kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 10, 2012 17:28:43 GMT -5
Hi Zerohunter I have always maintained that the ladder was used that night, the physical proof is overwhelming. I have commented on it's many shortcomings as well as it's capabilities. Perhaps you are thinking of my position that it did not fail while someone was climbing it. Hope that clears it up.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 10, 2012 18:59:40 GMT -5
From Condon's June 2, 1932 Statement: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 10, 2012 19:54:53 GMT -5
Don't forget though, that they went with Breckenridge instead. Breck himself acknowledges this in the Bronx Grand Jury testimony. Here he specifically points out he was "dropped" once they picked up Condon. It's almost like they "settled" on Breck then decided to get someone they can trust in instead. I think the stakes were just too high and the reward too great if he did not break - based solely upon principle or his concern for his reputation. As a result I am faced with a couple of possibilities: - That flipping on one person could lead to others. Among these others could be someone he is protecting.
- That flipping on Condon could lead to the death and/or harm of his Wife and Son.
If its just HIM and he brought in Condon, (and that's it) then I think he would have confessed. This idea that he was going to be reprieved right up until his butt was in the Chair is complete BS. He has some hope, but it was all gone once the rubber hit the road and he was completely aware of that fact once it came. He was obviously in a Catch-22 and his death was the only way out of it. Interesting theory. I know his Official Statements don't start until May 13th. In order to test your position I am going to have to do some more research. I think taking up the "Other Brother" theory is a tough one but I am glad to have it debated. Gov. Hoffman seemed to think it was worth looking into. Your logic above would fit that theory, but how does it explain that Hauptmann winds up with the ransom - in your opinion? I do have to say that I will never believe that Condon had any involvement with the Morrows prior to this case. Not so about some other people but as he is concerned I am personally sure he wasn't.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 11, 2012 9:53:53 GMT -5
Are you sure that "trust" is an objective description? Is it not possible that they just were more comfortable with Condon? Another possibility that can't be underestimated is that as a local, Condon would better be able to follow the directions regarding the meetings and exchanges. He would also be more easily observed. My point is, I don't think one should try to limit their assessment of Condon's actions without taking into account the many possibilities that his choice as a go between that may have been perceived by the kidnappers, especially if they were locals from the Bronx. No one will ever know exactly what was behind many of Condon's actions, that's the inherent danger of analyzing his actions.
|
|
|
Post by zerohunter on Mar 11, 2012 10:05:26 GMT -5
I’m not really taking up the other brother theory, I was just throwing it out here, since if it did have merit, it could help tie Condon to the Morrow family. But it sounds like its just another lead balloon theory… In Any case, Hauptman could have still gotten the money from Fish… My next read is Behn and then The Hand of Hauptman because I think the QED findings will speak volumes. God, I am still such a noob… And since there are no takers on Lindy’s blood hound refusal, I’ll answer my own question. Either Lindy genuinely thought that it would be a wasted effort to have dogs come and verify what they already knew; that is that the perps went from the house to a car where any scent trail would end, or maybe he didn’t want the dogs to find the hole that was dug by Charlie Schippell earlier, which now contained a small body wrapped in a burlap bag… Charlie Schippell is an interesting character that may have been up to no good… Does anyone know if Hauptman was left handed? Thanks kevkon for clearing up that matter.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2012 11:11:09 GMT -5
Alright, I see what you are saying but consider the risk in using someone local who isn't 'on board.' You can observe him and he then, may observe you. Even if he's neutral, then you could be, say, eating dinner with your Wife when in walks in Jafsie who would recognize you. Wait a minute, that happened didn't it?
Or you are at Dixon's boat house on City Island where Jafsie frequents and you are a Member. Another big chance - almost unavoidable.
In fact, you run the risk of Perrone seeing you chatting with Condon. Wait a minute - that happened too didn't it?
Very true. I am taking into account the totality of the circumstances which seem to point to a conclusion that for me is irresistible. However, I will always listen to any and all other options.
There is ALWAYS something to be learned from each and every theory. As far as Condon/Morrow that's just my position. Don't let me talk you out of considering the possibility. I helped Bill in a couple of places by sharing research with him that I thought would be helpful. It's a great read with much food for thought. My advice is that you must be personally satisfied with a conclusion about something before choosing to either embrace or discard it. Much to do with this Crime lies in the grey area.
The Fisch Story is a great example of this. I believe the truth lies in the middle.
This is something I know, or knew but I am drawing a blank. Could you direct me to the source for Lindbergh refusing the Dogs? I want to check the Reports.
Schippell is interesting.
This brings me to another point - attempted identification of any Suspect. They at first checked handwriting against the Notes. They also went to Condon who was checking for the fleshy "lump" by shaking hands with everyone. They would also have Perrone look at them. Then later they were checking those Suspects against the J.J. Faulkner Bank Deposit.
