|
Questions
Jul 13, 2016 20:12:00 GMT -5
via mobile
john likes this
Post by lightningjew on Jul 13, 2016 20:12:00 GMT -5
Though I think the extortion scheme had been cooked up and Condon chosen as a go-between beforehand, I think he was approached for this purpose within a day or two of CAL Jr.'s disappearance. He was asked to participate and offered the chance of being the one to place the baby in Anne Lindbergh's arms when the time came, plus $20K. He and the kidnappers agreed to "establish" contact with each other, with Condon publicly offering to act as a go-between by placing his open letter in the Home News--an offer that the kidnappers would accept by sending Condon a response with the same symbol seen in the nursery note, legitimizing him as being in touch with the right parties. Once Condon was in and then found out that CAL Jr. was dead, he couldn't back out. I think he was afraid the kidnappers would reveal that he was in touch with them earlier than he claimed and that he had therefore not been on the up and up. Anyway, he could've gotten in serious trouble for not turning them in as soon as the kidnappers contacted him and identified themselves. He'd be guilty of conspiracy and his pillar-of-the-community image would be severely tarnished if not destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Jul 14, 2016 2:10:08 GMT -5
I remain baffled by Condon, really. I just can't figure him out. Sounds as if -- and I sure HOPE -- that he is one area where Michael's book is going to throw some new light.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 14, 2016 2:32:49 GMT -5
Well, this certainly explains how Condon got into the LKC, LJ. This also explains why the Bronx figured so "inexorably" in the case, though I have to wonder if you're not leaving sufficient room for serendipity (for want of a better word) inasmuch as we are perhaps not leaving enough space in the LKC timeline for error and misunderstanding; the household staff, Betty Gow in particular, excepted. Surely they, or she anyway, couldn't have been, along with Condon, one of only two people "taken", early on, by Lindbergh's maneuvering.
There are also whoever CAL contacted to write the ransom notes, come up with the strange symbols, which, for all the research done on them I've never read to my way of thinking a satisfactory explanation for why they were chosen to look that way they did. Then there's the matter of why,--and I'm assuming this was Lindy's decision--there appears to be a strong German connection to the case: in the ransom note; in Cemetery John, despite his protestations to the contrary; to the then heavily ethnically German borough of the Bronx; to, ultimately, Hauptmann, with his rather cavalier and careless use of the ransom bills in the summer of 1934.
The only good reason I can come up with for CAL's decision, assuming that this was a conscious choice, to bring Germans into the picture would be to take attention away from the better known, indeed, at the time, far more infamous (and IRL far more amorphous) Mob, which was associated in the public mind with Al Capone and various other Italian-American criminals as well as a large number of Jews, most of whom kept lower profiles but who were, in those days, nearly a powerful in organized crime of the Prohibition era. It surely wasn't an early example of political correctness on Lindbergh's part.
I think he deliberately set out to make the kidnapping appear like more of a rogue operation than a Mob-driven one. The German "piece",--the bad handwriting, poor English grammar, misspellings--drew attention away from organized crime, making it far more difficult for LE to get the goods, so to speak, on the perps. Also, in those pre-Hitler days (1932, before Hitler came to full power in Germany) Germans in America were regarded as the most desirable immigrants of all: hard working, thrifty, with a strong work ethic. Better still, there were and had been for some time many prominent German-Americans, from Carl Schurz to "Black Jack" Pershing, Walter Chrysler to H.L. Mencken.
