|
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 2, 2012 12:43:40 GMT -5
I have just been reading Mark Falzini’s excellent timeline of events on the day of the kidnapping njspmuseum.blogspot.com/2008/02/march-1-1932-timeline.htmlHere is an excerpt: Here we have two mutually corroborative statements. They were made by Lindbergh neighbors very shortly after the crime. These people were not seeking reward money or fame. Furthermore, as they were not members of the Lindbergh household, they can’t be accused of being “insiders” who were giving a rehearsed statement to the police. These seem to be good witnesses. I might add that dogs are also excellent witnesses—they don’t lie or take bribes. (Although you’d be surprised at what a pooch will do for a box of biscuits and a night in a doggy house with a French poodle.) But getting back to Kuchta and Kristofek. I find it fascinating that they also described the same suspicious vehicle, and at different times of the day. Quoting again from Falzini’s timeline: Here’s a longer quote from Falzini that Joe posted on Kuchta: It seems highly probable that Kuchta and Kristofek were talking about the same car. I know we have a thread on this board called “Strange Vehicle Sightings Around Hopewell,” but it doesn’t seem to give too much attention to the touring car. Yet, aside from the cars that Lupica and Ellerson spotted, I believe this is the only one Falzini included in his timeline. Perhaps Falzini included it because, in his policeman’s instincts, Kuchta and Kristofek appear to be “good witnesses”—giving mutually corroborative statements about the dog barking—and here they are giving mutually corroborative statements about the touring car, and they’re doing it right after the kidnapping, not three years later in Flemington. The time Kristofek saw the touring car—6PM—is the same time Lupica saw the car with the ladder. Are they heading for a rendezvous as darkness falls? Regarding the Lupica incident, Michael, quoting you from another thread: Lupica had stopped in the road to read his mail—so maybe the perp pulls over, wondering for a moment if this is his accomplices—then quickly sees that it’s not, and moves on. From my own perspective, what it LOOKS like is: The touring car is already casing Highfields in the morning. Nobody is there except Anne, the baby and the Whateleys. A call is made to the “Ladder man” to meet them that evening. Criminals like a soft, easy target. Next Day Hill at Englewood, with its 29 servants, is virtually impossible. Highfields is a superior target. But that weekend wasn’t such a good time—Lindbergh was there, and so were guests. Monday, February 29, would seem to have been the best time to strike—no Lindbergh, and no Betty Gow. But I’m going to guess that the kidnappers did not have enough time to react by the time they received the news, probably from a tipster, that the Lindberghs were staying over at Hopewell. Also, they probably didn’t know Lindbergh was going to end up staying at Englewood that evening. From the kidnappers’ perspective, March 1 is just as good, if not better. The newspapers have reported Lindbergh is going to be a guest of honor at the NYU alumni event, so they anticipate he’s coming home very late. And at 10 AM that morning, nobody knows yet that Betty Gow is coming. So from their own intelligence information, they probably still anticipate that the only people in the house when they strike will be Anne, the baby, and the Whateleys. The arrival of Betty Gow adds a complication, but certainly not an insurmountable one. The unexpected arrival of Lindbergh at 8:25 is probably a very big worry, because he’s the one occupant who might gun them down. I wouldn’t be surprised if, at this point, the kidnappers argued with each other over whether to abandon the snatch or not—but decided, since they were already there, that they were going to wait and watch, and then seized the moment when they saw the Lindberghs sit down to dinner. The dining room was a fair distance from the nursery. Although it is possible, I don’t believe the kidnappers struck before Lindbergh’s arrival. Anne thought she heard a car on the gravel only a few minutes before Charles came home. Also, the neighbor’s dogs started barking at about 9PM—after the colonel’s arrival. Unless they’re barking at something else, this is the escape of the kidnappers. Also, Lindbergh heard that “crack” at 9PM. Some people have cast aspersions on this, but Lindbergh was an alert man—and I think, added to the split in the ladder and the barking dogs, it was a good call. I know this doesn’t agree with the Ahlgren-Monier thesis of Lindbergh killing the child earlier in the evening in a prank gone wrong. But if that was the case, one has to explain why the dogs were barking well after he got home, and of course that ladder didn’t belong to Lindbergh anyway. In the “Strange Vehicles” thread, Joe thought the touring car might have been the same speeding car Doc Ashton claimed to have seen about 9:10 to 9:15 PM. I certainly don’t know if Ashton’s account is true, but the time frame fits. Michael, I’ve seen diagrams of the interior of the house, but do we have any kind of diagram that shows Highfields, Featherbed Lane, Skillman, where Lupica was, where the neighbors lived, and so forth? I’ve never been down there, and when people talk about these locations, it’s hard for me to visualize where everything is relationally.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 2, 2012 16:28:11 GMT -5
A little follow-up here. On doing some additional research, I found that Wilentz really DID suborn perjury by Kuchta’s dog. He told the dog that if he identified Hauptmann, he’d get two boxes of dog biscuits and a French poodle—but if he DIDN’T, he’d get sent to the dog pound and neutered. At the trial in Flemington, when Wilentz asked the pooch how many intruders he’d chased, he gave one “woof” and pointed his paw at Hauptmann. Lloyd Fisher objected, saying a pooch’s testimony was inadmissible, but predictably enough, Trenchard overruled him. That Wilentz—he never missed a trick, even a dog trick.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 2, 2012 23:47:25 GMT -5
Sorry—I know I’m monologuing here—but a couple more thoughts on this theory. The touring car which Kuchta and Kristofek saw (I’m assuming they saw the same one) had its curtains drawn. So somebody or something behind the driver was hidden. This sort of vehicle might also be ideal to transport the baby in, since the curtains could conceal it in the rear. On the other hand, once the kidnapping was discovered, and a statewide alarm sounded, a vehicle with drawn curtains would surely draw suspicion.
