|
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2020 13:07:43 GMT -5
What evidence do you have that the originally assembled ransom payment $50,000 had its serial numbers recorded? Clearly that would not have been before Elmer Irey's entry into the case with his demand that all serial numbers must be recorded. Why would they bother putting together a duplicate $50,000 and go through the recording of serial numbers again, if they'd already done that? Was it because Irey also wanted the payment to be primarily gold notes? Do you know the original makeup of the first $50,000? Somebody is giving you bad intel Joe. Before the trial, the authorities had to give a "step by step" concerning the ransom money and its assembly. There was a lot going on as you can see by what I wrote above. Lt. Finn, Cpl. Horn, and Agent Seery interviewed all involved in the investigation. Fact is, the serials were recorded, as I wrote above, however, the new $50,000 withdrawn on March 12 was not. It appears to me, and I'd have to research it properly before I could commit, that we are watching the dispute over the serials being reflected within this chronology. The unrecorded $50,000 was redeposited on March 14. Then yet another $50,000 was obtained from the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Even this amount did not remain in tact because $5,000 of $10 previously recorded bills replaced $5000 of $20 from the new $50,000.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2020 13:15:37 GMT -5
You know what else needs to be considered in all this. The ransom amount was raised to $70,000 in the March 4th ransom note that was mailed to Lindbergh's house. So why didn't the size of the packet(box) which was asked for after this known increase was made be adjusted to accommodate the additional money asked for? As I see it, this is more proof that the extra $20,000 was strictly for the extra person who was added to this extortion. That person is John F. Condon. All I can say is that if the above were true, this was certainly one kidnapping and extortion gang that wore its collective heart on its sleeve by being so forthcoming in its makeup and ongoing functional, administrative and financial requirements, weren't they?! I believe if you look behind the curtain, you're actually looking at nothing more than lies and corresponding greed on the part of a main player.. and the guy who essentially accounted for 80+% of the $50,000 (vs. the $70,000) he decided to unilaterally accept on the spot at St. Raymonds, depending on who's source.. one Bruno Richard Hauptmann. Not to say others didn't have a hand in the kidnapping and extortion, but I think we can pretty much dis-spell any notion of the make-believe gang CJ was blabbing about to Condon at Woodlawn. And didn't he also throw in his father as a fellow conspirator somewhere in the ransom negotiations? It becomes pretty entertaining really.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2020 13:32:20 GMT -5
What evidence do you have that the originally assembled ransom payment $50,000 had its serial numbers recorded? Clearly that would not have been before Elmer Irey's entry into the case with his demand that all serial numbers must be recorded. Why would they bother putting together a duplicate $50,000 and go through the recording of serial numbers again, if they'd already done that? Was it because Irey also wanted the payment to be primarily gold notes? Do you know the original makeup of the first $50,000? Somebody is giving you bad intel Joe. Before the trial, the authorities had to give a "step by step" concerning the ransom money and its assembly. There was a lot going on as you can see by what I wrote above. Lt. Finn, Cpl. Horn, and Agent Seery interviewed all involved in the investigation. Fact is, the serials were recorded, as I wrote above, however, the new $50,000 withdrawn on March 12 was not. It appears to me, and I'd have to research it properly before I could commit, that we are watching the dispute over the serials being reflected within this chronology. The unrecorded $50,000 was redeposited on March 14. Then yet another $50,000 was obtained from the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Even this amount did not remain in tact because $5,000 of $10 previously recorded bills replaced $5000 of $20 from the new $50,000. Okay, I now seem to remember something about serial numbers of the first batch of ransom bills having been recorded but Lindbergh not advised about this, for obvious reasons. Does that sound right? Did Lindbergh then find out about the first batch having been recorded and summarily rejected it, thereby asking for the second batch of unrecorded $50,000? I think what you're intimating here is that there were perhaps three, and not two batches of $50,000 put together, including the final one, recorded and which included a high percentage of gold notes, courtesy of Elmer Irey's demand. In any case, I can well understand how there would have been potentially multiple factors at play here that precluded the possibility of the ransom payment being ready to deliver on March 12.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2020 19:18:01 GMT -5
All I can say is that if the above were true, this was certainly one kidnapping and extortion gang that wore its collective heart on its sleeve by being so forthcoming in its makeup and ongoing functional, administrative and financial requirements, weren't they?! I believe if you look behind the curtain, you're actually looking at nothing more than lies and corresponding greed on the part of a main player.. and the guy who essentially accounted for 80+% of the $50,000 (vs. the $70,000) he decided to unilaterally accept on the spot at St. Raymonds, depending on who's source.. one Bruno Richard Hauptmann. Not to say others didn't have a hand in the kidnapping and extortion, but I think we can pretty much dis-spell any notion of the make-believe gang CJ was blabbing about to Condon at Woodlawn. And didn't he also throw in his father as a fellow conspirator somewhere in the ransom negotiations? It becomes pretty entertaining really. Thanks for the response but that really doesn't address what I wrote. If the kidnappers wanted $70,000 dollars on March 4 and not $50,000 anymore (such greed!), why didn't they ask for packing that would accommodate $70,000 instead of $50,000 which is obviously all they really wanted from Lindbergh to begin with. Plus it is all they accepted. Condon's rambling about saving CAL money is all lies, pure and simple.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Sept 3, 2020 6:55:01 GMT -5
