|
Post by Wayne on Oct 29, 2021 13:04:30 GMT -5
...We do this by going to him and saying 'We're the kidnappers of the Lindbergh Baby, and we need your help in giving him back to his parents. You're a great man, one who's devoted his life to helping others, so will you help us as an intermediary?'... So, the kidnappers approach Condon and say that they are the kidnappers of the most famous baby in the world and Condon accepts that these are the kidnappers without one iota of proof that they are? I guess that makes sense. Not to me, but... $50,000 was delivered to Condon's house on March 17th. Why did Condon wait over two weeks to give the money to his compadres in crime?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 29, 2021 13:17:01 GMT -5
What's there in black and white is Condon making an offer to the kidnappers, injecting himself into the case, and the kidnappers accepting that offer and identifying Condon as a go-between--when there was no realistic way for the kidnappers to have randomly seen Condon's offer as quickly as they apparently did and no real reason for them to respond to it at all--not without all that being pre-arranged. Since Condon didn't specifically offer himself as go-between in those exact words, he could've been hedging his bets: "We've agreed that I'll put myself out there as an intermediary in the Lindbergh Kidnapping, and it's an intriguing proposition and potentially great opportunity, but I'm not sure if these guys are legit. So I'll just make a more general public appeal to them and see what happens. That way, if I'm being pranked, they won't be able to tell anyone that they made a fool of me and I'll have done nothing more than seem altruistic by offering some of my own money for the child's safe return." As to how the kidnappers would've been able to blackmail Condon into this, I'm not sure. The biggest thing against him was the 1904 molestation charge, for which, as you say, he was exonerated. Outside of that, there didn't seem to be much on him, which is why I don't necessarily think Condon was blackmailed into participation, but was instead enticed. I think the kidnappers were Bronx-based and knew (or knew of) Condon, a well-known local blowhard and community leader. They knew of his vanity, his penchant for the limelight, and his reputation as a consummate BS-er, so they knew he could help them blackmail Lindbergh: "We bring him in as an intermediary who Lindbergh will have no choice to accept and give the $50K to, to then pass on to us. We do this by going to him and saying 'We're the kidnappers of the Lindbergh Baby, and we need your help in giving him back to his parents. You're a great man, one who's devoted his life to helping others, so will you help us as an intermediary?' Then, once he's in--having received a letter with the unique symbol, proving our legitimacy and he therefore can't back out--we reveal to him the baby's dead. At that point, with a dead child in the mix, he'll have to cover our tracks and his own actual involvement--sending the police chasing their tails with his BS--and make sure we get our money and disappear, so we never reveal how he really got involved." I think that's more or less what happened. Also, while there was some investigation, I also don't think they did a full throated deep dive into Condon like they did with Hauptmann. Same reason he was never really held against a wall for his lies and deceit. All of these agencies were competing to get information from him and none wanted to upset him.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 29, 2021 13:25:23 GMT -5
...We do this by going to him and saying 'We're the kidnappers of the Lindbergh Baby, and we need your help in giving him back to his parents. You're a great man, one who's devoted his life to helping others, so will you help us as an intermediary?'... So, the kidnappers approach Condon and say that they are the kidnappers of the most famous baby in the world and Condon accepts that these are the kidnappers without one iota of proof that they are? I guess that makes sense. Not to me, but... $50,000 was delivered to Condon's house on March 17th. Why did Condon wait over two weeks to give the money to his compadres in crime? I think you're also overstating the chance someone would approach him and claim to be the kidnappers if they weren't. You can parse the language in Condon's letter, but it's clear he's offering to go to great lengths to aid and he did act as an intermediary based on the BHN. Without a complicit Condon, it requires an awful lot of leaps to explain away all his lies. I don't understand how someone could excuse it (claiming the ransom box was made up of various woods when it was not, hiding who made it, secretly paying the ransom in a totally different location, the second cab driver, the needle salesman, Tuckahoe, Hauptmann's ID, CJ's appearance, etc). None of these can be pinned down to a "forgetful old man," he was constantly changing his story - yet others will often laud him for his memory when it suit's Hauptmann's conviction. As to why there was a two week gap, who knows? Many different reasons are available. I don't think the delay exonerates him in any way.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 29, 2021 14:17:16 GMT -5
What real "proof" could the kidnappers have offered that they had the child, since the child was dead all along? Anyway--once again--Condon could very well have been skeptical that these were the genuine kidnappers, but not knowing the child was dead, in his mind, what did he have to lose by just putting the pre-arranged offer out there and seeing what happened? If the kidnappers weren't legit, nothing would happen; if they were, he gets money and fame.
Doesn't seem too farfetched. Not to me, but...
