|
Post by rmc1971 on Jul 29, 2012 19:29:32 GMT -5
What do you make of the near immediate response Condon received to his article in the Bronx Home News offering to act as a go-between?
Is this another instance where the kidnapper gets a 'Manna From Heaven' moment, and lucks into a way to get paid even after news of the kidnapping has been leaked to the public? Even if this is the case, the odds that he sees the article and can respond that quickly almost defies logic.
If that is not the case, then that letter was already written to Condon and just waiting for the moment to deliver it. That woud then mean that either Condon was a willing participant in the kidnap and ranson (which I can't rationalize), or that someone involved with the kidnapping knew him on a personal level and realized that he could not help but make a grand gesture offering to get involved - which is what I think happened here.
I am interested to know if anyone has any information out there that would link Condon or anyone in his family to the German-American community in the Bronx. I think there would be value in looking for a connection there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2012 14:26:38 GMT -5
Considering that the Bronx Home News had a more local circulation area, it does make you wonder what he might have actually known about the kidnapping. In Condon's letter to the Bronx Home News, in the paragraph he addresses to the kidnapper he says "In addition to the $50,000 offered by the Colonel, I offer $1000, which I have saved from my salary. If the ONE WHO HANDED THE COLONEL'S SON OUT THE WINDOW TO THE MAN ON THE LADDER". I believe the official position at that time was that the kidnapper entered through the window. Condon describes it differently. I wonder why? He had been reading the newspapers so he would have known it was believed that the kidnapper climbed into the nursery through the window. He is also suggesting there is more than one person involved. Makes you wonder what he really knew about the crime.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 30, 2012 15:03:25 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out how Condon was brought into this and by who. It seems hard to believe that the kidnappers would've picked up on his open letter in a small paper like the Bronx Home News unless this was arranged in advance.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 30, 2012 15:37:32 GMT -5
I believe Condon was a regular contributor and a friend of the editor. He always needs an audience.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 30, 2012 18:30:33 GMT -5
Why such a specific section of people? I think anyone in the Bronx could have a connection. Likewise, anyone on City Island too could have a connection. And of course any of his Students over the years. Or what about being involved in sports - baseball or boxing? Did Condon know any Sailors?
I make this point because often we look for a immediate and direct connection when there could be degrees of separation to consider.
The odds are definitely there.
He also said that CJ told him he left the note in the crib. Figuring that one out will take a while.....
He was friends with Coleman.
The answer could have been luck or a coincidence. But I think the totality of "coincidence and luck" amounts to more when piled on top of one another.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 31, 2012 7:16:50 GMT -5
Well, luck is where preparation meets chance.
I think Condon was a reasonable choice given his reputation in the area, and they needed someone in the area of their choosing, not Lindbergh's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2012 9:17:03 GMT -5
Since Condon likes nothing better than being a hero in the public eye, he was a perfect choice for the go-between role. This must of sent his ego into overdrive when he received the letter saying he was the chosen one.
In the books I have read so far, Condon was approved quickly by Lindbergh and Breckinridge because of the letter with the symbol signature. The only book I have read so far that links Condon in any way to the Lindbergh/Morrow family is the one by William Norris, "A Talent To Deceive".
I am not sure that CJ ever said that he left the note in the crib. If he did say that, then Condon was not dealing with the real kidnapper of Charlie since the note was left on the window sill. If CJ had left that note in the nursery he would have remembered where he placed it. Why didn't Lindbergh and Breckinridge pick up on this point??? They knew the nursery note was on the window sill. In Condon's book, "Jafsie Tells All", on page 80, he stands behind the nursery note being in the crib because it was the "logical" place for it. So did CJ ever really say it was in the crib or did Condon just say he did?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,654
|
Post by Joe on Jul 31, 2012 9:17:38 GMT -5
There are no accidents in a universe each of us individually projects outwards. It's all cause and effect which occurs primarily in ways we have no difficulty in understanding but can also taper to more and more synchronistic levels that may seem to border on the surreal. Some call it karma, "OMG" moments or "what goes around come around." There's plenty of that in this case.
