|
Post by Sherlock on Dec 21, 2021 15:45:01 GMT -5
Hi Jeanne, While staying at Condon's home Breckenridge wrote two bogus ransom notes and mailed them to Condon's address. He clearly had his doubts about Condon and they were confirmed: Condon never mentioned receiving the Breckenridge notes. How would he know they were fakes if he wasn't involved?
As a counter to my point about the box: if the size was specified so as to fit into a pre-prepared temporary hiding place then why didn't the kidnapper create the box himself? He could then have a dry run ensuring that his box was a snug fit (e.g under a memorial flower vase) and thereby remove the possibility of a last minute glitch e.g. Condon's box is too large. Such a box is easy to make....especially if you're a carpenter!
As you imply, Condon's family had lived with his eccentric behaviour for years. No doubt they loved him, but must have been wondering each time he left the house what new drama (with Dr C at the centre of it) would unfold when he returned. His family were battle-weary and certainly would have talked him out of writing to the Bronx Home News but the days when they had any influence over him were long past. Condon saw himself as the Sun, his family as distant planets circling around him. Personally, I doubt whether Condon shared any of his thoughts/actions in the Lindbergh case with Myra, Mrs Condon, or any other family member.
Thanks for your support and kind words,
Sherlock
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Dec 22, 2021 8:28:01 GMT -5
Michael, we know Lindbergh on one occasion and either accurately or not, claimed that Condon took the walk down East Tremont Ave. while he had the ransom box with him. Contrary to this, at the Flemington Trial, Condon testified that his walk down East Tremont occurred before he he had even met up with CJ for their meeting at St. Raymond's, and he repeats this accounting of events in Jafsie Tells All. What accounting or report are you referring to when you state that Condon claimed the same thing as Lindbergh?
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 22, 2021 9:38:32 GMT -5
One more question for Michael while we are on this subject: I have read the statement of Bernard Uebel as Michael gives us and would like to know if there had been any attempt to identify the men in the maroon car and also in the green Ford touring car that Uebel witnessed. In particular, one man was described as Italian. Has there been any attempt to identify him? Thanks much for your assistance.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 22, 2021 12:33:48 GMT -5
One more question for Michael while we are on this subject: I have read the statement of Bernard Uebel as Michael gives us and would like to know if there had been any attempt to identify the men in the maroon car and also in the green Ford touring car that Uebel witnessed. In particular, one man was described as Italian. Has there been any attempt to identify him? Thanks much for your assistance. The short answer is "no" but with a caveat: On 4/17/32, Det. Thompson brought Uebel to Police Headquarters to look at a Rogues Gallery of mugshots. He pulled two: Nathan Cantwell and Moe Schwartz. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone known to be involved with the case (e.g. Reich, Coleman, etc.) was ever displayed to him at any stage although we know he identified Condon because he knew him. There's no follow-up, or if there was, its not at the NJSP Archives. The next step should have been to find out where these men were and bring them in for questioning and to have Uebel look them over in a line-up but that never happened. Once Ho-age and Lewis interviewed Uebel, he said Schwartz was one of the group " of the men who visited the cemetery," and that Cantwell, who he also previously picked out " resembles" another one of the men. Again, one would think Ho-age or Lewis would have asked what we all want to know but there's nothing there to indicate it. There's nothing at all about these two men in the files either. Furthermore, there's no copies of these mugshots so there's no way to know if these men looked like anyone in particular either. My guess is they both do. When it comes to looking at mugshots I've had my own professional experiences that have led me to view their selections with caution. First and foremost, the picture is a snapshot in time and the person may not appear that way in the present tense. Next, witnesses tend to find pictures they believe most "resemble" who they saw and select those instead of actually identifying any. Also, I've seen plenty of times that once the person is seen in the flesh the identification goes out the window. And finally, I've seen men "identified" who had nothing to do with with what they were accused. As just one example, I once had a Psychologist call me and tell me to escort one of my guys to the Lts office because the victim had identified his mugshot. That mugshot showed a man with a full head of grey hair and a beard. Unfortunately, the man in question no longer had a beard and his head was now shaved. The man who actually did it was someone I already found and had sitting in my office at the time the call came in. He did have a full head of grey hair but no beard. There was some resemblance and they both spoke with an accent.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 22, 2021 13:07:43 GMT -5