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 29, 2021 15:19:26 GMT -5
What real "proof" could the kidnappers have offered that they had the child, since the child was dead all along? Anyway--once again--Condon could very well have been skeptical that these were the genuine kidnappers, but not knowing the child was dead, in his mind, what did he have to lose by just putting the pre-arranged offer out there and seeing what happened? If the kidnappers weren't legit, nothing would happen; if they were, he gets money and fame. Doesn't seem too farfetched. Not to me, but... Interesting. Madeleine McCann vanished from her parents' holiday apartment in Portugal in May 2007, just before her 4th birthday. She has not been seen since then. Her disappearance made and continues to make world-wide news and is still being investigated. So if I were to walk up to you this afternoon and say, "Lightningjew, I have Madeleine McCann. I don't have any proof that I have her, you'll just have to trust me. I want you to be my go-between." You would say "Sure"?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 29, 2021 16:05:40 GMT -5
OMG, you have Madeline McCann?!? Can you send me her sleeping suit as proof?!? I mean, of course I wouldn't accept that claim at face value, because, first, I'm not the self-aggrandizing, vainglorious--and therefore easily manipulated--ass that Condon was. Anyway, while you and I are strangers, by contrast, I tend to think one of the kidnappers knew Condon, so Condon would've trusted his word more than that of some random stranger. And again, either way, what did Condon have to lose by just putting the offer out there to see what happened? After all, he kept his BHN letter pretty general, just offering some of his own money for the child's return. Or the kidnappers could've had something on him to force his participation. All I'm really saying is that it's highly suspect that a gang of kidnappers responsible for the so-called Crime of the Century, which dominated the headlines around the world, would see Condon's letter in such a relatively small paper as quickly as they apparently did, and accept the services of such a person, without there being a pre-laid plan for that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 29, 2021 17:20:46 GMT -5
So, the kidnappers approach Condon and say that they are the kidnappers of the most famous baby in the world and Condon accepts that these are the kidnappers without one iota of proof that they are? I guess that makes sense. Not to me, but... $50,000 was delivered to Condon's house on March 17th. Why did Condon wait over two weeks to give the money to his compadres in crime? Wayne, In this instance what I see you doing is creating a Straw Man then knocking it down. First and foremost, do you honestly believe Jafsie did not do what he was accused of by that little girl? Of course no one can say for certain, but that's my point. And so, if he was guilty of it, and my gut tells me to believe the little girl and her sister, then there were more victims out there. It's a sickness that never goes away. Next, ask yourself how anyone "approaches" anyone else to assist with a crime or become an accessory. I've pondered that myself each time a CO got walked out for bringing drugs into the prison. No Inmate ever approached me so I couldn't even begin to explain it. It's baffles me to this day. Look at Rabi Neulander as an example. He approached a congregant to kill his wife. How about you draw up a mock exchange concerning this then dismiss it? And yet it happened because his wife is dead. In the case of Jafsie, there was a nexus between him and Hauptmann: The Bronx and even better ... City Island. As attention seeking as Jafsie was you don't think their paths crossed? How about the boxing connection? Might that have been one too? As I've previously suggested there were many possibilities for the lies and deception - or he might have just been in it for the money. But this idea he was honest is completey destroyed by his limitless string of lies after lies after lies. Heck, the man even made a last ditch effort to find a Scapegoat in Florida in order to try to save Hauptmann. I don't know what else you would need at this point. I even brought out more nonsense in V4, but what difference does it make by piling on more when none seem to matter?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 29, 2021 20:22:20 GMT -5
So, the kidnappers approach Condon and say that they are the kidnappers of the most famous baby in the world and Condon accepts that these are the kidnappers without one iota of proof that they are? I guess that makes sense. Not to me, but... $50,000 was delivered to Condon's house on March 17th. Why did Condon wait over two weeks to give the money to his compadres in crime? Wayne, In this instance what I see you doing is creating a Straw Man then knocking it down. First and foremost, do you honestly believe Jafsie did not do what he was accused of by that little girl? Of course no one can say for certain, but that's my point. And so, if he was guilty of it, and my gut tells me to believe the little girl and her sister, then there were more victims out there. It's a sickness that never goes away. Next, ask yourself how anyone "approaches" anyone else to assist with a crime or become an accessory. I've pondered that myself each time a CO got walked out for bringing drugs into the prison. No Inmate ever approached me so I couldn't even begin to explain it. It's baffles me to this day. Look at Rabi Neulander as an example. He approached a congregant to kill his wife. How about you draw up a mock exchange concerning this then dismiss it? And yet it happened because his wife is dead. In the case of Jafsie, there was a nexus between him and Hauptmann: The Bronx and even better ... City Island. As attention seeking as Jafsie was you don't think their paths crossed? How about the boxing connection? Might that have been one too? As I've previously suggested there were many possibilities for the lies and deception - or he might have just been in it for the money. But this idea he was honest is completey destroyed by his limitless string of lies after lies after lies. Heck, the man even made a last ditch effort to find a Scapegoat in Florida in order to try to save Hauptmann. I don't know what else you would need at this point. I even brought out more nonsense in V4, but what difference does it make by piling on more when none seem to matter? Hi Michael, Relax, I'm not attacking you or your findings. I'm just trying to understand them, that's all. If someone was writing a book and/or producing a documentary on this case, they'd have to present known facts, right? And they would have to tell or show how Condon became involved with the case in the first place, right? What possible conversations the kidnappers/extortionists would have had with Condon to persuade him to write to the BHN. 1) As for 17-year-old Siegrid Bjurberg -- none of us, unless we're a psychic, will know for certainty what happened to her in 1904. What is a fact is that Condon was not charged or arrested for a similar crime over the next 41 years until his death in 1945. 