Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 12, 2020 13:47:38 GMT -5
Oh man, I don't mind being wrong, but I hate it when I'm 'enormously wrong'. Joe, how much of BRH's handwriting do you have PRIOR to March 1, 1932? Here are just 3 samples from his address book (in his handwriting BEFORE the kidnapping): All "t"s are enormously crossed, all "i"s are enormously dotted, and there are no ransom-notes-style "k"s (all enormously absent). Facts Joe. So please, show me what handwriting exemplars you're talking about (prior to the kidnapping), because, you know, that would make me enormously happy. That's great Wayne, albeit a pretty small sample size to get so enormously excited about.. or is that what you mean by 99%? Now if you'd be enormously kind enough to let me see what I can find in my modest files when I return home this weekend, I'll let you know. By the way, why the focus on what BRH wrote PRIOR to the night of the kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Feb 12, 2020 14:06:45 GMT -5
Oh man, I don't mind being wrong, but I hate it when I'm 'enormously wrong'. Joe, how much of BRH's handwriting do you have PRIOR to March 1, 1932? Here are just 3 samples from his address book (in his handwriting BEFORE the kidnapping): All "t"s are enormously crossed, all "i"s are enormously dotted, and there are no ransom-notes-style "k"s (all enormously absent). Facts Joe. So please, show me what handwriting exemplars you're talking about (prior to the kidnapping), because, you know, that would make me enormously happy. That's great Wayne, albeit a pretty small sample size to get so enormously excited about.. or is that what you mean by 99%? Now if you'd be enormously kind enough to let me see what I can find in my modest files when I return home this weekend, I'll let you know. By the way, why the focus on what BRH wrote PRIOR to the night of the kidnapping? Joe, You can only attach 3 jpegs here at a time. It would take me the rest of the day to send all of BRH's handwriting that I have. Why prior to the kidnapping? Really? You've studied handwriting, right? Because prior to the kidnapping, all exemplars are in Hauptmann's natural handwriting.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 12, 2020 14:51:47 GMT -5
And so, after March 1, 1932, Hauptmann started writing unnaturally? Where are you going with this, Wayne?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 20:16:56 GMT -5
Amy, during what time frame are you implying that Condon was protecting the identity of the kidnappers/extortionists? Before or after the discovery of CALjr's body, or both? I am not implying any specific time frame with that post. During the 2+ years Condon worked with authorities to aid the investigation with identifying Cemetery John and he selected an individual, not only did they not look like BRH but upon investigation, they could not have been involved with the crime. If you know what CJ looks like then why is this happening? Condon did not ID Hauptmann either when confronted with him. Condon was still looking for CJ as late as December 1934 when he made a trip to Florida. What I really don't understand Joe, is why, once LE had full access to Condon in 1932 that no one sat him down with a police sketch artist to create a composite of CJ. Instead, all they had to use was a general description that could have fit so many men in New York City and the Bronx that it was practically useless.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 12, 2020 21:17:54 GMT -5
Amy, I always thought that this police skitch of CJ was made from Condon's description of him in 1932. Is that not correct. Hopefully I can get this file to attach here. Thanks Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 22:35:46 GMT -5
Amy, I always thought that this police skitch of CJ was made from Condon's description of him in 1932. Is that not correct. Hopefully I can get this file to attach here. Thanks View AttachmentHi Lurp, I asked Michael about this a few years ago and what he told me was that he was almost certain that the Berryman sketches (one of which you posted) were done in 1934 by the FBI in a sit down with Condon. I was stunned that something like this was not done in 1932.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Feb 13, 2020 10:58:51 GMT -5
Joe, It's rather apparent who has seen Hauptmann's handwriting and who hasn't. The three pages of the address book that I sent? Anyone who has studied this case would know that's not from BRH's address book, it's from Hans Mueller's address book. You should have called me out, my friend. Just so you know, here are three pages from BRH's address book. With the "t"s crossed, the "i's dotted, and the "k" different from the ransom notes. Imagine that...