I don't believe Condon really knew whose attention he was going to get and that it was essentially his penchant for general publicity and histrionics which ended up having a simple but nevertheless heartfelt letter to the editor splashed on the front page of a newspaper within the same readership area as the object individual. And I believe Hauptmann was well aware of Condon and his reputation long before he answered Condon's letter.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Jul 31, 2012 18:49:05 GMT -5
Michael - I would and do consider all those sources. What I meant was I wouldn't disclude Condon's family in that search for connections. I do think that between all the organizations Condon belonged to, his education career, his sporting activities, and his newspaper writings, it would be easier to eliminate people than find them. :-)
Joe - I would tend to agree - that Hauptmann was waiting for Condon to get involved.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 31, 2012 20:17:16 GMT -5
Noso approached Uncle Dinny Doyle to ask if there was anything "untoward" in Condon's background. The best I can tell Dinny also knew that Noso had been kidnapper shopping. Do you think ,after the crime Dinny wouldn't have told Condon about it? Noso being of the Bronx, might we consider that's why Condon wrote his letter to that particular newspaper? Dinny knew Noso was called "Doc". Then we have Condon claiming to meet with the kidnappers on a boat - the leader of whom was called"Doc". I suspect the name Doc is merely circular, having heard it from Dinny. Personally I don't buy the boat story. I believe it just another of Condon's tall tales. Then there is Condon's crony -is the name Paglio(?) who quizzes Perone about a specific address (And we know Condon could not keep his mouth shut, if he suspected Noso). Wouldn't I like to know where Noso resided?! I'm not saying Noso was actually involved, but can't help but wonder if Condon thought he was. Might account for some of Condon's weird antics(?)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,654
|
Post by Joe on Jul 31, 2012 20:20:49 GMT -5
I guess I should have been clearer. I believe Hauptmann had most likely heard of Condon and some of his exploits around the Bronx, but I don't believe Hauptmann knew Condon was going to write that letter to the editor offering his services as a go-between.
Considering some of the name dropping that was going on in the press at the time, confirming gangsters such as Salvy Spitale, Irving Bitz and Owney Madden were involved, the possibility of dealing in discretion with a seemingly kindly and refined gentleman might just have been an option too good for the kidnapper not to jump on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2012 7:58:01 GMT -5
Right now I agree with Joe that Hauptmann did not know that Condon was going to put that letter in the Bronx Home News. When the kidnappers phoned Condon the evening the letter was received by Condon, they were making sure he was the person someone in the group of kidnappers thought he was. They asked if he was the same person who always sends articles to the paper. He was definitely known by someone in that group, even if only by reputation.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 1, 2012 8:16:24 GMT -5
I'm sure it was unintentional, Joe, but Condon did not offer to be a go between in the Home News letter. It's important since people make an issue of Condon's involvement. Condon's letter was an appeal for the return of the child without any regard for punishment. When you consider who Lindbergh and Breckinridge were proposing as go betweens, Condon becomes a pretty good choice for the kidnapper.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,654
|
Post by Joe on Aug 1, 2012 10:44:09 GMT -5
Kevin, you're right that Condon made no specific mention of offering his services as a go-between. I've always believed though that through his statement, "I stand ready in person at my own expense to go anywhere, alone on land or water to give the kidnapper the extra money, and promise never to utter his or her name to anyone." that he was prepared to inject himself into this case in whatever capacity that Lindbergh desired.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 1, 2012 12:45:00 GMT -5
Won't anyone come on here and knock down my Noso/Dinny/Condon notion? You see it would free up space in my thoughts to more fully focus on other aspects of the crime ;D. The nagging idea about Noso makes me tired.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 1, 2012 15:41:32 GMT -5
Marie, rather than knock your suspicions of Noso down, I would validate them. Noso was said by Doyle to be recruiting for the kidnapping of a prominent New Jerseyite; he was definitely connected to Dwight Morrow (had worked for him in Mexico), and was definitely connected to Condon (we know there was a lawsuit between them). He was an agent for British intelligence, and had nerves of steel, as he had penetrated the Communist party for them. He had connections to the Purple Gang (noted for their kidnapping skills) as well as having connections to the New York City police. He even knew J. Edgar. And he had a background as a chemist, which wouldn’t hurt in doping a baby. Added to that, I believe "JJ Faulkner" was one of his many aliases.