2) The Rabi Neulander case makes complete sense! Hiring a hit man to do your dirty work sadly happens all the time. Hiring someone you know as a go-between in a world-famous kidnapping case has, to my knowledge, never happened. 3) Here are the possibilities I learned from today's posts: A) Condon might have been part of the kidnapping gang. B) Condon might have been only part of the extortion gang. C) Condon was a buffoon who might have been brought into the extortion gang because of his ego and with the reward of being a hero. D) Condon might have been forced into the extortion gang because they were blackmailing him. E) Condon might have been forced into the extortion gang because he was threatened by the gang. F) Condon might have been brought into the extortion gang because he was known by one of the members. So, with all these possibilities, what do the facts tell you? Was Condon in on both the kidnapping & the extortion or just the extortion? How was Condon approached in either scenario?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 29, 2021 21:15:28 GMT -5
Wayne, In this instance what I see you doing is creating a Straw Man then knocking it down. First and foremost, do you honestly believe Jafsie did not do what he was accused of by that little girl? Of course no one can say for certain, but that's my point. And so, if he was guilty of it, and my gut tells me to believe the little girl and her sister, then there were more victims out there. It's a sickness that never goes away. Next, ask yourself how anyone "approaches" anyone else to assist with a crime or become an accessory. I've pondered that myself each time a CO got walked out for bringing drugs into the prison. No Inmate ever approached me so I couldn't even begin to explain it. It's baffles me to this day. Look at Rabi Neulander as an example. He approached a congregant to kill his wife. How about you draw up a mock exchange concerning this then dismiss it? And yet it happened because his wife is dead. In the case of Jafsie, there was a nexus between him and Hauptmann: The Bronx and even better ... City Island. As attention seeking as Jafsie was you don't think their paths crossed? How about the boxing connection? Might that have been one too? As I've previously suggested there were many possibilities for the lies and deception - or he might have just been in it for the money. But this idea he was honest is completey destroyed by his limitless string of lies after lies after lies. Heck, the man even made a last ditch effort to find a Scapegoat in Florida in order to try to save Hauptmann. I don't know what else you would need at this point. I even brought out more nonsense in V4, but what difference does it make by piling on more when none seem to matter? Hi Michael, Relax, I'm not attacking you or your findings. I'm just trying to understand them, that's all. If someone was writing a book and/or producing a documentary on this case, they'd have to present known facts, right? And they would have to tell or show how Condon became involved with the case in the first place, right? What possible conversations the kidnappers/extortionists would have had with Condon to persuade him to write to the BHN. 1) As for 17-year-old Siegrid Bjurberg -- none of us, unless we're a psychic, will know for certainty what happened to her in 1904. What is a fact is that Condon was not charged or arrested for a similar crime over the next 41 years until his death in 1945. 2) The Rabi Neulander case makes complete sense! Hiring a hit man to do your dirty work sadly happens all the time. Hiring someone you know as a go-between in a world-famous kidnapping case has, to my knowledge, never happened. 3) Here are the possibilities I learned from today's posts: A) Condon might have been part of the kidnapping gang. B) Condon might have been only part of the extortion gang. C) Condon was a buffoon who might have been brought into the extortion gang because of his ego and with the reward of being a hero. D) Condon might have been forced into the extortion gang because they were blackmailing him. E) Condon might have been forced into the extortion gang because he was threatened by the gang. F) Condon might have been brought into the extortion gang because he was known by one of the members. So, with all these possibilities, what do the facts tell you? Was Condon in on both the kidnapping & the extortion or just the extortion? How was Condon approached in either scenario? Personally I believe the kidnapping was its own thing and the ransom was never meant to be collected. Condon was added on later, when members of the kidnap gang decided to essentially double cross Lindbergh by trying to collect the ransom. This "personnel" addition is black & white in the letter where they say the ransom is increase by $20,000 to take on another man, which then explains why he gave Lindbergh the $20K back when he found out the baby was dead.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 29, 2021 22:27:47 GMT -5
Personally I believe the kidnapping was its own thing and the ransom was never meant to be collected. Condon was added on later, when members of the kidnap gang decided to essentially double cross Lindbergh by trying to collect the ransom. This "personnel" addition is black & white in the letter where they say the ransom is increase by $20,000 to take on another man, which then explains why he gave Lindbergh the $20K back when he found out the baby was dead. Thanks! That's all I was asking for even though I'm still not getting a concrete answer on how Condon was coerced into the extortion scheme. I'm just not comfortable with trashing the man based solely on speculation when his family is still out there (and even on this board). If we had the facts that proved Condon's complicity, that would be a different story. I'll share this... over the years I've become good friends with Gregory Coleman's son John. John and Gregory discussed the case in great length over the years before Gregory's death. There was no doubt in Gregory's mind that Condon was 100% innocent of any involvement in either the kidnapping or the extortion. John even sent me an audio tape of Gregory saying the same. And this was a man who, unlike any of us, practically lived with Condon during much of the months of March & April 1932 and witnessed, unlike any of us, the goings-on of those months first-hand.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 29, 2021 23:29:56 GMT -5
