Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2020 18:50:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Apr 28, 2020 20:39:22 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2020 7:56:56 GMT -5
Charles Solomon sounds like he could be the gangster Dorothy Wayman interviewed. I have not done any research into east coast rum runners to be able to say with any certainty who she might have spoke with. I do not believe that rum runners were involved with the kidnapping of Charlie. I have not read Dorothy Wayman's book yet but it sounds like you have. Did Dorothy Wayman ever identify what gangster she interviewed for that 1932 article?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Apr 29, 2020 19:47:33 GMT -5
Amy,
Too bad that I cannot just provide a link to the post that I put up years ago.
I would not have to type it again.
I'd be willing to type it again if you'd like, especially if you believe there is a strong rum runner angle to the Lindbergh case.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Apr 29, 2020 19:53:43 GMT -5
No.
Dorothy Wayman did not identify the name of the gangster that she met up with one night at the time when the Lindbergh baby was still missing.
Charles Solomon was known as the "Rum King."
Plus, other information points to Solomon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2020 14:58:16 GMT -5
Amy, Too bad that I cannot just provide a link to the post that I put up years ago. I would not have to type it again. I'd be willing to type it again if you'd like, especially if you believe there is a strong rum runner angle to the Lindbergh case. Sue, I am not 100% negative towards the possibility of rum runner involvement. I just have not seen much in the way of reports that indicate this to be the case. For rum runners to kidnap the most famous baby in the world for only $50,000 dollars which would result in so much interference with the rum running business, both on land and sea, resulting in financial loss to the groups involved with that business, it just doesn't make sense that they would engage in something that would be counterproductive to their own money making activities. However, I have not seen your research on this angle. I know you to be an excellent researcher and I would certainly be open to considering, at least, what you have found concerning this. I am going to post here one of the earliest reports I could find involving a rum running boat that was reported to the NJSP. This report is dated March 3, 1932. imgur.com/3H0i3SM
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 2, 2020 10:02:38 GMT -5
I am not 100% negative towards the possibility of rum runner involvement. I just have not seen much in the way of reports that indicate this to be the case. For rum runners to kidnap the most famous baby in the world for only $50,000 dollars which would result in so much interference with the rum running business, both on land and sea, resulting in financial loss to the groups involved with that business, it just doesn't make sense that they would engage in something that would be counterproductive to their own money making activities. As Amy rightly pointed out, the rum-runner investigations started early and continued on for quite some time. Here is an interesting letter. If not for anything else it demonstrates the "situation" police were dealing with at the time. imgur.com/NFdHqbSimgur.com/gbSJ0GZ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2020 9:07:53 GMT -5
Here is an interesting letter. If not for anything else it demonstrates the "situation" police were dealing with at the time. Interesting letter, especially about the names Sallie and Nellie being rum running boats. In the newspaper articles of April 3 & 4 about CAL's search for the "Nellie", the papers at first were saying the boat name was Sallie. Lindbergh, Breckinridge, Condon and Irey all knew the boat name to be Nelly. So where does "Sallie" come from? I had thought they (CAL, Condon etc) might be making that name up in order to keep reporters from attempting to pounce upon any boat that might have had Nelly (Nellie) on it. Now I am not so sure about that with your posting of the Crowley letter. This informant is going back to the 1920's concerning the existence of these boats. So, did Schwarzkopf follow up on this and have a search made for Albiene (Benny) Violette? What happened to Benny's fleet of boats? Was this informant's identity ever made known to the NJSP?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 3, 2020 9:57:49 GMT -5
So, did Schwarzkopf follow up on this and have a search made for Albiene (Benny) Violette? What happened to Benny's fleet of boats? Was this informant's identity ever made known to the NJSP? I thought so Amy, but since your post I searched for that information and haven't been able to locate it. You know, the usual list of possibilities apply here. Ugh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2020 16:41:03 GMT -5
I thought so Amy, but since your post I searched for that information and haven't been able to locate it. You know, the usual list of possibilities apply here. Ugh. Right about that list! So I made a quick check of Albiene Violette and I did find an Albenie Benjamin Violette who could be the man the informant spoke about. He was a French Roman Catholic Canadian. His 1901 census lists him as a laborer. However, a Mr. Violette did sail into Key West Florida in February 1924 so the informant could be telling the truth about seeing him in Palm Beach. I can't confirm anything about him having a fleet of rum running schooners but I guess anything is possible. Whether these boats still existed in the 1930's, I just don't know. Albenie Violette died in Canada in April 1928.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 5, 2020 18:48:34 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2020 20:56:21 GMT -5
What you say above shows how bogus the Boad Nelly note really was. Charlie was never on a boat named Nelly or any other boat with "two womens" taking care of him. Charlie was buried in New Jersey, most likely from the very night he was taken from the Hopewell house.
