Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 14:43:23 GMT -5
|
|
geld
Trooper
Posts: 43
|
Post by geld on Feb 12, 2019 14:06:39 GMT -5
Thanks AMY35, this clears-up all for me.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Feb 12, 2019 15:33:27 GMT -5
It's really a stretch to discuss antisemitic Nazi/ fascist propaganda connected to US currency (an interesting subject in and of itself) in this forum. Fact is that the ransom currency was paid in St. Raymond's Cemetery in April 1932. The Nazi regime did not come to power in Germany until January 1933 and WWII didn't begin in Europe until September 1939. The US didn't enter WWII against Germany until December 1941. The key dates here tend to rule out any connection between Lindbergh ransom notes and Nazi propaganda. The only possible link might be that some Lindbergh ransom notes likely wound up in Nazi Germany years after the ransom was paid. I can't see any particular explanation for this, other than the normal course of international travel. No basis to think that Hauptmann nor any of his German associates were Nazis nor colluding with the Nazi regime after it came to power in Germany.
|
|
geld
Trooper
Posts: 43
|
Post by geld on Feb 20, 2019 14:13:12 GMT -5
I had posted that I surmised that most of the ransom$ was washed at the German conciliate in NYC. That' s what got my interest in this$10 G.C. and the story behind it. The NAZI's came to power in January 1933. BRH deposited about $15K in his bank and stock accounts during March thru July 1933. Before this there was only small deposits. Also recall that the German spies that were caught when they landed on Long Island, New York in the1940' had G.C. I hope you can see what I'am trying to say. I was not implying that BRH was a NAZI or that there was a connection between the kidnapping and the NAZIS.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Feb 22, 2019 14:00:26 GMT -5
Geld. The German Conilate? Really? Here's something for you to consider and research. Food for though as they say. Why would Condon's son in law, Ralph, have several of the gold ramsom notes? Where would he get them in the 1930's and 40's? In the 1980's I went to stamp and coin shows all over the country. I was able to find three bills from the random payment that went down at St. Raymond's. I sill have two of them! How would Ralph have gotten his? One of the things that make you go ..."Hmm!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 15:03:45 GMT -5
Food for though as they say. Why would Condon's son in law, Ralph, have several of the gold ramsom notes? How would Ralph have gotten his? One of the things that make you go ..."Hmm!" Just a wild guess. This is how Ralph's Daddy-in-law (Condon) paid him for making the St. Raymond's cemetery plaster of paris cast of CJ's footprint?? Nice to see you post again, Dave!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Feb 22, 2019 18:37:31 GMT -5
Geld. The German Conilate? Really? Here's something for you to consider and research. Food for though as they say. Why would Condon's son in law, Ralph, have several of the gold ramsom notes? Where would he get them in the 1930's and 40's? In the 1980's I went to stamp and coin shows all over the country. I was able to find three bills from the random payment that went down at St. Raymond's. I sill have two of them! How would Ralph have gotten his? One of the things that make you go ..."Hmm!" Dave, One thing I've always been curious about (and have yet to find an answer) -- after Hauptmann's trial was over, was the money re-covered in Hauptmann's garage given back to Lindbergh? What happened to that money (almost $15,000)? Any idea?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 23, 2019 10:14:25 GMT -5
Condon was such a souvenir gatherer for things relating to this case, I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up with some of the ransom certs and passed them along to his son-in-law.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 23, 2019 10:54:53 GMT -5
Condon was such a souvenir gatherer for things relating to this case, I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up with some of the ransom certs and passed them along to his son-in-law. Wouldn't be surprised? For a guy who hid the empty ransom box in a bush I wouldn't either. But I would be surprised if he was on the level. Condon was handing over each and every crank letter he was getting. Meaningless stuff like this was quickly turned over as a "clue" so I think "excusing" criminal behavior as a reason why he'd hang onto REAL evidence by failing to turn that over doesn't work - for me anyway. He had no right to obstruct justice and for a guy who was being suspected doubly so if he wasn't involved.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 23, 2019 12:09:19 GMT -5
they never turned up at any action through the years that ive seen. just met a 98 year old lady that knew condon when she grew up on city island. has a nice autograph from him he gave her free movie tickets.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 23, 2019 12:27:18 GMT -5
Condon was such a souvenir gatherer for things relating to this case, I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up with some of the ransom certs and passed them along to his son-in-law. Wouldn't be surprised? For a guy who hid the empty ransom box in a bush I wouldn't either. But I would be surprised if he was on the level. Condon was handing over each and every crank letter he was getting. Meaningless stuff like this was quickly turned over as a "clue" so I think "excusing" criminal behavior as a reason why he'd hang onto REAL evidence by failing to turn that over doesn't work - for me anyway. He had no right to obstruct justice and for a guy who was being suspected doubly so if he wasn't involved. Michael, you're claiming that Condon hid the original ransom box in a bush in the middle of March, trusting it was still going to be there days later? And was Gregory Coleman of the Bronx Home News also in on what you're suggesting was a "ruse?" Or could this simply have been some kind of re-enactment of the cemetery drop, perhaps with a bit of typical Condonesque embellishment going down here? Mightn't you be making a pretty large assumption here in the interests of supporting your theory by claiming Condon didn't turn over the ransom box to CJ on the night of March 12? Bernard Uebel obviously saw something of interest but I don't believe it's nearly as important as what you've portrayed it to be. Really, in the best interests of tying up this case's loose ends, shouldn't we avoid turning speculation into slam dunks? Condon was a LKC souvenir hunter and it started with the nursery animals and crib safety pins, devolving into his desire to have a copy of the coffin shot. How many other artifacts do you think he might have collected along the way?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 23, 2019 12:56:03 GMT -5