One more question for Michael while we are on this subject: I have read the statement of Bernard Uebel as Michael gives us and would like to know if there had been any attempt to identify the men in the maroon car and also in the green Ford touring car that Uebel witnessed. In particular, one man was described as Italian. Has there been any attempt to identify him? Thanks much for your assistance. The short answer is "no" but with a caveat: On 4/17/32, Det. Thompson brought Uebel to Police Headquarters to look at a Rogues Gallery of mugshots. He pulled two: Nathan Cantwell and Moe Schwartz. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone known to be involved with the case (e.g. Reich, Coleman, etc.) was ever displayed to him at any stage although we know he identified Condon because he knew him. There's no follow-up, or if there was, its not at the NJSP Archives. The next step should have been to find out where these men were and bring them in for questioning and to have Uebel look them over in a line-up but that never happened. Once Ho-age and Lewis interviewed Uebel, he said Schwartz was one of the group " of the men who visited the cemetery," and that Cantwell, who he also previously picked out " resembles" another one of the men. Again, one would think Ho-age or Lewis would have asked what we all want to know but there's nothing there to indicate it. There's nothing at all about these two men in the files either. Furthermore, there's no copies of these mugshots so there's no way to know if these men looked like anyone in particular either. My guess is they both do. When it comes to looking at mugshots I've had my own professional experiences that have led me to view their selections with caution. First and foremost, the picture is a snapshot in time and the person may not appear that way in the present tense. Next, witnesses tend to find pictures they believe most "resemble" who they saw and select those instead of actually identifying any. Also, I've seen plenty of times that once the person is seen in the flesh the identification goes out the window. And finally, I've seen men "identified" who had nothing to do with with what they were accused. As just one example, I once had a Psychologist call me and tell me to escort one of my guys to the Lts office because the victim had identified his mugshot. That mugshot showed a man with a full head of grey hair and a beard. Unfortunately, the man in question no longer had a beard and his head was now shaved. The man who actually did it was someone I already found and had sitting in my office at the time the call came in. He did have a full head of grey hair but no beard. There was some resemblance and they both spoke with an accent. Wasn't the maroon car Gregory Coleman's?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 22, 2021 13:33:18 GMT -5
Michael, we know Lindbergh on one occasion and either accurately or not, claimed that Condon took the walk down East Tremont Ave. while he had the ransom box with him. Contrary to this, at the Flemington Trial, Condon testified that his walk down East Tremont occurred before he he had even met up with CJ for their meeting at St. Raymond's, and he repeats this accounting of events in Jafsie Tells All. What accounting or report are you referring to when you state that Condon claimed the same thing as Lindbergh? Lindbergh revealed his eyewitness account on May 20, 1932. Lindbergh also told Breckinridge what occurred, and Breckinridge was the source who imparted this information to Special Agent Manning. Manning's account is reflected in his report and the FBI Summary of which I am sure you have a copy. One of the explanations Condon provided Manning, once asked, was that he took the detour because he was afraid someone would stick him up and take the ransom money from him. Prior to this, there are several versions. On May 13, Condon claimed to have gone to the corner and waited for five minutes before heading back to the car when a voice cried out causing him to turn back and head down Whittemore Ave. There is nothing about a detour in this account. On May 14, Condon refused to answer any of Breslin's questions about it. During his Grand Jury testimony on May 20, 1932, he essentially gave the same story as he did in his May 13 statement except he was walking around "there" [at the corner] and waited 10 to 15 minutes before heading back toward the car. On June 2, 1932, Inspector Walsh interrogated Condon: Q: When you got out of the car with the money to make payment why did you walk up Tremont Ave. with the money and then come down to the opposite corner of Widdeman [sic] Ave. and Tremont opposite the cemetery?
