|
Post by Michael on Oct 20, 2018 8:51:37 GMT -5
I recently received an email from a good friend and it was the impetus for this post... After reading Chapter 4 in V2, I hope everyone sees as clearly as I do about what happened. Once considering everything, as we can see, this wasn't something that came together overnight and took a lot of thought and preparation. I believe it is crystal clear this method of delivery occurring in an almost perfect spot indicates a well designed plan. The way it shook out was brilliant. Condon was in this up to his neck, and it could not have worked without his full cooperation and participation in the plot with those collecting it.
Now let's consider the same people who collected the ransom were behind the kidnapping. Are we to believe the Kidnapping was done "on the fly?" Or in light of the obvious planning and preparation seen here - is it more likely they did the same there as well?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Oct 20, 2018 12:43:54 GMT -5
I recently received an email from a good friend and it was the impetus for this post... After reading Chapter 4 in V2, I hope everyone sees as clearly as I do about what happened. Once considering everything, as we can see, this wasn't something that came together overnight and took a lot of thought and preparation. I believe it is crystal clear this method of delivery occurring in an almost perfect spot indicates a well designed plan. The way it shook out was brilliant. Condon was in this up to his neck, and it could not have worked without his full cooperation and participation in the plot with those collecting it. Now let's consider the same people who collected the ransom were behind the kidnapping. Are we to believe the Kidnapping was done "on the fly?" Or in light of the obvious planning and preparation seen here - is it more likely they did the same there as well? I will say this much Michael, that it's very clear you believe what you've written in V1 and V2. When I first recognized the gist of this post, I was half expecting to read "a person would have to be crazy not to see this" or "out of their mind not to believe this." Now surely Condon, within the negotiations would have become closer to understanding the kidnappers within each communication and bit of information gleaned from the investigation, but if you're saying he was in league with them from the beginning or for his own gain, I think you're plain wrong. Out of curiosity, under whose instructions do you believe Condon had assumed the role of confederate of the kidnappers? Did he enter the case in league with them? Did he enter with the intention of selflessly serving Lindbergh and was then somehow coerced or drawn into serving the kidnappers? Or would Lindbergh himself have been behind Condon's defection from an apparently law-abiding, Lindbergh worshiping and ultra-patriotic American? Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your enthusiasm.. I'm just trying to understand where this is all going or perhaps more importantly, where you might be trying to lead it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2018 13:40:00 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, under whose instructions do you believe Condon had assumed the role of confederate of the kidnappers? Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your enthusiasm.. I'm just trying to understand where this is all going or perhaps more importantly, where you might be trying to lead it. I realize this was not directed to me, but I do want to comment on this anyway. I take my leading about how Condon came into this case from the ransom notes. They make it clear to us, and also to Lindbergh that the kidnappers will choose who will be the go-between for them not Lindbergh. Just check the ransom notes: March 4th note received at Hopewell house on March 5th says: Our ransom was made out for 50,000$ but now we have to take another person to it and probably have to keep the baby for a longer time as we expected so the amount will be 70,000$. (underlining is mine) The kidnappers are telling Lindbergh they will bring in a person and it will cost an additional $20,000. Plain and simple. March 7th note received at Breckinridge's office says: We will not accept any go-between from your send. We will arrange this latter. (underlining is mine) It was arranged by the kidnapers. Condon's letter appeared in the Bronx Home News on March 8, 1932. The kidnappers chose Condon.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 20, 2018 14:07:03 GMT -5
It was arranged by the kidnapers. Condon's letter appeared in the Bronx Home News on March 8, 1932. The kidnappers chose Condon. We're on the same page here Amy. Inspector Walsh saw exactly what you outlined, believed it, and let Condon know he knew what was up. I will say this much Michael, that it's very clear you believe what you've written in V1 and V2. When I first recognized the gist of this post, I was half expecting to read "a person would have to be crazy not to see this" or "out of their mind not to believe this." Now surely Condon, within the negotiations would have become closer to understanding the kidnappers within each communication and bit of information gleaned from the investigation, but if you're saying he was in league with them from the beginning or for his own gain, I think you're plain wrong. I'm not sure what you mean Joe. I personally do not believe Condon was in this from the "beginning." It's clear to me that his role was to get them their money and to keep them from being arrested. His actions and lies prove this. Now I am sure there are those who don't like it however I can't see it being disproven knowing what the totality of source material reveals. I cannot help that those few who researched at the Archives before me stopped short before finding this information for themselves. Could have happened to me too if I decided to limit the amount of time I would spend at the Archives before writing a book. Out of curiosity, under whose instructions do you believe Condon had assumed the role of confederate of the kidnappers? Did he enter the case in league with them? Did he enter with the intention of selflessly serving Lindbergh and was then somehow coerced or drawn into serving the kidnappers? Or would Lindbergh himself have been behind Condon's defection from an apparently law-abiding, Lindbergh worshiping and ultra-patriotic American? Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your enthusiasm.. I'm just trying to understand where this is all going or perhaps more importantly, where you might be trying to lead it. I am in full agreement with both Amy and Inspector Walsh. He was a party to the extortion. I do not personally believe he had any role in the kidnapping. This rosy picture you paint of Condon just isn't true. Not then or prior. He was no a "patriot" or "law-abiding" citizen. He also wasn't confused or crazy. He did have a hard time remembering the various stories he told but that happens to most liars. He abused at least one little girl. He lied just about everywhere he needed to and probably no less than 100 times during this case alone. He was an accessory to the extortion. He obstructed justice. He allowed his daughter to lie to police then perjure herself on the witness stand. I can understand an excuse here or there - but everywhere? What's in my book are the facts. How anyone can get through it thinking this guy was "legit" is beyond me at this point. One would have to ignore the source documentation and rely on their imagination. That's not real life Joe. This idea that disinterested parties lied, while Condon told several different versions was actually the honest one is impossible and a divide by zero strategy. It's why I left no stone unturned and revealed everything so it could ALL be considered. When the dust settles Condon is exactly what the source material revealed he was. Now what's being lost in all of this was my original question.