Something else—I mentioned that if I were the kidnappers, I’d set the snatch in motion as soon as I saw the Lindberghs sit down to dinner. You know they’re apt to spend at least twenty or thirty minutes at the table, so you figure you have at least that much free time to execute the crime. But there is still one wildcard I’d be worried about—Betty Gow. So I think it’s interesting that Red Johnsen called Betty while the Lindberghs were eating. There’s been a lot of speculation about that call. I’d like suggest a possibility--that the purpose might have been to keep Betty pinned down during the kidnap. Gardner says (p. 20) that “the conversation went on for some time.”
Of course, this raises the question of how Red could possibly know what time to call, since he’s supposed to be back in Englewood. I doubt that there would have been a preset time (“We’ll do the snatch at exactly 8:45—call right then”) because something could go wrong to delay the kidnap, and Red wouldn’t know it.
I can, however, think of a way to pull it off. The call for Betty was taken by the butler Oliver Whateley. Here’s what Whateley could have done: dial the number of the phone where Red Johnsen was waiting, let it ring once, and hang up. Presumably no one at Hopewell would hear him do this. Whateley’s ring would be the “go” signal to Red, who would call back, ask for Betty, and tie her up. With the Lindberghs at dinner, and Betty on the phone, your kidnappers have a free block of time to do the deed. I’ve discussed the possibility of the Whateleys as “inside job” candidates before—PERHAPS doing the following: tampering with the shutter so it couldn’t close, doping the baby’s food so he would not wake up and cry when grabbed, and restraining Wagoosh so he wouldn’t bark. If I was going to pull off the Crime of the Century, I’d want all those bases covered. Of course, I know there are both pros and cons to this “Whateley” angle.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 4, 2012 17:29:55 GMT -5
I completely understand the need for this because once I did get my hands on the maps I was surprised by many things I saw - so it is important. Unfortunately, what I have are old NJSP Maps that are the size of actual Maps. I xeroxed a section at a time then taped those sections together so there's nothing I can scan.
I can try taking a picture with my phone then upload it. One is a Negative so I don't think that one will work. I'll look for them when I can then we'll see what happens - keep your fingers crossed.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2012 18:18:16 GMT -5
BR,
I am sorry but that isn't working. I just have no way to upload them. I will promise to keep my eyes open as I read through my files and if I find something that will work I will post it.
FYI: In case you didn't know this - these two men were Brother-In-Laws.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 5, 2012 19:52:56 GMT -5
Their not living independently might detract slightly from the strength of their testimony. But how do you feel about them as witnesses? Unless the dog was barking at something else, it establishes a critical time reference in the commission of the crime. And since the “K’s” weren’t members of the Lindbergh household, they can’t have been giving rehearsed statements to the police (unless we conjure up some weird scenario about them). What do you think about the curtained touring car they reported? And thanks for checking on those maps.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 5, 2012 20:19:24 GMT -5
Wasn't one of them a carpenter from NYC? I think I have a photo of one of their house/ cabins w/ NJSP all over it.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 5, 2012 22:02:32 GMT -5
Are you perhaps referring to Charles Schippell? I don’t think he was a carpenter by trade, but he was a Lindbergh neighbor, also from NYC, and supposedly handy with ladders.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 6, 2012 6:19:12 GMT -5
Kutcha (a.k.a Kutchera) worked as a Carpenter for about a year. I'll have to search to see if Kristofek ever worked as one. I find that many in the Hopewell area worked in many different fields over their lifetime. For example, Kutcha worked for years for the Railroad, and then in the Steel Mills in Pittsburgh.
I am not sure. As it stands here (in this thread) we really don't have much. What we do have it looks sincere.
Something else I want to bring up (just food for thought): People would see something like this then the Police would push pictures on them...like Red Johnson. And in reality these Eyewitnesses only got a glimpse. So when they said "yes" or "it looks like him" then Red gets cleared these accounts are dismissed.
That could be a mistake.
