|
Post by rick3 on May 23, 2010 4:41:20 GMT -5
Sounds like a plan...Michael: Breck might in fact be fertile ground? Why does he do CALs bidding like Banks or Whateley? Is Breck merely an employee? - Hes the second husband of Anacosta Root....her ex-hubby might link us to Yale...sort of like Theresa Heines Kerry?
- Root, Miss Alva has been mentioned as one of CJrs minders and might have been at Highfields over weekend? Sat-Sun?
- Pease mentioned Brecks own daughter was later shot in California? Can this be confirmed?
- Asst Secretary of War under Wilson...[pretty high credentials};another link to Yale?
- Apparently CAL does not trust JFC as far as he could throw him? So howd he then pick him to return his first borne? Doesnt add up--whos got who by the you know whats? or Why? Strange bedfellows all around...
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 23, 2010 5:19:48 GMT -5
Seems Thayer was really the key, and he absconded from it all. Leads to believe there was more in the making than a simple kidnapping, or he'd want to stay in the limelite. If these guys (Breckenridge and Thayer) had knowledge of a fraud, it would be felony - so Thayer anyway bailed. And Breckenridge held hands with Condon - Lindbergh knew he was being scammed and didn't mind sending BRH to the chair. I might have done the same for $ 50K down which in todays dollars is into the half-millions, was a lot of money.
Big question is why didn't CAL have JFC bumped? Rosner could have done it - just about anybody could have done it.
A look at CAL's slap-happy associates in the criminal world should tell any investigator that something was amiss.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2010 7:48:37 GMT -5
I want to throw my 2-cents in here while I am thinking of it.
Breckenridge was like an extension of CAL. He was his Attorney and personal friend then acting at all times in his best interest in both capacities. I haven't seen anywhere within the files where they disagreed or didn't act in a way where the other one wouldn't have - as far as the Case goes.... So CAL is definitely in charge and if there's a #2 it ain't Schwarzkopf - its Breck. And so, if CAL couldn't be in two places at the same time - he employed Breck to perform what we see as odd behavior for him.
It's easy to put Thayer in this league but he is not. I agree with Jack that Thayer bailed because he didn't want his name involved with compounding a felony. While Thayer & Rosner were very much a team at first, they quickly fell apart when Thayer believed Rosner was acting inappropriately. He scolded Rosner often, tried to reign him in, then ultimately tried to assist Walsh & Hauck in their new murder investigation. Thayer was an "independent" doing at all times what he believed was the right thing as the law dictated.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 23, 2010 9:35:20 GMT -5
Isn't that kinda presumptuous? If you had a friend who was reputable lawyer and you found the need to engage him, would you not follow his advice? Why assume CAL made all the decisions? Another thing, Breckenridge is, among other things, a man of honor.
Rick;
Time Magazine 07/30/34
Died, Louise Dudley Breckinridge, 17, daughter of Col. Henry Breckinridge, one-time Assistant Secretary of War (1913-16), attorney for Col. Charles Lindbergh; by tripping and accidentally discharging into her heart a bullet from a .22-calibre rifle; near Bethesda, Md.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2010 9:52:21 GMT -5
Not sure what you mean here.... Breck was Lindbergh's Attorney. He was also very close friends with him. He completely placed himself at CAL's disposal concerning this entire matter.
There wasn't a decision that CAL didn't make, or if he knew about it, didn't have the power to veto. Aside from Schwarzkopf, every Cop I see referenced at some time or another would point this out and were really pissed about it.
Exactly. His word and loyalty meant something. If something during the investigation, for example, negatively affected Lindbergh, he would have done everything in his power to both defend and protect him. My point was that Thayer, by contrast, had no such allegence (or side). This was exemplified when he went after Rosner who, by all accounts, was his partner in this effort.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 23, 2010 10:30:45 GMT -5
What I mean is that Breckinridge is acting as a professional and I don't think we can assume that CAL was unilaterally making all of the decisions. He respected and trusted Breckinridge so it is very likely that Breckinridge actually guided CAL in some of the actions in the case.
And it stands to reason that he would not do anything dishonorable or be a party to anything underhanded. Nor would he be a friend to someone who did.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2010 12:43:15 GMT -5
There is nothing I have found to show Breck made any decisions. He towed the party line in public but sometimes let some of his personal opinions slip privately. Certainly, he acted as an Attorney would, or even as a good friend would....but in the end - CAL made the decisions and it was up to Breck to protect his decisions - which he did.