If Lindbergh had used more "ethnic" type criminals, whether Italian, Greek, Armenian, Rumanian or Jewish, it would have raised different kinds of outrage. Imagine a ransom note written by what appeared to be someone of eastern or southern European ancestry, and all the outcry there would have been for mass deportations and the like; even a possible revival of the Klan. With the finding of the body of CAL, Jr. things would have got even worse. No, Germans were safe. If it was Lindbergh's choice to go with the German "angle", he chose wisely. As to what happened later, after Hauptmann's arrest and the Jewish David Wilentz going after BRH with hammer and tong, well, this was already a different time. Lindbergh could not have anticipated this.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 14, 2016 8:41:11 GMT -5
I think the people who were chosen to go to Hopewell were indeed chosen out of the Bronx, but I don't know if one ethnicity was chosen over the other for any particular reason. I think the main characteristics that were looked for was a certainly lack of scruples--that is, not being above doing illegal things for money--as well as being nondescript and anonymous (that is, able to disappear into the woodwork). That being said, I do think they were carefully chosen, and since there was Germanic phrasing in the notes and Hauptmann himself was German (and a note in his handwriting, posted somewhere on this board, looks an awful lot like the nursery note), I do think Hauptmann was in it up to his neck, even setting aside all the other circumstantial evidence against him. But whether he was chosen specifically because he was German, whether that played any role, I don't know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 8:48:09 GMT -5
Once Condon was in and then found out that CAL Jr. was dead, he couldn't back out. I think he was afraid the kidnappers would reveal that he was in touch with them earlier than he claimed and that he had therefore not been on the up and up. Anyway, he could've gotten in serious trouble for not turning them in as soon as the kidnappers contacted him and identified themselves. He'd be guilty of conspiracy and his pillar-of-the-community image would be severely tarnished if not destroyed. I agree with your assessment on why Condon stayed the course. He had to protect himself from being implicated if he was in contact before he placed that letter in the BHN. Still, maybe he could have denied that first contact ever took place. Then he could have helped Lindbergh to avoid paying out ransom money for a son who he knew was dead. He had the power to single handedly expose the kidnappers/extortioners, being a hero in this way once he knew he could not get Charlie back alive. Condon would have been believed over anything those perps said. Do you think that Condon knew or maybe suspected that Lindbergh knew more than he was revealing about the kidnapping?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 8:59:04 GMT -5
there appears to be a strong German connection to the case: in the ransom note; in Cemetery John, despite his protestations to the contrary; to the then heavily ethnically German borough of the Bronx; to, ultimately, Hauptmann, with his rather cavalier and careless use of the ransom bills in the summer of 1934. I agree that you can't miss the German connection that exists with this kidnapping. You state that very well. There was also that German stein sitting on the window sill of the window that was supposedly used for the kidnapping. Do you think that this kidnapping could have been used for political purposes? Is this an early attempt to build anti-german sediments in America?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 14, 2016 11:41:56 GMT -5
It's certainly possible that Condon suspected something was up, as far as Lindbergh was concerned. I mean, we really don't know what CJ told him at Woodlawn. What I do think was revealed in that conversation was that the child was dead, but who knows what else? CJ could've told Condon a lot more that night...
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 14, 2016 12:32:34 GMT -5
Some interesting thoughts here.
LJ: I think you may have nailed the reason for the Bronx and the German connection, which is that Germans, or German-Americans, were, in appearance, more nondescript, would disappear into the woodwork, so to speak, more easily than more "ethnic" types. One only has to think of the number of times the "swarthy" or "Rumanian looking" cemetery lookout was mentioned; how many people believed, later on, that it was likely to have been Isador Fisch, to understand why, if Lindbergh deliberately chose Germans to work with, he did so. A German in a heavy overcoat wearing a hat is just a man in an overcoat dressed for winter. He would be unlikely to be singled out for anything else.
As to why Lindbergh didn't simply choose regular Americans, well, he was himself one of them, thus a touch of the exotic was a nice way of drawing attention away from himself. He also tended to associate with, be friends with, Americans. As to the Hauptmann involvement in the LKC, he was indeed up to his neck in it, whether it was bad luck or not: his garage was full of ransom bills, he lived in the Bronx; he bore at the very least a passing resemblance to Cemetery John, including his thick accent; and there was his criminal background in Germany, his arriving in America illegally; nor did his story of the shoebox he was given by Isador Fisch seem an adequate explanation for the weight of circumstantial evidence against him as having been at the very least a minor player in the LKC, the admission to which could have saved his life.