Well its something to consider. The Dog was a Sheppard Mix, and he's barking on the Aston Farm but Wagoosh, the "barker" is completely silent.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 7, 2012 13:55:50 GMT -5
Speaking of Red Johnsen, what’s your take? He was apparently a nice guy by all accounts, the police cleared him, and Falzini paints a pretty sympathetic portrait of him living in Norway in Their Fifteen Minutes. But I’m still not so sure. Sometimes police clear someone because they have a prearranged alibi that fools investigators. Four things still bother me about Red:
●It may be a coincidence, but that phone call from Red to Hopewell seemed to have been at a pretty critical point in the evening—possibly right when Charlie was being abducted. ●If we can believe Condon, Red Johnsen’s innocence was strangely pleaded for by “Cemetery John”—who was hardly the world’s best character witness ●How many movies have we seen where a suspect is interviewed at police headquarters, and is not detained, but is told—“OK, you’re free to go home; but don’t leave town without notifying us.” In Red’s case, not only did he leave town—he was deported all the way back to Norway. What was the big rush? I know he was an illegal immigrant, but why send a rather important witness abroad with the case still unsolved? Makes me wonder if somebody was pulling wires to get him out of there ●As you know, Michael, Dr. Marlis and I have been wondering about Lindbergh adversary James P. Warburg as a possible suspect. Warburg employed Marguerite Junge’s sister, and he had a close political ally in Thomas Lamont, who employed Red Johnsen. Marlis notes that Warburg lived at 36 E. 70th St. and Lamont at 107 E. 70th—they were only a city block apart. Then we have Red and Marguerite “out for a ride” together on the night of the kidnapping. There’s maybe one too many coincidences in this mix of facts.
If I was planning the Lindbergh kidnapping, I’d want info on my target, the baby—his daily routine, is he a bawler, etc. What better way to learn that stuff than having someone get chummy with the baby’s nurse? I’m certainly not going to get close enough to Anne Lindbergh to pump her.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 8, 2012 6:40:11 GMT -5
The system I've developed when researching this case is this: Focus on what I believe is important. Not just a person but rather a specific occurrence. What I've done and continue to do is find out exactly who was there. Sometimes you find a name that is never mentioned in the episode (in one of the books) then by chasing what they saw down you can really develop some good information. This is done by finding each and every source concerning everyone who was there or by everyone they told about what they saw then cross referencing everything to determine the truth.
Mark will back me up that I've actually spent weeks in the NJSP Archives doing this about one issue (something most people here wouldn't even consider important). It's why I have so much new material. You actually have people who would rather this material not be brought out. To them, no research is necessary - just ask them! It's bewildering at times to see people who tout creds, like being a Lawyer, attempt to stop people from doing actual research - why? Because you will learn things that hurt what they think they know.
No thanks.
The above point about CJ/Condon is something I've considered important. But having researched this to the point of ad nauseam, I believe CJ never said this. It is something Condon would make up in order to bolster his account. I've also considered that Condon actually knew more then what history records, therefore, it is probably true. So he injects truths into his lies in order to make them more believable to the Police - if not in his own mind.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 8, 2012 14:31:59 GMT -5
I've heard Condon accused of everything in this case, from just being a pedantic old schnook who insinuated himself into things--enjoying the limelight and embellishing his accounts--to his being some sort of mastermind behind the whole thing. I've never seen much evidence for the latter extreme, but which of these two do you feel he was closest to? Personally, something's always bothered me about him, though I've never quite been able to put my finger on what exactly...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 8, 2012 17:32:36 GMT -5
I think the best way to look at Condon is to look at everything around him to better understand what is going on. If, for example, Fisher is correct and Hauptmann did everything by himself without any help then I believe his logic should work in order to exemplify it.
For example, if the Defense Witnesses were crazy then I would expect none would be on the Prosecution side of things. If Hauptmann's leg was injured in a fall, I wouldn't expect Fisher to point to a Newspaper Article concerning someone who wasn't on the State's Witness List (or even on stand-by) to be pointed to as "evidence" of anything - yet that is exactly what he does. It's hypocritical, however, if it didn't need to be done then I don't think he would have done it - you follow?
So what I see is the old "do as I say - not as I do."
Next, things need to "fit" if a theory exists to explain things. For example: Hauptmann is a cold calculated criminal with ice water running through his veins. Condon is a patriotic do-gooder who is suffering from the effects of his age. And of course, Cemetery John absolutely must be Hauptmann because Hauptmann is alone in all of this.
But CJ has absolutely no sign of injury. According to Condon, CJ has tears in his eyes, he asks him if the baby is dead "would I burn?", CJ tells Condon Red is innocent, CJ tells Condon the "people down soud have nothing to do with this", CJ tells Condon he left the note in the crib, and CJ tells Condon there will be no more Secret Symbol because the Leader took the "symbol maker" away.
So right away, if CJ is Hauptmann then how do we explain the injury? We can't.
If Hauptmann has ice water running through his veins, why are there tears in his eyes?
Without dragging this out....nothing works if we believe this theory. So if Condon is sincere, why would he deliberately invent parts of his conversation with CJ, and why does he choose these specific inventions?
Take the "people down soud" comment.... This is Condon's recollection of his CJ conversation, yet, it happened before the people "down soud" (Curtis) were even in the picture.