I’m not saying “this is the man,” but if you’re looking for someone who would fill the bill as foreman of the kidnapping, based on both his associations and background, I think he’s a great choice. I believe he had an alibi for the night of the kidnapping, but with a man of that caliber, I would expect him to have an alibi nicely pre-arranged.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2012 18:07:29 GMT -5
Mairi/BR, this is a theory I really don't know much about so it is hard to comment. I do have questions though. If Noso is the "brains" is he responsible for bringing in Hauptmann? Does this mean that the letter Condon placed in the Bronx Home News was just a part of the extortion plot and not just an offer to help? Do you think Noso was the kidnapper who entered the nursery and took Charlie? And lastly, has a book ever been written on this theory? Sorry for all the questions.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 1, 2012 18:54:24 GMT -5
BR/Amy, I can't say I feel as strongly about a Noso involvement as I did for awhile. For a few years I (tried to) dissect him "every whicha way" and upside down. The focus of my previous post was, did Condon think Noso was involved. If so how might that have affected Condon's activities? Before my previous post I wanted to review Uncle Dinny Doyle's statements. See that in Members Only, Pat Doyle's recollections and other. Each time I would click on the attachment the Internet would kick me off . (It happens so often everywhere else, I confess I've resorted to some expletives). If nothing else Noso made some seemingly incriminating statements. Amy, if I'm not mistaken, Behn's book speaks of Noso.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 1, 2012 20:44:59 GMT -5
Amy, it is indeed Behn’s book Lindbergh: The Crime that discusses Nosovitsky at length. Mairi—It seems to make sense that if Doyle was a cousin of Condon, Doyle’s remarks about Nosovitsky would have reached Condon at some point. I guess how this would have affected Condon would depend on Condon’s degree of involvement in the crime (as well as Noso’s). I personally believe Condon was lured into the caper with the promise that he would be the one to return the baby. He didn’t need a cut of the ransom—just returning the baby to Anne Lindbergh alive would have been worth its weight in gold. The publicity, the fame, the books offers, visions of these would have seduced Condon. I believe that it was only after he became deeply involved that he was informed that the baby was actually dead. With his hopes of playing the hero gone, and now in danger of being arrested as an accomplice to murder of the nation’s most famous baby, he deeply regretted his involvement, and began his wild spree of lying. He could not afford to let the real criminals be caught, lest they take him down with them. That is just an hypothesis, but it’s one that I like. Noso, an expert deceiver (he was able to trick the Soviets into thinking he was a real Communist), would have been just the man to trick Jafsie.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 1, 2012 22:34:05 GMT -5
I remember reading about Nosovitsky at length in Behn's book, but it was all so long ago now, I can't quite remember all of it. Bookrefuge, not having the book in front of me, could you refresh my memory as to what exactly his involvement would've been according to Behn? I seem to remember he was, according to the book, in on the extortion and may've organized the plot, but, again, I'm hazy on this now. At any rate, he certainly seems a good suspect for involvement on at least some level ("J.J. Faulkner" being one of his aliases is especially interesting). Your thoughts on Condon make a good deal of sense as well.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 1, 2012 23:05:47 GMT -5
LJ, Behn's conclusion seems to be that Nosovitsky was involved in the extortion, but not the kidnapping. Among his many skills was forgery. The use of the "JJ Faulkner" alias was significant to Behn.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 2, 2012 10:27:51 GMT -5
Behn flat-out states J. J. Faulkner was Nosovitsky.