Well I guess the terms dishonorable or underhanded are in the eye of the beholder. If someone betrays the trust of their Client and/or good friend it could be construed in the same manner.
How then do we explain Harry Bruno away? Or even Breck after CAL chose that embarrassing position towards Hitler? ...or towards the Jews? Was Breck silent concerning this, did he endorse this as "honorable," or did he say it was wrong?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on May 23, 2010 13:11:35 GMT -5
mike didnt brekinridge and lindbergh have a falling out in the 1940s?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 23, 2010 13:14:45 GMT -5
CAL actually did make some comments against Jewish. I felt he was wrong thinking to blame that race, because he was really more talking about the control of segments of society, (not necessarily all Jewish interests) but he may have believed that. CAL seemed to me to be not terribly bright and influenced by others who had been successful people at that time and earlier, Henry Ford, Westinghouse, and using their thinking which in reality was a lot towards stopping unionization, and really had nothing to do with the Jewish Nation. In the long run unionization ruined the grand Detroit so maybe Ford wasn't so dumb. There were guys putting the steering wheels on cars making more than the President of the United States.
So CAL's comments weren't totally his own and in the early thirties everyone was pro-Hitler (nobody read his book and knew what he was up to) and CAL wasn't so unusual. It was the late thirties when he (CAL and Hitler) got into trouble.
Bob Mills knows a lot about this factor - would be nice if he'd comment.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 23, 2010 13:14:49 GMT -5
Would you expect there to be in the context of a client/ attorney relationship? Is there anything that you have found to show that Breck didn't make a decision? Can you discount the influence Breck had in terms of CAL's decisions? You really think a man like Breckinridge would go along with something underhanded? This is why I tend to avoid these arguments. It depends too heavily on interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2010 13:44:07 GMT -5
So I see my point was effective.
That's my point. Breck was doing his job.
No one crossed Lindy. If Breck offered up advice it was CAL who either consented or veto'd. He did this with ANY idea which came across his plate.
I don't know what that means exactly. If you mean, say, protect the family from the fact someone like DWJr. was involved while trying to get the child returned then I'd say yes.
Let's face the facts. It was CAL's position that absolutely NO effort be made to apprehend the criminals while the negotiations where going on. He kept information from the Police which could have led to their apprehension. If it were Breck, alone, and he was not representing CAL - then I believe he would have NEVER acted in this way.
But it wasn't.
And so he supported this position, and even assisted with it. Even after the child was found he did as CAL wanted thereby assisting some while abandoning others.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 23, 2010 18:40:23 GMT -5
I agree with Kevkon - Breckenridge was making the decisions, or otherwise why was he even there? At least Lindbergh was smart enough to not trust his own judgment, but this really opens a William Norris door - if there was nothing wrong why would CAL need an attorney at his side? And why would Thayer jump ship?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2010 6:09:37 GMT -5
Sometimes I am not good at explaining my position or point clearly so please bear with me as I try to do that....
Lindy offered immunity to people. He had no legal right or authority to do so. Anyone assisting in shielding a felony is guilty of a serious crime. Lindy blocked investigation. He had no legal right or authority under the law to do so. Anyone obstructing an investigation is guilty of a serious crime. Breck assisted Lindy to that end BUT as an explanation - the newspapers were printing - it was to secure to the safe return of the child. If this is true, they were throwing caution to the wind by taking that risk in order to get the child returned. Newspapers said CAL would do anything to get his son back.
Problem is, when the child turns up DEAD then this "honorable" explanation is no longer available to them. Yet, something strange happens....