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Oct 20, 2018 17:19:02 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, under whose instructions do you believe Condon had assumed the role of confederate of the kidnappers? Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your enthusiasm.. I'm just trying to understand where this is all going or perhaps more importantly, where you might be trying to lead it. I realize this was not directed to me, but I do want to comment on this anyway. I take my leading about how Condon came into this case from the ransom notes. They make it clear to us, and also to Lindbergh that the kidnappers will choose who will be the go-between for them not Lindbergh. Just check the ransom notes: March 4th note received at Hopewell house on March 5th says: Our ransom was made out for 50,000$ but now we have to take another person to it and probably have to keep the baby for a longer time as we expected so the amount will be 70,000$. (underlining is mine) The kidnappers are telling Lindbergh they will bring in a person and it will cost an additional $20,000. Plan and simple. March 7th note received at Breckinridge's office says: We will not accept any go-between from your send. We will arrange this latter. (underlining is mine) It was arranged by the kidnapers. Condon's letter appeared in the Bronx Home News on March 8, 1932. The kidnappers chose Condon. Amy, do I have this right? You're suggesting the reason the kidnappers upped the ransom amount by $20,000 and are tipping their hand here, is based on Condon having been brought in to their ranks?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 20, 2018 17:52:51 GMT -5
Amy, do I have this right? You're suggesting the reason the kidnappers upped the ransom amount by $20,000 and are tipping their hand here, is based on Condon having been brought in to their ranks? Joe, How can you trust Condon about anything he said or did? Just pick one subject then try to get through it... It's impossible to do. Look at the "Woman of Tuckahoe" story (V2 starting at page 136 @ "Bizarre Bazaar") He testified before the Grand Jury all of it was "absolutely false." If what he tells investigators later was true - just this all by itself was perjury. But if it was true why was he later lying to the Investigators? Why does the story change? Sometimes she showed up, and sometimes she did not. Every description was like he was describing a different woman. Some accounts was he went with Reich, then another he was with Kay. Forgive me but Kay looked absolutely nothing like Reich. Just one subject and everything is multiple choice. Look at another example: The Needle Salesman (V2 pages 99-105). Both Condon and Breckinridge say this involved them both. Condon gives a description and even says this guy could have been the Lookout he saw at Woodlawn! Later Condon says he was NOT home when this guy came to the door! Next thing you know Myra morphs into her Father to say she was the one and gives yet another and different description of the guy. It's the craziest damn thing I've ever seen and its happening EVERYWHERE. But you believe Condon? What's to believe? Now consider all that's in my book on each subject he had anything to do with. Lies, embellishments, inconsistencies, distractions, and misdirections at each and every turn. Again, this is the guy you trust and believe over everyone and above all else? Believe what exactly? You have to choose what to believe while also choosing what not to about everything.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Oct 20, 2018 18:17:41 GMT -5
Of course. I can see Condon is doing his best to make sure the extortionists, aka kidnappers get their money. He's the official go-between charged to do just that and he's essentially acting solely on Lindbergh's behalf, even though he voiced his objections along the way about paying a blind ransom. Or is that in question? Anyway, if that makes him a confederate of the kidnappers in your mind, then run with it, but you're blurring the line here between criminal complicity and Condon just following orders from the guy who essentially had the trump card on what transpired, Charles Lindbergh himself dealing outside the law, which as you know was a normal practice within the "era of kidnappings." And I believe you're doing this in favour of a pet theory you seem to have settled into without even entertaining that which is outside this "new box" you've created.
It's funny in a way, as I believe we're actually much closer on Condon than you may think. I know that history has painted him well within the light he would want to have been seen in. I'm also well aware this guy was no saint and I've always been able to see through the pretentious self-aggrandizement that is his trademark. But simply put, I don't believe anything you've been able to dig up on this guy's past has a thing to do with his participation in this case in March of 1932. You can reference the first part of this post for anything he did or said after he got involved with his letter to the Bronx Home News.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Oct 20, 2018 18:59:51 GMT -5
Amy, do I have this right? You're suggesting the reason the kidnappers upped the ransom amount by $20,000 and are tipping their hand here, is based on Condon having been brought in to their ranks? Joe, How can you trust Condon about anything he said or did? Just pick one subject then try to get through it... It's impossible to do. Look at the "Woman of Tuckahoe" story (V2 starting at page 136 @ "Bizarre Bazaar") He testified before the Grand Jury all of it was "absolutely false." If what he tells investigators later was true - just this all by itself was perjury. But if it was true why was he later lying to the Investigators? Why does the story change? Sometimes she showed up, and sometimes she did not. Every description was like he was describing a different woman. Some accounts was he went with Reich, then another he was with Kay. Forgive me but Kay looked absolutely nothing like Reich. Just one subject and everything is multiple choice. Look at another example: The Needle Salesman (V2 pages 99-105). Both Condon and Breckinridge say this involved them both. Condon gives a description and even says this guy could have been the Lookout he saw at Woodlawn! Later Condon says he was NOT home when this guy came to the door! Next thing you know Myra morphs into her Father to say she was the one and gives yet another and different description of the guy. It's the craziest damn thing I've ever seen and its happening EVERYWHERE. But you believe Condon? What's to believe? Now consider all that's in my book on each subject he had anything to do with. Lies, embellishments, inconsistencies, distractions, and misdirections at each and every turn. Again, this is the guy you trust and believe over everyone and above all else? Believe what exactly? You have to choose what to believe while also choosing what not to about everything. Let me ask you something a little hypothetical here, because I think you're getting hung up on detail in favour of relevant content. You're essentially a good person at heart, raised in a very different time just after the Civil War, quite extroverted and prone to self-aggrandizement by nature, you've been married forever, raised a family of five successful and by all accounts, now well-adjusted adults, been involved intimately and well-respected (mind you not by those who don't appreciate you being a busybody) within the community, gone out of your way to help people in distress and even risked your own life to save other lives, idolized Charles Lindbergh for his trans-Atlantic crossing and his rejection of being marketed as a corporate symbol, and also got your head punched countless times as an amateur boxer. What might make you so passionate about wanting to enter the Lindbergh Case?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 21, 2018 6:44:58 GMT -5