So we can see what Condon is doing is far from innocent. Far from being confused due to his age. He is choosing to supply the Police with information cloaked as coming from CJ when in actuality it is coming from Condon HIMSELF.
This cannot be explained away by any theory which paints Hauptmann as a Lone-Wolf and Condon as a Saintly old man.
It's common sense.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Mar 8, 2012 19:26:56 GMT -5
Condon was a narcissist, grandiose type. Has to see himself as a very important person. Look at all the weird things he does and measure it against his playing the grand hero- to keep his heroic role propped up and that is to convince the police of this as well as the whole world. Everything he does fits this measure. and it would have been essentially a lifelong role.He's predictable with these behaviors . You don't always know which twist it will take next but you'll know, nonetheless, it will be there.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 8, 2012 20:05:09 GMT -5
If Condon was acting with any sort of willfully deceitful intent, I wonder why these inconsistencies in his version(s) of events would be so transparent. Since I have yet to see anything solid as to his involvement, I'm wondering if these inventions or changes occurred after new information came to light, and he was inadvertently filling in gaps with that new information and/or "re-remembering" things in his kind of doddering, rambling, narcissistic way. Could that account for the inconsistencies? I mean, as I said, something has always struck me as "off" about him, though. Has anyone ever found anything shady in his past or something solid as to his involvement?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2012 6:36:33 GMT -5
This is true, and something that should be considered. But we should also realize this man knew right from wrong. He also knew the magnitude of the situation he placed himself into. He was aware of the trouble he could get himself into. One only needs to see his Grand Jury Testimony. My point is he's behind the podium with voice booming at times where he believes he can do this but then becomes the meek innocent "Victim," real quick, once he sees any sign of the walls coming in on him.
To Whom? I mean its transparent to us because we've done the research. But to the Police, if anyone started to take notice, and they did, it was quickly erased by the competition for his attention. They knew he was the key to the Kidnappers so they needed him. That's important. The various Departments were afraid if one Agency sucked up to him they would bring in the Kidnappers, so they in turn sucked up to him too. However, they were all of the opinion that he was either crazy or in league with Perpetrators.
That's even more important.
I am not sure what you consider "solid" but I can tell you what I've seen in the material cannot be, to my satisfaction, attributed to anything considered "inadvertent."
It is absolutely intentional, and appears to have a motive behind it. He does fill in gaps because he reacts to Police. He feeds them the things he wants them to know while feeding them others things to keep them from certain truths he does not want them to.
Like the 2nd Taxi Driver.... There's nothing innocent about making up his existence in order to explain possession of the Ransom Note.
What I have seen over the years are a whole host of "excuses" as to why this man is so crazy yet reliable & honest.
For me this does not "work." People seem to alter their arguments in order to support whatever position they like all the while using them to ruin someone Else's they do not. But if you apply an argument evenly then you should have one that "fits" every situation. For example, if every time you want to "prove" something you go to the trial transcripts then you had better be ready to accept that same position from someone else citing a different part of those transcripts. Or, in the alternative, take the realistic approach that there are OTHER sources for REAL information and that sometimes what's in those transcripts isn't always the truth of the situation - sometimes the opposite is true.
Condon when backed into a corner tries to pull the "confused" method, but when he sees it isn't working sobers up real quick. This is a man who definitely is not confused about whether or not he is obstructing justice.
Let me be blunt: It's my position that Condon knew the baby was dead. He placed those words into CJ's mouth so that he would be immune to it once the time came.
Suspecting Condon's involvement doesn't mean he was on that ladder in Hopewell. There were many different roles those involved in this Crime could fill.