Lindy is still backing certain people who didn't deliver and still upholding his "deal" with them. Lindy is still blocking certain interviews and investigations. Lindy is still in the middle of everything and seems to have the same hold over Schwarzkopf as he did before the body was discovered.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 24, 2010 6:54:16 GMT -5
Do you, Michael, see that something strange happened? What didn't go by a pretty nice flow? If you're implying that the body found was a bump, then it really happened at a nice time. Hey CAL is away on a boat, people are long gone to England, Noso is nowhere, DMjr. is sailing with his sister. Couldn't be a nicer time to accidently find the body. I don't agree with Bob Mills about the body but he has a lot of interesting points about Mr. Allen.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 24, 2010 6:59:57 GMT -5
And I don't certainly claim to be an expert about this crime - I'm just saying that if after 80 years there are still major questions perhaps some looking in the wrong direction has been doing. Other crimes are the same - Hall Mills - same state, and same investigators - what gives?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 24, 2010 10:00:35 GMT -5
Here's the thing that bothers me and probably the major reason why I don't see these threads as ever being productive, they always seem to lack context. I sometimes have to stand back and remind myself that we are talking about a father whose infant son has been abducted. I don't think any of us can really appreciate that situation nor can we know how one responds to it. These discussions always seem to be devoid of that understanding. Like him or hate him, CAL was a father whose son was taken and he was, as all parents in this situation are, unable to get him back without help. Help from others and , most importantly, help from whomever had the child. That's a pretty horrific situation for any parent to find themselves in. I'm not making excuses for CAL or is actions, just pointing out that in analyzing those actions we should keep the nature of the situation in mind. Another important point, we are at a distinct disadvantage in that we are not living in that era. Kidnappings were not handled as they are today. It was not uncommon for the relatives of the victim to deal directly with the kidnappers with or without the aid of the police. Though, even today, it is a crime in which the victim's parents may play a large role and even be allowed to make decisions in regard to the course of action taken. I guess what I'm getting at is it's all fine and well to scrutinize the actions of CAL and those involved in the case, just keep the context of the situation in mind when doing so.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 24, 2010 11:16:38 GMT -5
Very good thinking Kevkon. If it were my child I would be a bananna!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 24, 2010 11:29:03 GMT -5
I remember Dennis The Menace outside with Ruff onetime and his mom was out too in a two piece, and some sailors are across the street whistling, and Dennis says "tell those sailors to stop whistling at Ruff."
Only one thing worse than swabby's whistling at 'ta. If they don't whistle.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2010 17:53:27 GMT -5
Kevin, I can appreciate what you are saying but ask that you re-evaluate it within ITS proper context.... That is, you are trying to explain away CAL's irrational behavior by using rational motives. For me that doesn't work once you apply the facts concerning what happened. Just a few points of many to exemplify my point: - Preventing interviews, or limiting them help solve his son's murder?
- Pulling pranks on Investigators all night. How does that assist in the return of his son? Sure, his normal behavior was to enjoy pranking people as we all know.... But if his son has been kidnapped why is he acting as he normally would against people actively involved in trying to bring him home?
- Blocking investigation of his Staff, labeling it undignified and/or embarrassing, when he admits to Agent Larimer that he believes it very possible one of them were involved?
These are just the tip of the iceberg. And so yes, by all means apply the distraught Father variable to this Case - but I think the that position should be tested. And why exclude the variable on the opposite end of things? We should do and look at everything then let the chips fall where they may. It could be that he was just abnormal, unusual, or mentally stretched too thin. Or it could be something else. Exactly what that "something else" could be will only be known if, at the very least, it is considered.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 25, 2010 4:13:20 GMT -5
Wo - the tip of a new iceberg!
Don't you think you guys have discovered enough icebergs?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 27, 2010 8:26:14 GMT -5
Well, be that all well and good, maybe we could focus some light on the personality and dedication of Breck? - when and how did Breck become CALs lapdog/beasach? why doesnt that follow after Asst Secry War?
- What happened to Brecks self-esteem and pride? Who whipped that outta him or assigned him the "duty"? Higher ups?
- Does CAL hold anything over his head? Breck seems to have lost his sense of independence? Maybe the new Mrs?
- Baby sitting JFC seems well below his station? This confirms CAL thought JFC a loose canon needing a minder/ Didnt Breack also meet with Mary Cerrita and Co>in Princeton Junction?
- At the Cerrita/Biratella seance, Breckenbridge WAS the official go-between! What was accomplished by adding Condon? Nothing...except obfuscation and missed direction to cover for the blackmail/extortion in the Bronx for naught .
- Why did CAL call Breack before the Hopewell cops? How quickly did Break show up at Highfields? He becomes the PR man.
- does anyone remember the name of John Ramseys personal atty? [no--me either]
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on May 27, 2010 20:28:00 GMT -5
Well, at that point in history, people would have died to be in Breck's postion. So anything associated with that doesn't surprise me.
What should raise more eyebrows is when someone calls their lawyer before they call the cops.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 28, 2010 6:05:17 GMT -5
If they were Breck......
You see, being in this situation could land you in Jail even if your intensions were good. Let's take Max Rosenhain for example.... He wanted nothing to do with the Case but let Condon talk him into being involved. And so he reluctantly agrees, sits in on meetings, gives advice, etc. Then one day Breck storms in claiming there's a "leak" coming from the Condon camp. Rosenhain saw the writing on the wall then jumped ship so fast you never hear about him again.