Let me ask you something a little hypothetical here, because I think you're getting hung up on detail in favour of relevant content. You're essentially a good person at heart, raised in a very different time just after the Civil War, quite extroverted and prone to self-aggrandizement by nature, you've been married forever, raised a family of five successful and by all accounts, now well-adjusted adults, been involved intimately and well-respected (mind you not by those who don't appreciate you being a busybody) within the community, gone out of your way to help people in distress and even risked your own life to save other lives, idolized Charles Lindbergh for his trans-Atlantic crossing and his rejection of being marketed as a corporate symbol, and also got your head punched countless times as an amateur boxer. What might make you so passionate about wanting to enter the Lindbergh Case? Is it me or have we just fallen down the Rabbit Hole? What good are the use of hypotheticals when we have the facts laid out in front of us? I remember when I first started getting seriously interested in the case... There were people discussing when Hauptmann and Petzold robbed women with infants in baby carriages. Sounded legit so I believed it - as did everyone else. UNTIL I found the actual documentation at the Archives which revealed the women were using those carriages to transport their goods and the babies existed only in the story-teller's imagination. So my point here is that despite what "should" have occurred, or what we'd "expect" happened, it is countered by the actual facts which exist and are indisputable. We cannot place babies in those carriages no matter the method - hypothetical or otherwise. Now granted, before Condon's sentencing I would bring up any hypothetical you like to try to get his sentence reduced... but one cannot look at his actions and come to the conclusion he did nothing illegal because its as plain as day.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Oct 21, 2018 8:19:18 GMT -5
Let me ask you something a little hypothetical here, because I think you're getting hung up on detail in favour of relevant content. You're essentially a good person at heart, raised in a very different time just after the Civil War, quite extroverted and prone to self-aggrandizement by nature, you've been married forever, raised a family of five successful and by all accounts, now well-adjusted adults, been involved intimately and well-respected (mind you not by those who don't appreciate you being a busybody) within the community, gone out of your way to help people in distress and even risked your own life to save other lives, idolized Charles Lindbergh for his trans-Atlantic crossing and his rejection of being marketed as a corporate symbol, and also got your head punched countless times as an amateur boxer. What might make you so passionate about wanting to enter the Lindbergh Case? Is it me or have we just fallen down the Rabbit Hole? What good are the use of hypotheticals when we have the facts laid out in front of us? I remember when I first started getting seriously interested in the case... There were people discussing when Hauptmann and Petzold robbed women with infants in baby carriages. Sounded legit so I believed it - as did everyone else. UNTIL I found the actual documentation at the Archives which revealed the women were using those carriages to transport their goods and the babies existed only in the story-teller's imagination. So my point here is that despite what "should" have occurred, or what we'd "expect" happened, it is countered by the actual facts which exist and are indisputable. We cannot place babies in those carriages no matter the method - hypothetical or otherwise. Now granted, before Condon's sentencing I would bring up any hypothetical you like to try to get his sentence reduced... but one cannot look at his actions and come to the conclusion he did nothing illegal because its as plain as day. I think the rabbit hole maze began a long time ago on this board Michael, even though that's not how it's referred to here when it supports the theory of this having been a fake kidnapping. When that happens, it's called "thinking outside the box." What I've seen in your books are criminal allegations, but no convictions against Condon, and based on what I believe to be your understanding of his role as ransom negotiator, a notion that he assisted the kidnappers to the extent that now makes him a criminal here as well. And I'm still waiting to hear how these past criminal allegations have anything to do with his role in the LKC. I'm not a fan of John Condon as you seem to believe; I'm just attempting to help you see how one-sided and one-dimensional your interpretation has become. At the end of the day, what you now seem to be impressing as a slam-dunk is in reality an ever-growing potpourri of speculation, supported well by selectively-chosen facts, but nothing in the way of actual criminal complicity between those who kidnapped CALjr and those who attempted to return him safely. Essentially, it's the duality you're trying to meld together, but can't seem to. I wish you all the best in your search. I know it's been a long one and the information you've turned up is absolutely great. Do you not think though, that in three full rounds through the archives and everywhere else you may have searched, there should have been just one real live bombshell or even just a small thread to pull on that ultimately led to inarguable proof of a fake kidnapping?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2018 10:28:30 GMT -5
I realize this was not directed to me, but I do want to comment on this anyway. I take my leading about how Condon came into this case from the ransom notes. They make it clear to us, and also to Lindbergh that the kidnappers will choose who will be the go-between for them not Lindbergh. Just check the ransom notes: March 4th note received at Hopewell house on March 5th says: Our ransom was made out for 50,000$ but now we have to take another person to it and probably have to keep the baby for a longer time as we expected so the amount will be 70,000$. (underlining is mine) The kidnappers are telling Lindbergh they will bring in a person and it will cost an additional $20,000. Plan and simple. March 7th note received at Breckinridge's office says: We will not accept any go-between from your send. We will arrange this latter. (underlining is mine) It was arranged by the kidnapers. Condon's letter appeared in the Bronx Home News on March 8, 1932. The kidnappers chose Condon. Amy, do I have this right? You're suggesting the reason the kidnappers upped the ransom amount by $20,000 and are tipping their hand here, is based on Condon having been brought in to their ranks? I am not suggesting anything, Joe. I merely printed what the ransom note said. That's not me suggesting or spinning anything. Go look at the note yourself if you don't believe me. The note is saying directly to Lindbergh that the ransom was for $50,000 but they need to bring in another person so the new amount will be $70,000. They are asking for more money to cover this additional person. Now if you want to create a multiple choice situation out of this, then by all means please explain that ransom sentence the way you want it understood. I am sticking to the facts here. The note says what it says. Period.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 22, 2018 7:12:55 GMT -5