I believe the Boad Nelly note was created and exchanged for the $50,000 so that Condon would have something to show after turning over that money. Condon could not return to the car empty-handed. The note protects Condon. That is all that note does.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 6, 2020 9:29:36 GMT -5
What you say above shows how bogus the Boad Nelly note really was. Charlie was never on a boat named Nelly or any other boat with "two womens" taking care of him. Charlie was buried in New Jersey, most likely from the very night he was taken from the Hopewell house. I believe the Boad Nelly note was created and exchanged for the $50,000 so that Condon would have something to show after turning over that money. Condon could not return to the car empty-handed. The note protects Condon. That is all that note does. The Boad Nelly note and its contents were totally bogus, just as so many other things were within the web of lies that CJ (Hauptmann) spun. Condon only got that note because he insisted on some kind of a receipt to protect Lindbergh, with the thought that it would at least ensure a higher likelihood of them finding the child. Of course, by trickle down effect, I'm sure Condon would have realized a receipt (note) would help to protect him from general criticism if anything went awry after the ransom payment. I don't buy for a minute though that its sole purpose was to protect Condon.. and CJ was a scumbag who couldn't have cared less about protecting Condon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2020 8:24:54 GMT -5
Condon only got that note because he insisted on some kind of a receipt to protect Lindbergh, with the thought that it would at least ensure a higher likelihood of them finding the child. Protect Lindbergh? Lindbergh would only need the protection of that Boad Nelly note if he were involved with what happened to Charlie. Otherwise Lindbergh needs no protection. Trickle down effect?? General criticism?? Condon was handing over the ransom money. He is the one who would need to have something to "exchange" for that money. He absolutely could not go back empty-handed. He would have been shown to be a conspirator if he didn't have that note. It clearly is a protection for him. Condon and CJ both understood the need to provide something when the handing over of the $50,000 would take place. There was no Charlie to hand over. Something would have to take Charlie's place, thus, the Boad Nelly note would become a means of exchange and protection. CJ gets the money and Condon' position as negotiator is protected.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 8, 2020 9:00:37 GMT -5
Condon only got that note because he insisted on some kind of a receipt to protect Lindbergh, with the thought that it would at least ensure a higher likelihood of them finding the child. Protect Lindbergh? Lindbergh would only need the protection of that Boad Nelly note if he were involved with what happened to Charlie. Otherwise Lindbergh needs no protection. (Amy) I think you’re taking my comments out of context Amy. Again, I’m saying that Condon acted in Lindbergh’s best interest by demanding a receipt, which was more importantly a note detailing the child’s location. Lindbergh was naive, trusting and so convinced that CJ and any others involved were playing ball that he didn’t want to upset them by being overly demanding and Breckinridge, albeit reluctantly, was in agreement with this action. It was only through Condon's insistence, that the Boad Nelly note was even produced. Had it not been, there's little doubt Condon would have had to endure even more of the general suspicion and criticism he did receive when the child was not returned. I understand your train of thought along the theme of Lindbergh's involvement in the kidnapping, but couldn't agree less with it or your statement.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 8, 2020 9:06:12 GMT -5
But Lindbergh hadn’t demanded a receipt from CJ, so if Condon hadn’t got one and come back with nothing more than assurance they would hear from the kidnappers at a later time, he would have simply been complying with Lindbergh's and Breckinridge’s game plan. It was only through Condon’s insistence that a receipt, more importantly a note detailing the baby’s location, was provided. If you really believe Condon was doing that only out of self-interest, I believe you're very mistaken.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2020 6:21:20 GMT -5
Protect Lindbergh? Lindbergh would only need the protection of that Boad Nelly note if he were involved with what happened to Charlie. Otherwise Lindbergh needs no protection. (Amy) I think you’re taking my comments out of context Amy. Again, I’m saying that Condon acted in Lindbergh’s best interest by demanding a receipt, which was more importantly a note detailing the child’s location. I don't think I am. You are changing it by saying it was now "in Lindbergh's best interest". That is not quite the same as protecting CAL, no matter how you state it. My, My, My, I must have struck a nerve!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2020 6:48:31 GMT -5
