|
Post by Michael on Jun 22, 2014 14:43:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 22, 2014 17:25:19 GMT -5
To Michael, amy35:
Sounds as if the NJ State Police were doing everything they could to prevent any new suspect from being charged in the Lindbergh case following Hauptmann's execution, and that Nosso, hearing that the Hunterdon County grand jury had refused to indict him in 1937, had reason to think that he was untouchable with respect the crime. So all was clear, in Nosso's thinking, that in filing suit against Condon (weeks following the Philadelphia Inquirer article posted) he had nothing to lose and a lot of money to gain.
It would certainly make the NJ State Police look bad in some quarters had a new suspect had surfaced after Hauptmann had been executed for allegedly acting alone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2014 17:37:05 GMT -5
Thanks for checking this. Since I have not read Fisher or Behn's books I had no way to look this up myself. This whole artist thing then comes from the creative mind of John Condon.
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle article you posted about the slander suit filed by Nosovitsky against Condon says that Noso claims that Condon was responsible for the Hunterdon County Grand Jury investigation of him. Wasn't this particular Grand Jury investigation the result of the affidavit that William Pelletreau submitted to Hunterdon County Prosecutor Anthony Hauck? I thought this was based on statements coming from Wally Stroh. Of course I could be confusing this with something else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2014 17:55:47 GMT -5
I am afraid I see Condon's entry into the Lindbegh case a bit differently. In the ransom note received at Hopewell in the mail of March 5, 1932, the kidnappers/extortionists raise the ransom amount to $70,000 dollars. They do this because they will need to bring another person into this situation. Up to this point, the newspapers have been full of articles about people acting as go-betweens for Lindbergh. I believe that the kidnappers wanted to pick their own go between. They wanted someone they knew they could trust and who they felt would not betray them. Condon was approached through someone related to the kidnapper(s)/extortionists to ask for his assistance. Condon agreed to aid them but only if he would be the one who could return the child to his parents. This was agreed upon. Condon then wrote the letter to the Bronx Home News offering to help to get the baby back to his mother's arms. We all know how that turned out!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 23, 2014 22:46:37 GMT -5
To: amy35, Michael, All:
"I am afraid I see Condon's entry into the Lindbergh case a bit differently. In the ransom note received at Hopewell in the mail of March 5, 1932, the kidnappers/extortionists raise the ransom amount to $70,000 dollars."
Sorry, Amy, I can't see Condon as an extortionist, only as an egotist. He's 72 years old at the time, seemingly living quite comfortably, especially considering it's at just about the trough of the Great Depression. He has no criminal record that we know of, but I'd agree he'd probably have come in contact with some bad guys, simply because there is hardly any way to avoid all of them if you know a lot of people in the Bronx at that time. In his Bronx Home News letter, doesn't he offer to add $1,000 of his own to the ransom payment? Why do that if, as you postulate, he's already made a deal for the $20,000 additional ransom payment to come his way? Do you think he made the $1,000 offer and wrote the Bronx Home News letter merely to fake good intentions to help Lindbergh get the baby back? Don't think so.
BTW, if you read Behn's book, you'll see that his theory is that second ransom note you mentioned delivered to Hopewell on March 5 (and all the later ones after the first) was written by a different author than the first. Not surprising that an interceptor of the first note - likely Nosso - could have raised the ransom simply because of his greed as compared to the original note writer. There is a tantalizing irony here, though, that Nosso and Condon may have met, or known of each other through others, even before this time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2014 0:25:28 GMT -5
The additional $20,000 asked for in that ransom note was done strictly by the extortionists. This was asked for before Condon was approached for help. I certainly agree that Condon had quite a large ego. He enjoyed all the attention and recognition he would receive for doing various good deeds.
Condon agreed to help the extortionists, not for money, but for the opportunity to be the man who returns the Lindbergh baby back to his family. This would be the greatest achievement in his life. He would become famous, not just known in the Bronx, but all over the world. You couldn't bait this man's ego any better than that. Condon was older and he would never see an opportunity like this again in his life. The letter in the Bronx Home News allows him to step into the case. His intentions aren't fake but the $1000 dollar offer makes the quick, planned response by the extortionists to his letter look innocent in the eyes of the public and the Lindberghs. Condon would post the letter and the extortionists would respond immediately to it. He would be the go-between who delivers the money and they will give him the child to return. That is why Condon agreed to help. It is important to remember something that CJ said to Condon during the meeting at Woodlawn Cemetery. CJ tells Condon that one of the gang knows him. That is important. It is why he was approached to assist as go-between to begin with.