What happened was the fleshy lump was NEVER found on anyone - including Hauptmann. The J. J. Faulkner was never connected to Hauptmann either. Condon and Perrone would both identify others who weren't Hauptmann, and looked nothing like him. Condon would say it was NOT Hauptmann but then both he and Perrone identify him in Court. Condon doing so under duress and Perrone being "encouraged" to do so.
What bothers me most is when someone was cleared by handwriting from the Notes, why weren't they re-checked against the J. J. Faulkner Deposit Slip? I see no evidence that anyone had been.
The handwriting isn't 100% conclusive in my opinion, but I think when you consider it against the other evidence it certainly doesn't help. That position was taken by Osborn Jr. who at first claimed Hauptmann wasn't the Writer but then changed his mind once he was informed about the Ransom Money being discovered.
My point being that the evidence points to multiple participants.
A right-handed chain smoker.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 11, 2012 11:45:08 GMT -5
Sure, but risk is everywhere in this crime so anyone involved has an inclination in that direction. Look at the big picture, the kidnappers have a crime gone wrong. They no longer have the object they are hoping to exchange. In essence they are playing poker with an empty hand. In order to carry this out they are going to have to keep some type of control and not allow Lindbergh ( who has already defied them) to dictate the who and where. Along comes Condon offering subservience with his newspaper ad. Now I am not saying the kidnappers knew him personally, but it would be very probable that they knew something about him. He's already made a concession by promising not to reveal the kidnappers. He's old and considered harmless by most. Does it seem hard to believe that he would be a reasonably good choice as a buffer?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 11, 2012 19:26:57 GMT -5
my fbi reports mention that kid aspect. i dont know either way
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2012 19:45:09 GMT -5
We're pretty much in agreement excepting you believe he was selected and I believe he was recruited (in some way).
I cannot see why they would take a chance with someone, who they will deal with face to face, that lives in their neighborhood and likely to see them outside of those negotiations then recognize them UNLESS he is "on-board."
Look at the example of Condon putting on a show screaming for the Bus Driver to stop because he saw "John." Yet, there was evidence he was in the same Diner as Hauptmann and Anna but there was no outburst whatsoever. One of his haunts is where Hauptmann is a Member. There is no such risk with Breckenridge or someone who doesn't live in that area. It's why I used the term "trust" in my last post. I look at how Condon was picked up, and his actions after wards leading me to no other choice.
Let's say Condon was a Saint. His only intent is to secure a living child. He sees "John" a few times. Now this is good information. It strengthens the ability to catch him. But he says nothing. Okay, well he's trying to return the toddler..... But once the child is dead he still doesn't react like he should. It's as if they didn't cross paths. The live baby promise doesn't hold true. He see Hauptmann in the Bronx and says it isn't him. Hauptmann was confident in the Flemington Jail that Condon was his ally. Why should he believe that, ever, if they were face to face?
That is, of course, if Hauptmann was actually CJ. But let's say he wasn't... the real CJ still runs the exact same risk. That is, unless they are on the same side.
Which one? I am not sure who you mean.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 11, 2012 20:36:35 GMT -5
its the notion that dr condon got in trouble with a little kid
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 12, 2012 18:22:18 GMT -5
I think its beyond a notion at this point... it's mentioned in several places. There's a letter someone wrote (at the Archives) to the NJSP about it claiming Condon had actually been thrown in jail. They asked Capt. Oliver and he said he knew of the case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 21, 2012 17:16:36 GMT -5
In an effort to exemplify my earlier point that Condon had forwarded to the Police the method of "thumb checking" in order to identify Cemetery John - I wanted to post this report (below). Here we see the weight they assign it - not even bothering with the handwriting check..... And so, either Condon was lying, or Cemetery John was never captured. Pick your poison. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 23, 2012 10:33:48 GMT -5
Had a question for Michael (or anyone else) on an earlier point that was made: If, as has been established, Whately didn't in fact give tours of the house as the FBI Summary suggests, how then would an intruder know where the nursery was? I mean, I've heard that plans of the house were published, but not only have I never seen where, but I can't imagine that the baby's nursery would be marked as such in those publications. Does any of this, to anyone's view, prove an inside job, or is there another option?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 23, 2012 18:20:17 GMT -5
The Police considered a "Local" was involved. Many, off the record, believed an "Insider" was involved. The idea of someone who did not know the layout of the home was advanced by claiming with a pair of "high powered" glasses they could observe the family through the windows, then over time, determine what room was where as well as their patterns and/or routines.