All I can say is that if the above were true, this was certainly one kidnapping and extortion gang that wore its collective heart on its sleeve by being so forthcoming in its makeup and ongoing functional, administrative and financial requirements, weren't they?! I believe if you look behind the curtain, you're actually looking at nothing more than lies and corresponding greed on the part of a main player.. and the guy who essentially accounted for 80+% of the $50,000 (vs. the $70,000) he decided to unilaterally accept on the spot at St. Raymonds, depending on who's source.. one Bruno Richard Hauptmann. Not to say others didn't have a hand in the kidnapping and extortion, but I think we can pretty much dis-spell any notion of the make-believe gang CJ was blabbing about to Condon at Woodlawn. And didn't he also throw in his father as a fellow conspirator somewhere in the ransom negotiations? It becomes pretty entertaining really. Thanks for the response but that really doesn't address what I wrote. If the kidnappers wanted $70,000 dollars on March 4 and not $50,000 anymore (such greed!), why didn't they ask for packing that would accommodate $70,000 instead of $50,000 which is obviously all they really wanted from Lindbergh to begin with. Plus it is all they accepted. Condon's rambling about saving CAL money is all lies, pure and simple. You're right Amy, in that my response didn't directly answer your questions. I think though that it does represent a more realistic, encompassing viewpoint of the situation. I mean, would it really have been necessary for the ransom note writer to spell out the increased dimensional requirements? This is pretty simple linear mathematical calculation we're talking about. I'd venture it hadn't even crossed his mind, and he was simply concerned about increasing his payday, based on the larger ransom figures being reported in the papers. I also believe no bonafide extortionist in a situation of this gravity would even consider actually spelling out their truthful need for more money, ie. we're now enlisting freelance contractors to help us out. Richard Hauptmann ultimately proved himself to be a liar beyond compare. I believe you've simply fallen for one of his many lies here, and it's essentially given you a springboard to further inculpate Condon as a paid extortionist confederate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2020 21:02:08 GMT -5
I mean, would it really have been necessary for the ransom note writer to spell out the increased dimensional requirements? The note writer thought it was necessary, Joe, that is why he included the dimensional drawing. The writer knew at this time that the requested amount had been changed to $70,000. When the writer composed this note, however, he included a drawing for a packet/box for only $50,000. The kidnappers only wanted $50,000. That is why the dimensional drawing was intentionally created to hold $50,000. The other $20,000 was not to be included in the box. That money was requested for the additional person they were bringing in to assist with this extortion. We all know who that person is!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Sept 4, 2020 7:25:30 GMT -5
I mean, would it really have been necessary for the ransom note writer to spell out the increased dimensional requirements? The note writer thought it was necessary, Joe, that is why he included the dimensional drawing. The writer knew at this time that the requested amount had been changed to $70,000. When the writer composed this note, however, he included a drawing for a packet/box for only $50,000. The kidnappers only wanted $50,000. That is why the dimensional drawing was intentionally created to hold $50,000. The other $20,000 was not to be included in the box. That money was requested for the additional person they were bringing in to assist with this extortion. We all know who that person is! I understand exactly what you're saying here Amy, but personally I've never attached any real world significance to the ransom note writer having stated the dimensional requirements of the "packet", other than this was just Hauptmann perhaps unconsciously demonstrating a little of the practical drafting abilities he was familiar with. You actually believe he was talking about Condon joining the extortion camp ranks and this was the reason for the reason his hero being set back an extra 20K? Sorry, I could not agree less with this kind of convenient logical fallacy. At the same time, and based on an equivalent pay scale for added contractors, I'd love to hear who you think the extra person-and-a-half might have been to account for the further 30K Hauptmann would have gouged from Lindbergh if they had gotten to that point in time. Any ideas?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2020 9:59:57 GMT -5