It's been a while since I've read Behn, as well, and don't remember the specific details, but he did focus heavily on Noso. But Behn separated the kidnapping from the extortion, and didn't assign complicity in the former to Noso.
Jd
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2012 10:38:22 GMT -5
I shall have to check out Behn's book. I believe that Behn's theory on the case was that Elizabeth killed Charlie and then it was covered up with the kidnapping. That would make the extortion plot separate from the actual crime.
I think that Condon also wanted to return the baby to his parents. The money would not have interested him. BR, I see him regretting his involvement also after he finds out the baby is dead and he can never have the heroic role he so much wanted. It is funny how Condon says that CJ regretted being involved. Perhaps he was voicing his own thoughts through CJ.
BR, when you say that Condon could not afford to let the real criminals be caught because he may be taken down with them, do you think this would mean that Hauptmannn was not CJ afterall???
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 2, 2012 11:01:20 GMT -5
Amy, Behn's book is interesting. It's worth a read. He uses information provided by a pretty reputable attorney (at least from what I've read about him) named Harry Green who investigated the case for Gov. Hoffmann. According to Behn, both Green and Hoffmann apparently (albeit privately) reached the conclusion that Elisabeth was unbalanced and killed the baby because Lindbergh was supposed to marry her but chose Anne instead. Lindbergh and his lawyer Breckinridge (with the help of Wild Bill Donovan) then staged a kidnapping to protect the family and avoid scandal, and a separate extortion plot cropped up out of this (perpetrated by the forger Nosovitsky, as Bookrefuge points out, who, according to Behn, may have also been Cemetery John). Behn admits that he doesn't have any hard evidence of Elisabeth's involvement, but says that there were supposedly affidavits from the Morrow servants testifying to this effect in Green's possession and that they were all lost in a basement flood or something. I don't know, I suppose it's possible. From what I've read about him, Green wasn't some kook. Trouble is, there's just no evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2012 11:28:14 GMT -5
Elizabeth was unbalanced? Wow, I only thought she had a heart valve problem. I suppose she could have been troubled. Dwight Jr. had mental health issues requiring hospitalization.
If it was necessary to cover up such a killing, that would help explain why Lindbergh and Breckinridge seemed to be trying so had to make contact with the killers. They apparently did not keep the symbol signature confidential, making it possible to be forged. This would have helped to create the extortion aspect of the kidnapping.
So there is no supporting evidence implicating Elizabeth's involvement. Reminds me of a book I just finished. No evidence to support the theory in that book either. I will still check out Behn's book. Sounds like it would be a good read plus I would like to understand this Nosovitsky guy better. Thanks LJ for your input.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 2, 2012 12:59:24 GMT -5
The only problem there is the "singnature". Regardless of whether anyone checked the circles and holes precisely at the time, they have been scrutinized since and it would be almost impossible to counterfeit even if you had the original. Then you have the problem of Hauptmann's peculiar spelling to deal with. I won't touch the handwriting because it's not necessary.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 2, 2012 13:36:33 GMT -5
Well, IF the hypothesis is true—that Condon was complicit with the extortionists—then I would say BRH was almost certainly not CJ. If BRH was CJ, he could have ratted on Condon, and Condon would have anticipated that possibility.
The rapid response to Condon—which is the title of this thread——is something that doesn’t sit right with me. Condon received the note in the mail from the kidnappers the day after his piece appeared in the Bronx Home News. I cannot believe that the kidnappers, having so carefully planned this crime, would select a go-between almost instantaneously, even if they were familiar with Condon’s general reputation. The other thing that speaks, to me, of Condon’s guilt, is his constant lying. He constantly changed his stories. People don’t lie like that unless they’re hiding something. If this man was trying to help the police, he should have been consistent.