Michael, you're claiming that Condon hid the original ransom box in a bush in the middle of March, trusting it was still going to be there days later? And was Gregory Coleman of the Bronx Home News also in on what you're suggesting was a "ruse?" Or could this simply have been some kind of re-enactment of the cemetery drop, perhaps with a bit of typical Condonesque embellishment going down here? Mightn't you be making a pretty large assumption here in the interests of supporting your theory by claiming Condon didn't turn over the ransom box to CJ on the night of March 12? Bernard Uebel obviously saw something of interest but I don't believe it's nearly as important as what you've portrayed it to be. Really, in the best interests of tying up this case's loose ends, shouldn't we avoid turning speculation into slam dunks? Condon was a LKC souvenir hunter and it started with the nursery animals and crib safety pins, devolving into his desire to have a copy of the coffin shot. How many other artifacts do you think he might have collected along the way? No (I think you are getting your dates mixed up). I am claiming what all of the evidence tells us - starting with Lindbergh's account on April 2nd concerning Condon's movements AND the Look-out's movements. Concerning ALL of the documentation about everything. Start on page 199 in V2. In short, Lindbergh gave him the box of money, Condon went down East Tremont following the exact same route as the Look-Out had taken out of sight of Lindbergh. He returned with the box under his arm which was obviously now empty. Remember that Condon gave several different absurd reasons for "why" he took this detour. Next, he walked to Whittemore Ave then obviously stashed the empty box in the bush. In the meantime the Look-Out had returned from the exact direction Condon just came back from - gave the signal to Condon who then came back with a made up story about handing the money over the hedge which was across the street from where he had hidden the empty box. Uebel's eyewitness account is indisputable. He saw a man return to that bush and remove a box of similar dimensions. So do we believe Condon - a man who disagreed with himself on just about every different occasion about each and everything he ever said? And do we disagree with Uebel? And everyone else? Do we dispute the documentation? Condon LIED and there is no way around this. UNLESS you want to say he was stashing the box because he wanted to collect it later as a souvenir. But you aren't doing that and I don't blame you. And yet that IS your explanation concerning "why" he might have ransom money? Anyone who possessed ransom money was immediately investigated. What do you think police would have done if they found out Condon was in possession after the ransom drop? Exactly. And believe me when I say that Condon knew that too. I wouldn't be surprised that if one day this box ever shows up it will be directly tied to Condon. Or if not, its probably buried in the grave he pointed out when he suggested that's where it was. No one makes that type of suggestion unless they know the money and the box had become separated.
|
|
geld
Trooper
Posts: 43
|
Post by geld on Feb 23, 2019 16:01:08 GMT -5
Dave, This is from a post by Karma : The Literary Digest, June 20, 1936 "Col. Charles A. Lindberth last week had $14,665 deposited to his account at the Bankers Trust Company,New York. The ransom-money found in the Hauptmann garage in 1934 had been held until now as evidence by the State of New Jersey.____--"
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Feb 23, 2019 22:07:56 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 2, 2019 12:53:27 GMT -5
Michael, you're claiming that Condon hid the original ransom box in a bush in the middle of March, trusting it was still going to be there days later? And was Gregory Coleman of the Bronx Home News also in on what you're suggesting was a "ruse?" Or could this simply have been some kind of re-enactment of the cemetery drop, perhaps with a bit of typical Condonesque embellishment going down here? Mightn't you be making a pretty large assumption here in the interests of supporting your theory by claiming Condon didn't turn over the ransom box to CJ on the night of March 12? Bernard Uebel obviously saw something of interest but I don't believe it's nearly as important as what you've portrayed it to be. Really, in the best interests of tying up this case's loose ends, shouldn't we avoid turning speculation into slam dunks? Condon was a LKC souvenir hunter and it started with the nursery animals and crib safety pins, devolving into his desire to have a copy of the coffin shot. How many other artifacts do you think he might have collected along the way? No (I think you are getting your dates mixed up). I am claiming what all of the evidence tells us - starting with Lindbergh's account on April 2nd concerning Condon's movements AND the Look-out's movements. Concerning ALL of the documentation about everything. Start on page 199 in V2. In short, Lindbergh gave him the box of money, Condon went down East Tremont following the exact same route as the Look-Out had taken out of sight of Lindbergh. He returned with the box under his arm which was obviously