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Feb 13, 2020 11:45:42 GMT -5
Amy, I always thought that this police skitch of CJ was made from Condon's description of him in 1932. Is that not correct. Hopefully I can get this file to attach here. Thanks BRH doesn't look like either Berryman sketch I've seen: lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/post/17459/thread
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 13, 2020 14:41:41 GMT -5
Thanks Amy. Much appreciated. I had always thought that the Berryman sketches were done in 1932. Also thanks to Scathma for the link to Michel's discussion of this back in 2014. I have seen, and utilized, many police suspect sketches in the past and some turn out to be right on target and others not so much. We all see facial features in a different light. To me, if I had these two Berryman's sketches (front and profile) in my hands when I ran into Hauptmann, I would have given him a VERY hard second look.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 13, 2020 15:12:39 GMT -5
That’s the problem. The sketch wasn’t made until the summer of 1934. Next, the one you are using isn’t the “original” sketch. In fact, as seen on page 389 of V2, you can see it wasn’t even the one Peacock used for his book. Why? Obviously one would want the version that looks more like Hauptmann for that purpose which is probably why the original was swept under the rug and, over time, forgotten about. I wrote about this to spur further research because what is known about the sequence appears suspicious. Or it could just be that multiple sketches were made but for whatever reason the popular one wasn’t the first to be released. If you saw the profile sketch of the original I’m quite sure you’d have a different opinion. If you’re interested I’ll see if I can find it.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 13, 2020 20:33:51 GMT -5
Thanks for the information Michael. I did reread your pages on Berryman in VII, and as always in this case very little is straightforward. It is inexcusable that law enforcement didn't get a sketch of CJ out of Condon in 1932, especially after May 12th when this became a homicide investigation. For whatever it's worth, my opinion on the Berrryman sketchs is that if the "original" sketchs were part of the normal sketching process of working with the witness through many sketches, then the "originals" would be meaningless to law enforcement. Obviously it is only that "final" sketch that the witness signs off on that is relevant to law enforcement in looking for a perpetrator. Whatever happens to the first series of sketches that it took to get to the final one would be of little concern to law enforcement. So, IF those two Berryman sketches that I posted were the final ones that Condon approved of after a long sketching process, well they sure resemble Hauptmann to my eyes. From my readings on this, I just can't see a definative answer on which sketches were the "final" product. I have enjoyed reading VI, VII and VIII. Good stuff.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 14, 2020 8:04:39 GMT -5
Joe, It's rather apparent who has seen Hauptmann's handwriting and who hasn't. The three pages of the address book that I sent? Anyone who has studied this case would know that's not from BRH's address book, it's from Hans Mueller's address book. You should have called me out, my friend. Just so you know, here are three pages from BRH's address book. With the "t"s crossed, the "i's dotted, and the "k" different from the ransom notes. Imagine that... Ouch.. you got me there Wayne! I have to admit within the ten seconds or less it took me to examine your faux "t's" and "i's", I hadn't realized you pulled a fast one. In my defense though, I do remember thinking that I hadn't previously seen those specific entries in Hauptmann's memo and address books or letters. I'll bet you're a big fan of John Trendley and his shenanigans! Now, along the theme of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, you may want to take a second look at your latest exemplars which clearly demonstrate the alternate forms of Hauptmann's letter "t".. including the the uncrossed one.. I count at least four in your second image. If you weren't aware, this is the same form he used almost exclusively within his series of personally-penned ransom notes.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 14, 2020 8:15:41 GMT -5
Again Wayne, are you implying that Hauptmann did not express his natural handwriting after March 1, 1932?
Lots. And I also consider anything he wrote after March 1, 1932, as representative of his natural handwriting, at least up to the time of his arrest.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 14, 2020 9:51:50 GMT -5
No Wayne, I’m not a handwriting expert, but I do know enough to recognize similarities and differences within the work I do in nuclear quality inspection, notably the obvious concern over Counterfeit, Fraudulent and Suspect Items (CFSI) getting into the works. Speaking of QDE’s though, are you aware that the vast majority of QDE’s over the years right up to the present who have analyzed the handwriting evidence, are in clear agreement that Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes? In a statistical sense, what does that mean to you, perhaps enough to consider there may be some relevance to their findings? Or would you prefer to seek out an odd dissenting voice in the crowd who offers the kind of spin that most appeals to you? Why don’t you ask Mr. Srihari what his thoughts are on Hauptmann himself, having lamented to his wife, “Anny, if I didn’t know better, I would have to say this is my handwriting”? Not to get into the middle of this, because I'm still 50/50 on the handwriting, but I still wanted to make a couple of comments before I jump back out again. I DO believe one's experiences can assist here. For example, Joe being paid to notice differences as it relates to his field can certainly aid him concerning his evaluation of the writing. Unfortunately, no one can appreciate that more than those who work in his field. And its not just his profession but I'd say ANY that require noticing details and recognizing differences. Of course that doesn't make anyone an expert in document examination but as anyone can tell from my posts and TDC volumes - I'm not a big fan of that "science." Not long ago I had a major disagreement with a QDE about his claim that a "tt" (double t) was really an "x." Of course what's a prison guard doing arguing with an Expert? How dare I? Fortunately, Joe saw it too, and it was only then did I see any type of concession. How'd anyone here like to be falsely accused of writing something they did not? I mean, if it went to court there would absolutely be an expert on the other side to swear you did. Now I disagree about saying the "vast majority" says Hauptmann wrote the notes. I think this comes from the Forensic Files episode where only one out of three voiced anything other than guilt. (According to the SWGDOC guidelines Dr. Baier's level of criteria equals "indications" that he wrote it as opposed to "identification," or the lessor "highly probable.") So I am certain both Sperry and Epstein hold more weight to those who think Hauptmann did write these notes. Just don't bring up the Ramsey case because here they don't agree with Epstein because he concluded that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note in that case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 14, 2020 10:37:39 GMT -5