The man's been dead for more than 75 years and his behavior and actions were what they were. We don't have proof of anything, but since the official story really doesn't make sense, all we're left with is speculation as to how things really happened. If you're not seeing coercion or blackmail, fine; it didn't have to be that way, so set it aside. Condon could've instead been enticed by someone he knew, with the offer of placing the baby back in Anne Lindbergh's arms, plus $20K. In any case, neither scenario is anywhere near as much of a stretch as Condon establishing contact with the kidnappers in the way he claimed to.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 30, 2021 1:12:56 GMT -5
Thanks! That's all I was asking for even though I'm still not getting a concrete answer on how Condon was coerced into the extortion scheme. I'm just not comfortable with trashing the man based solely on speculation when his family is still out there (and even on this board). If we had the facts that proved Condon's complicity, that would be a different story. I'll share this... over the years I've become good friends with Gregory Coleman's son John. John and Gregory discussed the case in great length over the years before Gregory's death. There was no doubt in Gregory's mind that Condon was 100% innocent of any involvement in either the kidnapping or the extortion. John even sent me an audio tape of Gregory saying the same. And this was a man who, unlike any of us, practically lived with Condon during much of the months of March & April 1932 and witnessed, unlike any of us, the goings-on of those months first-hand. Condon's actions and statements speak for themselves. One or two inconsistencies, lies or strange aspects I can totally buy. However the man was constantly changing his story and doing everything he could to stymie police. The kidnappers adding $20K alone to bring someone else into the "gang," then Condon happened to get a $20K discount should throw up a million red flags. Him deliberately mis-describing the ransom box, then misleading police to who made it. Not identifying Hauptmann until his freedom was threatened. All of these are massive problems. If you were writing a movie based on this, you couldn't include these things or it'd be far too obvious what was going on. Coleman is interesting, as there is evidence that he knew more than he claimed - or at least that Condon was not telling the truth to the police, as his car was seen retrieving the ransom box as Michael found from the Uebel statements, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 30, 2021 6:26:56 GMT -5
Hi Michael, Relax, I'm not attacking you or your findings. I'm just trying to understand them, that's all. If someone was writing a book and/or producing a documentary on this case, they'd have to present known facts, right? And they would have to tell or show how Condon became involved with the case in the first place, right? What possible conversations the kidnappers/extortionists would have had with Condon to persuade him to write to the BHN. You don't have to worry about that Wayne. The only stress in my life comes on Sunday when I'm watching the Eagles game. Anyway, as you know I've written four books chuck full of facts that indicate Condon was not acting in the interest of Justice. He was doing everything he could to get these men the ransom all the while keeping them protected from the police. It is indisputable, and all there in black and white. It got so bad his daughter had to jump in and start lying to the Cops in an effort to protect him. Again, just the Needle Salesman lie he told was enough to get him charged with obstruction. I submit that any one of us who did 1% of what he did during this investigation would have been indicted for multiple crimes. He lied on purpose and the only thing he sometimes "forgot" was the exact version of his previous lies. Now, of course, he sometimes told the truth, added some truth to his lies, or lied outright. So the whole situation was a mess - but one by design. What was true and what was not? Was what he told O'Sullivan true? Was what he told Turrou: that he was going to be killed? How do you justify what this man did? Going to Florida at the 11th hour to find a replacement for Hauptmann - and that's cool with you? Doesn't indicate there's something wrong here? Next, no one is a psychic, not even the "psychics." However, charges like this were rare back then, and victims had practically no voice. Look at the amount of abuse we know exists today. Do you think that's because there's more of it, or in the alternative, we take it more seriously and there are new methods to expose this conduct? I would fully expect a man like Jafsie to have this matter "exonerated." But what he told the Cops versus what her sister wrote, the two don't match so it doesn't indicate that he did not do it. Neither does this idea that he was never caught doing it again - that we know of. However, just imagine if he was confronted with another potential charge and how he might react. Look at what Nosovitsky did in his attempt to bring down Weisbord. Who was Rosalind Lapnore and how did Nosovitsky know her? How did he approach her to bring her into this scheme? We do not know either of these things - and yet it happened. So did Badger-Games. So the sky's the limit. This idea that someone can lie constantly, obstruct the police investigation in so many ways I've lost count, is somehow excusable because we don't have a smoking gun as to his recruitment makes little sense to me. Just look at how many people he "identified" who turn out to be innocent then later changing his story. Do you know how many man hours these lies burned up? Sending out investigators to chase their tails when they should have spending their time on actual leads. It's disgusting. So while there's things we do not know there's an