I've heard the same thing. Someone posted a picture (has to be over 10 years ago now) they claimed was the one. It was like a "painting" in a magazine that looked nothing like the house and certainly did not include the lay-out. No one at the time protested or claimed it "wasn't it." Also, there were some other drawings of things purported to be the floor plans but they looked more like "guesses" because they were not accurate at all.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 23, 2012 19:11:49 GMT -5
Personally, I don't how someone, even a local, would know the layout of the house. An insider would therefore seem likely--someone who lived at the house or was there on some kind of regular basis. This would, in turn, suggest one of the servants, but I don't know of any hard evidence against any of them. What's your view?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 24, 2012 7:39:01 GMT -5
This is good technique LJ. ;D
My take is this.....
If someone is casing that house in order to learn all that is suggested then its a good bet its done over a period of time in order to do so. By doing this, you do not learn only those points explained by that action. What do I mean?
Well that if someone learns from this they learn everything. That would mean there is no way they would expect that child to be there on March 1st, because afterall, they've learned he would not be.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 24, 2012 9:48:47 GMT -5
Right, so if an outsider/lone wolf hadn't been casing the house for awhile (which seems kind of risky anyway; now it'd be easy, but photos of the grounds at the time show sparse trees and virtually no where to hide), then that would suggest the complicity of someone inside the house or, at the very least, someone who had knowledge of the family's movements. You've said you believe someone hired whoever came to Hopewell that night, but then my question is why would that person (not asking for names) immediately open the possibility of inside help by greenlighting the crime on a night when the intended target wouldn't normally be around? The first thing the police would say (and in fact did say) is "How'd the kidnapper know the family would be around? Must've had inside help..." Or was there a particular reason, do you think, that the crime had to take place on March 1?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 24, 2012 10:23:24 GMT -5
like a fbi report says, they interviewed a person who lived close to the house they said it was like a "goldfish bowl" no certains, if anne lindbergh mentioned that at one of her last interviews
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 24, 2012 10:23:55 GMT -5
sorry, i meant curtains
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 24, 2012 11:36:36 GMT -5
LJ, I agree completely about your point of the situation an inside accomplice would face. I look at this crime as a mixed presentation with both elements of organization and disorganization. I don't think it's unreasonable for the kidnappers to have believed that the house was occupied full time by the Lindberghs, especially since it was staffed and appeared to be in full use.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 24, 2012 22:37:44 GMT -5
Yeah, I see organization and disorganization here too. Anything else aside, real life is often a mix of both anyway. So I can easily see how the kidnappers could've just lucked into things in terms of timing. But what I don't see now is how they could've known where the nursery was without inside help. Even if it was possible to see inside like a goldfish bowl, how, without being seen yourself, could you get close enough to the house to tell which room was which? Binoculars maybe? Or it could be that whoever did this made a previous trip to the house, at night when no one was there and the house was dark, using a (if not THE) ladder to poke around in the windows and determine the layout...? Pure speculation, but that would eliminate the need for an insider and for that insider to nonsensically greenlight the crime in such a way as to cast suspicion on themselves.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 25, 2012 3:46:42 GMT -5
Condon removed $20,000 from the ransom money.
To save Lindbergh some money?
Really?
When did he remove it? Obviously before he handed over the rest of it - after leaving Lindbergh and before the handover.
So during this time he thought "I'll save Lindbergh some money" and dived into the bag and started putting money into (presumably) his pockets. Did he count it?
Never did he consider that this could mean the child would be killed for tricking the kidnappers?
Never did he consider that this would mean the deal would be called off and a new demand made once the kidnappers realised they had been short-changed?
Really?
Something is very wrong with all that.
Very.
It just so happened that the money withheld was the most traceable? Or was it because of the bigger denomination could be hidden in his pockets more easily?
If it was about being more traceable and he was "in with them" then the kidnappers could have warned and just destroyed it (although the tempatation not to would have been large).
I think the theory about him getting cold feet regarding his share is well worth considering.
Perhaps he thought about it and at the exchange said "I don't want the $20,000 no more, but here's your $50,000" or said "I've got my $20,000, here's the rest" and then made up the "saving money" nonsense for the Police because he chickened out?
It's hard to know really but something is not right about this.
He was risking the child's life to "save money" for rich Lindberghs?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 25, 2012 10:38:17 GMT -5
You know, hard as it is to believe there's actually a possibility that they didn't even know it was Lindbergh's home. I'm not proposing that, but given the evidence ( or lack of ) we really don't know what the plan was and how well it was prepared. What if Gow's room was reversed with the Nursery and they went in her room? I think they would still manage to get to the child. Some believe they actually entered through the front door and if that were the case what fear would they have of checking for the right room? Personally, I think it would be more than possible to see what was going on in that house with or without field glasses. Sunset was around 6pm so one could get pretty close.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2012 11:52:14 GMT -5
I've seen it suggested in the Reports that the Kidnappers may have struck because of Lindbergh's engagement in NYC that night. Of course that still doesn't explain how they knew the child was there.
I look at things this way.... Whatever did not happen probably didn't need to.
If those involved weren't Police then I believe they might think a little differently. The alternative is to assert it was an "accident," "luck," or they just "assumed."