I will have the Behn book next week. I look forward to reading it and getting a better understanding of Nosovitsky and Behn's other theories in the book.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 24, 2014 5:32:22 GMT -5
This whole artist thing then comes from the creative mind of John Condon. I would say the idea of a "Sketch Artist" was definitely BS. There's many levels of possibility which surround this story, but none rise to the point equal to Berryman sketching CJ. If there were, I would expect there would be evidence of it - and there is none - just this strange tale Jafsie told where he is telling an IRS Agent how to draw and erase geometric shapes which then magically turn into John's face. If we accept that both sketches we know exist and credited to Berryman actually were drawn by him, then no other sketch worthy of consideration existed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2014 10:41:03 GMT -5
When I read this it reminded me about an article Fulton Oursler wrote for Liberty Magazine. Oursler includes in that article a picture taken of a curtain in his library that Jafsie left his signature upon plus something else. Here is a link to that article which is from Ronelle's very informative website: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/ourslerjafsie.pdfWhen you read this article, you clearly see Condon's flare for drama. You also see his desire to have his place in history, and to keep attention on himself through his roll as Jafsie.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 26, 2014 20:49:39 GMT -5
To amy35, Michael, romeo12, et al:
Thanks, amy35, for the link to that Oursler article on Condon. (First time I've ever read anything by Oursler and first time I recall ever reading anything from Liberty Magazine.) I think he has Condon pegged pretty well, at least according to other stuff I've read and seen about Condon. Admittedly, though, he's a very unusual character.
Don't think that sketch that he did on the curtain at Oursler's place particularly resembles Hauptmann, nor any one. One talent Condon seems at a complete loss for is drawing human faces.
Does anyone know where Sandalwood (Oursler's place) is (or was)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 14:54:27 GMT -5
Hurtelable,
I don't know where Oursler's place was either beyond being in New York. Would be interesting to know though.
I am waiting on receiving Behn's book. Since you have a better understanding of Nosovitsky than I do, if Nosovitsky forged all the ransom notes based on the nursery note, and the handwriting in all the ransom notes looks alot like Hauptmann's writing, do you think that Hauptmann wrote the nursery note?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 27, 2014 21:36:03 GMT -5
To amy35, All:
I frankly have never seen any specimen of Hauptmann's handwriting. Perhaps you guys can post something. I know that at the Hauptmann trial, Osborne, the great handwriting expert of the age, testified that Hauptmann wrote all the notes. A defense handwriting expert said he did not write any of them. My guess is that the jury, overanxious to get Hauptmann, paid more attention to the German-style spelling and syntax in both the notes and Hauptmann's specimens than to the actual patterns of the letters in both the specimens and notes. The spelling and syntax would be similar to that in the notes for just about any native German writer who was not very literate in English, but the patterns of the letters would be different for different native German writers. I believe that Osborne, right after Hauptmann's arrest, wasn't very enthusiastic about Hauptmann being the ransom letter writer, but recall he was paid rather handsomely by the state of NJ for his testimony at trial. Money has a tendency to affect one's opinion on those kinds of issues.
I would think that whoever wrote the ransom notes, at least the last few of them, is in all likelihood Cemetery John. In other words, Bill Pelletreau, by identifying Noso ("J. J. Faulkner") as the writer of the all the ransom notes except the first, tells us that Noso was quite certain to have been Cemetery John. That's one of Behn's essential ideas, and he makes a good argument for it. It's sad that Behn didn't live very long after his book came out. (Hope he died of natural causes.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2014 13:02:21 GMT -5
Does Behn explain how Bill Pelletreau came to this conclusion? Was Pelletreau able to access the ransom notes to compare them to Noso's writing? There is a discussion ongoing on a different thread about the handwriting of the ransom notes. Did Noso write the ransom notes in disguised handwriting?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 1, 2014 9:46:00 GMT -5
To amy35:
Pelletreau's papers were found in his old home many years after his death, and that discovery was brought to Behn's attention through an intermediary, becoming a major inspiration for Behn to do his book.