Thanks for the information Michael. I did reread your pages on Berryman in VII, and as always in this case very little is straightforward. It is inexcusable that law enforcement didn't get a sketch of CJ out of Condon in 1932, especially after May 12th when this became a homicide investigation. For whatever it's worth, my opinion on the Berrryman sketchs is that if the "original" sketchs were part of the normal sketching process of working with the witness through many sketches, then the "originals" would be meaningless to law enforcement. Obviously it is only that "final" sketch that the witness signs off on that is relevant to law enforcement in looking for a perpetrator. Whatever happens to the first series of sketches that it took to get to the final one would be of little concern to law enforcement. So, IF those two Berryman sketches that I posted were the final ones that Condon approved of after a long sketching process, well they sure resemble Hauptmann to my eyes. From my readings on this, I just can't see a definative answer on which sketches were the "final" product. I have enjoyed reading VI, VII and VIII. Good stuff. I feel lucky to have you posting again. We all benefit greatly from your knowledge and experience - so your opinions are worth quite a bit! As you can see by what I've written in the V2, there's much "we" do not know. I agree we need to find the "final" product in order to draw a conclusion. So what I did was pursue what we do know. First thing I decided to do was look into the history of using a sketch artist. The FBI laboratory did not have one so that was the reason they relied on a cartoonist from a paper. However, its not like it was the first time they did this. For example, they used a sketch artist to draw the suspect in the Wall Street Bombing (1920) although I do not know who actually drew it. It is important to note that the skill of those then isn't anywhere near at the same level it is today. Next, I took a look at Berryman's finished products elsewhere: www.antiquetrader.com/collecting-101/political-cartoon-fetch-1000www.cowanauctions.com/lot/jim-berryman-collection-of-original-social-political-cartoons-100936images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/711dPdbFzlL.jpgimages-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91m%2BRbdQiiL.jpgWhat I noticed was the "finished" product seemed to have the dark pencil background (shadowing) in places somewhere in the sketch. Not all but it my opinion most. Next I considered both versions of the sketch that we have: What I see here allows me to draw a personal conclusion that the first sketch is the final sketch. Why? Because of the background in the first and the sketch lines which still exist in the second. The other factor is the "release" dates. The first was out almost as soon as Hauptmann was arrested. Of course this could be because of a "leaker" who handed out the only version they had - which is why nothing should be "leaked" in the first place. But since Peacock was using this photo for his manuscript that tells me it was either the final sketch OR the only one the Prosecution had. It seems impossible to me that they did not possess the final version but who knows? Next, the 2nd sketch starts making the rounds by replacing the 1st sometime in the fall of 1935 and nowadays its the only one we ever see. Of course I could be wrong which is why I hope someday somebody will go to College Park and find the proof about the whole situation. These sketches were made in two days with Condon giving Berryman the description - all while under the supervision of Special Agent Sisk.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 14, 2020 10:59:28 GMT -5
No Wayne, I’m not a handwriting expert, but I do know enough to recognize similarities and differences within the work I do in nuclear quality inspection, notably the obvious concern over Counterfeit, Fraudulent and Suspect Items (CFSI) getting into the works. Speaking of QDE’s though, are you aware that the vast majority of QDE’s over the years right up to the present who have analyzed the handwriting evidence, are in clear agreement that Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes? In a statistical sense, what does that mean to you, perhaps enough to consider there may be some relevance to their findings? Or would you prefer to seek out an odd dissenting voice in the crowd who offers the kind of spin that most appeals to you? Why don’t you ask Mr. Srihari what his thoughts are on Hauptmann himself, having lamented to his wife, “Anny, if I didn’t know better, I would have to say this is my handwriting”? Not to get into the middle of this, because I'm still 50/50 on the handwriting, I still wanted to make a couple of comments before I jump back out again. I DO believe one's experiences can assist here. For example, Joe being paid to notice differences as it relates to his field can certainly aid him concerning his evaluation of the writing. Unfortunately, no one can appreciate that more than those who work in his field. And its not just his profession but I'd say ANY that require noticing details and recognizing differences. Of course that doesn't make anyone an expert in document examination but as anyone can tell from my posts and TDC volumes - I'm not a big fan of that "science." Not long ago I had a major disagreement with a QDE about his claim that a "tt" (double t) was really an "x." Of course what's a prison guard doing arguing with an Expert? How dare I? Fortunately, Joe saw it too, and it was only then did I see any type of concession. How'd anyone here like to be falsely accused of writing something they did not? I mean, if it went to court there would absolutely be an expert on the other side to swear you did. Now I disagree about saying the "vast majority" says Hauptmann wrote the notes. I think this comes from the Forensic Files episode where only one out of three voiced anything other than guilt. (According to the SWGDOC guidelines Dr. Baier's level of criteria equals "indications" that he wrote it as opposed to "identification," or the lessor "highly probable.") So I am certain both Sperry and Epstein hold more weight to those who think Hauptmann did write these notes. Just don't bring up the Ramsey case because here they don't agree with Epstein because he concluded that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note in that case. Michael, when I say the vast majority of QDE's over the years having agreed that Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes, I was basically referring to the totals for and against over the past 86 or so years. Regarding that debate over the double "t" vs. "x", it was Hauptmann's double "t" letter formation in the German word "Eintritt", (entrance fee) that appeared in the memo book chronicling his California trip expenses, that was identical to the double "t" he used in the entry "Pott Soap." 90 cents would also have been too much to pay for a "Pox" of soap, so it seems clear he was talking about having purchased both a "Pot" and "Soap." And a bit of irony here as it pertains to our discussion of crossed vs. uncrossed "t's". I'll have to double check this weekend, but I'm pretty sure the word "Eintritt" which appears twice on one page in his memo book, exhibits both forms of his double "t" letter formation. One is crossed.. and the other is uncrossed.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 14, 2020 19:33:06 GMT -5
Thanks Michael. I still follow/read the forum, and still find it very informative. I still don't have the volume of information that you, Amy, Joe and some others on the forum have, so i usually just read, attempt to gather that information and keep my mouth shut. I think you know that I don't agree with some of the current views on the forum, but I am still keeping an open mind on everything. My experience is that you can't successfully investigate any criminal case without a completely open mind and devoid of any emotional baggage as to suspects, witnesses, etc.
