Some more then others. If something doesn't jibe with the facts then we should challenge it. There's a lot of speculation. I personally don't mind that. But it is what it is. There are certain things we know but a ton we don't. Does everything begin and end with Hauptmann? Maybe, then again, maybe not. So I won't eliminate a suggestion if a tie cannot be made to Hauptmann. I think the scenario I suggested previously can show why that is. But by the same argument, we can't say it doesn't originate with him, conclusively, simply because we can't tie it in. That's why sometimes it pays to approach a problem like that from a different angle. I am rambling so I'll stop for now. I can appreciate you looking at this angle very closely. I think examining all of the angles reveals much information hidden within the investigations if not the actual events. The symbol connects the Condon gang. The symbol was left in the home. The money connects Hauptmann to the Condon gang. This is what I don't understand Rick. What about the Malone angle do you feel "trumps" this or any other?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jan 23, 2010 19:28:38 GMT -5
Its pretty simple: Malone* is credible/ Madden* is credible/ the Purple gang is credible/ *and Breckenridge appears to trust them? Maybe they are fronting for Capone? But CAL, as usual, says No Deal? Just like the Arthur W. Jones letter? Condons friends and family gang is a decoy...but who or what for? Maybe designed to be a dead end? Well, at least for 30 months it works like a charm...then BRH starts spending the Gold Certs 3 doors down from the Temple of Divine Power? And all four gangs turn into the Lone Wolfe theory of Jittery Jersey Justice?
[...and I think Condon knows BRH long before he is caught; maybe back to 1932--after all Jafsie says....I can never finger this man as CJ!--at least not until I find its safe to CMA?]
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2010 20:07:38 GMT -5
But if you find them creditable, what do you find suspect about Vice Admiral Guy H. Burrage, Rear Admiral Emory Scott Land, Ellis Parker, etc? www.madeinwyoming.net/profiles/extras/Land_biography.pdfSee my point? Is it really the person who is assisting with the angle or the angle itself?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jan 27, 2010 11:30:30 GMT -5
Yes I see your point/ sometimes its the angle and not necessarily the anglers...but its hard to separate the chaff from the wheat? AND every go-between needs a gang! One way or another/ Alan Hynd said "everyone wanted to get into the Act" but also "everyone wanted to get credit for helping out CAL". RE: William Randolph Hearst--heres another powerful person who has trouble minding his own business: First the brackets: 1. [1920s-, gets involved in Foreign policy and catholicism in Mexico City....hires Nosovitsky, sort of, to discover Communists and Bolsheviks in Mexico--Noso is more than happy to oblige! So JJ forges him an entire Communist Manifesto for Mexico. Noso ends up in a tangle with Col Woods and JP Morgan thus Morrow Sr....and someone forgets to pay him? (bad mistake!) 3. -1934]--meddles in the Hauptmann trial by hiring Death House Riley? Probably holds him on a very short string to get Hearst News exclusives...1934/1935...but holds a particular viewpoint: the most popular one = guilty as charged. 2. Now what about 1932-1935? Is it possible that Hearst News conscripts DF Mallone as its go-between in order to be a player against Condon and the Bronx Home News/ So Mallone may not be the independent player he appears at first blush? Both he and the train executive from Canada have fallen on hard times? They may be as eager as Curtis, Burrage and Land to help the Country and CAL find CJr? There is something in this cottage industry for everybody...So lets review the bidding on the 4 major go-betweens as of March 1932: - Condon/Perrone gang--5 to 7 individuals/ including Doc plus CJ and bit extras like Tuckahoe gypsy, Italians on phone.
- Curtis gang from down Soud--Captain Dynamite/ Scandanavian Eric/Neils/John/ Hilda/ Inez
- Madden Purple gang up Nord--not well defined in Canada, Michigan and Vermont includes Fleischers
- Means Gang in SC--the Fox, Irving Fenton, Max Hassel and Max Greenberg
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 29, 2010 7:15:43 GMT -5
All of the evidence seems to point to Condon being the right Party. This is the problem. While I am sure more were involved, and its possible the gang split up, there is very little to hang one's hat on. I agree that every angle should be pursued to its logical conclusion. If I were to grade it - there may be an "incomplete" in some instances in which case we wait until something new comes up to re-visit the issue.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jan 29, 2010 8:35:41 GMT -5
It would be child's play to argue that CAL and Condon got faked outta thier respective shorts and $50K by CJ on a Fool's Errand? A sure-fired secret-symbol should have been CJr's handprint on the ransom notes--that would verify the right party...lets say you are a multi-millionaire and your first born son is missing? Why quibble over $50K for 30 days when $250,000 was depostied by JP Morgan from the get-go? You only need to see the magic symbol once to kick in the *chump-change* at Woodlawn? Evalyn Walsh McClean lost $104,000 of her own money and then CAL refused to pay her back? Who's playing the Fool? What the heck are they waiting for...April Fool's Day? Apparently, CAL/JFC are just killing time with 14 notes--18 "mony is ready"--and a wooden box? Wonder why they want to drag their feet since nothing new changed or developed in the interim?
**for the most famous baby in the whole wide world CAL could have raised $1,000,000 in 24 hrs.
|
|