But Lindbergh hadn’t demanded a receipt from CJ, so if Condon hadn’t got one and come back with nothing more than assurance they would hear from the kidnappers at a later time, he would have simply been complying with Lindbergh's and Breckinridge’s game plan. You are pointing right back to what I have already said, Lindbergh and now Breckinridge who you have chosen to include, don't need a receipt or any protective actions by Condon. Only Condon does because HE is the one who will be held accountable for handing over all the money and coming back with nothing. Lindbergh and Breckinridge will not have to answer for that. They will not be looked at suspiciously as actually working with the kidnappers. Condon has to have something to protect HIMSELF. That is the real purpose of the Boad Nelly note. Condon's negotiating efforts, even if the result is a bogus piece of paper, had to yield something because he knew he was not getting Charlie in exchange for that money. We definitely see Condon and his motivations and actions differently. I understand that and I have no problem with it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 9, 2020 7:28:18 GMT -5
I think you’re taking my comments out of context Amy. Again, I’m saying that Condon acted in Lindbergh’s best interest by demanding a receipt, which was more importantly a note detailing the child’s location. I don't think I am. You are changing it by saying it was now "in Lindbergh's best interest". That is not quite the same as protecting CAL, no matter how you state it. My, My, My, I must have struck a nerve! I always have to smile when I see how rigid you can be at the expense of understanding. Okay then.. protecting his best interests.. helping him.. aiding him.. trying to ensure he had the best chance of having his son returned.. looking out for him.. Does that help you? Rest assured Amy, just differing viewpoints. Again though, a smile about your nerve-striking comment.. you've learnt well from someone else here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2020 8:38:06 GMT -5
I don't think I am. You are changing it by saying it was now "in Lindbergh's best interest". That is not quite the same as protecting CAL, no matter how you state it. My, My, My, I must have struck a nerve! I always have to smile when I see how rigid you can be at the expense of understanding. Okay then.. protecting his best interests.. helping him.. aiding him.. trying to ensure he had the best chance of having his son returned.. looking out for him.. Does that help you? Rest assured Amy, just differing viewpoints. Again though, a smile about your nerve-striking comment.. you've learnt well from someone else here. Just for the record, my comments are strictly my own based on the reactions I receive to something I has written. Just mine, I assure you. And also, how I feel about Condon and his conduct during this case comes strictly from my own perspective on him. Years before I ever learned of Michael's board or any of the others or any other books on this case, I read Waller's book "Kidnap" (the very first book I ever read about the LKC) so I could understand what the Lindbergh Kidnapping case was about. I had only read Anne Lindbergh's diaries up to that point. Upon reading Waller's book, Condon did not come across as "being on the level". It was my reaction to him then and I wondered why Lindbergh would even trust this man. As I have come to learn so much more about this case and its characters, I have learned that my initial reaction about Condon was not unfounded after all. We do have differing viewpoints, Joe, but I am always interested in your perspective on things because I know you have been involved with this case for many more years than I have. You always give me much to think about!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 10, 2020 10:50:42 GMT -5
Amy, I’ve learned much from you as well. Admittedly though, I haven't kept up with what’s available on the internet these days in general, but I do believe I have a pretty solid mile-high-view of this case that factually is sound and just needs some filling in around the edges, ie. who besides Hauptmann, knew what and when.
I’d have to say Condon is clearly the LKC’s least understood character, and I understand completely how his contradictions in actions and statements do nothing to help his overall reputation. It’s important though to remember he was not directly cooperating with and responding to law enforcement from the time he entered the case until May 12, 1932. Basically, he was doing what he was told by Lindbergh and Breckinridge, at the same time interpreting and injecting information based on his and their perception of events.
His personality seems to have been centred somewhere within a field that included Narcissistic, Histrionic and Borderline Personality Disorders.