Pelletreau, a private detective based in Jersey City at the time of the crime, had collected a large file of documents related to the Lindbergh case, in which he served two roles at two different times. His later role, which gave him the most access, was as (what today would be called) a forensic document examiner/consultant for Gov. Hoffman of New Jersey, who spent a lot of time and money reviewing the case after Hauptmann's conviction through multiple assistants. The ransom notes were in the state files, and so Pelletreau carefully studied them. So was the "J. J. Faulkner" bank deposit slip, to which he could compare it to. But the biggest specimen of "J. J. Faulkner" handwriting, which Pelletreau studied at the specific request of Hoffman, was well-publicized letter that "Faulkner" wrote and sent to the governor after Hauptman's conviction, in which "Faulkner" claimed that Hauptmann was innocent of the kidnapping/killing, but was suffering merely for his greed. Pelletreau compared the ransom notes to the "Faulkner" specimens and concluded that, except for the first ransom note, the same person wrote all of them.
The fact that "J. J. Faulkner" was Nosovitsky was pretty well known at the time, and "J.J. Faulkner" is indicated in Noso's NYPD file as one of his many aliases, as Behn states.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 11:18:30 GMT -5
I now have my own copy of the Behn book. A while back someone had lent me a copy which I looked through for a couple of things but never took the time to read and returned it. You have certainly given me reasons to check out this book more thoroughly.
I will read Behn's chapter "An International Spy" first to get a better understanding of Nosovitsky. Hopefully some of the things you mention in your above post will be in that chapter.
That J.J. Faulkner letter was an interesting read. I can see Hauptmann being involved with the Lindbergh case for the money but kidnapping and murdering the baby, not so much. I will check out what Behn has to say on all this.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 1, 2014 16:20:14 GMT -5
For the past year or so, I've been thinking on the extent of Hauptmann's true involvement in the case, and I believed that, broadly, it was something similar to what you described above--that he became involved after the fact, and, in any case, strictly for money, probably without even knowing its source. So up until last night, I thought he was a much more ancillary figure to even the extortion elements of the case, but, after seeing that $74.89 note, I'm now leaning more towards a heavier involvement, i.e. Hauptmann writing at least the first ransom note found in the nursery. But assuming for the moment he indeed was the author of the nursery note and wasn't involved in all other aspects of the plot (which I don't think he was), why would those who really knew what was going to happen to CAL Jr. have Hauptmann write that note and build a ladder? Were they trying to frame a potential fall guy? If so, how would they have gotten Hauptmann to go along with it? Did they have something on him? Did they promise him money (which seems to have been the driving force in his life)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 22:29:26 GMT -5
I am struggling with the same questions myself. If Hauptmann built that ladder and wrote the nursery note he must have known these were for a crime. But does he know they were for the kidnapping and murder of the Lindbergh baby at the time he is creating these items? Could he have been paid up front for the items and then found out later how they were used?
If Condon is to be believed, then there is a high government official at the helm of this crime. This official is not going out on his own to find people to participate in this crime. This official would use a trusted government source person to do this for him. Hypothetically, lets say this government official turns to someone like Nosovitsky who might be able to provide the names and information about several persons that could be brought in to carry out this crime. Noso is paid for the info and he is out of the picture. These names given over by Noso are people who have no criminal records (in America) but are not above doing illegal things for gain, may have things in their backgrounds that could ruin their lives if they are made known, are in need of or want money for various reasons, and most importantly will not talk. Could this have been how this gang was put together? Does Hauptmann meet this criteria? What about Condon? Red Johnson maybe? How about Isidor Fisch?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 1, 2014 22:42:56 GMT -5
To lightningjew et al:
Please explain what you mean by the "$74.89 note."