[I think the rabbit hole maze began a long time ago on this board Michael, even though that's not how it's referred to here when it supports the theory of this having been a fake kidnapping. When that happens, it's called "thinking outside the box." What I've seen in your books are criminal allegations, but no convictions against Condon, and based on what I believe to be your understanding of his role as ransom negotiator, a notion that he assisted the kidnappers to the extent that now makes him a criminal here as well. And I'm still waiting to hear how these past criminal allegations have anything to do with his role in the LKC. I'm not a fan of John Condon as you seem to believe; I'm just attempting to help you see how one-sided and one-dimensional your interpretation has become. At the end of the day, what you now seem to be impressing as a slam-dunk is in reality an ever-growing potpourri of speculation, supported well by selectively-chosen facts, but nothing in the way of actual criminal complicity between those who kidnapped CALjr and those who attempted to return him safely. Essentially, it's the duality you're trying to meld together, but can't seem to. I wish you all the best in your search. I know it's been a long one and the information you've turned up is absolutely great. Do you not think though, that in three full rounds through the archives and everywhere else you may have searched, there should have been just one real live bombshell or even just a small thread to pull on that ultimately led to inarguable proof of a fake kidnapping? First thing is that I see your thoughts are being led by your disagreement with a "fake" kidnapping. You are defending against it by shrugging off clear and convincing information. The minute you perceive that idea being damaging toward a real kidnapping you are "all in" to disagree with anything you think might be utilized along those lines. Why do I believe this? Because this discussion has nothing to do with a "fake" kidnapping yet you bring that up twice. The information in my books is real ... I can do no further damage to him myself because that information speaks for itself. Prior to it I saw all kinds a wild and outlandish "excuses" used to defend his actions, and now apparently, whatever he did and no matter what it was - it doesn't "mean anything." But again, whatever he said or did one "likes" that's what is reliable? Forgive me if I choose to see what is so plainly in front of me. If you, as a researcher, want to ignore it ALL because you do not like where it leads that is certainly up to you. Again, part of the criticism I do receive is that I present too much information. I do that to provide all of the information for any reader to make an informed decision. Yet, you accuse me of being "one sided" or call the information "potpourri" as if somehow now giving you that information is wrong too. So I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. No, this is the missing information from all of the books and what most researchers have always wanted to know about. Well here it is. I can not apologize or preempt irrational arguments or positions. For me each and every new piece of information is a bombshell, and when I see someone telling me perjury isn't a crime then I can see I did a pretty good job in presenting what I have found. Condon cannot be trusted. Why? He had no integrity. He lied to Reporters. He lied to Police. He lied to Prosecutors. He allowed Myra to commit perjury. He committed perjury by lying under oath before the Grand Jury. He committed perjury by lying under oath in Flemington. He Obstructed Justice. He was an Accessory to Extortion. Etc., etc., etc. It's endless. His actions, and lies prove this beyond all doubt. In the end, it was the threat of prosecution which forced his testimony against Hauptmann. Whether or not he was "convicted" means absolutely nothing because the source material proves everything above - beyond all doubt. And not just in one place - EVERYWHERE. So no, I am not trying to "meld" or whatever because "I" don't need to and don't do anything except finally reveal what's in the material. Never in my wildest dreams did I EVER think that, armed with ALL of this new information, you would still continue to defend and place all of your faith in this guy. He was a Criminal. There is no way around it anymore. Did they have something "on" him thereby forcing him into this situation? Well that was the "excuse" supposedly made by CJ and I've always considered he was talking about himself. Here's where the speculation exists but not what he actually did because there's no disputing that anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 29, 2020 20:10:15 GMT -5
As we all know, the conventional thinking is that Condon seriously damaged the hunt for the kidnapper(s) when he saved CAL $20,000 - all gold certificate bills - at St. Raymond's Cemetery.
The first to castigate Condon was Elmer Irey several hours after the kidnapping when Condon proudly informed him that he had saved CAL $20,000.
And ever since, everybody -- law enforcement, newspaper writers, book authors, documentaries, me -- have criticized and blamed Condon for this act.
Here's a bit of a timeline, prior to the ransom drop --
On the afternoon of April 2, 1932, $70,000 arrived at Highfields in two bundles in two different cars. One bundle contained $50,000. The other bundle contained the $20,000 gold certificates, all in $50 bills.
The 4 men engaged in this delivery - Bartow, CAL, Breckinridge, and Condon - gave 4 different accounts of how these two bundles arrived at Highfields.
Later, CAL, Breckinridge, Condon, and Reich, gave 4 conflicting accounts of how the 2 bundles were stuffed into the box.
But one thing is certain. CAL had finally acquiesced to Irey's demand that all the ransom bills be recorded.
This is only supposition, but I find it highly probable that Irey likewise informed CAL that the $20,000 was all in gold certificates and easier to trace than non-gold certificates.
So...
When Condon came back to Lindbergh waiting in Reich's car at St. Raymond's, Condon intimated that he could save CAL $20,000.
But the bottom line is that it was CAL's decision to withhold the $20,000. Not Condon's.
CAL could have easily ignored Condon's suggestion. He didn't.
CAL is more responsible for damaging the hunt for the kidnapper(s) than Condon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2020 7:39:21 GMT -5
This is only supposition, but I find it highly probable that Irey likewise informed CAL that the $20,000 was all in gold certificates and easier to trace than non-gold certificates. So... When Condon came back to Lindbergh waiting in Reich's car at St. Raymond's, Condon intimated that he could save CAL $20,000. But the bottom line is that it was CAL's decision to withhold the $20,000. Not Condon's. CAL could have easily ignored Condon's suggestion. He didn't. CAL is more responsible for damaging the hunt for the kidnapper(s) than Condon. Wayne, I am a bit confused with the use of the words "intimated" and "suggestion" about the $20,000. My understanding is that Condon went back to the car after meeting with CJ the first time and advised Lindbergh that CJ had agreed to take only $50,000. This reduction, if you will, was negotiated and agreed upon between Condon and CJ. Condon was in charge of this negotiation and he informed Lindbergh of this change. So are you saying that because CAL did not force Condon to take the whole $70,000 with him, CAL was protecting the kidnappers? Protecting Condon too, perhaps. I stand with what Walsh felt was true about that extra $20,000 because it fits with the ransom note of March 4. That note raises the ransom amount because they need to take someone else into it. They needed the extra money to pay this person. That person was Condon. Condon went back to Lindbergh with that story that he "talked" CJ down to $50,000, when actually he did not want any share of that money since he knew Charlie was dead and Lindbergh was not getting his son back alive. Did Condon know at the time the ransom was being paid that the $20,000 dollar package had $50.00 gold certificates in it? I don't know that he did. He wasn't there when JP Morgan was assembling, then reassembling this ransom money. If Condon knew those bills were $50 dollar ones and that was to be his share, he no doubt would not have wanted anything to do with those bills. I do think that Condon had to have known, at the least, that one package was $50,000 while the other was $20,000. He was present while CAL tried to force both packages of money into that wood box. I believe all CJ ever wanted was the $50,000. I am not making excuses for CAL,here. CAL knew those $50 dollar bills were gold certificates. He bares responsibility in this with Condon. Both of these men had promised to protect these kidnappers. Both of them were doing this together.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 30, 2020 18:57:24 GMT -5