inordinate amount that we do - and they all point to Jafsie acting criminally. And of course there's also common sense. Friends, acquaintances, and acquaintances of acquaintances are brought into criminal conspiracies all the time. I've seen one case where a man agreed, then later decided not to be involved, but because he had already agreed and it was on tape, was charged in the conspiracy anyway. In this case, I don't know how you could read all of the correspondence at the NJSP Archives and suggest no one could be brought into this case in the manner in which Jafsie was. There's like a million people trying to insert themselves into this thing while others attempting to scam their way into some cash off of it. These letters and investigations into them are all there and I know you've read some of them - so there goes the proof you are looking for. If it makes you feel better there are several possibilities where Jafsie did not know the child was dead when he agreed (or coerced) to get involved. I personally think he knew but the possibility I might be wrong could be considered. I see no evidence that Jafsie was in on the kidnapping. But there's plenty to indicate he was in on the extortion. One has to talk themselves out of it not to see it all. As for "trashing" a man, the proof is in the documentation. Everyone has families. Hauptmann, Lindbergh, Schwarzkopf all do too. If there's something in the documentation that reflects poorly on them are we not allowed to mention it because of their families? In the end, we do have facts to prove Jafsie was complicit in the extortion. We just don't know the specifics about how he was brought in. Neither do we about Hauptmann although we absolutely know he wasn't alone.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 30, 2021 7:08:18 GMT -5
Was he actually a taxi driver, or could he have been someone who approached the house on foot? I’d agree that a lighted taxi vehicle would have attracted more attention for anyone whose job it was to be watching the house, (and assuming they were actually watching the entire time) but does this same degree of visibility apply for a pedestrian in the dark? I believe Condon, in one of his accounts actually identifies a vehicle having been there, but I wouldn’t want to state unequivocally if this was just later assumption on his part, based on the appearance of the driver, another unrelated vehicle or false memory by the time he began talking to investigators weeks later. Either he knew what he saw or he did not. Either he is telling the truth or he is lying. This was another instance where his daughter jumped in and lied to try to protect him. So what did Jafsie tell police? Here's what he told Lt. Keaten in early June 1932: He was in his home on April 2nd, 1932 when his doorbell rang, he went out and answered the bell upon opening the door, was confronted by a Tax Cab Driver who handed him a sealed Envelope. This man then walked off the porch into the street and got into his car and rode away, and being excited because he had just received a letter forgot to get the registration of this car.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 30, 2021 8:36:55 GMT -5
Condon's actions and statements speak for themselves. One or two inconsistencies, lies or strange aspects I can totally buy. However the man was constantly changing his story and doing everything he could to stymie police. The kidnappers adding $20K alone to bring someone else into the "gang," then Condon happened to get a $20K discount should throw up a million red flags. Him deliberately mis-describing the ransom box, then misleading police to who made it. Not identifying Hauptmann until his freedom was threatened. All of these are massive problems. If you were writing a movie based on this, you couldn't include these things or it'd be far too obvious what was going on. So you take the kidnapper's word that he is telling the truth when he mentions he is taking on another man. If memory serves, the kidnapper also wrote several times saying that the baby was in good care. Do you take his word on that, too?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,646
|
Post by Joe on Oct 30, 2021 11:03:42 GMT -5
From all of the current and previous Condon-bashing examples given, some of which are really an imaginative stretch but of course represent serious “red flags” of concern to some here, it’s apparent the word of a kidnapper is gospel whenever it supports whatever generalized house of cards is being lobbied for at any given time. Spin the wheel and take your pick of... Condon was enticed by the kidnappers at some point in time, (before or after the kidnapping) into writing a letter to the BHN because he was a well-known public figure.. or Condon was coerced into becoming a confederate because they had "something" on him... or even that Condon became a confederate just for the money. Personally speaking, it’s no wonder that this case in general has evolved so little in terms of collaborative and constructive thought process towards a reasonable and fully-supported theory, over the past twenty years.
Wayne’s point about Gregory Coleman having been such an integral part of the negotiations process and who believed Condon was totally innocent of any intentional involvement in the kidnapping and/or extortion, doesn’t surprise me at all. Henry Breckinridge, who even had his own "eagle" ashtray at the Condon residence during this time was another in-house participant, who despite having misgivings about Condon’s often-erratic behaviour, never wavered in his belief that Condon’s originally-stated desire to serve the Lindberghs and safely return their child to them, was honorable and truthful.
Is there any reason not to believe that a mentally-ill German carpenter from the Bronx, was very highly motivated to answer Condon’s offer in the Bronx Home News so he would not have to deal with and risk being killed by NYC gangsters who had injected themselves into the case? The originally-intended "after 2-4 days we will notify you.." schedule obviously went sideways through his/their failure to make it implicitly clear to Lindbergh that police were not to be brought in. And Hauptmann obviously was a brilliant planner and con man, but still humanly fallible and prone to making stupid mistakes along the way, as demonstrated by his putting the nursery letter into a blank envelope, using his own handwriting, fatal dowel/hole design in ladder, etc. Stupid mistakes are why criminals tend to get caught.