Amy: I doubt that Lindbergh was so prescient as to have thought of using a German connection so as to stir the pot, so to speak, politically or socially. He was in my opinion too introspective for that. He had his share of friends and associates, being a public figure and all, but he was a man who thought for himself, came to opinions and conclusions about things in a manner wholly his own. In choosing people from the Bronx to work with him in his kidnap scheme he was probably at best going out of his way to find individuals of the sort he'd be unlikely to hang out with,--corner bar and pool hall types--which makes the kidnapping seem all the more "alien", as to having been done by very "un-Lindbergh" people. The literally foreign connection was an added bonus. That the ransom note is difficult to read and wholly understand is a "nice touch" that wouldn't have been there if it had been written by an American. One thought that just popped into my head: that the world war had ended less than fourteen full years at the time of CAL, Jr.'s disappearance does suggest that "Germans as bad guys" may have been a factor,--I just don't think that Lindbergh's mind worked that way--and I do remember seeing American silent movies of "evil Huns" engaging in all manner of bad behavior, including, in one memorable scene, tossing a baby out a window!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 19:54:57 GMT -5
It's certainly possible that Condon suspected something was up, as far as Lindbergh was concerned. I mean, we really don't know what CJ told him at Woodlawn. What I do think was revealed in that conversation was that the child was dead, but who knows what else? CJ could've told Condon a lot more that night... I, too, think it is in the realm of possibility that CJ might have told Condon more than he was admitting to knowing. If CJ was willing to tell Condon that Charlie was dead, why not tell him other details. I went back to review what Condon says CJ told him about the "gang". He said: There were 6 altogether. #1 man was head of the gang. He was a very big man who had once (past tense) worked for the government. #2 man was a smart man also. He knows Dr. Condon and told the others that Dr. Condon was a fine man. Two other men who are not described. Two women who are caring for Charlie. I have to admit I found myself wondering why CJ would have admitted Charlie was dead and then go on to tell Condon that two women are taking care of him on a boat. If Condon is to be believed and CJ actually said all this about the kidnappers, how does Lindbergh fit into this picture?
|
|
|
Questions
Jul 14, 2016 21:44:21 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by lightningjew on Jul 14, 2016 21:44:21 GMT -5
I think a lot of Condon's description of that conversation was made up. Boad Nelly, the nurses--it's impossible to say for sure, but I don't think much of that conversation was real. I think it turned into more of a planning session, once it was revealed the baby was dead: "We have to come up with a cover story, to keep the idea going that the baby's alive, so you can get your money and I can save face. Let's say... he's on a boat. You write a note saying so, and have it ready for the next time we meet. In the meantime, we need some proof he's alive. Can you get ahold of his sleeping suit...?" Something like that.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 15, 2016 9:31:33 GMT -5
Amy, in several different sources, I've seen the lower photo (or similar photos) of the police climbing the ladder attempting to simulate an entry into the nursery from it. Somehow, I was under the impression that these police tests were done mostly in preparation for the Hauptmann trial after Hauptmann's arrest, rather than in the months in 1932 immediately following the purported kidnapping.
In the photo posted here, it appears that police are locating the ladder directly in line with the the nursery window, rather than to the right of the nursery window. But placing the base of the ladder directly in line with the window would seem to be inconsistent with the markings of the base of the ladder found in the soil a few feet to the right of the window. So why would they place the ladder in the position they did?
