|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 15, 2010 17:35:39 GMT -5
mike, i got great recent photos of condons back of the house and i was on the front porch and one of his garages was open and i took photos of that in the back. i dont agree with walsh even though i met his grandson
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 15, 2010 17:49:15 GMT -5
Upon your view could Condon have contacted the kidnappers after the money exchange? If not wouldn't his role merely be an agreement that he would do all he could that they would not be caught.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 16, 2010 16:13:16 GMT -5
Did he tell him anything we'd like to hear about?
Sure. I believe someone involved brought Condon in for the exact role he played.
Never did they accept Rosner, Bitz, or Spitale.
Once the Police became involved they needed someone. They at first tried Breckenridge. But then thought better of it so they come up with their own guy.
This guy lies about everything he can just so he has enough contradictions to point to that are irrelevant. He also has a way of inserting some real information into his lies so that he has a form of plausible deniability at his disposal.... Furthermore, he listens to the Police then inserts pieces of information he gleans to sound sincere and believable.
In the end, they have no idea what the hell to think other then he's eccentric and/or not in possession of his full mental faculties. The problem with this is that when push comes to shove - Condon sobers up real quick. And its what caused him to identify Hauptmann when he had previously refused to. Afterwards, there could have still been contact. The Rice Paper notes are interesting too. The Writer and Condon go back and forth. I even found a card sent much later after the fact thanking Condon for his efforts. What's interesting about this is the fact the card was in a different collection so I think its something the Police missed.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 16, 2010 19:41:26 GMT -5
Thanks Michael. How can we read the Rice paper notes? I must have missed it.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 17, 2010 11:10:48 GMT -5
no mike, walshes grandson didnt no much about what his grandfather did in the case, i sent him a few documents with his name on the bottom
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 17, 2010 18:26:25 GMT -5
This happens a lot doesn't it? Sometimes I give up on that line of research. There's a bunch of them. The Writer and Condon go back and forth. Some letters were mailed and others dropped off on his porch. Condon answers through the newspaper and leaving replies under "surveyors' monuments" west of Jermone Ave into Van Cortlandt Park. There were many of these letters. Here is one that was left on his front porch: "Dr. Condon I cannot come in. I stated that in last note, as there are other deals for the child which are easier then returning child. Your plan is fine from your side but they will not see it that way. Have suggested lots of plans myself but they insist on their won way. Their plan is money and child identified at the same time. But money first. Then child. The party identifying child will be taken safely back to his car. Whether he leaves with the child or the money. What more can you want. I myself will see that child is there before giving word to come.
This is an opportunity that calls for quick action as I know that their demand anyway will be increased as they have an offer of twice the amount from a private individual which if they accept child might never be returned to his mother. I am doing my best for return of child through you but I am sure they wont wait much longer and I dont want to lose contact with them myself. (I dont deliver these notes). They are wasting their time out at Norfolk as I am sure child just now is not out at sea.
You must either refuse or accept, which it is to be [sic] Make it final same place. Notice the Norfolk reference. Isn't this what Cemetery John supposedly said to Condon?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 17, 2010 21:47:29 GMT -5
THAT IS AWESOME. Are they at the police museum to see?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 18, 2010 7:56:29 GMT -5
They are, but let me relate my story about finding them.
It started when I saw Condon's Grand Jury Testimony about them. Once at the Archives, I remember finding the folder they were supposed to be in, but inside that folder was a "note" saying they had been sent back to NY, or given to Capt. Oliver, or something like that.
So I gave up.
But then during one of my many visits, I stumbled upon these notes elsewhere. Now, had I seen these notes first, before knowing what they were, they wouldn't have meant anything to me.... The copies I made turned out terribly due to them being on "rice paper" or that old "onion skin" crap they used to write on back then (xeroxed). But I can make it out, and I also found a report or two to supplement them.
What I find important is that Condon thinks this Writer is legit. How or why I don't know. I've seen him write letters back to people signing and listing their return address, but never where he would go "hide" letters for the Writer to find then go back and forth like this EXCEPTING those with the symbol on them.