now empty. Remember that Condon gave several different absurd reasons for "why" he took this detour. Next, he walked to Whittemore Ave then obviously stashed the empty box in the bush. In the meantime the Look-Out had returned from the exact direction Condon just came back from - gave the signal to Condon who then came back with a made up story about handing the money over the hedge which was across the street from where he had hidden the empty box. Uebel's eyewitness account is indisputable. He saw a man return to that bush and remove a box of similar dimensions. So do we believe Condon - a man who disagreed with himself on just about every different occasion about each and everything he ever said? And do we disagree with Uebel? And everyone else? Do we dispute the documentation? Condon LIED and there is no way around this. UNLESS you want to say he was stashing the box because he wanted to collect it later as a souvenir. But you aren't doing that and I don't blame you. And yet that IS your explanation concerning "why" he might have ransom money? Anyone who possessed ransom money was immediately investigated. What do you think police would have done if they found out Condon was in possession after the ransom drop? Exactly. And believe me when I say that Condon knew that too. I wouldn't be surprised that if one day this box ever shows up it will be directly tied to Condon. Or if not, its probably buried in the grave he pointed out when he suggested that's where it was. No one makes that type of suggestion unless they know the money and the box had become separated. First of all, yes I had my dates momentarily confused and I know the St. Raymond's ransom payment happened on April 2. Okay.. so in support of your personal theory, you're claiming this is what all of the evidence tells us? You make statements such as, "He (Condon) returned with the box under his arm which was obviously now empty." and "Next, he walked to Whittemore Ave then obviously stashed the empty box in the bush." How do you so unilaterally conclude something like this, when you have no idea if Condon indeed met anyone on his walk down East Tremont Ave, or if the box was empty upon his return, or if he hid the ransom box in the boxwood bush and didn't really give it to CJ, as he testified? And please give us your best guess as to why Gregory Coleman of the Bronx Home News was there witnessing all of this. I think you may be simply missing the purpose of this Uebel-witnessed event, which I would safely venture was simply some kind of re-enactment for the benefit of attempting to rationalize the events of that evening and that Gregory Coleman's presence there essentially serves to undermine your theory at a pretty base level. ALL of the documentation about everything, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 4, 2019 10:45:52 GMT -5
First of all, yes I had my dates momentarily confused and I know the St. Raymond's ransom payment happened on April 2. You're not alone. Happens to everyone from time to time. Well... it happens to me too I guess I should say. Okay.. so in support of your personal theory, you're claiming this is what all of the evidence tells us? You make statements such as, "He (Condon) returned with the box under his arm which was obviously now empty." and "Next, he walked to Whittemore Ave then obviously stashed the empty box in the bush." How do you so unilaterally conclude something like this, when you have no idea if Condon indeed met anyone on his walk down East Tremont Ave, or if the box was empty upon his return, or if he hid the ransom box in the boxwood bush and didn't really give it to CJ, as he testified? And please give us your best guess as to why Gregory Coleman of the Bronx Home News was there witnessing all of this. I think you may be simply missing the purpose of this Uebel-witnessed event, which I would safely venture was simply some kind of re-enactment for the benefit of attempting to rationalize the events of that evening and that Gregory Coleman's presence there essentially serves to undermine your theory at a pretty base level. ALL of the documentation about everything, eh? Absolutely YES. ALL of the documentation. Condon had absolutely NO reason to walk down East Tremont out of sight. ZERO. And his explanations were many while NONE made any sense. That's called someone lying and not being able to remember what lie was told. What's worse is that they were all really bad lies. I wish you'd stop trying to make excuses and use the same logic you apply to Hauptmann when evaluating his actions. I've seen you say at times that " where there's smoke there's fire." And yet, you seem to apply this on a slide rule. You should qualify this by saying IF it doesn't involve Condon. Here's a guy who is 2nd only to Hauptmann for smoke - maybe even first. Well let's see about "documentation." I'm supposed to be ignorant about what was going on when it was me who provided just about everything there is to know about it? That seems like an odd suggestion Joe. We know there was a "walk-thru." It's that tour which gives us a basis for the timing concerning everything else. Uebel saw many things - some of which had nothing to do with that tour. An example would be his eyewitness account of someone retrieving the box. And just where was that box again? Condon ever tell of stashing a box across the road from the supposed Ransom Drop? No? Of course that would have NOTHING to do with a re-enactment. How about the footprint? Condon said John made it. You believe Hauptmann was John. The footprint didn't match Hauptmann. This should represent a Catch-22 for you. But it won't. Gee, I wonder why? You'll just say the old man was "confused" about seeing John jump onto that grave or something like that. Bottom line was that "John" never made that print yet Condon said he did. Why? Because that money wasn't surrendered there and this was, yet again, another of Condon's tactics to obstruct the police by lying to them. He did this again and again and again. Over and over and over and over. Countless times. Try adding them up one day.
|
|