IIRC, according to testimony at the Hauptmann trial, no police investigators were successfully able to simulate an entry into the nursery from the ladder placed to the right of the window, followed by an exit with a fake "baby" back down onto the ladder. (This should have debunked the prosecution's entire theory but the the jurors were too biased and brainwashed to pay attention.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 20:34:17 GMT -5
In the photo posted here, it appears that police are locating the ladder directly in line with the the nursery window, rather than to the right of the nursery window. But placing the base of the ladder directly in line with the window would seem to be inconsistent with the markings of the base of the ladder found in the soil a few feet to the right of the window. So why would they place the ladder in the position they did? I have not gone over the ladder testimony yet from the trial transcript so I don't know exactly how they explained what they did and did not do. After the crime occurred the police tried numerous ways to enter the nursery, including putting the ladder where it hadn't been placed, using 3 sections not just 2 sections, plus they used several different ladders to make the climb. I think they found it quite challenging getting in through that window and were just experimenting. I am sure this had something to do with why, at first, it was suspected that the ladder may have been a prop. I guess we have to keep in mind that this is 1932 and police investigative techniques were not as developed as we are accustomed to in 2016.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 22:02:10 GMT -5
Michael,
I wasn't sure where to post this so I decided to put it here.
In Fisher's book, The Lindbergh Case, on page 205, he says that when J. Edgar Hoover arrived in New York after Hauptmann's arrest, that Hoover actually took part in questioning Hauptmann. He then offers up some of the questions Hoover asked and the answers Hauptmann gave. He doesn't have a footnote for this question and answer exchange so I am wondering if this ever happened. Can you comment on this? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 29, 2016 17:21:53 GMT -5
In Fisher's book, The Lindbergh Case, on page 205, he says that when J. Edgar Hoover arrived in New York after Hauptmann's arrest, that Hoover actually took part in questioning Hauptmann. He then offers up some of the questions Hoover asked and the answers Hauptmann gave. He doesn't have a footnote for this question and answer exchange so I am wondering if this ever happened. Can you comment on this? Thanks! It's smart for you to verify his quoted material since so much of it is completely made up. Here he is quoting the transcriptions labeled 9-20-34 - 2:40PM. While I trust these they were transcribed at different times but put together on numbered pages. These numbers do not necessarily represent chronological order so it's a confusing thing. Also, some of the times on them differ from the reports so it's a puzzle as to which source one will go with and has caused me a lot of stress trying to make that personal decision myself. There's two more questions he left off so I will post them: [Hoover]: The General here made a deal, lay your cards on the table; don't you care for your wife and baby? [Hauptmann]: More then anything in the world.
[Hoover]: Why did you lie last night about this money, to the officers, you didn't tell them? [Hauptmann]: I figured it would put me in a more difficult spot to explain and now I have to explain anyway.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 4, 2017 9:25:05 GMT -5
I think Lindbergh took CAL Jr. to Carrel, who confirmed his suspicions by officially diagnosing the child as "not right". Would you go so far as to speculate that CAL would let Carrel treat CALjr?
Might CAL allow CALjr to be the subject of an experimental treatment perhaps, seeing as how CAL figures the baby is destined to be euthanized anyway?
Thus, the kidnapping story was devised to get CALjr to Carrel in New York, in a clandestine fashion away from the media, and allow an extended examination or treatment that (if successful) would allow the baby to be miraculously returned and (also "cured") and if not, be found dead - killed at the hands of those dirty kidnappers.
This could also account for the advanced decomposition when the baby was ultimately found, with the missing body parts/organs removed to eliminate any evidence of defects or the effects of whatever "treatment" might have been attempted.
It might also explain the reactions of Anne and Betty upon learning of the child's death - comforted by the notion that they had "tried to help" poor CALjr but in the end, he was in a better place...
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 4, 2017 12:20:29 GMT -5
Wow. That's quite a question, and, to answer it, being a eugenicist is one thing--believing that "superior" humans can be created or bred--but going to Mengele-esque extremes of allowing CAL Jr. to be experimented on by Carrel is another. That might be going a bit far. I don't think the child was destined to be euthanized, not until Carrel confirmed Lindbergh's suspicions that there was something wrong and the condition was incurable. At that point, I think Lindbergh decided the child had to go. And as to your point about organs: The organs that were left in the body were ones that scavengers usually go for. It's almost like they were diseased and therefore unpalatable or something... And I know it's in another thread, but your point about Lindbergh inventing the "orange crate" sound to create a certain timeline of events--one in which he was in the presence of others when the kidnapping actually occurred and therefore couldn't have participated in any way... Yup.