To circle back, I often wonder how such a community-minded, devoutly-religious and spiritually-evolved man like John Condon, who had devoted his entire life to sincerely helping others in need, teaching and volunteering his time towards the advancement of mind, body and spirit of countless thousands of individuals, as well as his personal idolatry of Charles Lindbergh, could have “come off the rails” so uncharacteristically and tragically, based on some of the most fantastical, shallow and one-sided theories floating around out there.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 30, 2021 13:45:02 GMT -5
Condon's actions and statements speak for themselves. One or two inconsistencies, lies or strange aspects I can totally buy. However the man was constantly changing his story and doing everything he could to stymie police. The kidnappers adding $20K alone to bring someone else into the "gang," then Condon happened to get a $20K discount should throw up a million red flags. Him deliberately mis-describing the ransom box, then misleading police to who made it. Not identifying Hauptmann until his freedom was threatened. All of these are massive problems. If you were writing a movie based on this, you couldn't include these things or it'd be far too obvious what was going on. So you take the kidnapper's word that he is telling the truth when he mentions he is taking on another man. If memory serves, the kidnapper also wrote several times saying that the baby was in good care. Do you take his word on that, too? I don't take the kidnapper's word off-hand, but you must admit it's an awful big coincidence that the kidnapper raises $20K to bring in another man, then Condon just happens to choose this number out of then air as a way to save Lindbergh some money, all while returning the most traceable bills.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 30, 2021 14:08:34 GMT -5
No, it's no coincidence at all. Condon was at his house when the money arrived on the afternoon of April 2nd. He observed how the money came in 2 bundles. One $50,000 bundle and the other $20,000. These 2 bundles were kept separate when they were put into the box. (If you don't have these accounts from CAL, Breckinridge, Reich, and Condon, let me know and I will send them to you). All Condon did at St. Raymonds was tell CAL that he could save him the money that was in one separate bundle. The $20,000 bundle. No coincidence at all. But this was just a suggestion on Condon's part. It was CAL who okayed it. You really have to wonder if CAL knew the $20,000 (all in $50 bills) were gold certificates (I think he did, Condon did not). So why did CAL acquiesce to not accepting the kidnapper's demand (of $70,000) for the first time? He always bowed to every one of their demands previously. I place the blame for not paying the $20,000 squarely on CAL's shoulders, not Condon's, and I don't understand it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,646
|
Post by Joe on Oct 30, 2021 17:07:17 GMT -5
The extortionist also miscalculated the actual bulking factor and dimensional volume of $70,000 in circulated bills when he originally prescribed the 14 X 6 X 7 inch specifications for the "packet." This of course meant the total amount could not be placed in what was assumed to be a request for a single box or container of some kind. Breckinridge's discussions with Condon about the added 20K were instrumental within the latter's initiative in wanting to negotiate in good faith, as he did with CJ. He understood that Lindbergh had been left with less than $4,000 in cash reserves after he was forced to sell off much of his personal stock holdings at a significant loss, and believed this added demand was grossly unfair. $20,000 in 1932 would be worth a little over $400,000 today so it was no small gesture on Condon's part. I don't believe either he or Lindbergh, during the short time frame in which this was broached to and accepted by CJ, had even considered the potential impact of the higher-visibility $50 gold notes not being out there. I believe that even Irey, after his initial disgust at being told by Condon had saved Lindbergh a full $20,000, didn't take long to acknowledge that any of these high-denomination notes would likely not have been turned in to law enforcement at all before those passing the ransom money were apprehended. The eventual spending pattern of almost entirely 5's, not surprisingly followed by 10's, is a clear demonstration of what actually took place.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 30, 2021 18:16:41 GMT -5
No, it's no coincidence at all. Condon was at his house when the money arrived on the afternoon of April 2nd. He observed how the money came in 2 bundles. One $50,000 bundle and the other $20,000. These 2 bundles were kept separate when they were put into the box. (If you don't have these accounts from CAL, Breckinridge, Reich, and Condon, let me know and I will send them to you). All Condon did at St. Raymonds was tell CAL that he could save him the money that was in one separate bundle. The $20,000 bundle. No coincidence at all. But this was just a suggestion on Condon's part. It was CAL who okayed it. You really have to wonder if CAL knew the $20,000 (all in $50 bills) were gold certificates (I think he did, Condon did not). So why did CAL acquiesce to not accepting the kidnapper's demand (of $70,000) for the first time? He always bowed to every one of their demands previously. I place the blame for not paying the $20,000 squarely on CAL's shoulders, not Condon's, and I don't understand it. I don't agree with this at all. Condon comes back with great news saying he saved Lindbergh the money, which just happened to be the amount that was added later when they had to take on another guy. What was CAL going to say in this case? "Absolutely not, bring them back the $20K I that being extorted this instant!" All this talk about Condon's entrance and the ransom, but I've yet to head a good excuse for all the outright lies about the ransom box itself or its maker, the second taxi driver, Hauptmann, etc.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,646
|
Post by Joe on Oct 30, 2021 18:47:34 GMT -5