I find your research into Berryman' sketches very interesting and thorough.. I certainly agree with you that the sketch on the left that you posted looks like a Berryman finished product. Although this sketch looks alot less like Hauptmann than the sketch on the right, one can certainly see that they are from the same sketching sequence. The one on the left that appears to be like Berryman's finished cartoons still has the nose, jaw and face angulation of Hauptmann, but the overall look is different. If Condon was attempting to provide his best description of CJ (and if CJ was Hauptmann), why did Condon move from the sketch on the right to the "final" one on the left? To me the one on the right would prompt any competent Investigator to take a real thorough look at Hauptmann if the circumstances presented itself. So, did Condon take a look at the "transitional" sketch on the right and say "holy crap, this looks way too much like CJ" and then steer Berryman away from that sketch to produce a final one that did not as closely resemble CJ? I don't believe Condon was actively involed in the kidnapping or the ransom extortion, but he obviously did have his reasons for protecting CJ from law enforcement.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 14, 2020 20:49:13 GMT -5
Not to answer myself here, but attached is the above noted double entry of the word "Eintritt" which appears on the same page within Hauptmann's memorandum book, and chronicling his California trip expenses. Both of his letter "t" forms appear here, crossed and uncrossed. p.s. no dotted "i's" on that second "Eintritt." ibb.co/6tsFhxm
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 15, 2020 10:46:15 GMT -5
Michael, when I say the vast majority of QDE's over the years having agreed that Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes, I was basically referring to the totals for and against over the past 86 or so years. I still say that's slightly overstated. There's quite a few others documented at the NJSP Archives to consider that suggest otherwise. I'd say there's more who say he did, but I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to the ratio. Of course then the debate "shifts" into "what" those offering opinions relied on to make their evaluations, or what qualifications they held at the time, etc. Listen, there are so many different "sciences" to consider it will make your head spin. I've just come into possession of four separate Expert Reports concerning "Voice Stress Analysis" of Hauptmann's answers to questions about the kidnapping. ALL four say he was not being deceptive. I could say that ALL Voice Stress Analysis concluded he was being honest but I can't because I don't know if any others exist. In the end what does it mean anyway once considering the certain "sciences" which are suspect. BTW... I've got to be honest and say that I was hoping NOT to find anything more. You know kind of hang up my spurs and pass the torch when it comes to researching at Archives. Unfortunately every time I look somewhere new I keep finding important information and its driving me cRaZy. I recently came into a new source for Whateley's confession and I am working through it now. I wish I had it when I wrote V1. Ugh!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 15, 2020 11:09:00 GMT -5
This is something I've noted over the years too. Some say they both look like Hauptmann. Others say the one does but not the other one. And some, like you, say neither do. Thanks Michael. I still follow/read the forum, and still find it very informative. I still don't have the volume of information that you, Amy, Joe and some others on the forum have, so i usually just read, attempt to gather that information and keep my mouth shut. I think you know that I don't agree with some of the current views on the forum, but I am still keeping an open mind on everything. My experience is that you can't successfully investigate any criminal case without a completely open mind and devoid of any emotional baggage as to suspects, witnesses, etc. As you can see, it really doesn't matter the volume of material one has in order to make an impact. Sometimes even the little things lead to bigger things too. I wish more people would post their ideas and thoughts because its through these discussions that I learned, and continue to learn so much. I cannot agree more about emotions. Sometimes even devoid of any baggage its hard to let go of a promising lead. There's many pitfalls to avoid, which of course, is easier said than done. That's another thing this Board does in my opinion. Because of our diversity it helps to act like a "guard-rail" by and through the different questions, opinions, and/or challenges. I find your research into Berryman' sketches very interesting and thorough.. I certainly agree with you that the sketch on the left that you posted looks like a Berryman finished product. Although this sketch looks alot less like Hauptmann than the sketch on the right, one can certainly see that they are from the same sketching sequence. The one on the left that appears to be like Berryman's finished cartoons still has the nose, jaw and face angulation of Hauptmann, but the overall look is different. If Condon was attempting to