I think it fairly obvious, at least to me, that Condon takes what this Writer says about Curtis - then has it coming from Cemetery John's mouth. Why? Because his meeting with "John" came before Curtis was a known factor. It exemplifies what I keep saying Condon did.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 26, 2010 8:52:09 GMT -5
I hate to post this here, since its under a thread where we got off on a tangent, but I think if it went anywhere else it would be confusing. Here is a document I want you to look at: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 27, 2010 17:41:28 GMT -5
Michael,
The note implies the police were watching his home before and after the money exchange. So why is there little documentation of who these visitors are? Specifically the note delivered on the ransom night was delivered by whom? Gardener ponders could it be Biretella's brother on the fact he was a taxi driver? Why didn't this person jump into the world of being famous like everyone else?
Michael you had a note you found thanking Condon for his work. Is it worth consideration of authenticity?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 27, 2010 18:26:23 GMT -5
Condon's house was watched at various times. Sometimes it was watched in secret because of Lindbergh's orders. Other times, such as this note implies, came after the ransom drop. So why wasn't the guy seen dropping off the note on the porch?
It also implies they don't trust him - does it not?
The ONLY person who backs up Condon on this 2nd Taxi Driver is his daughter. Funny, Condon didn't place her in the house at the time.... His house was being watched by Reporters, FBI, and NYPD.
No one was seen going to the door. I've seen it suggested someone came by way of the alley. It seems to me though ... that the most obvious answer is that no one came to the door.
I've been scatterbrained lately. Could you refresh my memory? Was this one of the rice paper notes? If so, I will look for it.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 27, 2010 19:29:48 GMT -5
mike, i dont know if you read it, but i have a copy of arther koehlers letter to captain lamb from the lincoln hotel in nyc. he looked for condons house but couldnt find it. i guess he was suspect of condon also
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 27, 2010 20:06:41 GMT -5
Thanks Michael.........you said it was a card. I don't want to speculate but its almost as if the delivery as told was made up. If it was delivered to the house it was a huge mistake not to detain the messenger. Somethings Fischy
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 28, 2010 16:32:25 GMT -5
Ok. This was a birthday card sent to Jafsie on his birthday. Its the same Author who wrote the Rice paper notes. (I am not a handwriting expert but you'll have to trust me on this one). In it is written (in part): Just a remembrance of your Birthday, also to thank you for the time and effort which you gave me, to assist in the return of the Eaglet.
I have tried to get your letters returned to you so that you could show them, if your position would be assisted by them. And will mail them as soon as I get them.... So here you have this person trying to help Condon with the suspicion cast upon him by the Police - even though this guy got nothing (that we know of). Think about this... He knows his birthday AND is trying to help him after the fact. The Police did their usual... Checked the handwriting against the Ransom Notes then dismissed them when they didn't match. I believe a lot of clues were overlooked simply by looking at this one point of evidence only. Capt. Oliver told Schwarzkopf there was no 2nd Taxi Driver.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 29, 2010 0:31:38 GMT -5
I assume there is no german influenced script on the card and notes and no signature. Was there anything in these notes that prooves knowledge beyond what could have been picked up in the papers?
Again thanks for bringing these notes up in the forum.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 29, 2010 6:09:09 GMT -5
Yup - I have that. It's interesting isn't it? He obviously had Condon in mind here. There are also indications even he believed more then one person was in on this job.
Gary....
I will research this a little further then get back to you soon - probably today.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 29, 2010 10:17:55 GMT -5
alot of peopple thought there 2 people or more, but theres no real proof
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 29, 2010 17:28:46 GMT -5
So I take it that you do not believe Lindbergh's eyewitness account? You have to dismiss it if you think only one person did the trick.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 29, 2010 20:07:16 GMT -5
i understand what lindbergh said but after hauptmann was taken in, i dont see any credible evidence that fisch was involved and nobody ever came forward no deathbed confessions. we know the police investigated hauptmanns friends. as of right now i dont believe he had help, but my door is open
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 30, 2010 15:33:11 GMT -5
Not sure I understand your logic here. It seems whatever happened before Hauptmann is to be ignored? And after its only him because no one gave a "death-bed" confession?