No, it's no coincidence at all. Condon was at his house when the money arrived on the afternoon of April 2nd. He observed how the money came in 2 bundles. One $50,000 bundle and the other $20,000. These 2 bundles were kept separate when they were put into the box. (If you don't have these accounts from CAL, Breckinridge, Reich, and Condon, let me know and I will send them to you). All Condon did at St. Raymonds was tell CAL that he could save him the money that was in one separate bundle. The $20,000 bundle. No coincidence at all. But this was just a suggestion on Condon's part. It was CAL who okayed it. You really have to wonder if CAL knew the $20,000 (all in $50 bills) were gold certificates (I think he did, Condon did not). So why did CAL acquiesce to not accepting the kidnapper's demand (of $70,000) for the first time? He always bowed to every one of their demands previously. I place the blame for not paying the $20,000 squarely on CAL's shoulders, not Condon's, and I don't understand it. I don't agree with this at all. Condon comes back with great news saying he saved Lindbergh the money, which just happened to be the amount that was added later when they had to take on another guy. What was CAL going to say in this case? "Absolutely not, bring them back the $20K I that being extorted this instant!" All this talk about Condon's entrance and the ransom, but I've yet to head a good excuse for all the outright lies about the ransom box itself or its maker, the second taxi driver, Hauptmann, etc. Have you ever considered the possibility that although Condon's heart was in the right place and his intentions honorable, his mind might not have been as consistently sharp and infallible as you might expect for a man in his 70's to be? I have a feeling you're not even close to that age.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 30, 2021 18:50:56 GMT -5
The extortionist also miscalculated the actual bulking factor and dimensional volume of $70,000 in circulated bills when he originally prescribed the 14 X 6 X 7 inch specifications for the "packet." This of course meant the total amount could not be placed in what was assumed to be a request for a single box or container of some kind. Hi Joe, Please feel free to double-check my math there, but several years ago I build a replica of the box (14x6x7). IF the bills had been taken out of the bank's 2 bundle wrappings, then one 6" stack of bills would total 1,392 bills. A total of 5 stacks of bills, placed side by side, would easily fit in the box and, therefore, the box was capable of holding a TOTAL of at least 6,960 bills. The $70,000 ransom was comprised of 5,150 bills and if stacked one on top of the other would only be comprised of 3.7 stacks in the box. The $50,000 ransom was composed of 4,750 bills and therefore would have been composed of 3.4 stacks in the box. (Another way to look at it is that the box contained 578in 3 and the $70,000 (5,150 bills) contained 356in 3. Plenty of spare room in the box for even more bills.) The reason the bills were not stacked this way is because LE was hoping that when the kidnappers were caught, the bank's brown wrapping paper around the 2 separate bundles and the individual stack wrappers (per 100 bank notes) would be found in the kidnappers' possession. Bottom line, that box could hold a LOT of bills if they were stacked one on top of the other. Up to at least 6,960 bills.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 30, 2021 18:57:48 GMT -5
From all of the current and previous Condon-bashing examples given, some of which are really an imaginative stretch but of course represent serious “red flags” of concern to some here, it’s apparent the word of a kidnapper is gospel whenever it supports whatever generalized house of cards is being lobbied for at any given time. If this isn't the pot calling the kettle black then I don't know what is. Most of these examples are lay-ups and slam dunks while you are throwing up Hail Marys. For God's sake, your best rebuttal concerning the FACT that Condon lied about the 2nd Taxi Driver is that the (at least) THREE people from (at least) two agencies who's only assignment was to specifically watch Condon's front door from rooms across the street - might not have been. The Needle Salesman lie doesn't even get one, just the usual powder puff Bull Sh*t about how great a guy he was - as if that neutralizes the event. The man told one story about being there, giving a detailed description, and even suggesting the Needle Salesman may have been the lookout. About a month later he tells a different Agent he didn't know anything about him because he wasn't there. He lied to and obstructed the FBI. And this was just ONE of his many deceptions. And you have the nerve to suggest someone else has an "imaginative stretch?" Jafsie was supposed to be helping find the people who did this and he's doing the exact opposite. He's lying, deceiving, obstructing, and misdirecting the police every chance he gets.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 30, 2021 19:00:12 GMT -5
I don't agree with this at all. Condon comes back with great news saying he saved Lindbergh the money, which just happened to be the amount that was added later when they had to take on another guy. What was CAL going to say in this case? "Absolutely not, bring them back the $20K I that being extorted this instant!" All this talk about Condon's entrance and the ransom, but I've yet to head a good excuse for all the outright lies about the ransom box itself or its maker, the second taxi driver, Hauptmann, etc. Have you ever considered the possibility that although Condon's heart was in the right place and his intentions honorable, his mind might not have been as consistently sharp and infallible as you might expect for a man in his 70's to be? I have a feeling you're not even close to that age. I agree with Joe here. Case in point, a close friend of mine is 72, the same age as Condon in 1932. The guy is super bright and while I won't go into his CV, he's been nominated for an Academy Award. He calls me on a regular basis, telling me about a series or doc that he's seen that morning. A couple of hours later he'll call me again and recommend the same series or docs. None of here knows for sure what Condon's mental cognitive state was when he was 72. You have to admit, it's possible that he was losing his short term memory.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 30, 2021 19:05:04 GMT -5
I don't agree with this at all. Condon comes back with great news saying he saved Lindbergh the money, which just happened to be the amount that was added later when they had to take on another guy. What was CAL going to say in this case? "Absolutely not, bring them back the $20K I that being extorted this instant!" All this talk about Condon's entrance and the ransom, but I've yet to head a good excuse for all the outright lies about the ransom box itself or its maker, the second taxi driver, Hauptmann, etc. And don't forget, the most identifiable bills. Irey said he wanted to kill Jafsie for removing them. I wouldn't have believed the note writer either but its hard to ignore it because it actually happened. It might not have been their intent to "out" Jafsie but then he went ahead and outted himself as well so there's no question about it.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 30, 2021 19:22:38 GMT -5