Also, now that you mentioned the ladder, you may know that the distance between the rungs on the ladder was 19 inches, considerably more than the standard 12 inches. It's been theorized that the distance between rungs was larger than standard in order to use fewer rungs and thereby reduce the ladder's weight. But what about this: couldn't the longer distance between rungs have been used to make it more comfortable for a long-legged man (which equates pretty much to a tall man) to use? Interestingly, all of the suspects any one has brought up as the "ladder man" were less than 6 feet tall. The only real tall man in the whole scenario seems to be Charles Lindbergh himself, ironically. Not trying to implicate him in the kidnapping, but it is a theory that has been mentioned by a few.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 1, 2014 23:02:53 GMT -5
To amy35 et al:
"Noso is paid for the info and he is out of the picture."
Do you mean that Noso is paid as Cemetery John? Well, if Noso is "J. J. Faulkner," which is pretty well accepted as a fact, he's never quite out of the picture, because his ego didn't permit it. In fact, as Hauptmann awaited execution, he wrote a letter to Gov. Hoffman trying to save Hauptmann from the chair. What was his motive? He didn't do so as a humanitarian. Even later, years after Hauptmann was executed, he injects himself into the case again by suing Condon for defamation. Why couldn't Noso leave "good enough" alone and fade into obscurity, which he eventually did though it took him a long time?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 2, 2014 0:45:24 GMT -5
Hi hurtelable, The $74.89 note is something Michael just posted in the 'Did Hauptmann Write This?' thread. It's a sample of his writing and has to do with a debit to Hauptmann's bank account for that amount. At first glance, as I said, I thought it was a copy of the nursery note; that's how similar the handwriting in those notes look to me. It's caused me to rethink Hauptmann's whole involvement, that maybe it was deeper than I've been thinking--to the extent of him possibly writing at least the first nursery ransom note. As to the ladder: I think it was designed to only be used once, for someone to wait at the top for a handoff from the nursery window, and then to be left behind to telegraph to observers that an intruder broke in through the SE corner window and abducted CAL Jr.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 9:31:22 GMT -5
I just started to read Behn's chapter on Nosovitsky yesterday. Quite interesting so far! I was using Noso as an example of how a government operative would have provided names of individuals who could be approached (individually)to "participate" in this crime. If Condon and the ransom notes are to be believed, plans were being shaped in 1931. People would be looked for who could be usable and likely to agree to perform a service when offered the opportunity. This is where a government operative would be very useful. Someone like Noso identifies potential persons of interest and provides that information to the government official. Behn makes this aspect of Nosovitsky very clear in his book on Page 358. He says how Noso's main commodity was information. He learned quickly that what someone knew was worth money and that governments and others would pay you for what information you could give them. I think that because information was provided, certain people were targeted by design in the LKC crime.
At this point, no, I don't mean that Nosovitsky was paid as Cemetary John. I haven't read enough of the Behn book yet to be able to make such an assumption. Is it an actual fact that he was the J.J. Faulkner who wrote out the deposit slip? I know the name was one of his aliases but does that automatically mean he is the person who did the ransom money exchange against that slip? I look forward to reading how Behn determines this to be a fact.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 2, 2014 16:21:34 GMT -5
Hey Amy, I do believe, when Condon said there was a high-level government official helming this whole thing, that he was more or less telling the truth as he actually heard it from CJ. Liars tend to mix in at least some facts with their fabrications, and I think this may've been one of those instances. We've called this government official "Mr. X" before, so I think, pretty much as you describe, that Mr. X--applying layers of insulation to himself and the one he was working for--I think Mr. X had guys who went out and found others to participate in the crime; to actually carry it out, to launder money, build a ladder, etc. Men like Hauptmann and Fisch would've been ideal for this kind of stuff--people with shady backgrounds, not above doing illegal things for gain, etc. These guys having families would be useful too ("Breathe A WORD, and they're dead..."). I think, as you say, this was probably something like how the group of kidnappers was put together (not to say all of them actually went to Hopewell on March 1)--with layers of insulation and disconnection, with very few participants knowing what was really going on, what was going to happen, what this ladder they were building was going to be used for, and so on. But I don't see Red Johnsen's involvement. Same thing with Nosovitsky. And Condon: I think he was decided on as a participant by these people beforehand, when they privately plotted to extort the $50K ransom. I think he was approached immediately after the crime, when they began to set this extortion plot in motion. But I don't think Condon knew what was really going on at that point. That is, I think Condon believed that the kidnapping was all it appeared to be, only realizing later, at Woodlawn, that CAL Jr. was dead. But as to the identity of Mr. X, CJ, the actual kidnappers, and other participants--no clue. Any likely suspects come to mind?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 2, 2014 17:53:03 GMT -5
To amy35 et al:
"Is it an actual fact that he was the J.J. Faulkner who wrote out the deposit slip? I know the name was one of his aliases but does that automatically mean he is the person who did the ransom money exchange against that slip?"