Again, I certainly don’t believe he initially knew murder was involved. I think he was told that the baby was alive, and that if he simply acted as go-between for the ransom, he’d have the honor of returning the baby to the mother. He envisioned himself becoming a national hero. But once he committed himself as go-between—and then learned the baby was dead—there was no way he could “un-commit” himself, and he went into panic mode. He could now be arrested as an accessory to murder and extortion, as well as defrauding Lindbergh and the police. He didn’t want Lindbergh to pay that ransom—he told Lindbergh to insist on proof the baby was alive. I think he was hoping the whole ransom business would fall through, giving him an exit, but it didn’t. I think he probably knew exactly what he was doing when he pulled that $20,000 in 50-dollar gold certs back—it wasn’t to save Lindbergh some scratch, it was to prevent the gang from being caught. He probably hated their guts at this point, but he couldn’t let them get caught either, or he might ride to the chair along with them.
Again, this is just an hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 2, 2012 18:45:07 GMT -5
This bothers the hell out of me. Accepting a common Dr. Denton suit as proof the baby was still alive? Please. Anyone could have purchased a similar suit anywhere and mailed it.
What bothers me is why nobody insisted on irrefutable proof the baby was still in the hands of the kidnappers.
Couldn't Jafsie have said, "Look. Give us a photograph of the baby with a newspaper on his chest to verify the date. Give us a piece of paper with his fingerprints." Condon might have been mad as a hatter, but he wasn't STUPID.
Jd
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 2, 2012 19:20:52 GMT -5
In Fisher's Ghosts he points out Green was 93 at the time Behn spoke with him. Then he proceeds to say Behn's theory was preposterous and that Green only had a brush with the case through Gov. Hoffman. (p. 57)
This type of stuff is exactly why I hammer Fisher. If one doesn't like the book then come up with something that's true!
First of all, when I met Maj. Stockburger he was almost 100 and still sharp as a tack. Next, what does brush mean to everyone?
Fact is, Green had much more then just a brush with this case, so in attempting to malign Behn's book he states something that is very untrue. I don't believe he thought it was untrue, but one must do the proper research into Green's involvement before making such a claim. Fisher obviously did not. So he's ignorant but writing like an Expert.
That my friends is what is preposterous.
You see, often people who research the case draw a line at certain material. Green helped defend the Parkers mostly at his own expense and did so based upon what he believed was the right thing to do. Most LK Researchers don't go into the Parker angle and those researching Parker don't usually go too far into the main LK materials. So one may go through the main Hoffman Collection and think they know what there is to know about Green. Unfortunately, they'll only know some. But to make a real search through, just that collection, could take several months to do so intelligently. Then they have to do the same in many other places to include Hoffman's other collections.....
By being a Co-Counsel for Parker, Green was privy to just about anything he wanted from the NJSP Files. Additionally, he also advised and assisted Hoffman during this whole re-investigation phase even before Parker's troubles.
I do not believe Behn ever gives the name of the Chauffeur but having researched everything I believe I know who it was. While there is some material from this person to the Governor I have never seen anything about Elisabeth in any of it. But I'd be a complete FOOL to say Green "made it up" or "didn't have it" because a copy isn't at the Archives. I believe plenty of material is missing from those boxes so its a legitimate possibility it was a real situation. Even so, it doesn't mean it's true, AND without the benefit of actually reading through what it said - its pretty hard to learn from it.
I will say however, that I did find in Schwarzkopf's notes something about Elisabeth being involved. That's not to say Schwarzkopf believed it but it shows he rec'd that information too.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 2, 2012 22:52:47 GMT -5
Amy, according to Behn, Elisabeth was unbalanced and had the same sorts of problems seen in Dwight Jr. We know he had a breakdown of sorts not too long before the kidnapping, but, outside of Behn's book, I've never heard of any similar medical issues with Elisabeth (just her heart problem). And I don't mean to say that Green made anything up. On the contrary, he seems to have been a pretty reputable guy. That's part of the reason why Behn's theory is something I can't quite shake loose of: There's no real evidence, but a lot makes sense if you accept the Elisabeth angle as a working hypothesis. At least, it's something to consider.
|
|