A: Because I wanted to see if there was anybody else there. In June of 1934, Condon claimed that after speaking to the man with the girl, he "walked up East Tremont" away from Whittemore Avenue in front of the Cemetery then waited there. As he started to " walk away" he heard someone cry out causing him to " walk around and down Whittemore Ave." I've considered that the car was parked down E. Tremont in front of the Florists - but in the opposite direction of his actual detour and that he might just be restating what he always had. Or, in the alternative, he was changing his story to explain his suspicious detour while in possession of the ransom money as an attempt to neutralize it. Regardless, its clearly what he was doing in JTA! We already know about his first trip based on his earliest accounts didn't include such a detour, and he also had already admitted this detour was when he was in possession of the ransom when he spoke to Manning, Walsh, and Keaten about it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 22, 2021 13:46:22 GMT -5
Wasn't the maroon car Gregory Coleman's? On April 18, 1932, Uebel sent word to Det. Thompson that the maroon car he had seen there " on two previous dates" was there again. The license plate number was retrieved and it came back to Coleman's wife Mary. Coleman admitted to being at the cemetery several times with Condon (V2,p253). This, of course, wouldn't explain why his vehicle was there the day I believe Uebel first saw this car (which I believe was April 3) since Condon could not have been with him. I may have misunderstood Jeanne's question somewhat so hopefully I'm not muddying the waters. Clearly if that was the same maroon car he saw each time it was Coleman's.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Dec 22, 2021 13:57:44 GMT -5
Mbg, having never heard of any of direct evidence of Condon’s deceased relatives being buried so near the areas of interest or anywhere else specifically within St. Raymond’s, I’m extremely curious as to where this information originates. Wasn’t Condon questioned about this before or during the trial? What is your understanding of his response? How many Condon relations, direct or indirect, might also be buried at St. Raymond’s given that it is the only Catholic Cemetery in the Bronx, and the many years that Condons and their families lived in the Bronx? Considering that your points were not highlighted as a factor in Condon’s case involvement at the time, how is that this information might be relevant today, having been totally missed by investigative scrutiny of the time? Could it be there may be many more of his relations buried there, and have you been able to map out precise locations relative to his actual travels within the cemetery on the night of April 2? I’m certainly looking forward to discussing this in more detail! Joe, Condon either never revealed to the authorities that his father and brother were buried off Whittemore & East Tremont Aves or, if they found out, he was told to keep mum about it because it would have appeared as if Jafsie himself had chosen the place for the ransom payment, given his familiarity with the location. Jafsie was also well acquainted and in known contact with his maternal first cousin Susan Conlin Doyle, whose family members are buried along the wall where the ransom payment took place. He even had a meeting with Dennis Doyle, Susan’s son, during the ransom negotiations. I did the research on the burial sites on my own. In his will, Jafsie’s father, John S. Condon, had stipulated that two graves be purchased in a plot in St. Raymond’s Cemetery. He was buried in one of them in 1896. His oldest son, James B. Condon, was buried in the other in 1926. The two graves are located in Section 3, Range 6, Plot 57, Grave 1. I was provided this information by the friendly office staff at St. Raymond’s. (Jafsie’s mother died in 1914. She and Jafsie’s brother Michael, who died in 1883, are buried in St. Mary’s cemetery in Yonkers.) Rab and I went to St. Ray’s in 2018 to look for the Condon gravesite. Since there is no gravestone we were unable to pinpoint its exact location, but looking at the map one can see how close Section 3 is to Whittemore and East Tremont Aves. And the walled northern border of Section 6, where Susan Doyle’s family’s graves are located and Jafsie handed the money to CJ standing in the the upper-left corner, is close to Section 3 as well. Who knows, perhaps Jafsie had a private chat with his dearly departed when he embarked on his nocturnal mission. In one of his statements he even said he walked along that road (the one separating Sections 3 and 6). Did Jafsie mislead the police? If so, why? Or was there a coverup? In V2, Michael covers the many conflicting, misleading and confusing statements and testimonies given about possible Condon relatives resting in St. Raymond’s in great detail. How two of Jafsie’s closest relatives buried there escaped detection at the time is an important question. And again: How did Hauptmann pick this place? Something is odd here. Wayne will post a map of Old St. Raymond’s Cemetery shortly. Mbg, thanks for the information and this is great research! The plots purchased by Condon’s father would have been a very important religious