This is only supposition, but I find it highly probable that Irey likewise informed CAL that the $20,000 was all in gold certificates and easier to trace than non-gold certificates. So... When Condon came back to Lindbergh waiting in Reich's car at St. Raymond's, Condon intimated that he could save CAL $20,000. But the bottom line is that it was CAL's decision to withhold the $20,000. Not Condon's. CAL could have easily ignored Condon's suggestion. He didn't. CAL is more responsible for damaging the hunt for the kidnapper(s) than Condon. Wayne, I am a bit confused with the use of the words "intimated" and "suggestion" about the $20,000. My understanding is that Condon went back to the car after meeting with CJ the first time and advised Lindbergh that CJ had agreed to take only $50,000. This reduction, if you will, was negotiated and agreed upon between Condon and CJ. Condon was in charge of this negotiation and he informed Lindbergh of this change. So are you saying that because CAL did not force Condon to take the whole $70,000 with him, CAL was protecting the kidnappers? Protecting Condon too, perhaps. I stand with what Walsh felt was true about that extra $20,000 because it fits with the ransom note of March 4. That note raises the ransom amount because they need to take someone else into it. They needed the extra money to pay this person. That person was Condon. Condon went back to Lindbergh with that story that he "talked" CJ down to $50,000, when actually he did not want any share of that money since he knew Charlie was dead and Lindbergh was not getting his son back alive. Did Condon know at the time the ransom was being paid that the $20,000 dollar package had $50.00 gold certificates in it? I don't know that he did. He wasn't there when JP Morgan was assembling, then reassembling this ransom money. If Condon knew those bills were $50 dollar ones and that was to be his share, he no doubt would not have wanted anything to do with those bills. I do think that Condon had to have known, at the least, that one package was $50,000 while the other was $20,000. He was present while CAL tried to force both packages of money into that wood box. I believe all CJ ever wanted was the $50,000. I am not making excuses for CAL,here. CAL knew those $50 dollar bills were gold certificates. He bares responsibility in this with Condon. Both of these men had promised to protect these kidnappers. Both of them were doing this together. Hi Amy, All I am saying is that it was CAL, not Condon, who was ultimately responsible for not handing over the most easily traceable money to CJ. Condon only made the suggestion, CAL made the decision. He could have overridden Condon with ease. In fact, CAL acquiesced to all of the kidnapper(s) previous requests. Here's Irey's account from his book The Tax Dodgers -- CAL is the one Madden, Wilson, and Irey should have shot, not Condon. Also, as we know, CAL supposedly had the presence of mind not to open the original ransom note, but waited over 2 hours in order for the police to fingerprint it. I'm going to say it again that CJ handed the Boad Nelly note to Condon enclosed in an envelope. There was a very good chance that this envelope had the fingerprints that CAL had been looking for ever since the Nursery Note. What happened to that envelope? It's the only envelope that CAL didn't turn over to the police. Why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2020 20:37:55 GMT -5
]Hi Amy, All I am saying is that it was CAL, not Condon, who was ultimately responsible for not handing over the most easily traceable money to CJ. Condon only made the suggestion, CAL made the decision. He could have overridden Condon with ease. I understand the point you are making, Wayne. However, Condon did not suggest anything to Lindbergh. He told CAL he talked CJ into taking just $50,000. CAL could have told Condon he had to take all the money but he doesn't. CAL is doing what you said in your post. He is yielding to the kidnappers isn't he. He took out the $20,000 and paid the $50,000 Condon said the kidnappers were willing to take. Condon cuts a deal on his own that leaves out the $20,000 and CAL agrees to that deal even though he (CAL) understands the importance of the $50 dollar gold certs. Seems to me this went down just the way they both wanted it and Condon willingly took all the responsibility for it as you see in that Tax Dodgers segment you posted. I totally agree about that envelope that was not turned over by CAL but should have been. CAL and Condon had both handled it so I don't think that fingerprints had anything to do with it. Could something have been written on the envelope that Lindbergh didn't want anyone to see?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 30, 2020 21:58:33 GMT -5
Amy,
All that I'm saying is that after all this time, I think it's CAL who should be held responsible for not giving the kidnapper(s) the most easily traced money. Not Condon. CAL was in total control of this case from 10:00PM on March 1, 1932 until Charlie's body was found.
If he knew that the $20,000 would have been the best chance of capturing the kidnappers, he simply could have told Condon that he was honoring the kidnapper's demand and paying the entire $70,000. CAL was the boss, Condon just a pawn.
It was CAL who bungled the $20,000, not Condon.
And to open a can of worms with most everyone here, if Condon was complicit in the crime, there are only 2 possibilities that I can see:
1) Condon was the mastermind behind both the kidnapping and extortion. Condon recruited the kidnap gang including BRH.
2) Condon had nothing to do with the kidnapping, but was brought in as an accessory to the extortion part. The only way this works is if BRH or some other kidnapper approached Condon out of the blue and asked him to write a letter to the Bronx Home News in which he is to offer $1,000 of his own money to the kidnappers if they will turn Charlie over to a priest. They DO NOT ask him to offer himself as a go-between in the letter. (The Bronx Home News made that offer in their article, so BRH or some other kidnapper would have had to make this suggestion to the writer of the article - Gregory Coleman.)
Sorry, but I don't see either of these as even remotely possible. Please feel free to convince me otherwise.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on May 31, 2020 8:26:01 GMT -5
The request for the additional $20,000 was mentioned in connection with the delay in completing the transaction. One additional person had to be involved, presumably to take care of the baby and pay for additional costs in regard to his care. Since the baby was probably already deceased, the additional person would have been a myth, but the message is clear: if you keep delaying the payment, the cost will go up. The intention indicates that the kidnappers want their money and complete the deal as soon as possible in order for them to avoid detection and get out of the picture.