I also believe Condon was in a moderately-increasing stage of dementia, which may have just seemed less evident at the time, due to his overall social and garrulous nature, which never took a back seat. One of the potential factors lending to this condition, which I don’t think gets enough attention, are his early days where boxing and taking head shots, was a big part of his sporting regimen. Based on what is known today relating to Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) and progressive brain damage in later years, I’m very surprised he was able to carry on as he did, a man in his early to mid-70’s, involved in such a physically and mentally demanding role, during the case’s primary period. Even his own wife and children were clearly against his participation in the case, not only for concern over his personal wellbeing, but also feeling his mental condition and abilities were not up to the task, I believe to the point where they discussed having him institutionalized.
All of the above is not to make excuses for the man and his behaviour. But to somehow paint him as a conman and confederate of the kidnappers, or deliberately lying and misleading the investigation for some nefarious purpose, up to and including a knowing participation within the disappearance of CALjr, for me is well beyond left field.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2020 19:55:50 GMT -5
One of the potential factors lending to this condition, which I don’t think gets enough attention, are his early days where boxing and taking head shots, was a big part of his sporting regimen. I must have missed this. When did Condon have a boxing career that would have caused him to suffer so much head trauma?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on May 12, 2020 7:35:02 GMT -5
Joe, do you believe it was mere serendipity that Condon placed an ad in a local Bronx newspaper and it was seen by a local resident who happened to be the kidnapper? This is the part that I struggle with.
I agree with you that Condon may have been a narcissist and I think he was a master at using bits of learned information in a desperate need to stay relevant to the case.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 12, 2020 9:52:55 GMT -5
One of the potential factors lending to this condition, which I don’t think gets enough attention, are his early days where boxing and taking head shots, was a big part of his sporting regimen. I must have missed this. When did Condon have a boxing career that would have caused him to suffer so much head trauma? If you re-read my post you'll see I didn't say Condon had a "boxing career," nor did I say he suffered "head trauma." I do know though that he loved boxing which he took up in his youth and later spent many years coaching young boys in the sport. And I'm pretty certain he didn't become a boxing coach by watching other guys get hit in the head. During the time he would have started, bare knuckle fighting originally introduced to the US by Irish immigrants, was still very much in vogue. It wasn't until around 1890 that gloves were even adopted in professional fights, and when they were, they were not as padded and protective as current day gloves. I think it's also important to state here that I have no direct evidence that Condon was suffering from head trauma as a result of his boxing years, but thought it was important to point out he would have had a higher likelihood of receiving concussion damage than someone who had not fought in the ring.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 12, 2020 10:04:02 GMT -5
Joe, do you believe it was mere serendipity that Condon placed an ad in a local Bronx newspaper and it was seen by a local resident who happened to be the kidnapper? This is the part that I struggle with. I agree with you that Condon may have been a narcissist and I think he was a master at using bits of learned information in a desperate need to stay relevant to the case. In a word, yes. There is no available proof I'm aware of, that Condon and Hauptmann knew or were aware of each other before Condon's letter appeared in the Bronx Home News on March 8, 1932.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 12, 2020 10:52:52 GMT -5
Joe, do you believe it was mere serendipity that Condon placed an ad in a local Bronx newspaper and it was seen by a local resident who happened to be the kidnapper? This is the part that I struggle with. I agree with you that Condon may have been a narcissist and I think he was a master at using bits of learned information in a desperate need to stay relevant to the case. I know this post was for Joe, but its hard for me to hold my tongue. For me, all I have to do is simply apply one or two of the countless examples I've used in V2. Take the $1000. CJ and the gang didn't want Condon's money? That's not only convenient, since Mrs. Condon claimed he didn't have it in the first place, but why should the "Gang" do such a thing? We have the fact CJ yelled out a warning to Condon when Riehl appeared then waiting for him over in the Park. They were working together beyond all doubt. Look at the thumb. It was the right one, the left, both, then left again. The man told so many lies he could not keep track. Doing something like this has nothing to do with narcissism. It's both a pattern and a tactic. It was all done to keep the people who collected the ransom safe by obstructing the investigation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 11:30:01 GMT -5