I understand exactly what you're saying here Amy, but personally I've never attached any real world significance to the ransom note writer having stated the dimensional requirements of the "packet", other than this was just Hauptmann perhaps unconsciously demonstrating a little of the practical drafting abilities he was familiar with. Interesting position. If you would, could you put your thinking cap on for a moment that there was a purpose for this request for a certain sized "packet". I was wondering if it might have been because the original plan could have been to leave the money at a spot that would be designated that night avoiding another face to face with Condon. A blind drop if you will. LOL, Joe! That is a far question. My thinking is that the $30,000 dollar increase was to put Lindbergh on notice that the kidnappers are getting tired of all the stalling that was going on and they wanted to end it. Unlike that $20,000 dollar increase which was designated for the other person they had to take into this, this $30,000 is money that Lindbergh would be paying to them. I personally believe they would have taken that $30,000 had Lindbergh pushed the envelope any further about paying up. CAL didn't hesitate and paid that $50,000 very quickly. So I will never know if I am correct in my thinking or not!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Sept 4, 2020 10:50:01 GMT -5
I understand exactly what you're saying here Amy, but personally I've never attached any real world significance to the ransom note writer having stated the dimensional requirements of the "packet", other than this was just Hauptmann perhaps unconsciously demonstrating a little of the practical drafting abilities he was familiar with. Amy says: Interesting position. If you would, could you put your thinking cap on for a moment that there was a purpose for this request for a certain sized "packet". I was wondering if it might have been because the original plan could have been to leave the money at a spot that would be designated that night avoiding another face to face with Condon. A blind drop if you will. Joe says: I suppose the dimensions could have indicated some kind of requirement for a drop location. If that was the case though, wouldn't the ransom note writer have reasonably provided additional detail about any other potential concerns such as container material, potential water-proofing if the drop location might become wet, things of that nature? Based on the ransom note instructions, Condon just used a family New Hampshire ballot box from the 1830's, which he based the actual ransom note box on. By the way, the actual dimensions in the ransom note diagram are not too far off those off a typical cardboard shoebox from the 1930's, which I've always thought was very interesting. Amy says: LOL, Joe! That is a far question. My thinking is that the $30,000 dollar increase was to put Lindbergh on notice that the kidnappers are getting tired of all the stalling that was going on and they wanted to end it. Unlike that $20,000 dollar increase which was designated for the other person they had to take into this, this $30,000 is money that Lindbergh would be paying to them. I personally believe they would have taken that $30,000 had Lindbergh pushed the envelope any further about paying up. CAL didn't hesitate and paid that $50,000 very quickly. So I will never know if I am correct in my thinking or not! Joe says: I agree with you Amy, about the intent behind the threat of the added 30K, but not the 20K. Condon as a paid extortion confederate is ridiculous, not only because he never would have agreed to do something that crazy and out-of-character, but also when one considers it was he who saved Lindbergh the same extra 20K. By the way, thanks as I was hoping you wouldn't suggest the 30K was for a high-powered getaway speed boat to take CJ and the approximately seven (maybe eight?) other gang members mentioned at various times, including CJ's father and the inimitable John Condon, who no doubt would have been shouting passages from Solomon at the top of his lungs as they evaded pursuit!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 4, 2020 12:37:40 GMT -5
I look at the request for this "box" and it would be baffling if we didn't know it was part of a hoax designed to get these people their money. So at the very least it shows the degree of preparation involved. Condon as a paid extortion confederate is ridiculous, not only because he never would have agreed to do something that crazy and out-of-character, but also when one considers it was he who saved Lindbergh the same extra 20K. So someone who would be a party to the bait & switch would never accept payment for his role? Someone constantly lying to police wouldn't have the personality to accept money for their role? But what if a really nice girl had a really bad family member and she begged him for his help? V2 has fact after fact to show this man was not honest and could never be trusted. Condon was on the verge of arrest for protecting Hauptmann, and if he didn't believe they meant it would never have identified him. They should have used this tactic, like Inspector Walsh wanted to, right from the beginning and I promise you this case would have been solved.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Sept 4, 2020 13:46:36 GMT -5
I look at the request for this "box" and it would be baffling if we didn't know it was part of a hoax designed to get these people their money. So at the very least it shows the degree of preparation involved. Condon as a paid extortion confederate is ridiculous, not only because he never would have agreed to do something that crazy and out-of-character, but also when one considers it was he who saved Lindbergh the same extra 20K. So someone who would be a party to the bait & switch would never accept payment for his role? Someone constantly lying to police wouldn't have the personality to accept money for their role? But what if a really nice girl had a really bad family member and she begged him for his help? V2 has fact after fact to show this man was not honest and could never be trusted. Condon was on the verge of arrest for protecting Hauptmann, and if he didn't believe they meant it would never have identified him. They should have used this tactic, like Inspector Walsh wanted to, right from the beginning and I promise you this case would have been solved. Seriously Michael? If this ransom payment bait-and-switch