I also welcome different opinions so I am not telling anyone they are wrong if they disagree.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 9, 2012 8:55:48 GMT -5
I would say Mairi has Condon pretty well pegged. And she is absolutely correct, Condon would do almost anything to sustain his sense of self importance. That includes fabrications and distortions. In fact, I suspect he went as far as making a secret deal with CJ. What Condon is after is to be the hero of the LKC and he is not going to let anyone steal that mantle from him. There is no doubt in my mind that he was guilty of obstruction of justice and giving false information to the police. I have said this before, Condon is the ultimate black hole of the LKC simply because his actions can and often are misconstrued to be those of a member or participant in the actual kidnapping. And for all those reasons stated above, he certainly seems to be an inviting suspect. I suggest looking at those actions from the perspective of his own self serving agenda and avoiding the impulse to ascribing them to those of a member of those who planned and carried out the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 9, 2012 11:18:36 GMT -5
One of Condon’s most disgustingly self-serving tales was, when he visited Hopewell, he says he asked Lindbergh if he could meet Anne—and Lindbergh supposedly said yes, even though it was after 3 A.M. What a CORNBALL! Compare that to his getting Cemetery John to cry by asking CJ to think of his mother. It’s as if he hired a dime novelist to write his stories. I think Kevkon makes a good point—that when Condon bent the truth to enhance his reputation, we may sometimes misinterpret it to indicate complicity with the kidnappers(s) and/or extortionist(s). There are a few things that seem to run against Condon’s complicity. If he was really a party to the plot, you’d think he would have kept a low profile—but instead he’s eating up the limelight, blustering everywhere. According to some witnesses, he supposedly bragged that he’d actually been on the boat and seen the baby and the kidnappers. And after the trial, he went on a lecture circuit in Vaudeville theatres. On the other hand, he went down to Panama during Hoffman’s investigation, perhaps to avoid questioning. And there are some aspects of Condon’s falsehoods that are hard to attribute purely to vanity. For example, lying about the existence of the second taxi driver. As Michael has pointed out, this issue is covered thoroughly by Dr. Gardner in his blog at www.caseneverdies.blogspot.com/2012/02/mystery-of-second-taxi-driver.htmlPerhaps what bothers me the most about Condon is his getting a letter from the kidnappers, approving him as intermediary, just one day after his offer in the limited-circulation Bronx Home News. How could the kidnappers possibly have made a snap judgement about using Condon? If he wasn’t party to the plot, they surely must have thoroughly cased him and known who he was. It is irritating that what went on in the Bronx seems just as mysterious as what happened at Hopewell on the night of the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 9, 2012 11:22:27 GMT -5
Yeah, I think Condon knew more than he was telling (to the police, in court), but I don't know if that extends so far as to him being a participant in the actual crime (like being part of a kidnap gang, for example). That's what I've never seen solid evidence for. I think it makes sense, being the pompous narcissist he was, that Condon wanted to maintain his role in the case and supplied the "right" information, told the "right" stories to do this, then feigned ignorance or confusion to avoid being caught in those lies. Take, for instance, his description of his meeting Anne Lindbergh--oh, come ON. It's cheesier than a scene from 'Titanic'! How could that have possibly been how the conversation went down? My impression, then, is that the same could very well extend to his conversations with Cemetery John. So it may be that an entirely different conversation took place in the cemetery from the one Condon reported. Maybe he found out that night that the baby was dead (as Michael says), or cut some sort of secret deal with John (as kevkon suggests), but was getting off too much on his role in the case to let anyone else in on it (no one was going to steal the hero's mantle from him, as has been said).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2012 17:03:45 GMT -5
Part of the ruse here is that Condon pumps himself up thinking that everyone will believe he's this great guy, therefore, when push comes to shove - people will rally behind him. I agree with just about everything everyone has added. I have always bought into Inspector Walsh's assertion that Condon was this person: And ransom was made aus for 50000$ but now we have to take another person to it and probably have to keep the baby for a longer time as we expected.(2nd Ransom Note) I believe further proof of this was when Condon removed the extra $20K, meant for this extra person, which was also of the higher denomination that Condon was aware would be more easily traced. It's a "win-win" situation for Condon because he's refusing his cut (an attempt to relieve himself of guilt) and he's protecting the Kidnappers. It's what really sent up a red flag for the T-Men who were involved that he wasn't on the "up and up." But what brings Condon in? Is he extorted into the Gang or is he so starved for attention he makes himself an Accessory for that reason only? I look at it this way.... there were many crimes, (some well publicized) which Condon could have injected himself into for attention. He's obviously brought into this one. The other thing is that I do not want to get caught up using a slide-rule for explaining why he does something. If, for example, he's interested in the publicity only but has no other ill intent, why should he attempt to mislead the Police about Curtis? How exactly would Condon know that Curtis "has nothing to do" with this crime...because if Curtis does, then Condon is preventing its solution, and if he doesn't & Condon knows this to be true - then he is an Accessory. The choice is an easy one for me.... You see, it shows me he is fully aware that he is dealing with the Real Culprits because his actions prove what his intent really is: Protect the Criminals, and get them their money. He may not have been involved in the death of that child but certainly the blood is on his hands too, knowing he's dead and aiding the Kidnappers in this way. I've seen it argued (remember the slide-rule) that he protected the Kidnappers because of his promise to them but then no longer protected them once he was double-crossed on May 12th. Unfortunately, that is just not true if you believe Hauptmann is involved and absolutely was CJ. Condon held out until it was either Him or Hauptmann before he flipped. Gotta give the "old" guy some credit. He's awful loyal to hold out until he's threatened with prosecution only breaking when he realized they meant it. And even still, Condon's sympathizers offer up yet another excuse (slide-rule again) saying it was only because he was afraid for his life. Who exactly is he afraid of if Hauptmann is the Lone-Wolf? And when people don't buy that they try to sell us a bill of goods....you know the one....where Condon explained the difference between proclamation and identification or some other such nonsense. So when you protest that too, they go back to the confused, eccentric, suffering the effects of his age again. I can't keep up.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 9, 2012 20:38:10 GMT -5
Interesting to think of that extra $20K as his cut. Do you think, then, that he was going to accept money from the kidnappers for withholding what he knew to be the truth? I'm wondering, though, if he would've known those particular bills were red-flagged and therefore easily traceable. Either way, just to clearly sum up, I take it you believe he was a kind of accessory after the fact: Not involved in the actual crime, but, once he insinuated himself, guilty of aiding and abetting by protecting the kidnappers in order to keep himself in the limelight and make some money off them?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 9, 2012 23:06:07 GMT -5
Boy, this is such a critical question—was Condon in league with the culprits or not?