provide his best description of CJ (and if CJ was Hauptmann), why did Condon move from the sketch on the right to the "final" one on the left? To me the one on the right would prompt any competent Investigator to take a real thorough look at Hauptmann if the circumstances presented itself. So, did Condon take a look at the "transitional" sketch on the right and say "holy crap, this looks way too much like CJ" and then steer Berryman away from that sketch to produce a final one that did not as closely resemble CJ? I don't believe Condon was actively involed in the kidnapping or the ransom extortion, but he obviously did have his reasons for protecting CJ from law enforcement. Okay now we're getting down to the nuts and bolts here. When it comes to Condon, its hard not to "play" both sides of the street. That's because he's either being deceptive or he's not. While I often say that I have an open mind about things, this is one place I do not. Condon is clearly being deceptive. So when I offer solutions as to certain things he said as if he's telling the truth I only do that for arguments sake from the other side of things. So clearly, he hid the box in the bush, leading cops to the footprint and claiming it was made by CJ could be true, but I'm inclined to believe it was fabricated. Of course if he was telling the truth it wasn't made by Hauptmann but I'd be lying if I said I believed he was. I'm not sure if you accept my position in V2 about Condon inventing the lump, but I am all in here too. If not, as I've stated, its a hard one to get past since Hauptmann never had such a feature. Varicose Veins - yes. The Lump on his thumb (pick one) - no. So now we get to your suggestion. This is exactly what I have suspected all along. You may be playing "Devil's Advocate" to flush this out of me, but if not we agree. It's just more evidence, in my opinion, that Condon was the guy mentioned in the note that they needed to bring in - just as Inspector Walsh believed. So what we see is a man who was an agent of the extortionists. He's guilty of obstruction of justice, and he's a party to the extortion. His job was to get them their money, provide them with intel, and prevent and/or tip them off about anything that could lead to their arrests. If it wasn't for the all of the in-fighting between the agencies, and absolute need for his testimony he would have gone down and the history of this case would be very different as it is today. One last point about the sketch. If we are right (I believe we are) and the first sketch is the "final" one. Why is the unfinished product on the FBI site right now? Is it a case of whisper down the alley combined with a lack of research on the matter?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 15, 2020 12:20:09 GMT -5
There was no realistic way or reason for the kidnappers to have seen Condon’s Home News offer letter to act as go-between, or to have responded to it at all, unless there was a pre-laid plan to do so. This means the kidnappers and Condon were in contact prior to Condon placing his letter, making that letter a kind of cover story—an apparently innocent way for Condon and the kidnappers to have established contact. None of this means he was in any way involved in CAL Jr.’s death; I don’t think he was. Condon seems to have been a dupe, chosen by the kidnappers as an ostensible go-between because they knew he would be useful: Appeal to his vanity and love of the limelight to get him involved, sweetening the deal with the promise of $20K, then once he’s in and can’t back out, tell him the child’s dead and, as the consummate BS-er he is, he’ll cover our tracks, especially since, at that point, it’ll be all the more in his interest to do so.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 16, 2020 19:29:22 GMT -5
Michael,
I always enjoy reading your posts on Condon. No one has done more research on Condon's activities in the LKC than you. You have certainly provided the research that documents Condon's deceptions and lying in this case. i agree with you that Condon could certainly have been charged with Obstruction of Justice and Conspiracy to Commit Extortion. However, one has to always evaluate the individual's motives and level of criminal intent. This is probably where we differ somewhat (alot??) in regards to Condon. For what it is worth, I'll give you my current two cents on Condon, and I will try not to be too long winded on it.
To me, Condon was a product of his time, being born, raised and coming of age in the 19th century. There is virtually no one today who can even vaguely relate to the 1800"s. Our culture has changed so very, very much. Condon was definitely vain, pompous, full of self importance, etc., etc., but I believe he probably thought of himself as a Don Quixote knight ready to take on the windmills of his time. He was an educated man, intelligent with an educational career. No matter how he actually got initially connected with the extortionists/kidnappers, I believe that his motive at the beginning was to be the knight in shining armour, and to be the one to "place the kidnapped child in the arms of its mother". In his mind, it would make him a national hero and it would also be financially rewarding to him in the long run.