Love your profile pic, btw.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 4, 2017 13:57:04 GMT -5
This is incredible.. considering the child's only real known affliction was a moderate case of rickets.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 4, 2017 14:32:39 GMT -5
Wow. That's quite a question, and, to answer it, being a eugenicist is one thing--believing that "superior" humans can be created or bred--but going to Mengele-esque extremes of allowing CAL Jr. to be experimented on by Carrel is another. That might be going a bit far.
From the Amazon book description of The Immortalists:
I wasn't thinking along the lines of Mengele-esque extremes, but at this stage in their relationship, maybe Lindbergh's thinking was that the humane thing to do was euthanize the child if there was something significantly wrong that they couldn't engineer a solution to or that they might learn something valuable in the process. It is my understanding that a significant amount of what we know about hypothermia came from experiments conducted by Mengele and the Nazis under conditions we would never consider replicating today.
From the Wikipedia article on Carrel:
If there was a doctor's opinion on the fate of CALjr that CAL would accept, it would certainly seem to be Carrel's. I guess this wasn't even a novel thought...
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 4, 2017 15:00:53 GMT -5
Could be that experimentation was viewed as a kind of benefit, and, either way, I absolutely agree that if there was a medical opinion that Lindbergh would've listened to, it would've been Carrel's. And what's "incredible" to me is that Lindbergh baby, of all babies, was suffering from rickets or a rickety condition--with rickets being a poor person's disease, contracted from Vitamin D deficiency, i.e. malnutrition. Was the world's most famous baby--America's crown prince, no less--poor? No, quite the reverse--so why was he displaying signs of significant undernourishment...?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 4, 2017 15:22:04 GMT -5
I wasn't familiar with the condition so I looked it up on WebMD.
Since rickets is due to an "extreme and prolonged vitamin D deficiency" you have to wonder why baby and/or mother weren't getting enough Vitamin D during and after the pregnancy. Was Anne vitamin deficient as well?
Obviously lack of access to and funds for the right foods to normally maintain a healthy diet were not an issue.
Some children are born with or develop medical conditions that affect the way their bodies absorb vitamin D. Some examples include: •Celiac disease •Inflammatory bowel disease •Cystic fibrosis •Kidney problems
It seems that signs of rickets or its development appears within a few months after birth. Not sure why these conditions are lingering twenty months on, especially if there was aggressive treatment (sunlamps, Viosterol, etc.) unless it was only one of several issues manifesting in other ways (i.e. enlarged head, open fontanel)
Left untreated, rickets can lead to: •Failure to grow •Abnormally curved spine •Skeletal deformities •Dental defects •Seizures
Maybe some seizures had already occurred, which would have really freaked out CAL and his eugenics beliefs (given how epilepsy was viewed back then) and put the whole removal process in motion...
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 4, 2017 15:42:10 GMT -5
Love your profile pic, btw. Thanks, saw it on Pinterest of all places...
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on May 4, 2017 17:43:23 GMT -5
Rickets is a condition which stems from poor nutrition, which we know CAL Jr. did not have. His condition was getting worse, not better. Even the Doctor had trouble getting him to stand. His head was too big and fontanelle not closed. There was something wrong, but it certainly wasn't rickets - though a "rickety type condition" does a fair job of explaining some of the symptoms. Gardner, by consulting contemporary medical doctors, speculates it was hydrocephalus. It can also be speculated that there is a good likelyhood the high altitude flight CAL forced Anne to take while seven months pregnant in a non-pressurized cabin contributed to the child's illness.