BTW The wording in the ransom note "we will not accept any go-between from your seid " (not "send") is a misspelling of "side" indicating a German's misunderstanding of the word in the spelling, confusing the "ei" with the "i".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2020 8:37:50 GMT -5
All that I'm saying is that after all this time, I think it's CAL who should be held responsible for not giving the kidnapper(s) the most easily traced money. Not Condon. CAL was in total control of this case from 10:00PM on March 1, 1932 until Charlie's body was found. CAL should bare full responsibility for how all this went down. I understand that, Wayne. CAL absoltutely ruled that investigation with an iron fist. So when we see CAL acquiescing to the kidnappers, he is doing so willingly. His role is that of the victim's father who is trying to get his son back alive and this is how he justifies his control of everything that goes on with that investigation. Once Charlie has been returned he no longer needs to run the show. There is the issue Wayne. This whole negotiation affair was never about capturing the kidnappers, was it. It was about getting the $50,000 dollars to the "kidnappers" who didn't want $70,000. The extra $20,000 was so the intermediary could be paid for his assistance. All CJ was there for was $50,000. That whole claim about how Condon was able to talk CJ out of $20,000 is just a cover story for why CAL and Condon would return with some unpaid ransom money. Money that was never going to be handed over to begin with. There is no bungling going on here. About your two possibilities and Condon's role: 1) Condon does not have to be the mastermind to be a player in this. His role was that of a financial facilitator for the kidnappers. Condon is not the man at the top. 2) Condon was not one of the kidnappers. He was not in Hopewell on the night of March 1, 1932. He was brought into the extortion segment so that the $50,000 could be collected without LE interference. Lindbergh gets the March 4 letter in the mail at Hopewell. This letter is crucial. It tells CAL that someone else is being added to aid with this transfer of funds and they will need additional money in order to pay this person. The kidnapper(s) are not going to pay for this change out of their $50,000. More money please. Condon is known to one of the extortion/kidnappers and is approached for help. He agrees and then writes the BHN letter which appears just 4 days after the March 4th kidnap note. Simple enough plan, right? Condon steps into this assist role willingly. He does not have to be the mastermind. He has a significant role and he plays it out as far as it will take him. He is holding all the negotiation cards, isn't he. This works for CAL. Condon is the man with the ransom symbol note telling Lindbergh Condon is the man you are to give the money to. It is Condon who will carry the responsibility for the payment instead of Lindbergh. Yep, that works! I see Condon as complicit in this crime once he knows that he will not be able to exchange the ransom money that was going to be paid in exchange for a living Charlie. He continues with his role anyway.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on May 31, 2020 9:02:28 GMT -5
John Condon appears to be in possession of what we would call today a "narcissistic personality," now recognized as by psychiatrists as a mental disorder that can be diagnosed. Characteristics are a desire to be admired, lack of empathy for others, and a need to play a starring role (my language on this last one). These individuals are not necessarily criminals, although they can be--as many cult leaders have now been recognized as narcissistic and acting out accordingly. Condon's motives in involving himself in the Lindbergh kidnapping case may have been his need to call attention to himself and become admired as big hero. This would fit the official characteristics of the mental disorder. His bungling and then attempts to change his story lines demonstrate his need to make excuses for himself so that he does not appear to be a bungler or loser--someone else or circumstances interfered with what he really intended to do. He has an image of himself that he does not want damaged and wants only praise for the person he perceives himself to be. He does not appear to be an organizer or a leader of a group, and at the age of seventy-one--if he had any such abilities, these would be evident in his history.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 31, 2020 13:15:41 GMT -5
Amy,
All great points! There is so much to politely discuss here.
1) So BRH or another kidnapper simply walked up to Condon out of the blue and asked him to get involved in an extortion plan?
From everything I've read about Condon, he seemed overzealously patriotic. You really see him involved in an extortion plot against America's greatest hero?
More importantly, in his letter to the Bronx Home News, Condon did not offer his services as a go-between. That is very important.
Gregory Coleman somehow added that to his article. So are we adding Gregory Coleman to the extortion plot?
2) Interesting comments regarding Ransom Note #2. The kidnappers do increase the ransom by $20,000 saying they have "to take another person."
But in the same note, the kidnappers also say "Don't by afraid about the baby two ladys keeping care of its day and night. She also will fed him according to the diet" and later "We are interested to send him back in gut care."
The kidnappers were lying. They had killed Charlie. How can you believe their reasoning for increasing their ransom to take in another person when they continuously lie throughout this letter?
Also, in Ransom Note #11, the kidnappers threaten to increase the ransom from $70,000 to $100,000. No mention is made of having to increase their personal.
The ransom notes are what the kidnapping was all about. Greed.
I'm just not seeing Condon as a greedy man. Hautpmann definitely. Condon no.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 31, 2020 13:31:24 GMT -5
My own take is similar to Amy's. First, I don't think the $50K ransom was ever meant to be collected. It was just a dummy figure in what was a fake ransom note to begin with. But the kidnapper/extortionists, who would've already been paid something upfront, realized they could get an extra $50K out of this, simply by treating this as an actual kidnapping--sending more ransom notes and selecting a go-between, someone who Lindbergh would have no choice but to give the $50K to, to then pass on to them. Being, I think, Bronx-based, the kidnappers knew (or knew of) Condon and got in touch with him for this purpose, using him as a pawn and as extra leverage against Lindbergh to get the $50K. The kidnappers approached Condon, appealing to his well-known vanity and love of the limelight and telling him that CAL Jr. was still alive and that they needed his help to return him (sweetening the deal with $20K, which was to be Condon's fee for his services). They came up with the idea of the BHN letter to innocently "establish" contact, Condon adding an offer of $1K of his own money to look that much more altruistic (he and the kidnappers agreeing that they wouldn't take this). Once Condon received the preplanned response to his BHN letter with the same signature symbol in the other ransom notes and showed it to Lindbergh--well, Condon must be in touch with the right parties, so how could Lindbergh not accept Condon as a go-between and not give him the $50-$70K, to pass on to them? But probably at the first cemetery meeting, Condon was told that CAL Jr. was, in fact, dead. At that point, once he was in and there was no way to back out of this, and with a dead child now in the mix, it became imperative that Condon made sure the kidnappers got their money and disappeared. He began lying left and right, muddying the waters and covering the kidnappers' tracks (and, by extension, his own). When the time came to pay the ransom, Condon removed the $20K addition and returned it to Lindbergh with some BS excuse about saving him money: The "ransom" was now blood money which Condon obviously couldn't accept any part of, and the $20K portion also contained the largest and most traceable bills; keeping them out of circulation further reduced the chances that the kidnappers would be caught and reveal Condon's true involvement with them. In short, Condon was no mastermind. He was exploited, duped, and pulled into something, then, once he realized this, engaged in a frantic game of CYA. He wasn't prosecuted or charged with anything because his BS was helping Lindbergh inasmuch as it kept up the appearance of a kidnapping, which is ultimately what Lindbergh wanted anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 31, 2020 15:38:44 GMT -5