However, Condon had zero "street smarts" and he was completely at the mercy of the extortionists from the very start. As i believe Lightningjew stated in his last post, Condon was duped from the get go. These street smart extortionists just ate his lunch. Most "normal" people have never gone face to face with a street smart hood (I know that you have Michael), and normal people outside of law enforcement just don't know how they can take someone like Condon and just destroy him (Hauptmann had tons of street smarts in my book). Condon's illusions of grandeur ended very quickly at his first meeting with CJ. From that very first meeting, Condon knew that the child was dead and that he (Condon) had placed himself right in the middle of a murder case that could have extremely dire consequences for him. The extortioists had Condon exactly where they wanted him right from jump street. They knew someone like Condon would panic and thereby provide them with protection from law enforcement and also help in obtaining the ransom money from Lindbergh.
From this first meeting with CJ, Condon was now starting his pattern of lies and deceptions to protect the extortionists from being apprehended by law enforcement. Whether it was inventing false physical descriptions of CJ (deformed thumb, inaccurate sketch, made-up footprint) or removing the valuable $20,000 from the ransom payment that could be more easily traced, Condon just wanted this whole thing to be over by allowing the extortionists to get their money and fade away. I believe that Condon thought that if he could just help the extortionists get away safely they would never be caught, and the child's body would never be found. To him this whole thing would just fade away over time and his reputation (and perhaps his very freedom) would be preserved. Condon certainly knew that law enforcement and even Lindbergh were getting very suspicious of him.
Condon had naively involved himself with street smart criminals who were WAY over his head, and like many people in this situation he panicked. I think his worse day was when Hauptmann was arrested after all of that time, Condon knew that Hauptmann was CJ and he had no idea what Hauptmann would say to law enforcement. It didn't take Condon too long to assess that if he didn't I.D. Hauptmann, law enforcement was going to take him (Condon) down with Hauptmann. It was totally inexcusable that law enforcement didn't come down on Condon with a ton of bricks much, much earlier in the investigation. In my view he didn't need to be charged, but he needed to see the full wrath of law enforcement back in 1932.
I did get long winded in this--my apologies. At the moment these are my views on Condon. He ws totally guilty of Obstruction, but his motive very quickly became attempting to save his own buttocks from prison or worse. I have more thoughts on Condon's activities, but I'll stop here.
Michael, your recent post on the sketches ended with a statement as to why the "first" CJ sketch was still currently on the FBI site. I think the reason is the last part of your sentence. From my dealings with the FBI, it would be because of a lack of proper research. You need to show them a few things about research.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Feb 17, 2020 7:56:29 GMT -5
Lurp, do you have any thoughts on who Hauptman’s confederates were and who may have enlisted Condon’s help?
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 17, 2020 19:25:46 GMT -5
Stella,
I haven't obtained enough information yet to firm up my suspicions on Hauptmann's accomplices, but when I do I will certainly post them here to see if anyone agrees.
In general (for whatever it is worth) my opinion is that this kidnapping was a Bronx, N.Y. crime. That is, it was conceived, planned and executed from the Bronx by Bronx perpetrators. I think that Hauptmann and just a few others from the Bronx carried out this kidnapping and extortion. They saw that others in the criminal world were getting "easy" money from the snatch racket at that time, and they wanted in. The snatch racket was a relatively quick and safe way to get some easy money (and in 1932 I believe that Hauptmann wanted money). As you know, back then there was no Federal statute on kidnapping, and most State laws on kidnapping (as in N.J.) were weak. If the kidnapped victim could be returned very quickly and safely with NO police involvement, the risks to the perpetrators were minimal and the rewards big. At that time, I think that it would be a tempting thing to try for some people.
It is my view that no local Hopewell area resident was involved in this crime. If someone from the Morrow/Lindbergh staff was an inside participant (witting or unwitting), it was someone the Bronx kidnappers generated through social contacts in northern N.J. or the Bronx. These Bronx kidnappers would have been fish out of water in the rural central N.J. area of Hopewell/Princeton in 1932. They only went there to get the child, and that proved to be a disaster for them. My experience is that small time criminals, as this group would have been, do not like to operate out of their comfort zone--in this case that would have been the Bronx. When the police (NJSP) got quickly involved and the ransom negotiations immediately became complicated, there was no way that they were going to conduct any negotiations in N.J. It would be in the Bronx.
To me, this also applied to the kidnappers recruitment of Condon. They were not going to use anyone outside of the Bronx. Condon was certainly well known in the entire Bronx community, and if the kidnappers had gotten wind that Condon wanted to get involved to help return the kidnapped Lindbergh child, he (Condon) fit their bill. Condon's general reputation would give him some credibility with Lindbergh, and the kidnappers could keep everything in the Bronx. I can't say that I have any valid explanation as to what exactly happened to put the kidnappers onto Condon, but suffice to say, it worked for them.