Have you ever considered the possibility that although Condon's heart was in the right place and his intentions honorable, his mind might not have been as consistently sharp and infallible as you might expect for a man in his 70's to be? I have a feeling you're not even close to that age. I agree with Joe here. Case in point, a close friend of mine is 72, the same age as Condon in 1932. The guy is super bright and while I won't go into his CV, he's been nominated for an Academy Award. He calls me on a regular basis, telling me about a series or doc that he's seen that morning. A couple of hours later he'll call me again and recommend the same series or docs. None of here knows for sure what Condon's mental cognitive state was when he was 72. You have to admit, it's possible that he was losing his short term memory. Forgetful is one thing, he's outright deceitful! He said the box was made up of multiple wood types, the likes of which could never be recreated then told them a totally different carpenter made it. None of that was true. It's one thing to be forgetful, this was deceitful. Condon clearly lied about the ransom box having left with the kidnappers and had it retrieved from a set of bushes. That's not forgetful, that's outright lying. Condon defenders will say he's a forgetful old coot, yet somehow defend his memory only when it comes to Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 30, 2021 20:41:16 GMT -5
I don't agree with this at all. Condon comes back with great news saying he saved Lindbergh the money, which just happened to be the amount that was added later when they had to take on another guy. What was CAL going to say in this case? "Absolutely not, bring them back the $20K I that being extorted this instant!" All this talk about Condon's entrance and the ransom, but I've yet to head a good excuse for all the outright lies about the ransom box itself or its maker, the second taxi driver, Hauptmann, etc. And don't forget, the most identifiable bills. Irey said he wanted to kill Jafsie for removing them. I wouldn't have believed the note writer either but its hard to ignore it because it actually happened. It might not have been their intent to "out" Jafsie but then he went ahead and outted himself as well so there's no question about it. Yes, but Irey should have wanted to kill CAL! It was CAL's ultimate decision, not Condon's to take the $20,000 out! Condon merely suggested it, he had no say on whether or not CAL would accept his suggestion. This one is on CAL.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 31, 2021 5:51:12 GMT -5
And don't forget, the most identifiable bills. Irey said he wanted to kill Jafsie for removing them. I wouldn't have believed the note writer either but its hard to ignore it because it actually happened. It might not have been their intent to "out" Jafsie but then he went ahead and outted himself as well so there's no question about it. Yes, but Irey should have wanted to kill CAL! It was CAL's ultimate decision, not Condon's to take the $20,000 out! Condon merely suggested it, he had no say on whether or not CAL would accept his suggestion. This one is on CAL. I'd be really curious to hear Michael 's response to this, but I think you are giving the conversation that happened between them way more of a request/answer type of thing than what actually happened. 1) Condon was the one who requested the reduction in ransom. If you truly believe Condon was doing this out of the goodness of his heart, I have a bill of goods to sell you. 2) Condon never "asked" Lindbergh for anything. He simply said it would only take $50K. "Thanks, Doctor Condon," Lindbergh supposedly said. "Saving that amount helps a lot." Let's assume for a moment that Condon is guilty as sin (I know you clearly disagree, but let's assume). Condon comes back to the car and advises Lindbergh that he saved him $20K (which happens to be the exact amount it cost to hire someone else into the gang). What did you expect Lindbergh to say? "No, please Doctor, pay them the full amount I am being extorted." That is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 31, 2021 7:33:38 GMT -5
I'd be really curious to hear Michael 's response to this, but I think you are giving the conversation that happened between them way more of a request/answer type of thing than what actually happened. I believe you are both correct. We have to remember that the whole reason Lindbergh was even there at the drop was because he didn't trust Jafsie. We know this due to the conversations he had with Agent Larimer and Asst. US Attorney Dan B. Cowie. Condon did not appear happy about this at all. He stalled and then offered up a concern that Lindbergh might start shooting if he went along. And so Lindbergh did go and the shenanigans he worried about if he didn't still happened anyway. Lindbergh also knew the Fifties were the most identifiable, was obviously suspicious of Condon, and still readily consented to the removal of those bills. On top of that, he was the man running the show which was why the Cops weren't involved in this drop in the first place. We should remember that Lindbergh never wanted the serial numbers recorded because he didn't want to break his "word" to the Kidnappers. But this idea that Condon was innocently out of nowhere HAGGLING with the criminals over the ransom amount, (supposedly holding the child and at the very moment a note was to be retrieved telling them where to locate him), to reduce the amount by the EXACT and specific bills which would almost immediately lead to their capture - is insane. Clearly, he would have prevented that amount from being circulated whether Lindbergh was there or not. ALL of his past and future actions at that point prove his motive was to protect them.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,646
|
Post by Joe on Oct 31, 2021 8:43:31 GMT -5
Yes, but Irey should have wanted to kill CAL! It was CAL's ultimate decision, not Condon's to take the $20,000 out! Condon merely suggested it, he had no say on whether or not CAL would accept his suggestion. This one is on CAL. I'd be really curious to hear Michael 's response to this, but I think you are giving the conversation that happened between them way more of a request/answer type of thing than what actually happened. 1) Condon was the one who requested the reduction in ransom. If you truly believe Condon was doing this out of the goodness of his heart, I have a bill of goods to sell you. 2) Condon never "asked" Lindbergh for anything. He simply said it would only take $50K. "Thanks, Doctor Condon," Lindbergh supposedly said. "Saving that amount helps a lot." Let's assume for a moment that Condon is guilty as sin (I know you clearly disagree, but let's assume). Condon comes back to the car and advises Lindbergh that he saved him $20K (which happens to be the exact amount it cost to hire someone else into the gang). What did you expect Lindbergh to say? "No, please Doctor, pay them the full amount I am being extorted." That is ridiculous. I'd suggest that your attempt to explain the motivation and math sequence here is what's ridiculous. So Condon essentially initiates and then negotiates a 20K savings for Lindbergh, even though as you seem to believe that same 20K was supposedly earmarked for him in the first place, by way of your devout acceptance of the extortionist's word. So what does Condon do? He leaves the 20K with Lindbergh when, within the surrealism of your own movie reel, he would have had a priceless opportunity to then pocket it during his walk down E. Tremont or in the cemetery. Keep working at those pluses and minuses.
|
|