My own take is similar to Amy's. First, I don't think the $50K ransom was ever meant to be collected. It was just a dummy figure in what was a fake ransom note to begin with. But the kidnapper/extortionists, who would've already been paid something upfront, realized they could get an extra $50K out of this, simply by treating this as an actual kidnapping--sending more ransom notes and selecting a go-between, someone who Lindbergh would have no choice but to give the $50K to, to then pass on to them. Being, I think, Bronx-based, the kidnappers knew (or knew of) Condon and got in touch with him for this purpose, using him as a pawn and as extra leverage against Lindbergh to get the $50K. The kidnappers approached Condon, appealing to his well-known vanity and love of the limelight and telling him that CAL Jr. was still alive and that they needed his help to return him (sweetening the deal with $20K, which was to be Condon's fee for his services). Hi Lightning, In this scenario, when Condon was first approached by the extortionist out of the blue, why didn't Condon with his "well-known vanity and love of limelight" go straight to the police and turn in the extortionists? He would have been America's greatest hero and have been given a generous reward, probably more that $20,000. Honestly Lightning, if you were planning a kidnapping and then extortion, would you go to someone you don't know like Dr. Lloyd Gardner and say, "Dr. Gardner, you don't know me, but have I got a deal for you. Just write a letter and send it to a newspaper offering to be the go-between for my extortion gang." I'm not being factious, but do you really see this as having happened?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 31, 2020 18:04:48 GMT -5
"factious" = "facetious"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2020 18:18:07 GMT -5
1) So BRH or another kidnapper simply walked up to Condon out of the blue and asked him to get involved in an extortion plan? From everything I've read about Condon, he seemed overzealously patriotic. You really see him involved in an extortion plot against America's greatest hero? More importantly, in his letter to the Bronx Home News, Condon did not offer his services as a go-between. That is very important. Gregory Coleman somehow added that to his article. So are we adding Gregory Coleman to the extortion plot? Wayne, it wasn't out of the clear blue. Condon is not a random choice. He was known to one of the extortionists as a man they could trust to help them collect the money if approached in the right way. Condon would be offered the opportunity to return the Lindbergh baby to his parents if he would help them secure the ransom money. They knew they were asking Condon to do something very risky by being involved but they were willing to compensate him for his help. To Condon, this is not plotting against America's greatest hero. He will be able to return Charlie. Certainly this is what motivated him the most. He would be the hero who rescues the Little Eaglet and places him back with his parents. It is a once in a lifetime opportunity, the good deed above all good deeds. So he agrees to help them get the ransom money. He now puts himself into an already existing extortion plot in order to save Charlie. I have no problem seeing him do this for that reason. There is no need for Condon to offer to be the go-between in his BHN letter because he has already been asked and agreed to do this. That letter is merely a formality to open the negotiations with Condon without it looking like it is planned. There has to be a letter so there can be a response. "Are we adding Gregory Coleman to the extortion plot?" Seriously, Wayne?? Condon arranged for Coleman to be present because he (Condon) knew this was going to be the biggest event of his life in which he would ever be involved in. He wanted the story covered by his friend Gregory Coleman. Nothing more. He wanted Coleman and the Bronx Home News to have the exclusive on the "Jafsie" story.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 31, 2020 18:49:29 GMT -5
Being able to return CAL Jr. to his parents, as I think Condon believed he would have been able to do, would’ve made him the greatest hero of all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2020 18:58:28 GMT -5
2) Interesting comments regarding Ransom Note #2. The kidnappers do increase the ransom by $20,000 saying they have "to take another person." But in the same note, the kidnappers also say "Don't by afraid about the baby two ladys keeping care of its day and night. She also will fed him according to the diet" and later "We are interested to send him back in gut care." The kidnappers were lying. They had killed Charlie. How can you believe their reasoning for increasing their ransom to take in another person when they continuously lie throughout this letter? Also, in Ransom Note #11, the kidnappers threaten to increase the ransom from $70,000 to $100,000. No mention is made of having to increase their personal. The ransom notes are what the kidnapping was all about. Greed. I'm just not seeing Condon as a greedy man. Hautpmann definitely. Condon no. The spector of a living Charlie to be returned is an important element of those notes. As long as there is a possibility that Charlie can be returned alive, Lindbergh is able to keep LE out of the negotiations so the money can be paid. So, of course they are going to lie about this. They can't say the child is dead can they. This by no means invalidates what they tell Lindbergh about bringing in someone else and needing money to pay this person. Both sides know it is necessary to have a go-between. The threatened increase of the ransom in note #11 is not about adding someone else. They don't need anyone else. It is time for Lindbergh to pay up. No more negotiations, just pay the money. It worked. I don't see Condon as greedy either. That was not his motivation to get involved. In Michael's TDC, V2, Chapter 2, on page 84 you see that Condon could have used some money to help him with his real estate and tax problems, so if he did give any consideration to accepting any kind of monetary compensation, he would have had a reason to do so. Like I have already said, I don't think money was Condon's primary motivation for involvement. I think the extortionists asked for that money before they talked to Condon. They wanted to be in a position to be able to offer it when they did approach him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2020 19:02:17 GMT -5
Being able to return CAL Jr. to his parents, as I think Condon believed he would have been able to do, would’ve made him the greatest hero of all. Absolutely!! He would have accomplished something Lindbergh could not do himself!! Condon would get his son back for him. Could anything be more motivating than that?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 31, 2020 19:06:18 GMT -5
There's portions from everyone's responses that I agree with and some things I don't necessarily although I agree they should be considered nevertheless. As recorded in my book(s) as well as past posts, LJ and I have similar beliefs along the lines of the extortion. I've always believed people were hired and the ladder/chisel/ransom note etc. were all part of the staged event. Soon after, those in possession of the body and symbol decided to go ahead and collect the additional 50K provided for in the note. And so, as it relates to the amount, the entire note was a lie - and yet, that figure was what had been collected. So we know that part eventually came true. So consider the additional request for an extra 20K came after the decision to press on. It makes sense because it WAS necessary if they had to bring someone else in - which we see actually occurred. The later threat was just that - a threat. To answer your question Wayne, no, Coleman wasn't "involved" but he did play a part in protecting Condon. This is where things get dicey. I consider it similar to Breckinridge transporting ransom for Lindbergh ... something that could have gotten him disbarred. Coleman knew more than anyone else as evidenced by what's in Vigil and no other source. So we see Condon telling him things that he told to no one else. Recovering the ransom box could also be explained this way. It all depends on what Condon told him the reason was for keeping certain things a secret. Maybe his life depended on it. Or maybe he spun a tale about how the baby's life depended on it. So it's Coleman protecting his friend who is trying to get the child back AND getting the inside scoop that no one else, including the police and Lindbergh where getting.