Some points against it:
●Even though he was a windbag who told a lot of lies, Condon had no background as a criminal type, and his patriotism and civic-mindedness, even if grandiose, didn’t seem fake. It’s hard to picture him knowingly throwing in with kidnappers or extortionists.
●Condon was a very “public” person—lecturing, lots of friends, socializing in Bronx restaurants. He wasn’t an Isidor Fisch type, sneaking around dark places. So if Condon threw in with the kidnappers, he would have to do it on the sly so his many acquaintances wouldn’t know.
●You raise the possibility that Condon “held out until it was either him or Hauptmann before he flipped.” But if Condon had been in cahoots with Hauptmann all along, and then turned on him in Flemington, one would think Hauptmann would return the favor—crack and confess, expose Condon as a co-conspirator and drag him down with him.
However, some points in favor of Condon’s complicity:
●When you multiply the odds of the kidnappers just happening to read the Bronx Home News, times the odds of them accepting Condon on the “spur of the moment” and notifying him within 24 hours—the odds are too high. Something’s very wrong with that picture.
●When a person chronically lies—as Condon did—it indicates they are hiding something. While some of Condon’s lies (like about his meeting with Anne Lindbergh) are fibs or exaggerations for the purpose of self-aggrandizement, it couldn’t apply to everything. Michael, I think Condon’s lying about the second taxi driver could very well have been to “protect the criminals” as you say. It appears that they conveyed the ransom drop instructions by some other method, and Condon fell back on the “taxi driver” explanation, since that was the way it went the first time (Perrone), and it was likely to be believed.
Another thing that makes me wonder if he was protecting the criminals was his constant references to “Italian” gang members: --the person who supposedly said “shut up” in Italian on the phone --the Tuckahoe woman, whom he described as Italian --the suspicious needle salesman and scissors grinder, both of whom he described as Italian -- the infamous “second taxi driver,” whom he described as Italian --the “Calabrese Italian” lookout at the cemetery --his reference to his first message from the criminals as having been signed with the “sign of the Mafia.”
Was Condon trying throw the police off the true identity of the criminals by making them sound like an Italian mob? Lindbergh had suspected organized crime, and maybe Condon thought this would play into that. On the other hand, maybe there really were some Italian elements involved—and Fisch could pass for Italian.
If John Condon was consciously complicit with the kidnappers, I think the main question would be: What motivated him? It doesn’t seem to be money—there’s no way he could have gotten away with sudden riches, even if a share of the ransom was laundered for him. He didn’t seek any part of the reward money, either. Of course, he did make a few bucks off his book and lectures—but I doubt that the amounts would be worth it.
So what would be the motive? Ego alone wouldn’t seem sufficient. Blackmail or threats?
Actually this thought just dawned on me—in some accounts (such as Wendel’s and at least one I saw in the FBI Files), the baby didn’t die until several days after the kidnapping. IF Condon was a co-conspirator, perhaps the ORIGINAL plan was to have Condon deliver the baby alive to Lindbergh. Imagine what would have happened. Condon would become the hero of the nation. Now THAT I could see him throwing in for!
If this was the scenario, then after the baby died, Condon’s plan of being a national hero would be foiled—but now that he was “in” the case, he couldn’t wiggle out of it—he would have the very tricky situation of how to continue dealing with the ransom negotiations.
Michael, how does that grab you?
Supposedly Condon was prompted to post the offer in the Bronx Home News because, at Rosenhain’s restaurant, he heard some foreigners knocking America over the LKC, and he argued with them. If Condon was complicit, maybe this event was staged in a public place so Condon would have a verifiable motive for making the newspaper offer.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 10, 2012 8:47:51 GMT -5
It's basically what's in the Note. They say they must take in another person then raise the asking price by $20K. Condon is then brought in. Condon confirms it to me when he takes it back out of the equation.
I believe part of the deal with Condon was payment for his services.
I am certain of it or he wouldn't have removed that amount. I read in the material somewhere that the Treasury Agents were quite happy the ransom had been handed over thinking it would be quick work to track down the passing of those $50s. But that when the smiling Jafsie offered up one of his BS stories about saving Lindy money by specifically removing them they were furious then flatly accused him of being in League with the Kidnappers.
I think what protected Condon at that moment was Lindbergh, or perhaps Breckenridge. I'd have to find my source in order to state which - and that could be an all day endeavor.
But I look at it this way....if the Police believed that's why he removed them then they believed he knew. Otherwise, how could they accuse him of it if it were not true?
Yes. He was brought in to do what he did best. It was a perfect choice under the circumstances. Someone in that group had to be familiar with him in some way - as Condon himself admits by placing similiar words as coming out of CJ's mouth.
Child Molestation(s) and there was also an accusation of at least one unethical property acquisition where he may have swindled it away from the Owner. I've seen several letters accusing him of being a "cross dresser".... something that doesn't carry any weight nowadays but would have been devasting to him back then. Anyway, the Police were absolutely involved in the first matter and the rest are just accusations. That's what I have been able to find so far.