I definitely believe that if this entire crime had occurred in the Bronx and the NYPD had been the investiating Police Department, things would have been different. The NYPD would have been able to apprehend this group of Bronx kidnappers relatively quickly. In my opinion, this motley group of Bronx perpetrators would have been no match for NYPD Bronx Detectives on their home turf in 1932.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 18, 2020 10:42:07 GMT -5
i agree with you that Condon could certainly have been charged with Obstruction of Justice and Conspiracy to Commit Extortion. However, one has to always evaluate the individual's motives and level of criminal intent. This is probably where we differ somewhat (alot??) in regards to Condon. For what it is worth, I'll give you my current two cents on Condon, and I will try not to be too long winded on it. Please don't worry about being "long winded" because there's no such animal here as far as I'm concerned. The more shared from everyone the better! This offers a third possibility apart from the 100% honest or 100% guilty paths. I fully agree with your point about individual motives. Not just here but everywhere. As it relates to Condon, I have even offered that one could argue that Condon did what he did out of fear for his safety (or that of his family), and also the possibility of blackmail. I personally feel blackmail may have been what originally brought him in. When it comes to fear I believe that was a motive for all of the deception as well. Whether or not it shifted further from the blackmail to more of a fear factor is also a consideration. So here is my dilemma... If Condon is dealing with the culprits beyond what history records, as I believe we both accept, it seems his best play would be to turn the guy in. This eliminates both of his fears. That is UNLESS he's dealing with more than one person. So an arrest of just one does him no good. Any feedback on this point? I have more thoughts on Condon's activities, but I'll stop here. By all means continue with your thoughts! I want everyone to feel free to share all that they like ... Please everyone - do share. Too much has gone unsaid over the years. It is my view that no local Hopewell area resident was involved in this crime. Here is my question for you concerning your point above: How do you reconcile the fact the burlap bag was unquestionably traced to the local area? It seems a contradiction to expect that these people left the Bronx without all of the necessities. And yet, we must consider they did, because they had to stop at some random place nearby Hopewell to steal or buy a burlap bag. If a farm, we both know just about all had dogs and their owners guns. If a store they risk being identified. Not to put you on the spot, I am just trying to pick your brain.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Feb 18, 2020 21:44:45 GMT -5
Thanks for your answer Lurp. I think that Condon may have known one of the gang, perhaps a former student or someone he knew from City Island and he was approached to be the go between after the kidnapping went so wrong. It could be a win-win, he would be a both a national hero and get someone he knew out of a bad situation appealing to his sense of altruism. The $20,000 sweetened the pot. After the baby was found dead (and he knew it was after his first meeting with CJ) he couldn’t go to the cops without incriminating himself.
Condon was very good at mixing just enough truth with his lies and perhaps law enforcement thought he would eventually trip up. I have no idea how he avoided jail after the baby’s body was found.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 19, 2020 8:36:35 GMT -5
Michael, in regards to your question on the tracing of the burlap bag, I guess that I just see the tracing results differently from you. I believe that in your post you referred to the trace as "questionable". I do have questions on it. It was obviously not the same as tracing a firearm with a unique serial number!
If the lettering on the bag was recognized correctly as belonging to the Kraft-Phenix Cheese Corporation, then this bag was just one of 1,000 bags with the exact same stenciling. They were shipped in mid 1930 in two 500 bag cars to Ohio and New York, and then onto numerous States all over the Northeast. And then of course there was always the secondary market on these bags. At the time of this trace in 1932, the NJSP had no actual suspect to attempt to trace one of these bags to. They were just attempting to see if any of the bags may have been originally sold in the Hopewell area where it was found. Considering the very wide geographical area that these bags were shipped to, the kidnappers could have acquired the bag in many different States. Just because the kidnappers disposed of the bag along with the child's body on Mt. Rose Hill, doesn't in any way mean they acquired it in the local Hopewell area. If at the time of this bag tracing activities in 1932 the NJSP had a prime suspect like Hauptmann living in the Bronx, perhaps their tracing efforts would have been focused in that area instead of Hopewell. The distribution of these 1000 bags with the same lettering was certainly wide spread enough to to have included areas in Long Island or in that time period even the Bronx itself.
This bag tracing was a nice attempt by the NJSP, but the results just had no specificity of results. I don't see the evidence that just because one of these 1,000 bags was found in Hopewell means that it was acquired in the Hopewell area. Many of these bags appeared to go to areas where Hauptmann and/or his associates could have acquired one prior to the kidnapping. By March of 1932 these bags had "been around".