consideration, given that (Old) St. Raymond’s was, and remains to this day, the only Roman Catholic Cemetery in the Bronx. And I would agree that Condon probably decided or was told not to reveal the fact his father and brother were buried at St. Raymond’s, lest it be construed he was even in the least, responsible for the location of his second meeting with CJ. The proximity of the two family-related graves at St. Raymond’s at first blush might appear to represent the kind of coincidence that points to Condon having acted collaboratively with CJ. But does this hold water given all circumstances viewed in a neutrally-observed way? The first meeting at Woodlawn Cemetery took place just four days after Condon’s letter to the kidnappers was published in the Bronx Home News. Therefore, the cemetery meeting place precedent was established by the extortionist(s), unless one believes in the possibility that Condon had some input towards that first meeting location as well at the later one at St. Raymond’s and that Condon was “recruited” by the extortionist(s). Personally, I don’t. Given that St. Raymond’s would have been relatively new at the time of the plot purchases by Jafsie’s father, it stands to reason that his and his son’s graves would be fairly close to the road and the front gate. A desirable location so to speak, and perhaps two that were available at the time, before burial plot availability began to expand over the property with passing years. At Woodlawn Cemetery, CJ attracted Condon’s attention near the front gate. At St. Raymond’s, he repeats this process. Certainly not an unusual move by any means, but from here, CJ’s intent would be to find a more private location for his meeting with Condon. As the front gates of St. Raymond’s were likely locked after dark as those at Woodlawn were, the nearest accessible route then into the cemetery would be Whittemore Ave., which was always open to vehicle and pedestrian traffic. CJ effectively guided Condon down Whittemore in a south-west direction by remaining somewhat visible as lighting conditions dimmed until he came to the first accessible roadway off Whittemore, which was the private cemetery road. This location would then have been his first real opportunity to meet person to person. CJ also kept the hedgerow between himself and Condon, who remained on the shoulder of Whittemore Ave. Considering the above, I have to say I don’t see anything that shouts anything but coincidence between Condon and CJ for either the Woodlawn or St. Raymond’s cemetery meetings, in spite of the fact that Condon had family relations buried at St. Raymond’s. At the same time, I don’t preclude the possibility that this kind of coincidence (coinciding events) might also delve into something removed from the Newtonian and into more of a Quantum understanding, relative to Condon being fortuitously placed close to his deceased family members for the benefit of some needed spiritual support. Speaking strictly Newtonian though, I do believe both cemetery meetings were fully orchestrated by CJ, and that Jafsie was no more than a willing participant under CJ’s directions to getting him into another cemetery location he considered safe and secure. From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively. At the same time, I have to believe it would have been a bit foolhardy for Condon to have intentionally engineered that kind of familial traceability to himself given the potential seriousness of these actions that could be construed as aiding and abetting such a serious crime. And in the highly unlikely event that Condon had in fact been a confederate of the kidnapper(s) / extortionist(s), how comfortable would CJ have then been knowing the pre-planned and all important St. Raymond’s ransom payment location could potentially have been swarming with police ahead of time, if Condon had decided to rat out his "fellow confederate" or had been playing him all along in concert with law enforcement? I do believe St. Raymond’s was exclusively CJ’s call.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 23, 2021 8:34:29 GMT -5
Speaking strictly Newtonian though, I do believe both cemetery meetings were fully orchestrated by CJ, and that Jafsie was no more than a willing participant under CJ’s directions to getting him into another cemetery location he considered safe and secure. From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively. At the same time, I have to believe it would have been a bit foolhardy for Condon to have intentionally engineered that kind of familial traceability to himself given the potential seriousness of these actions that could be construed as aiding and abetting such a serious crime. And in the highly unlikely event that Condon had in fact been a confederate of the kidnapper(s) / extortionist(s), how comfortable would CJ have then been knowing the pre-planned and all important St. Raymond’s ransom payment location could potentially have been swarming with police ahead of time, if Condon had decided to rat out his "fellow confederate" or had been playing him all along in concert with law enforcement? I do believe St. Raymond’s was exclusively CJ’s call. Oh my! Coincidence? Foolhardy? Well, lets see... 1. Lied about Silken situation in multiple places.