Picture him molesting a child. Now does it seem that hard? It's all a show, a ruse, and a tactical form of misdirection. It reveals itself time and time again and again.
But, I admit, its not easy to picture so we resist the idea of it.
To some yes. To others entertainment. And to others just "Windy Jack."
My position is that he is in "cahoots" with a Member who he knows. I am sure all Parties did not know who all of the other parties were. However, in the end, I believe Condon knew Hauptmann had a role - whether or not he was actually CJ or not I cannot say.
Hauptmann was not Condon and his situation was one that was irreversable in terms of his freedom. Hauptmann had an opportunity to rat out people to not only stay alive, but to reap a huge windfall of cash for his family from one of the various newsapaper offers. He gave up Fisch because he was already dead, but obviously could not give up the living. I would submit to you there is more behind this then just principal.
Sure as hell is. Look, people always say that the circumstancial evidence convicted Hauptmann. Although some of it is bogus, there are other very real things to contend with. But for some unknown reasons, they do not apply that argument to Condon concerning all circumstantial evidence which shows he was not acting in good faith.
Don't tell the Kids but...... There are embellishments, and there are lies. Condon did both. One is to look good, and the other is for more nefarious purposes. Can you tell which are which?
We may never know. It could be blackmail, extortion, an owed favor, and/or for glory (or a combination thereof). The bottom line is that he's brought in, gets to peddle his wares and is in line for reward(s) as a result of this risk.
One thing for sure in my mind - once he says CJ asked him "would I burn if the baby is dead" Condon was aware the child was killed.
(Again, these are just my thoughts. Any ideas to the contrary are welcomed and have helped me properly adjust my positions in the past so don't be afraid to jump in or tell me I am wrong.)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 10, 2012 9:38:44 GMT -5
Personally I don't see Condon throwing in his hat with these kidnappers for any amount of money. I think the kind of deal he would make would be more in line with giving him an exclusive role as the intermediary. As for the Bronx Home News, why not look at it in a different way. The kidnappers are seeing who Lindbergh is designating as his intermediary and want no part of dealing with tough guys. Someone involved in the kidnapping is a Bronx homey who knows of Condon and reads the Home News. Condon is a much better choice for this role for many reasons.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 10, 2012 10:26:15 GMT -5
In terms of Condon's illegal behavior, I remember hearing about how, to look for Cemetery John afterwards, he would go "undercover" by cross-dressing to disguise himself. I mean, there's nothing wrong with cross-dressing; nowadays it's just a preference, but, back then, it certainly would've been considered pretty illicit activity. Either way, I also remember vaguely hearing about rumors of child molestation as well. Never gave it much thought or credence, since they just sounded like accusations. And something's always bothered me about that 'Would I burn if the baby is dead' line. I mean, once that popped out, how could you NOT know the baby was dead? Why else would that kind of issue even be brought up if it wasn't the case, and so how could someone then continue negotiations in the way Condon describes? So, as opposed to Condon's account of that conversation (a lot of which sounds self-aggrandizing and made-up anyhow: "Stand up! Don't hide! Be a man!"; "Take me to the baby! Use me as a hostage in the meantime!")-- instead, I can hear Condon saying something like this to Cemetery John after he asks if he'd burn if the baby was dead: "Wait wait wait, why'd you even ask me that? Okay, the baby's gone, isn't he? No, just say it; you basically already did anyhow, so come on, tell me. If I have all the information, maybe I can help you--steer things a little more in your favor, keep some of the heat off you guys. For a price, of course. I mean, this is dangerous for me, so you gotta make it worth my while. Otherwise, I can just go back to the car right now and tell Colonel Lindbergh that you basically just admitted the baby's dead, and then no one gets anything. Seems kind of a waste, no...?" Had a question for Michael though (a bit off topic, but you mentioned it in the previous post): As with the whole Condon angle, something's always bothered me about Hauptmann not confessing (truthfully or not) to something in order to save his life and provide for his family. You say he ratted out Fisch because he was dead, but couldn't rat out the living. Why not? I mean, you say that not everyone involved in this knew each other or was aware of each other's involvement. I can see that easily, so was it a question of Hauptmann not knowing who to rat out, and, that being the case, he couldn't really give anything solid and so just had to stick with "I'm innocent"?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 10, 2012 13:17:07 GMT -5
Michael, I never seriously considered Condon as complicit with the extortionists before, but after you nudged things in that direction, I gave it some thought , and I now consider it a possibility.
Of course, I am not SURE Condon was knowingly involved, but if he was, I think there were basically two phases: before his knowledge of the baby’s death and after. Just for the sake of argument, I’m going to suppose the baby was taken out of Hopewell alive, but died a few days later.
BEFORE the baby’s death, the deal would have been for Condon to be the one to get the baby back for the Lindberghs. This would have really appealed to Condon’s self-glorying instincts. He probably envisioned a picture of himself on the front page of the New York Times, standing next to a grateful Mrs. Lindergh and the baby. He wouldn’t have even needed the $20,000, because the world would have beaten a path to his door—exclusive interviews, book rights, maybe even product endorsements.