I don't buy it.
One does not prepare for a crime of this nature, to the degree in which we see it was prepared, then ad-lib other things. Whether your target is there or not is the single most important element of this crime.
We've spent a lot of time on the ladder, and rightfully so. What does it tell us? It's designed, crafted, and built. It serves so many purposes that I don't think I could list them all. For one it fits inside of the Dodge Lupica saw. Next, it is the perfect height with all 3 sections deployed. And the top sections fit perfectly within the shutters louvers. In the end its left behind for the Police to discover.
And its not just the location of the Nursery....It's knowing the windows aren't locked. It's knowing the exact window with the defective shutter lock. It's knowing the obstacle course in that Nursery then navigating it perfectly.
There's too much here.
This came from Curtis who said the Kidnapper told him they locked the door. Lindbergh accepted this because only someone who had been in the house would know the lay-out....meaning where that door was, how that would have worked, and that the key was in the door during the crime.
And here again, I don't understand how this could be accepted with Wahgoosh patrolling the home. Yet, Wahgoosh doesn't bark and is basically MIA through the whole episode.
That's a good point. John claims he's their tool, therefore, why would Condon believe he even had the authority to make this call?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 25, 2012 12:42:20 GMT -5
I think the smart thing would've been to take the shortest route to the baby by spending the least amount of time as possible inside the house. So, as far as that goes, going directly into the nursery through a window makes the most sense to me, rather than entering through the front door, getting upstairs, going down a hallway and into the baby's room--all without being seen in a house with lights still on and at least some occupants therefore clearly still up and about. To do this would, to my mind, require A) ninja-like stealth, or B) inside help. 'A' seems unrealistic, and I've always resisted 'B' since I don't see tangible evidence for it and, if there was any to be found, I think at least something would've shaken loose by now. So even though the official line makes sense to a degree--an intruder or intruders snuck in through the nursery window and grabbed the baby--at the same time, we do have a crime scene that, in some ways, screams POORLY STAGED: the lack of fingerprints in the nursery, the unknocked-over objects in and around the supposed entry point, the ransom note left on the sill instead of in the crib, the ladder in the yard--a lot of which seem to be heavyhanded attempts (in which some things got overlooked) to telegraph "Intruders came in and left this way." Now, none of this answers the question of how an intruder could've known where the nursery was, but I suppose it's possible they could've gotten close enough in the dark to see inside the house or had figured out where the nursery was by looking around during a previous trip when no one was home. And as to johndoe's comments about Condon: I agree, almost everything about him seems weird. I don't think he was in on the crime from the outset, but I think it's possible he decided to make a little scratch off it once he became involved. Since his accounts of things kept changing, it's hard to believe anything he said, so a nutshell version of Condon's actual conversation with Cemetery John could've gone something like this: "What do you mean 'would you burn if the baby's dead'? Why would you even ask me that unless--? Okay... He's dead, isn't he? Just say it; you basically already did. Alright, fine. Now, I'll keep that to myself, keep negotiations going to take some heat off you guys--for a price. Ask for an additional $20K in your next ransom note."
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 25, 2012 14:25:18 GMT -5
Well, no crime is ever perfect and there's always the unexpected. There are so many possibilities in this crime. One thing I try not to do, though I often fail, is to try and not over-think it. With the benefit of hindsight we can all question some actions taken and some not. Then again, hindsight is 20/20. Here is a question that I would love to get some responses for; would your view of the crime change if a regular extention ladder was found instead of the homebuilt one?
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 25, 2012 15:50:57 GMT -5
Absolutely, which is why I believe Condon had some kind of deal going with the kidnappers and when he realised the child was dead he chickened out.
What if the kidnappers had wanted to count the money at the handover? How did he know they wouldn't? Yes it's unlikely and they probably would want to get away fast, but there was always a possibility.
His story is a nonsense.
He had no reason to be "saving the Lindberghs money" and putting the childs life at risk.
What was the Lindbergh reaction to this saving of money?
I would have been furious if it was me.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 25, 2012 19:41:53 GMT -5
My view of the crime would change, since I never understood the necessity of building a ladder when you could easily just buy a generic standard extension one--hardly a suspicious or unusual purchase and, I would think, less traceable than a custom made ladder. What does it mean, do you think, that the ladder seems to have been designed specifically for the house--even to the extent of fitting into the shutter louvers--but was abandoned? I mean, why leave something like that behind? Panic? Dumping it because it wasn't needed anymore with an assumption that it couldn't be traced?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 25, 2012 19:56:31 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply, LJ. In what way would your view change?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 25, 2012 21:27:05 GMT -5
My view of things would simplify in that, without all these custom features to the ladder, it would more readily suggest a simple kidnapping without all these inside-connection possibilities. What about you? How would your view change if the ladder were storebought?
|
|