2. Lied about 2nd Taxi Driver
3. Removed the 20K of the most identifiable bills after using "psychology" on CJ.
4. Lied about Ransom Box construction
5. Lied about Ransom Box Builder
6. Lied about the Gang of Five
7. Lied about Coal Barge John
8. Lied about CJ telling him Curtis wasn't involved.
9. Lied about the Needle Salesman.
10. Lied about the Look-out.
11. Lied about the Tuckahoe situation in multiple places.
12. Lied about the woman/girl at St. Raymond's
13. Lied about his detour at St. Raymond's.
14. Lied about his encounter with CJ at Woodlawn.
15. Lied about CJ's thumb.
16. Lied about the many people he identified as CJ via mugshots - many who looked NOTHING like Hauptmann.
17. Lied about the car he saw at Woodlawn.
18. Refused to identify Hauptmann - TWICE.
19. Went to Florida with the intent to frame Garelick.
20. "Assault" involving at least one little girl.
21. Seen in Bickford's at the same time Hauptmann was there.
22. Bait & Switch with the ransom money.
23. Locations in the Boad Nelly note. Shall I continue? There are literally hundreds and hundreds of instances and I could add to this list all day long. In fact, anyone reading this could add 10 to 20 of their own to this list. And you talk "coincidence" as the reason why Condon's family members were buried at the spot he claimed was the rendezvous spot? If it wasn't that would be "foolhardy." Because we all know there's no evidence of Condon being foolhardy - right? No, no, that was all part of the Master Plan schemed up by an Illegal Immigrant Carpenter. Listen, its obvious you are too far gone at this point to be reasoned with. The Baby Jesus could come down from Heaven on Christmas, strike up a bush, and once ablaze have it tell you what really happened - but it wouldn't matter. You'd counter with some large words mixed in with a little quantum physics and walk away thinking you disproved it. The rest of us, to include the Baby Jesus, would be left scratching our heads.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 23, 2021 12:53:20 GMT -5
According to the report of James Avon of the Bronx Police Dept. the guard Bernard Uebel saw a maroon sedan on April 1 of 1932 at 1:30 p.m. This would be one day prior to the payment of the ransom money. The car was parked on Whittemore Ave. It carried "three or four men," one of which appeared to be Italian. On April 11, nine days following the kidnapping, Uebel saw the car again. A man got out, walked to a boxwood bush near E. Tremont St., took a box from under the bush, place it under his coat and drive away. Uebel was able to copy part of the license number, and the car was traced to Gregory Coleman, associate editor of the Bronx News. Agent Sisk complained tht Coleman knew more about the case than the police did. Condon must have had a number of conversations with Coleman, giving him information, whether accurate or not, that he would not reveal when police questioned him, claiming that he would not betray a trust since he would not risk any injury to come to the child. On the witness stand, Condon testified that he returned to the site of the exchange and found that "a grave had been disarranged," suggesting the possibility that the box had been buried at one time. Sources: "Dark Corners" vol.4 and trial testimony transcript. In vol. 2 "Dark Corners "the maroon car is identified as a 1928 Hupmobile belonging to Gregory Coleman. So Condon gave Coleman information about the location of the box, if all this is true--which it might very well have been. Coleman may have been looking for a story, or more likely, he was recovering the box as a favor to Condon. This shoud have been investigated, and there was opportunity to do so since Coleman was called as a witness to the Grand Jury. In addition, Uebel saw a green touring Ford car on April 2 at 2;30 P.M. This was the day of the ransom payment. Uebel saw Condon walk over to the car and speak with the driver. The car drove away (Dark Corners vol. 4) but returned. Condon gave a man a large white envelope. Containing what? Note that Uebel recognized Condon and spoke to him. According to Condon's testimony, the money and the ransom box became separated although we do not know at what point this happened. My point here is that enough details are given in these sources indicating that Condon was not giving all the details of the exchange, and that some of his comments are not consistent with the evidence. All this should have been investigated as important to the solving of the case. I apologize if all this has already been posted on the Board, but it is new to me, and I think any oversight here was an omission significant to the case.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Dec 23, 2021 12:59:49 GMT -5
Michael, I always await your responses with baited breath, even though my last post, designed to keep exploring facets of the St. Raymond’s meeting, clearly was not addressed to you. In fact, I’m less inclined to address posts of an exploratory nature to you anymore as I’ve essentially come to accept that your beliefs related to this case, primarily towards Lindbergh and Condon, have become increasingly fixed in cement. There seems little rationale in attempting to raise the quality of analysis and thought in an open-minded way with you, when your only intent at times seems to be in trying to shut down those points that threaten your radical positions. I believe the whole concept of being placed in a position where you were compelled to retract one of your conclusions, would terrify you. You’ve invested twenty-one years of your life into this case, become a fixture at the archives when you weren’t guarding criminals, and written four books. While you’ve provided a wealth of valuable information to countless researchers along the way, you’ve also honed your rigid belief structure to a level where anything that does not align with your personal conclusions must somehow be dispensed with, via one laundry list of inconclusive and biased counter points towards case-related information after another. Somewhere along the way, we’ve lost the genuinely-inquisitive and open-minded student, only to have it replaced by a caricatured version of your kindred spirit, the intractable and ham-fisted Inspector Harry Walsh, right down to his colourful expressions of feigned astonishment and religious-based admonitions. I believe that anyone who’s familiar with the Condon “interview” debacle at Alpine and the Jersey Palisades, in which Condon refused to be bullied into confessing something he wasn’t guilty of, will understand what I’m referring to.