really did happen, you actually believe there was something more nefarious involved here, as opposed to a simple plan on the part of Team Lindbergh to ensure the extortionists were not apprehended and got away with their money? All of this nonsense about Condon cagily walking back in sight of Lindbergh so that he could see the ransom box (oops, empty though folks) and then Condon pulling a fast one by hiding it in a boxwood bush, later to be found by Al Reich, with Gregory Coleman and Henry Breckinridge participating in the same aftermath scheme, falls flat on its face for obvious reasons if you think for a second Lindbergh would not have been totally locked into such a plan. When it comes to what Condon said to investigators, the press and whoever, I believe you've simply been seeing things 180 degrees to their true context. Which include the fact that Condon was not reporting to police from March 9 to May 12, 1932 but to Breckinridge and Lindbergh, no one was taking detailed notes for later review with police, Condon's mind WAS beginning to go as evidenced by the concern of his own family, he was highly eccentric to begin with, craved attention and was by nature prone to exaggeration not to mention the fact that being in his early to mid-70's carrying on with his day work at the same time, he was undoubtedly physically and more importantly mentally exhausted at the best of times. Yes, he may have even lied outright in many situations, but to conclude from his collective actions that he was a willing and criminally-bent confederate of the kidnappers / extortionists and at crossed purposes with his hero Lindbergh's wishes, is beyond nutty. No wonder that Condon never deviated from his own original intentions of returning the child safely to his mother, and then having not been able to do that, turned his attention towards tracking down CJ. What evidence can you demonstrate that he ever strayed one iota from what he truly considered the mission of his lifetime? Both Walsh and Keaten probably got onto the wrong track in the wrong direction very early in the going (Garsson's another beauty of the same ilk..) and their massive egos only screwed their own investigations and precluded them having come up with logical and coherent solutions.. their legacies in this case are highly questionable.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 4, 2020 19:12:24 GMT -5
joe not to interfer, im reading this new book suspect number one she says jim fisher was hired by the njsp to deflect allegations about the investigation. thats total crap, ive discussed with jim many times and its so not true where she gets this is beyond me
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Sept 4, 2020 19:25:54 GMT -5
joe not to interfer, im reading this new book suspect number one she says jim fisher was hired by the njsp to deflect allegations about the investigation. thats total crap, ive discussed with jim many times and its so not true where she gets this is beyond me There's no question Steve, that the truth had to be sorted out after Scaduto and Kennedy had run roughshod over the case with their unfounded theories, and spawned a generation insatiable for speculation and mistruth. Fisher's appearance does indicate a strikingly-alternate viewpoint. Whatever took place, his viewpoint is a much closer representation of the truth in an overall sense.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 5, 2020 7:25:12 GMT -5
Seriously Michael? If this ransom payment bait-and-switch really did happen, you actually believe there was something more nefarious involved here, as opposed to a simple plan on the part of Team Lindbergh to ensure the extortionists were not apprehended and got away with their money? What planet do you live on Joe? First of all, why should I bother to reply? You obviously haven't completely read both of my volumes that cover this or the replies to our many discussions. You simply see something you don't like, become upset at what you think I believe, then immediately set out to neutralize it without ever absorbing the material to first consider what occurred. Please go back and read this material with a clear head. "Team Lindbergh?" Ask yourself, under any circumstances, whether or not Lindbergh enjoyed being extorted. Obviously not. Next, did he trust Condon? No, and I've cited quite a few examples to prove it. And yet here you are with this nonsense about Condon being on Lindbergh's "team." As I am sure you have forgotten, Condon and Reich were supposed to deliver the ransom. But Lindbergh did NOT trust them so he replaced Reich as the driver. He was “somewhat suspicious” that both he and Breckenridge were to be left behind while they took the ransom money, so he told them he would drive instead of Reich, then said Reich would remain at the Condon residence with Breckinridge. According to Lindbergh:
“Condon stalled a bit and remarked to Colonel Breckenridge [sic] that he, Condon, feared that Colonel Lindbergh might use firearms were he, Lindbergh, present.” (V2 page 200)
Next, it was Lindbergh who ratted out Condon concerning his "strange detour." Condon was asked about this multiple times, admitted it, then gave a DIFFERENT explanation for why he did it each time he was asked. So yes - Condon was obviously lying because he could not remember, each time it came up, his previous lie that he told. By the way, NONE of them make any damn sense whatsoever. All of this nonsense about Condon cagily walking back in sight of Lindbergh so that he could see the ransom box (oops, empty though folks) and then Condon pulling a fast one by hiding it in a boxwood bush, later to be found by Al Reich, with Gregory Coleman and Henry Breckinridge participating in the same aftermath scheme, falls flat on its face for obvious reasons if you think for a second Lindbergh would not have been totally locked into such a plan. Here's a reply I made to you with just back in February that apparently you forgot to read: Next, Breckinridge doesn't have to be involved at all. And while we know Uebel appears to be identifying Coleman's car, we certainly don't know he was involved either. I've considered the possibility that his car may have been borrowed for that pick up - or of course he may have actually assisted in order to protect his friend so it doesn't have to be for nefarious reasons. There's more than one possibility. I've also considered that Lindbergh knew too, however, it wouldn't make sense for him to describe Condon's movements in the way he did. It clearly cast suspicion on him at the time and Lindbergh was the only witness to it and it was because of this, I believe, that Uebel's account was considered creditable - and absolutely should be. Especially because Condon was clearly worried about it and making these stupid references to the box and money becoming separated. He's tipping his hand by engaging in damage control. So what facts to we have to consider? Condon took the money then followed the path of the "look-out" and disappeared from Lindbergh's sight. When he reappeared he's seen with the box then heads down Whittemore. After that, the "look-out" reappears back from where he was last seen running, and looking around before disappearing again. Then Condon comes back empty handed with the story that the delivery took place there on Whittemore. Later we have a completely neutral party, Bernard Uebel, who gave an eyewitness account of someone returning to the boxwood bush, across the street from where Condon claimed the drop had occurred, and retrieve a box hidden in that bush. So instead of simply starting from square one, and considering the bare bones facts presented, you immediately formulate whatever rebuttal you can think of in order to "save" a character you've become attached to because you don't like how it looks. Perhaps you don't like how it looks because it doesn't look good? And this is just one instance because there's a mountain of them. The Lady at Tuckahoe... LIED multiple times. The 2nd Taxi Driver.... Did NOT even EXIST. So make up whatever BS spin you like, the facts prove what happened here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 5, 2020 7:57:52 GMT -5
joe not to interfer, im reading this new book suspect number one she says jim fisher was hired by the njsp to deflect allegations about the investigation. thats total crap, ive discussed with jim many times and its so not true where she gets this is beyond me I've seen no evidence that he was "hired" but they certainly wanted an author to come in and counter Scaduto and Kennedy. He gives a ton of praise to Plebani and there's no doubt he earned it. There's no question Steve, that the truth had to be sorted out after Scaduto and Kennedy had run roughshod over the case with their unfounded theories, and spawned a generation insatiable for speculation and mistruth. Fisher's appearance does indicate a strikingly-alternate viewpoint. Whatever took place, his viewpoint is a much closer representation of the truth in an overall sense. Believe me or you are a "Revisionist." With all of the mistakes, that's supposed to be much closer? That's one hell of a standard: "Much closer." I'll have to remember that one.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 5, 2020 9:15:30 GMT -5
who wanted a author to counteract scaduto?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 5, 2020 9:58:40 GMT -5
who wanted a author to counteract scaduto? The NJSP.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Sept 5, 2020 10:29:03 GMT -5
Seriously Michael? If this ransom payment bait-and-switch really did happen, you actually believe there was something more nefarious involved here, as opposed to a simple plan on the part of Team Lindbergh to ensure the extortionists were not apprehended and got away with their money? What planet do you live on Joe? (Thankfully, it's not Planet MM. A great place to visit mind you, but I just wouldn’t feel at home among the kind of speculation and wild theories that reside there. Joe)First of all, why should I bother to reply? You obviously haven't completely read both of my volumes that cover this or the replies to our many discussions. You simply see something you don't like, become upset at what you think I believe, then immediately set out to neutralize it without ever absorbing the material to first consider what occurred. Please go back and read this material with a clear head. (You know I've read your books with a clear head, and I know you have a real problem accepting the fact I'm not being "led to water" Lcannot accept a differing viewpoint than the one you've been attempting to lead others to, eas I have a differing viewpoint as to how the facts shape the truth, you (Great.. yet again with the same old “You haven’t read my books” propaganda strategy. You know I’ve read your books with a clear head and I have great appreciation for the depth and content of your research. I think though you could be getting much better mileage in the fact-crunching and conclusion department, and that perhaps in general, you should be less concerned about trying to lead others to non-potable water. Joe)"Team Lindbergh?" Ask yourself, under any circumstances, whether or not Lindbergh enjoyed being extorted. Obviously not. Next, did he trust Condon? No, and I've cited quite a few examples to prove it. And yet here you are with this nonsense about Condon being on Lindbergh's "team." As I am sure you have forgotten, Condon and Reich were supposed to deliver the ransom. But Lindbergh did NOT trust them so he replaced Reich as the driver. He was “somewhat suspicious” that both he and Breckenridge were to be left behind while they took the ransom money, so he told them he would drive instead of Reich, then said Reich would remain at the Condon residence with Breckinridge. According to Lindbergh:
“Condon stalled a bit and remarked to Colonel Breckenridge [sic] that he, Condon, feared that Colonel Lindbergh might use firearms were he, Lindbergh, present.” (V2 page 200)