Since Hauptmann didn't give one then how does that fit? If Lindbergh saw an accomplice why must that accomplice confess when he wasn't apprehended and Hauptmann wasn't talking? He would have had to have been an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 31, 2010 8:01:44 GMT -5
i know what lindbergh said, but im not a before hauptmann guy. i think the important facts came out after hauptmann was taken in. i dont know who lindbergh saw, was he in with the plot? we will never know. like i said nobody ever came forward with any info about being in on this crime, plus the fact there was a truck load of evidence against hauptmann
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 31, 2010 8:48:42 GMT -5
But after Hauptmann the investigations only centered around solidifying their case against him. They weren't interested in whether or not Fisch was involved, for example, only to ensure they could argue around his involvement.
Condon told them CJ spoke to another man in the Cemetery. There is evidence, only that AFTER Hauptmann that evidence is roundly ignored and/or evaded. They even prepped their witnesses to avoid it too. Remember how upset Wilentz got when his own witness told the truth about the Fisch/Hauptmann partnership?
And remember, this is something Wilentz knew about. But he, for some reason, wasn't counting on his witness admitting to it on the stand. Wow, he's surprised HIS witness is telling the truth about something he didn't want the Jury to hear and that he was trying to show was NOT true.
Hauptmann took the fall for everyone involved, and so, who would inject the fact they were involved after he's dead? The AG wanted nothing to do with any information concerning anything other then Hauptmann did this alone.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 31, 2010 11:23:16 GMT -5
i dont know what you mean by solidifing, there was evidence against him. they were interested in fiach but like today, theres no concrete evidence that he was involved. hauptmann took the fall? thats a bunch of crap
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 31, 2010 12:01:08 GMT -5
The only interest they had in a dead con-man being connected to this Case was insofar as having enough information to try and "deflect" his involvement so it didn't influence the jury.
They worked along the same lines with Condon. They were trying to connect him to Hauptmann, directly or indirectly, in order to put pressure on him to positively identify Hauptmann.
Again, Wilentz knew of the partnership but still pursued a line that attempted to place doubt on it in the minds of the Jury. This is in just one aspect. It wasn't about getting them all... It was, if Hauptmann would not confess, about getting HIM.
And so, when you point to this and only this as evidence he worked alone - then I have to say your position is flawed.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 31, 2010 14:31:22 GMT -5
my position isnt flawed, you cant get around the wood and the handwriting evidence and the fact ransom money was found in his garage.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 1, 2010 9:04:33 GMT -5
Steve,
I am not trying to get around that since it has nothing to do with the point.
Even if he built the ladder, wrote the notes, and had the entire $50K - it doesn't erase the eyewitness accounts, other evidence pointing to multiple people, the need for more people, AND just about every Cop who worked the Case before Hauptmann was arrested. Even Hoover said while it was possible Hauptmann worked alone it was very improbable.
The 'Lone-Wolf' theory existed for one purpose only. That was to ensure the one they did get went down for it. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 1, 2010 15:56:07 GMT -5
theres no credible evidence that he had help. the police never connected anybody, so im a lone wolf believer. by the way i had lunch today with sue, kurt taldorf, ronnelle and rich sloan. had a great time
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 1, 2010 18:07:00 GMT -5
I don't understand how you can find Lindbergh, Condon, etc. creditable in one place but not creditable in others. It seems to be me you either believe them or you don't.
Sounds like you had a good day... talk about the Case?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 2, 2010 0:31:01 GMT -5
The crime scene in my mind clearly indicates more than one person. I don't think any of the early investigators even doubted it at the time especially looking at the two footprints to featherbed Lane.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 2, 2010 8:21:15 GMT -5
we had a good time, we talked about the case, and my trip to lizzie bordens house in fall river
|
|