Furthermore, Condon might have estimated that the risks would be low. Once the Lindberghs had the baby back, they would not be pressing for the arrest of the kidnappers—after all, hadn’t the Lindberghs publicly promised not to seek their harm? With the baby back alive, there would have been no federal kidnapping law, and the Bureau of Investigation probably would have laid off the case. The police would still be following up on the extortion itself, but the investigation would have been far less intense. If the criminals were really caught, and plea-bargained by ratting on Condon, he could deny it in his long-winded way—and the worst he’d be facing would be a charge of accessory to extortion.
Once the baby was dead, however, it was a whole different ball game. Now it’s not an extortion rap, but a murder rap--something Condon hadn’t seen coming. He probably would have loved to have washed his hands of the whole matter, but he was now the “go-between” and there was no way to extricate himself. I believe that was when he started to lie like crazy, giving five different versions of every event. He had to protect the extortionists to protect HIMSELF--if they were caught and fingered him, he would spent the rest of his golden years in Sing Sing. This might also be why Condon urged Lindbergh not to pay unless they produced the baby—he knew the kidnappers couldn’t do that, and he might have been hoping Lindbergh would call things off—which Condon figured would get him out of the pickle.
Condon probably didn’t know the baby was dead until CJ told him in the cemetery (as Ligntningjew has suggested). Check the change in Condon’s behavior. Before that point, Condon was basically acting responsibly—he gets Perrone’s name and number. But check the difference AFTERWARDS. For the ransom drop night, Condon doesn’t get the taxi driver’s ID, gives several different versions of what happened at his front door, and, as we now know, fabricated the existence of the second taxi driver.
|
|
|
Post by zerohunter on Mar 10, 2012 13:47:15 GMT -5
I’m really enjoying this discussion of many great insights and want to briefly throw out my "motive as source of action" take on the matter. I realize that I might be way-off base here, in which case just smite me.
First, whatever its worth, Norris’ book suggests that Condon, at some point in the past, might have been care taker of the Morrow’s son (Elizabeth and Ann’s brother) who seemed to have had some mental issues. If this is true, then it ties in Condon to the Morrow household as someone who is known and has helped in the past.
How would Condon’s motives fit if what we had here were not a criminal kidnapping but a Lindbergh engineered infant relocation program (dead or alive) with kidnapping becoming a cover?
Another simple point is what if there were no ladder? What would that mean? Obviously someone had to either enter the house from the outside or someone from inside relocated the baby. In my mind, it’s not likely that someone from the outside entered the house which leaves only that someone from the inside relocated the baby. I also don’t believe that any of the Morrow and Lindbergh staff would involve themselves in a nefarious kidnapping for any amount of money. Would you if you worked there? I believe that very few people in the world would stoop to such lows, just for money. But you would unquestioningly do certain things if your employer told you to do them, especially if those actions were really necessary for something good to happen (or avoidance of something bad). As I see it, there really wasn’t any ladder, for that “thing” that was found was likely not used for any sort of ascent…
One more motive based observation: You’re a loving father who just had his precious infant stolen and you want nothing more in the world than to get him back and see him in the arms of your loving wife. The local Blood Hound club offers to help search and you say – NO! Wouldn’t you utilize every opportunity and resource to insure that your infant would be found and returned? Why would you refuse this? It doesn’t cost ya’ anything. I can’t get past this, and believe that this one simple incident shows Lindy’s true motive. Maybe someone has some other ideas I haven’t thought of yet. (He didn’t want any more dog poop around?)
To look at events further down the path without reconciling them with the primary source motive leads to all sorts of conjecture and confusion. I believe that many more elements become plausible if we flip the Lindy wildcard from victim to engineer, even just as a temporary position, to see if the pieces fit more tightly…
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 10, 2012 14:34:06 GMT -5
I like zero's thinking here: Condon being brought into this and trying to act as responsibly as he could--short of just turning in the kidnappers of course, which he didn't do to maintain his hero's role and make some money off them, and then having to lie like crazy to cover all this up on finding out the baby was dead and that he'd been duped. Explains a lot of his behavior.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 10, 2012 15:16:28 GMT -5
I'd re-think the ladder bit as the notion of it being a prop may soon finally be put to rest, not that it can't be right now if one looks at the evidence carefully. As for Condon, no country for old men. This is a younger man's crime.
|
|
|
Post by zerohunter on Mar 10, 2012 16:03:14 GMT -5
For Kevkon:
I’m really confused now. Are you now saying the ladder was used? It seems to me that you alluded to that it likely was NOT used based on all of its shortcomings etc. Now your suggesting that the ladder being a prop is an incorrect assessment? I might have misunderstood or missed something altogether, since this itself is an in depth topic. I’d appreciate it if you could shed some light on your position, since you have more insight into this matter than most, especially having built a replica which you have thoroughly tested in numerous ways.
|
|