It would seem almost impossible for a "J. J. Faulkner" other than Nosovitsky to have used that name or alias. Law enforcement, especially NYPD and the FBI, made extensive checks on just about anyone named Faulkner they could possibly find in response to that deposit slip, including interviewing author William Falkner. Later, IIRC, following the J. J. Faulkner letter to Gov. Hoffman, of which copies were printed in newspapers, at least one individual who knew Noso in Canada said that the "Faulkner" handwriting in the letter looked like Noso's, and there were a few reports of this in Canadian newspapers. Seems as if Noso had some rather distinctive features in his handwriting (including his "k", which impressed Pelletreau and others).
Nosovitsky, given his very shady background, wouldn't be a surprising type of person to be carrying a significant amount of Lindbergh ransom gold notes in May 1933. In contrast to many at the time, he made a calculated gamble with respect to the new government monetary policy. He bet that he'd be better off exchanging his soon-to-be-illegal gold notes for new paper currency, which carried a risk of inflation. Others at the time thought that they should do the reverse, i.e., exchange other currency or valuable items (on a "black market") for gold certificates carrying a higher paper value, speculating that the gold certificates would still carry value as medium of exchange in ordinary private business transactions, even though the feds had declared them illegal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 9:19:04 GMT -5
I think Condon was approached right after the March 4 ransom letter was mailed and received at Hopewell on March 5. I don't think that Condon knew that the baby was dead and the bait they used to hook him was an appeal to his pride/ego. If he would please help them secure the ransom and not get caught, then he would be the one to return the "little eaglet" to his parents. For Condon this is an offer he couldn't refuse. By being the man who returned the Lindbergh baby to his parents he would be world famous and have his place in the history books. He agrees to help them. He is now on the hook. He would write and place the letter in the Bronx Home News and step into this case as agreed.
Still working on this. I don't think that the underworld had anything to do with this crime. I think the people used were not in any mugshot books. I do want to say about Red Johnson that I don't see him as being involved either. However, this crime required a source of inside knowledge and I would see Red Johnson being that source if no one else in the Lindbergh/Morrow households were involved. Red would have been useful for his knowledge of the Lindbergh family activites because of his attachment to Betty Gow, he also knew well how to get to the Hopewell house, having been there several times. He knew the layout of the grounds and the interior of the house. He would have been a good source person for the kidnappers to seek out. The fact that he was in the country illegally would have been used to secure his cooperation. Like I said though, I don't think he was involved at this point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 10:23:54 GMT -5
I wish that Behn would have put additional pictures of Noso's handwriting in his book. It would have been helpful to see what Noso's "k" looked like. Personally I think that the first note (nursery note) is linked to the second one and all the others. That unique symbol with the 3 holes does this plus another issue that has nothng to do with handwriting. I am putting a link here to the blog of Mark Falzini the archivist at the New Jersey State Police Museum. He is a super resource when it comes to this kidnapping. He did this very informative article on his blog several years ago about the ransom notes. www.njspmuseum.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2008-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2009-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=7I am reading carefully through the Noso chapter. He has quite a complicated history with so many dealings with many types of individuals and organizations. I am just now getting to the William Pelletreau handwriting findings. I am a notetaker when I read and will stop and research names, places, and events writers bring up in their text so it takes me a little longer to get through a chapter. I appreciate your patience.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 3, 2014 11:35:20 GMT -5
To amy35:
"I think Condon was approached right after the March 4 ransom letter was mailed and received at Hopewell on March 5."