Next, it was Lindbergh who ratted out Condon concerning his "strange detour." Condon was asked about this multiple times, admitted it, then gave a DIFFERENT explanation for why he did it each time he was asked. So yes - Condon was obviously lying because he could not remember, each time it came up, his previous lie that he told. By the way, NONE of them make any damn sense whatsoever. (So despite these presumed moments of doubt on the part of Lindbergh during an extremely stressful period for all involved, why do you think he kept trusting and believing in Condon, from their first introduction, well beyond CJ’s deceit at St. Raymond’s, the discovery of the baby’s body, the police investigation and the period up to and including the trial, and ultimately within the aftermath? Joe) All of this nonsense about Condon cagily walking back in sight of Lindbergh so that he could see the ransom box (oops, empty though folks) and then Condon pulling a fast one by hiding it in a boxwood bush, later to be found by Al Reich, with Gregory Coleman and Henry Breckinridge participating in the same aftermath scheme, falls flat on its face for obvious reasons if you think for a second Lindbergh would not have been totally locked into such a plan. Here's a reply I made to you with just back in February that apparently you forgot to read: Next, Breckinridge doesn't have to be involved at all. And while we know Uebel appears to be identifying Coleman's car, we certainly don't know he was involved either. I've considered the possibility that his car may have been borrowed for that pick up - or of course he may have actually assisted in order to protect his friend so it doesn't have to be for nefarious reasons. There's more than one possibility. I've also considered that Lindbergh knew too, however, it wouldn't make sense for him to describe Condon's movements in the way he did. It clearly cast suspicion on him at the time and Lindbergh was the only witness to it and it was because of this, I believe, that Uebel's account was considered creditable - and absolutely should be. Especially because Condon was clearly worried about it and making these stupid references to the box and money becoming separated. He's tipping his hand by engaging in damage control.
(Oh, I read it alright, see my second point above and also, a more logical representation of what Uebel actually saw happening I’ve previously put forth. Again, if there actually was an alternate drop location by Condon at St. Raymond’s for the sake of providing assurance that the extortionists would get away unmolested, (as was Lindbergh’s wish from the beginning) then Lindbergh had to have been part of that plan. All of your backpedaling above that now attempts to distance Team Lindbergh participants from what you perceive to be Condon's duplicity during their visits to St. Raymond’s after April 2, does nothing more than demonstrate how untenable your theory about Condon being a willing, criminally-bent and paid confederate of the extortion gang, actually is. Joe)So what facts to we have to consider? Condon took the money then followed the path of the "look-out" and disappeared from Lindbergh's sight. When he reappeared he's seen with the box then heads down Whittemore. After that, the "look-out" reappears back from where he was last seen running, and looking around before disappearing again. Then Condon comes back empty handed with the story that the delivery took place there on Whittemore. Later we have a completely neutral party, Bernard Uebel, who gave an eyewitness account of someone returning to the boxwood bush, across the street from where Condon claimed the drop had occurred, and retrieve a box hidden in that bush. So instead of simply starting from square one, and considering the bare bones facts presented, you immediately formulate whatever rebuttal you can think of in order to "save" a character you've become attached to because you don't like how it looks. Perhaps you don't like how it looks because it doesn't look good? And this is just one instance because there's a mountain of them. The Lady at Tuckahoe... LIED multiple times. The 2nd Taxi Driver.... Did NOT even EXIST. So make up whatever BS spin you like, the facts prove what happened here. (Constantly implying I’m attached to Condon is another example of the kind of propaganda you seem to enjoy engaging in as a debate distraction technique, among others. I’ve never been attached to him, Lindbergh or anyone else in this case. You however, are seemingly permanently joined at the hip with a tired old theory that has gone nowhere in eighty-eight plus years, because it's essentially a house of cards that continually falls flat on itself. The reason? It's in no way supported by the majority of facts that ultimately help to shape the truth. Perhaps paying a little more attention to the "silent majority" of facts in this case, might help. Joe)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 5, 2020 11:05:13 GMT -5
(Great.. yet again with the same old “You haven’t read my books” propaganda strategy. You know I’ve read your books with a clear head and I have great appreciation for the depth and content of your research. I think though you could be getting much better mileage in the fact-crunching and conclusion department, and that perhaps in general, you should be less concerned about trying to lead others to non-potable water. Joe) Propaganda? Everything you mention has been previously asked and answered. I am referring you to the facts which already addressed your points. I'd like to think you've read them but I hate to think you're pretending not to have. Regardless, repeating the same points over and over again as if they haven't been addressed makes little sense to me. I am not telling you what to conclude, rather, I am asking you to consider the facts first instead of immediately making attempts to neutralize what you don't like about them.