As far as Carrel, it is likely Lindbergh consulted with him on his child's condition given his experience and shared belief in eugenics (well documented).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 5, 2017 5:31:52 GMT -5
If you go to page 198 of Lloyd's book you will see mentioned there something about getting Dr. VanIngen an interview "off the record." I've always found this to be interesting. Here is the document footnoted at #62, and I am also posting another version from a different Memo about the exact same thing. Getting both versions to compare can be vitally important to understanding it's context.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 5, 2017 9:37:37 GMT -5
Rickets can mask other conditions. I'll look up a differential diagnosis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 13:49:31 GMT -5
I realize that it is possible that Charlie could have had hydrocephalus. There are two types: 1) Congenital, which is present at birth and may be caused by events or influences that occur during fetal development. We could then consider the high altitude flight as a possible cause for this form of hydrocephalus. 2) Acquired, develops at time of birth or sometime afterward. This type can affect someone at any age. It is usually caused by injury or disease. Hydrocephalus was well known in 1930 as well as 1932. I am wondering how Charlie could have been misdiagnosed and was being treated for rickets if he actually had hydrocephalus. Dr. Van Ingen was an excellent pediatrician. Yet his letter to Mrs. Morrow gave no indication that something as serious as hydrocephalus was wrong with her grandson. I find it hard to believe that Van Ingen could have missed something so serious or at least suspected something more serious might be involved. Maybe he was not giving a complete picture of Charlie's true health in that letter to Mrs Morrow? Johns Hopkins Hospital would have been the place to take Charlie if he needed treatment for hydrocephalus. They developed the first real procedures for this condition which were pioneered by Dr. Walter Dandy in 1919. He was still at Johns Hopkins in the 1930's. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Dandy
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 5, 2017 14:03:15 GMT -5
Amy, look up Cleidocranial Dysplasia! I've cared for infants with acquired hydrocephalus and their little heads are enormous and so heavy they made my arm ache to hold them. Their little faces look tiny in comparison to the rest of the head. I think people were told rickets but he probably had some condition much more serious. I don't think anything would have been released concerning his health, even diet, if it hadn't been for the crime. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 5, 2017 14:10:36 GMT -5
Let's hope Van Ingen's "shyness" didn't prevent the communication of potentially difficult to hear information to the relatives of his patients.
Both documents that Michael posted specifically mention his shyness. Probably scared of adults so he became a pediatrician.
He better be good at what he does... I wouldn't want my kid's physician to have the temperament of a deer in the woods.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 15:02:35 GMT -5
Let's hope Van Ingen's "shyness" didn't prevent the communication of potentially difficult to hear information to the relatives of his patients. Both documents that Michael posted specifically mention his shyness. Probably scared of adults so he became a pediatrician. He better be good at what he does... I wouldn't want my kid's physician to have the temperament of a deer in the woods. Perhaps what Mr. Garvan chose to call "shyness" was really about Dr. Van Ingen being selective about who he would speak with in a revealing manor about his clients. Dr. Van Ingen was a highly regarded and respected pediatrician. He was a member of many committees and sat as head of some of these. He was President of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1937. I really think Mr. Garvan was being protective of his friend when he was using the descriptive term of shyness. Here is a link to Dr. Van Ingen's formal obituary. After you click on the link, click on the yellow block for the full pdf file you can read and download it if you wish. Your kids would have been in very good hands with Dr. Van Ingen. pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/12/3/339.full.pdf+html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 15:03:20 GMT -5
Amy, look up Cleidocranial Dysplasia! I've cared for infants with acquired hydrocephalus and their little heads are enormous and so heavy they made my arm ache to hold them. Their little faces look tiny in comparison to the rest of the head. I think people were told rickets but he probably had some condition much more serious. I don't think anything would have been released concerning his health, even diet, if it hadn't been for the crime. What do you think? I will look this up and get back to you!
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 5, 2017 15:14:50 GMT -5
Perhaps what Mr. Garvan chose to call "shyness" was really about Dr. Van Ingen being selective about who he would speak with in a revealing manor about his clients. I really think Mr. Garvan was being protective of his friend when he was using the descriptive term of shyness. Quite the resume... I concur, Garvan probably meant "discreet" not shyness in being reluctant to disclose patient information, even to extended family or law enforcement. His competency is likely beyond question given the accolades in that obit.
|
|