I would say yes...depending upon the circumstances. If a Father reads that note, and it is saying don't call the cops, he may indeed call a trusted friend, like Breck, to seek advice. So its the situation, taken as a whole, which has me scratching my head.
The Note isn't seen by anyone. Then it is - by CAL. But its not opened. And it sits until it can be dusted - by order of CAL. But the whole time CAL seems to know what it is. I suppose its logical to assume but who assumes when they are so specific as to wait for fingerprints?
Like Kevin has said, its hard to say how any of us would react - under the circumstances - but I am seeing so many red flags, that under these circumstances (me seeing them), I must point them out. I can consider the panic, or shock factor. But we must consider other explanations as well.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 1, 2010 3:45:38 GMT -5
Michael.....heres another red flag for me: Why did CAL/breck pick a blowhard olde, presumeably unknown, outsider fool for the go-between? Especially if neither didnt trust him? - so that Breck could negotiate with the real kidnap gang?
- to divert attention away from Hopewell TO the Bronx, NYC?
- to compound the illusion that there was any kidnapping?
- Norris claimed Condon was an olde family friend who had helped Dwight Jr in some dark past [or Senator Morrow?]
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 1, 2010 6:04:26 GMT -5
Rick,
If you recall, the "Kidnappers" had already "picked" Breck. Then "they" selected Condon supposedly based upon that stupid article he wrote. The whole thing is extremely weird and needs to be looked at more closely.
Why did they shift their "middle-man" from Breck to Condon? Why did both CAL & Breck profess their 100% belief that Condon was on the up & up then, to others, tell a different story - one of distrust?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 1, 2010 19:48:56 GMT -5
Michael--
Quite clearly, Col. Breck is the right man for the job--and Jafsie all wrong for obvious reasons....self-agrandizement for starters.
Combine that with JFCs phony negotiations with "CJ" for the CJr not there and you have the makings of a huge hoax.
Ellis Parker said it first and best: "the putative kidnap is not connected to the blackmail/extortion in the Bronx." eg the 2 gang theory.
So CAL/Breck put JFC to deal with wierd threat of exposure? Fight fire with fire/ hoax against hoax...plus $50K? Leaving Breck free to deal with any "back channels" that might contact him?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 2, 2010 17:43:05 GMT -5
I believe there were two crimes. However, I believe those linked to one were linked to the other as well. It's possible that some concerning the first were not involved with the second, as well as one or more possibly being picked up for second. A splintering could have occurred.
But to say that two distinct and altogether different groups were involved, one concerning the kidnapping and one concerning the extortion can't be correct.
I find it interesting that Condon was wishing Lindy well on his excursion out at sea with Curtis publicly - then making up dialog attributed to CJ in order to dissuade anyone from paying any attention to Curtis.
That was a hoax, or, in the alternative - showed knowledge Condon should not have possessed.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 2, 2010 18:16:25 GMT -5
Yes....I see how you are approaching this puzzle:
The first crime is the hardest--it involves the insiders...the family.
The second crime is the coverup or diversionary tactics of the insiders/outsiders to conceal the first.
The dead giveaway is that no serious negotiations are going on between Condon and the Bronx gang? No real identification of CJr is sought or recieved--only the similar sleeping suite...but they hold the secret signature. No photos/phone calls/hair/birthmarks/ are confirmed. Based on this we might assume the gang does not hold CJr and hes dead or missing? CAL is forced to pay the extortion money--twice--for nothing.
I assume you are referring to Condons statement about the gang down South? "They dont have CJr"
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 3, 2010 6:03:09 GMT -5
In a nutshell...
I, like many of the Police at the time, believe there was an inside connection. They of course had help from the outside.
Next, like I've mentioned before, I still believe it very possible that one or more of those decided to collect a ransom that wasn't ever supposed to be collected.
Condon was a diversion. Whether he was doing it himself because he was afraid, or that was his intended purpose from the onset. His job was to make sure the money was paid and the Police were preoccupied by chasing their tail. Say what you like, but what Condon did was, at the very least, obstruction of justice - no matter how you look at it.
Just look at what he did concerning Samuelsohn. He had the Authorities on a wild goose chase purposely. There is no doubt in my mind he knew who made the box. And if he didn't then he's so far gone there's no way he pulls off Flemington, or even understood the threats the Police had made against him.
He feigns this forgetfulness then sobers up real quick once things get serious towards HIM.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 3, 2010 8:24:43 GMT -5
The problem could be that CAL suspected something other than what happened, and acted accordingly.
|
|