So despite these presumed moments of doubt on the part of Lindbergh during an extremely stressful period for all involved, why do you think he kept trusting and believing in Condon, from their first introduction, well beyond CJ’s deceit at St. Raymond’s, the discovery of the baby’s body, the police investigation and the period up to and including the trial, and ultimately within the aftermath? "Despite" this or "despite" that. He did not trust him. Not only in this place as it appears you are trying to imply. He had no choice but to associate and utilize Condon because he was their go-between. Once he testified for the State, Lindbergh could not possibly go around telling everyone what he had confidentially confided in others during the investigation. To do so would have undermined the conviction. It's a similar situation for the police. Keaten, for example, didn't go around publicly saying that Condon was involved but we absolutely know he did prior to it.
(Oh, I read it alright, see my second point above and also, a more logical representation of what Uebel actually saw happening I’ve previously put forth. Again, if there actually was an alternate drop location by Condon at St. Raymond’s for the sake of providing assurance that the extortionists would get away unmolested, (as was Lindbergh’s wish from the beginning) then Lindbergh had to have been part of that plan. All of your backpedaling above that now attempts to distance Team Lindbergh participants from what you perceive to be Condon's duplicity during their visits to St. Raymond’s after April 2, does nothing more than demonstrate how untenable your theory about Condon being a willing, criminally-bent and paid confederate of the extortion gang, actually is. Joe) This is irrational. If Lindbergh had to be "part of the plan" to lie to police about what actually occurred he would not have told them about Condon's actions in the first place. You have to ignore a whole lot in order for this to be true. First, Lindbergh didn't trust Condon which is why he was there. But you ignore this which cannot be done if this scenario was part of a team effort. What you are doing defies common sense. Anything but what is actually going on or is the least possible explanation - but here its your first choice. Why are you so hell bent on ignoring what's right in front of you? Again, since you don't want to harm the image of a man you like so much there are other explanations to cover his ass. Try saying, for example, he was afraid for his life or his family. That the Extortionists had something on him so he was forced to lie. Etc. etc. etc. Try something that is believable and makes some sense at least. (Constantly implying I’m attached to Condon is another example of the kind of propaganda you seem to enjoy engaging in as a debate distraction technique, among others. I’ve never been attached to him, Lindbergh or anyone else in this case. You however, are seemingly permanently joined at the hip with a tired old theory that has gone nowhere in eighty-eight plus years, because it's essentially a house of cards that continually falls flat on itself. The reason? It's in no way supported by the majority of facts that ultimately help to shape the truth. Perhaps paying a little more attention to the "silent majority" of facts in this case, might help. Joe) Methinks doth protest too much.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 5, 2020 19:25:12 GMT -5
i dont know where that came from fisher got into the case on his own like the rest of us
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 5, 2020 21:50:07 GMT -5
i dont know where that came from fisher got into the case on his own like the rest of us I’m not suggesting he didn’t.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 6, 2020 6:35:56 GMT -5
ok fair enough
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 6, 2020 9:15:59 GMT -5
Basically I am saying both can be true. Prior to Fisher I know I've read that Bornmann was considering writing a book and there was a "push" for him to do so within the ranks. In fact, I've often wondered if there isn't a manuscript out there somewhere. I even believe Dave was supposed to help him with that ... once he's around again maybe he can verify or deny that himself.
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Sept 6, 2020 13:53:41 GMT -5
i dont know where that came from fisher got into the case on his own like the rest of us Hi Wolfman I hope it's ok if I jump in here. That language about how/why Fisher got involved will be tweaked for upcoming corrections that are currently in progress. What was meant to be conveyed in the book is that Fisher, who was a former FBI agent, felt compelled to vindicate the NJSP, and that's one of the main reasons he wrote the book. There was a source that indicated a more direct relationship about Fisher's involvement with the NJSP, but it cannot be located at this time. **Speaking for myself and not on behalf of my mother or the book**: Both the FBI and the NJSP had reason to want the NJSP to be vindicated of any wrong doing, because if the FBI had proof at the time that the NJSP was bungling the case and didn't come forward, it makes the FBI look just as bad. Here is a NYT article from November 15, 1987 (Horner, Shirley. "The Lindbergh Kidnapping: Another book another chapter" NYT, Nov 15, 1987) that quotes Fisher: But Hauptmann's guilt was not the author's sole purpose in writing the book. Not that it is insignificant here, considering the unproved accounts over the years that the baby was not Lindbergh's, sometimes advanced by those who claim that identity. (''Lindbergh's Son,'' by John Vernon [ Viking, New York, $17.95 ] , is an intriguing, outrageous fictional version of such a possibility.) What angers him, said Mr. Fisher, is the body of myth that has grown up about the case, such as that the police trampled valuable evidence as they approached the Lindbergh estate on the night of March 1, 1932.''I see my book as a vindication of the slander that the New Jersey State Police have undergone for the thorough investigation they conducted under the most difficult circumstances,'' Mr. Fisher said, adding: ''The majority of modern experts agree that the Lindbergh investigation is a high point in the history of criminal investigation and forensic science.''www.nytimes.com/1987/11/15/nyregion/the-lindbergh-kidnapping-another-book-another-chapter.html