In any case.. onwards and upwards! I do hope a more fruitful discussion will continue despite this little interruption.
And may this Christmas Season bring Blessings to All!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 23, 2021 18:48:32 GMT -5
Michael, I always await your responses with baited breath, even though my last post, designed to keep exploring facets of the St. Raymond’s meeting, clearly was not addressed to you. In fact, I’m less inclined to address posts of an exploratory nature to you anymore as I’ve essentially come to accept that your beliefs related to this case, primarily towards Lindbergh and Condon, have become increasingly fixed in cement. There seems little rationale in attempting to raise the quality of analysis and thought in an open-minded way with you, when your only intent at times seems to be in trying to shut down those points that threaten your radical positions. I believe the whole concept of being placed in a position where you were compelled to retract one of your conclusions, would terrify you. You’ve invested twenty-one years of your life into this case, become a fixture at the archives when you weren’t guarding criminals, and written four books. While you’ve provided a wealth of valuable information to countless researchers along the way, you’ve also honed your rigid belief structure to a level where anything that does not align with your personal conclusions must somehow be dispensed with, via one laundry list of inconclusive and biased counter points towards case-related information after another. Somewhere along the way, we’ve lost the genuinely-inquisitive and open-minded student, only to have it replaced by a caricatured version of your kindred spirit, the intractable and ham-fisted Inspector Harry Walsh, right down to his colourful expressions of feigned astonishment and religious-based admonitions. Well this is interesting... So lets see - you are calling me a "radical" for drawing conclusions based upon the facts contained within the source material? I think you might be missing a marble. Let's look at a couple of my examples above: I wrote about Tuckahoe in V2. Condon claimed Reich drove him there to one investigator but said Kay drove him there to another. He said he met a woman, who was a confederate of the kidnappers there, but later testified, under oath, before the Grand Jury that he never met anyone. Then later still, once again, said he did meet a woman there. It's even in JTA! that he met a woman there. Isn't this your "go to" source to refute the timing of his "detour" during the ransom ruse? So how do you reconcile this? Ignore it then make it about me somehow. And you call ME radical? Let's look at the Needle Salesman again shall we? He said he was there when the man arrived. Gave a detailed description and even suggested he was the Lookout he saw at Woodlawn. But then, only about a month later, he tells a different investigator he cannot give a description because he wasn't home when the Needle Salesman called. So - its me right? I'm the bad guy here because now you have to shrug this off in order for YOUR personal theories to make any sense. Shall I continue? He lied about the 2nd Taxi Driver. How do we know? Because his house was being WATCHED by an FBI Agent and two NYPD officers. We also had an NYPD officer listening to his phone under a wire tap. This tap revealed that Myra left before the invisible taxi driver delivered the note. Yup, you guessed it. All this happened because of my "theories," closed mindedness, and admiration for Inspector Walsh. Take a look in the mirror Joe. You are doing exactly what you are accusing me of.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Dec 23, 2021 20:40:54 GMT -5
Mbg, thanks for the information and this is great research! The plots purchased by Condon’s father would have been a very important religious consideration, given that (Old) St. Raymond’s was, and remains to this day, the only Roman Catholic Cemetery in the Bronx. And I would agree that Condon probably decided or was told not to reveal the fact his father and brother were buried at St. Raymond’s, lest it be construed he was even in the least, responsible for the location of his second meeting with CJ. The proximity of the two family-related graves at St. Raymond’s at first blush might appear to represent the kind of coincidence that points to Condon having acted collaboratively with CJ. But does this hold water given all circumstances viewed in a neutrally-observed way? The first meeting at Woodlawn Cemetery took place just four days after Condon’s