If you re-read my post you'll see I didn't say Condon had a "boxing career," nor did I say he suffered "head trauma." I re-read it. Did you not say the following: In that statement above you are framing a connection with Condon having a moderate stage of dementia due to his early days of boxing and taking head shots that were a BIG part of his sporting regimen. You then connect Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), progressive brain damage as we call this type of head trauma today, with finding you are surprised by Condon's ability to still be able to carry on as well as he did into his mid-70's. You are connecting head trauma to this. What early days of boxing and taking head shots were a big part of he sporting regimen if he does not have a career in boxing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 11:42:14 GMT -5
During the time he would have started, bare knuckle fighting originally introduced to the US by Irish immigrants, was still very much in vogue. It wasn't until around 1890 that gloves were even adopted in professional fights, and when they were, they were not as padded and protective as current day gloves. What I am trying to find out from you is what foundation you are using that Condon was bare knuckle fighting? Condon was a big boxing fan and attended many, many boxing events. That much I do know. Condon did instruct students in basic boxing moves but there was no risk to him receiving any serious head contact. Here is a video of him giving boxing instructions to students in 1928. The boxing sequences start at 3:44 minutes into the film. mirc.sc.edu/islandora/object/usc%3A19154
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2020 12:08:26 GMT -5
Joe, do you believe it was mere serendipity that Condon placed an ad in a local Bronx newspaper and it was seen by a local resident who happened to be the kidnapper? This is the part that I struggle with. I agree with you that Condon may have been a narcissist and I think he was a master at using bits of learned information in a desperate need to stay relevant to the case. I understand this was being addressed to Joe but I wanted to respond to this also. I think everyone needs to consider Condon's own words about that Bronx Home News letter and it is clear that it was not luck or by accident that letter was seen. When that letter appeared on March 8, 1932, there had been no indication that the kidnappers were operating out of the Bronx. Yet Condon limits his reach to that specific area of New York? Why? Well, Condon was sure he did not need to go beyond the Bronx Home News area to make a connection with the kidnappers. He knew before the authorities knew that the kidnappers could be reached through the Bronx Home News. Trial Testimony, Day 6, Cross Examination of John F. Condon by Defense Attorney Edward Reilly, Page 709Q(Reilly) - If the kidnapping band were not anticipating something from the Bronx News, didn't you think it strange that the appeal should not be published in the metropolitan dailies? A(Condon) - No, sir.
Q(Reilly) - And you gave no indication to any agency or metropolitan daily that you had sent the appeal to the Bronx News? A(Condon) - I did not.
Q(Reilly) - They might just as well have been in Massachusetts-- A(Condon) - Anything.
Q(Reilly) - (continuing) Texas, Mexico or any place? A(Condon) - Yes.
Q(Reilly) - And yet if they were you expected them to see the Bronx News, did you? A(Condon) - Yes, sir.Condon could only be that sure if he already knew the kidnappers were in the Bronx and they would be expecting to see that letter in the Bronx Home News.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 14, 2020 11:32:22 GMT -5
In a word, yes. There is no available proof I'm aware of, that Condon and Hauptmann knew or were aware of each other before Condon's letter appeared in the Bronx Home News on March 8, 1932. More thoughts on this... What kind of "proof" are you talking about? The same kind that doesn't directly place Hauptmann in the nursery at Hopewell? Or the kind like they both had similar stomping grounds on City Island and the near impossibility that they never saw each other there - ever? Or what about Marrone's account? Or how about Hauptmann himself finally admitting it? Or what about Hauptmann's unlikely connection to Villers ... and Villers to McManus? What about Perrone's eyewitness account when he saw the man who gave him the note speaking to Condon on City Island? How about Condon's undeniable attempts to protect Hauptmann post arrest? Each of these things should NOT be shrugged off. Explore-Investigate-Research. The list of clues and leads are almost endless, and yet, you brush them aside in one brief sentence? Next, was the connection made between Condon and Hauptmann or perhaps other connected to them? Mueller and Reich immediately come to mind. Like I wrote, the investigation into Reich, if one could even call it that, was woefully inadequate. And why did the police even allow his involvement in the first place? I wonder if there is some information still left to tell from family members or another collection in an attic waiting to turn up on one of the auction sites which could assist.
|
|