For many reasons, I just don't see any credible evidence of any Hopewell area local being involved in any aspect of this crime, Heck, it even appears that when the kidnappers needed intel on what was happening to the first two ransom notes, they sent two Bronc individuals (Birritella and Cerrita) to smoke it out. To me, the kidnappers/extortionists just appeared to have no Hopewell area contact to use for any information/help.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 9:58:51 GMT -5
If at the time of this bag tracing activities in 1932 the NJSP had a prime suspect like Hauptmann living in the Bronx, perhaps their tracing efforts would have been focused in that area instead of Hopewell. Interesting post Lurp. I just want to put out there that Hauptmann did have burlap bags. Such bags were recovered from his car when it was searched. Just thought I would put this out for consideration. Hauptmann was a hunter and he had traveled across America and back in 1931. Obviously he did acquire burlap bags in his travels. imgur.com/vORgBlY
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 19, 2020 10:05:14 GMT -5
Michael, in regards to your question on the tracing of the burlap bag, I guess that I just see the tracing results differently from you. I believe that in your post you referred to the trace as "questionable". I do have questions on it. It was obviously not the same as tracing a firearm with a unique serial number! Sorry about that. I will go back to update the word to say " unquestionable." I was thinking "obviously" but changed my mind to "unquestionable" which led to the mistake of typing out what I did. (I've noticed that I've been doing this more and more lately so maybe its time to pick up a bottle of Lion's Mane or something). If the lettering on the bag was recognized correctly as belonging to the Kraft-Phenix Cheese Corporation, then this bag was just one of 1,000 bags with the exact same stenciling. They were shipped in mid 1930 in two 500 bag cars to Ohio and New York, and then onto numerous States all over the Northeast. And then of course there was always the secondary market on these bags. At the time of this trace in 1932, the NJSP had no actual suspect to attempt to trace one of these bags to. They were just attempting to see if any of the bags may have been originally sold in the Hopewell area where it was found. Considering the very wide geographical area that these bags were shipped to, the kidnappers could have acquired the bag in many different States. Just because the kidnappers disposed of the bag along with the child's body on Mt. Rose Hill, doesn't in any way mean they acquired it in the local Hopewell area. If at the time of this bag tracing activities in 1932 the NJSP had a prime suspect like Hauptmann living in the Bronx, perhaps their tracing efforts would have been focused in that area instead of Hopewell. The distribution of these 1000 bags with the same lettering was certainly wide spread enough to to have included areas in Long Island or in that time period even the Bronx itself. Thanks for your response. I appreciate your position, but they actually were interested in NYC at this time as well. Eastern States Milling Corporation stated that their shipments went to " New England, Pennsylvania, or Delaware." The Manager, W. P. Frost, further wrote: The empty sack in question may then have passed to the point mentioned in your letter either directly from a farm or thru the hands of one or more secondhand bag collectors. So what we have here are three very real potential spots for the origin of this bag that were quite close to Hopewell but absolutely nothing from anywhere in NY at all. Had there been locations in Long Island, for example, I would agree with your premise. I could be wrong, and if I am I'd like to hear about it, but I find it hard to believe a burlap bag from Delaware makes any sense - so that's out. Next, one could argue that "New England" is a potential source since technically Connecticut is considered part of New England. But who is driving up to Connecticut for a burlap bag when NYC could be the source for any number of them? They were used for all kinds of product back then to include sugar, flower, powdered milk, baking soda, etc. In fact, a burlap bag was discovered in Hauptmann's locker at City Island. That bag originally contained sugar and originated in NY. For this reason police had no interest in it. I don't know this as a fact, but I believe it came from Fredricksen's bakery. But this particular bag found in Mt. Rose originally contained oats for animal food right? The only situation left to consider is that a bag "floated" up to NYC somehow from one of the various locations. Many people investigated with this case occurred because they had a home/property in Hopewell - but some also had a place in NYC as well so this is a possibility. But that still means the bag came from the local area originally. I don't gamble, but if I did then I'd play the odds. Here the odds are very high that this one bag out of the thousand originated from one of the three final destinations near Hopewell. That entire area was mostly farms back then. This bag tracing was a nice attempt by the NJSP, but the results just had no specificity of results. I don't see the evidence that just because one of these 1,000 bags was found in Hopewell means that it was acquired in the Hopewell area. Many of these bags appeared to go to areas where Hauptmann and/or his associates could have acquired one prior to the kidnapping. By March of 1932 these bags had "been around". After considering what I've written above, could you give me an example as to where Hauptmann may have picked up this bag? For many reasons, I just don't see any credible evidence of any Hopewell area local being involved in any aspect of this crime, Heck, it even appears that when the kidnappers needed intel on what was happening to the first two ransom notes, they sent two Bronc individuals (Birritella and Cerrita) to smoke it out. To me, the kidnappers/extortionists just appeared to have no Hopewell area contact to use for any information/help. This, to me, is a whole different subject. One that I am interested in and wouldn't mind hearing your position (and everyone else's as well).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 19, 2020 10:10:13 GMT -5
Interesting post Lurp. I just want to put out there that Hauptmann did have burlap bags. Such bags were recovered from his car when it was searched. Just thought I would put this out for consideration. Hauptmann was a hunter and he had traveled across America and back in 1931. Obviously he did acquire burlap bags in his travels. imgur.com/vORgBlY Good one Amy. This obviously came from either his trip to California or Florida. With this in mind I suppose one could argue Hauptmann stopped in Delaware during his return from the CA trip and bought the burlap bag there. Personally, I'd expect to hit the lottery before accepting this as anything but a shot in the dark. Bags of oats unloaded in New Hope, Wycombe, and Riegelsville would go to farms in the immediate and general area. To imagine them, once empty, sold from individual farms, trucked up to NYC, only for one to come back to Hopewell for the purpose of this kidnapping makes very little sense to me under the circumstances.
|
|