Most of everything involving Condon is covered in V2, in fact, its hard not to respond by simply referring to that entire volume because there's quite a bit that clearly demonstrates that Condon was involved in this extortion. The other thing that you've asked Wayne relies on this "idea" that Condon was a "Patriot." Timothy McVeigh considered himself a patriot did he not? Or what about Dennis Rader? I read somewhere that some of those he served with claimed he loved his country. And it didn't prevent Condon from molesting that little girl (probably more), keeping the Stinard inheritance, or attempting to steal the money in that woman's purse. Besides, for as many who believed Condon was a "patriot" there were just as many who believed he was full of it. I think the idea of "greed" can be explained by the above as well - in addition to what his wife claimed about his finances. As far as being "approached" by someone to bring him in... As I've said in the past, Condon was a liar. It's undeniable. Ask yourself "why lie?" It's what leads Joe to come up with a million excuses all of which are less likely then hitting the lottery. The simple, and most obvious answer is that he's lying to protect the extortionists. And he directly displays this after Hauptmann's arrest. It's why he made up the BS about the thumb and something the police allowed him to utilize when disqualifying other suspects. But when it came time for Hauptmann, he tried it, Hauptmann did not have it, and police already knew what was going on and would no longer allow this ruse to continue. So we have him denying Hauptmann was John, then taking off to Florida to try to pin it on someone else. When that venture failed, and the police gave him an ultimatum: it was either him or Hauptmann - that's when he finally identified him. And what did he tell Special Agent Turrou? In essence, his life wasn't worth 2 cents and that they were going to kill him. Other huge lies include that box, the ransom drop, and ones by omission like when Breckinridge made the "decoy" letters to see if Condon would turn them in... etc. etc. etc. There's quite a few "etc"s isn't there? But while the guy was a liar, he was one for a purpose. Furthermore, he listened to police, and used what he heard to bolster and assist those lies. Next, he also said certain things I believe were true - although at times he assigned these truths to certain events that did not occur. Like CJ claiming HE was brought in because "they had something on him." This, I believe, was why Condon was brought in. So he's telling us what happened. Furthermore, one of various stories he gave for why he got involved was because of a woman who was in a bad family who begged him for his help. Once again, I believe there's something to this. Perhaps a woman approached him. But honestly it could have been anyone. Mueller, Hauptmann, or even Reich. The common thread is City Island. The idea about whether or not Condon was aware the child was dead at the beginning is debatable. But I happen to believe he knew. In fact, this was probably used as leverage. Think about it. They got something on him, offer him 20K, and tell him they'll have no problem killing him or his family because they've already killed that baby if he squeals. One thing for sure, he certainly knew that baby was dead after Hauptmann's arrest. But he was still pulling that "act" wasn't he? When it comes to the fifties there's no way Condon didn't know their value to LE. No way. While there's no report that has him listening with a glass against the wall, we know he heard much of what was going on by the various stories he told. Like the examples I gave concerning Toner and Simek. Anyone think he blurted out that excuse of it being "Hauptmann's brother" was a coincidence? Besides, he was around this ransom more than most. And that example you gave Wayne about Irey (see also V2 pages 232-8), consider there's no denial from Condon about having such knowledge. Based on his past practices, he certainly would have lied in that situation - unless of course he could not.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 31, 2020 19:15:52 GMT -5
1) So BRH or another kidnapper simply walked up to Condon out of the blue and asked him to get involved in an extortion plan? From everything I've read about Condon, he seemed overzealously patriotic. You really see him involved in an extortion plot against America's greatest hero? More importantly, in his letter to the Bronx Home News, Condon did not offer his services as a go-between. That is very important. Gregory Coleman somehow added that to his article. So are we adding Gregory Coleman to the extortion plot? Wayne, it wasn't out of the clear blue. Condon is not a random choice. He was known to one of the extortionists as a man they could trust to help them collect the money if approached in the right way. Condon would be offered the opportunity to return the Lindbergh baby to his parents if he would help them secure the ransom money. They knew they were asking Condon to do something very risky by being involved but they were willing to compensate him for his help. To Condon, this is not plotting against America's greatest hero. He will be able to return Charlie. Certainly this is what motivated him the most. He would be the hero who rescues the Little Eaglet and places him back with his parents. It is a once in a lifetime opportunity, the good deed above all good deeds. So he agrees to help them get the ransom money. He now puts himself into an already existing extortion plot in order to save Charlie. I have no problem seeing him do this for that reason. There is no need for Condon to offer to be the go-between in his BHN letter because he has already been asked and agreed to do this. That letter is merely a formality to open the negotiations with Condon without it looking like it is planned. There has to be a letter so there can be a response. "Are we adding Gregory Coleman to the extortion plot?" Seriously, Wayne?? Condon arranged for Coleman to be present because he (Condon) knew this was going to be the biggest event of his life in which he would ever be involved in. He wanted the story covered by his friend Gregory Coleman. Nothing more. He wanted Coleman and the Bronx Home News to have the exclusive on the "Jafsie" story. Okay, so the questions that have to be answered are: 1) When said extortionists pay Condon a visit for the very first time and make him an offer he can't refuse, why doesn't he go to the police and/or CAL then? Tell them what happened, offer to do it undercover, and play it out then. Wouldn't that just make more sense? 2) Since Condon is part of the extortion gang, why didn't BRH identify him as such? Especially after Condon's identification of BRH at the trial put one of the biggest nails in his coffin. Why would BRH go to his death knowing that Condon helped cause his own death and was getting off scott-free? 3) And, yes, Gregory Coleman seriously. The Bronx Home News offered Condon as a go-between, not Condon. Are you saying it's a matter of syntax? That no matter what Condon would have written to the BHN (even if it was one of his poems), the extortionists would say, that's enough for us to involve Condon. 4) Any chance anyone can come up with some possible dialogue on how you would have approached Condon back in 1932 and offered him this deal? It would have to be something like, "Dr. Condon, you don't know me, but you can trust me. I have the Lindbergh baby and I want to make you America's greatest hero by having you return the baby to his mother's neck."
|
|