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Sept 10, 2020 12:55:30 GMT -5
Thank you very much Michael and Amy. The research materal you both have on this case continues to amaze me. There are so many interesting side events in this case. Fisch was such a unique looking individual that most people would probably recall him from any previous contact. It appears from the information you both provided that this Sanborn story was examined, but in December of 1934 I would speculate that Wilentz was not interested in implicating Fisch or anyone else other than Hauptmann. At this point, I tend to believe that Fisch was involved in this crime with Hauptmann, even if it was just laundering the ransom money. Thanks again for that information on Sanborn. Good point stating that the prosecution was not interested in implicating anyone other than Hauptmann. Minds were already made up concerning his guilt, and the opportunity to do further investigation was lost at that time. One example is that of Hauptmann's request sent to the NJ Board of Pardons in which he names both Isidor Fisch and John Mohrdieck as involved in the kidnapping. Gov Hoffman said then that investigators had made such a suggestion to him previously, but the request sent to the Board of Pardons was denied. While the appeal may have been a last-minute attempt on the part of Hauptmann to save his life, one could make a case for his claim. John Mohrdieck indicated that his employment was as a boat builder. He lived in Brooklyn on Bushwick Avenue and may well have been employed at the Brookyn Naval Shipyards at that time. The Shipyard was very close to the post office station where the second and third ransom notes were mailed. From his occupation Mohrdieck would know about the coast line of Connecticut and Massachusetts. He would have information concerning the Elizabeth Islands and Gay Head. He may not have owned a boat himself, but he certainly would know the distance between Brooklyn NY and the Elizabeth Islands and the time it would take to get there. Also, consider that the missing child would be found on a boat with a fictitious name. The ransom notes also raise some questions concerning Mohrdieck as well and will be addressed in another post. BTW The German word for "boat" is "boot." Both words end in "t".
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 27, 2020 10:05:12 GMT -5
You are right, Amy. The photo had to have come from the papers left by Fisch with Hauptmann for safekeeping. The handwriting in the photo is unmistakably Isidor's, and the date an location (March '31, Brooklyn) shed light on John the Birthday Boy: He was John (Johann) Mohrdieck, one of Isidor's best friends, born March 12, 1906, in Germany, and living at 1419 Bushwick Ave., Brooklyn, according to the 1930 census. John had even signed Isidor's Petition for Citizenship as a witness back in 1926, citing the same address. None of Isidor's many other friends were named John. The Hauptmanns never lived in Brooklyn. My guess is that one of the other men in the photo is Lawrence Pefferly (formerly Lorenz Pfefferle), whose wife Hermine also signed Isidor's petition.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 27, 2020 10:11:58 GMT -5
Interesting point about Isidor Fisch's relationship with Hermine (formerly Puffery). Fisch reportedly visited a farmer in Maine with a woman named Erna to propose a kidnapping and hiding the victim in the farmer's house. Possibly the "Erna" was his friend Hermine. Someone referred to a photo showing "Erna" and Betty Gow together. Has anyone done an investigation concerning these incidents? This has some interesting and perhaps important possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 27, 2020 10:13:24 GMT -5
The name in the above post is Pufferly. Sorry, my computer has a mind of its own.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 27, 2020 10:16:52 GMT -5
Actually the name is Pefferly. Hermine and Lawrence Pefferly were divorced at some point but both had been friendly with Fisch at one time.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 27, 2020 10:41:05 GMT -5
I was able to find some details regarding the above case in the "San Bernadino County Sun" issued December 19, 1934. The man who identified the "late" Isidor Fisch from a photo was Ellis Sanborn, a carpenter who lived in a remote area. He claimed that he was introduced to Fisch by his wife Erna Cahn, later estranged from him, though she used an alias for Fisch in the her introduction. The man identified as Fisch was accompanied by a chauffeur who was definitely not Hauptmann.The alleged Fisch wanted to kidnap a young girl from her summer camp in Maine (no name given) and request $100,000 from her wealthy father as a ransom. The alleged Fisch wanted to use the Sanborn home as a hiding place for the victim. Sanborn refused to go along with this proposal, but it appears that his wife was in on the scheme. Sanborn said that Erna worked as a governess for wealthy families, and that she had friends in New York and New Jersey whom she frequently visited. I was questioning whether this "Erna" may actually have been Hermine, formerly Pefferly, who had been married to Lawrence Puffery, also a friend of Henry Uhlig and Isidor Fisch.
|
|