Sorry, Amy, absolutely no record of this. Approaching Condon at the Lindbergh camp's initiative at that point would have required some pre-existing connection between Lindbergh's camp and Condon. Condon was not the type of person to have traveled in Lindbergh's exclusive circles, so there would have to be some intermediary who know both Condon and someone in Lindbergh's camp before the purported kidnapping, and who could have arranged the liaison at that point. Do you have any idea who this intermediary might have been?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 3, 2014 11:42:04 GMT -5
Amy, Agreed. I think the kidnappers had already been paid upfront and (at least some of them) privately decided in advance to extort an extra $50K--treating the amount mentioned in the first note as if it was meant to be paid all along, as if it were actual ransom. In order to pull this off, they needed a go-between and, knowing of Condon, they picked him in advance, assuming they'd have to pay him something. This is why the March 4 note mentions another person having to be brought in and the ransom being raised by $20K. That was to be Condon's fee. They drop that note in the mail, and, as Gardner describes on p. 100 of his book, go to Condon that same day, asking for his help. He refuses the $20K, saying that all he wants is to put CAL Jr. in Anne Lindbergh's arms again when the time comes, and, in return, he'll do everything he can to make sure the kidnappers don't get caught. Then he finds out at Woodlawn that CAL Jr. has actually been dead all along. Panicking at having been duped into helping murderers, he goes into full BS mode and, at the next cemetery meeting, removes what was to be his $20K fee from the ransom packet--insulating the kidnappers, since that amount contains the largest and most traceable bills. He kills two birds with one stone here too, since he can also use this as another example of his altruism ("I saved Lindy $20K!"). And Red Johnsen looks like a likely suspect, but, like you, ultimately I don't see it. I agree that there was an insider, but one, I think, with far more control and knowledge of the situation as to make Red Johnsen unnecessary. But I do agree that no one involved in this would've had a mugshot or anything. They had to be pretty anonymous characters.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 3, 2014 11:53:02 GMT -5
Hurtelable, If the kidnappers were Bronx-based, at least one of them could've easily heard of Condon and known him--just as Condon claimed CJ said--without there having to be prelaid arrangements between Condon and Lindbergh. Condon was known in the Bronx and was therefore picked in advance by these Bronx-based people, who knew they could count on his ego to draw him in as a go-between.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 3, 2014 14:28:39 GMT -5
To lightningjew, amy35, et al:
"If the kidnappers were Bronx-based, at least one of them could've easily heard of Condon and known him--just as Condon claimed CJ said--without there having to be prelaid arrangements between Condon and Lindbergh. Condon was known in the Bronx and was therefore picked in advance by these Bronx-based people, who knew they could count on his ego to draw him in as a go-between."
I could agree with that. But I was interpreting Amy's statement to be that the initiative for Condon's entrance into the case came from the Lindbergh camp because it mentioned the second ransom note being received at Hopewell on March 5 as precipitating Condon's entrance. Perhaps I misread Amy's intended meaning.
BTW, Nosovitsky did have connections to the Bronx, which is one of the reasons I believe he was CJ. But there are other reasons, even more compelling.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 3, 2014 14:43:46 GMT -5
To lightningjew:
"I think the kidnappers had already been paid upfront..."
Paid by whom and when and how? Under what strange circumstances would "kidnappers" of a baby be paid "upfront" by the victim's parents? Are you buying into Noel Behn's theory that the baby had already been dead and that the "kidnapping" was a farce staged to distract attention from a Lindbergh family member's involvement in the killing, in which case the ransom payment would be part of that farce as well?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 3, 2014 18:46:31 GMT -5
Am I buying into Behn's theory? Well, yes and no. I don't think, as he did, that Elisabeth Morrow had anything to do with it, but, broadly speaking, I do think the kidnapping was a ruse to disguise a family member's involvement in the disappearance and death of CAL Jr. I don't think it was as spur-of-the-moment as Behn says, either; all thrown together over that previous weekend. Rather, I think this had been planned for many months leading up to 3/1/32--which leads me to another point, in answer to your first question: It certainly would be strange for a child's parents to pay for a kidnapping of their child--unless those parents (or parent) had some special reason for wanting their child out of the picture.
|
|