letter to the kidnappers was published in the Bronx Home News. Therefore, the cemetery meeting place precedent was established by the extortionist(s), unless one believes in the possibility that Condon had some input towards that first meeting location as well at the later one at St. Raymond’s and that Condon was “recruited” by the extortionist(s). Personally, I don’t. Given that St. Raymond’s would have been relatively new at the time of the plot purchases by Jafsie’s father, it stands to reason that his and his son’s graves would be fairly close to the road and the front gate. A desirable location so to speak, and perhaps two that were available at the time, before burial plot availability began to expand over the property with passing years. At Woodlawn Cemetery, CJ attracted Condon’s attention near the front gate. At St. Raymond’s, he repeats this process. Certainly not an unusual move by any means, but from here, CJ’s intent would be to find a more private location for his meeting with Condon. As the front gates of St. Raymond’s were likely locked after dark as those at Woodlawn were, the nearest accessible route then into the cemetery would be Whittemore Ave., which was always open to vehicle and pedestrian traffic. CJ effectively guided Condon down Whittemore in a south-west direction by remaining somewhat visible as lighting conditions dimmed until he came to the first accessible roadway off Whittemore, which was the private cemetery road. This location would then have been his first real opportunity to meet person to person. CJ also kept the hedgerow between himself and Condon, who remained on the shoulder of Whittemore Ave. Considering the above, I have to say I don’t see anything that shouts anything but coincidence between Condon and CJ for either the Woodlawn or St. Raymond’s cemetery meetings, in spite of the fact that Condon had family relations buried at St. Raymond’s. At the same time, I don’t preclude the possibility that this kind of coincidence (coinciding events) might also delve into something removed from the Newtonian and into more of a Quantum understanding, relative to Condon being fortuitously placed close to his deceased family members for the benefit of some needed spiritual support. Speaking strictly Newtonian though, I do believe both cemetery meetings were fully orchestrated by CJ, and that Jafsie was no more than a willing participant under CJ’s directions to getting him into another cemetery location he considered safe and secure. From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively. At the same time, I have to believe it would have been a bit foolhardy for Condon to have intentionally engineered that kind of familial traceability to himself given the potential seriousness of these actions that could be construed as aiding and abetting such a serious crime. And in the highly unlikely event that Condon had in fact been a confederate of the kidnapper(s) / extortionist(s), how comfortable would CJ have then been knowing the pre-planned and all important St. Raymond’s ransom payment location could potentially have been swarming with police ahead of time, if Condon had decided to rat out his "fellow confederate" or had been playing him all along in concert with law enforcement? I do believe St. Raymond’s was exclusively CJ’s call. Joe, yes, there are coincidences. It seems that in the given St. Raymond’s cemetery scenario even the police thought there were too many in one place to make Jafsie not look suspicious, so suppress them they did. Jafsie helped them in this effort by never mentioning the paternal plot. It should also be mentioned here that his cousin Susan Doyle lived directly across the street from the eastern-most entrance to St. Raymond’s, a potential entrance or escape route for CJ. It’s as if CJ/Hauptmann, who I believe was involved in this case up to his neck, was trapped in the Condon web without even knowing it when he decided on another cemetery as a safe meeting place to negotiate the ransom payment. When did he pick and settle on St. Raymond’s? He worked full-time from March 21 to April 2. When did he have the time to scout it out to ensure a safe escape? I think there was more going on behind the scenes than we know. I’ve posted on this board before that I think Jafsie was brought into the case by Col. Breckinridge. The common denominator: Gustavus T. Kirby, Jafsie’s co-founder of the NY Amateur Athletic League and Breckinridge’s fellow Olympic fencer and head of the United States Olympic Committee. Jafsie and Breckinridge could have met years earlier, hence Jafsie’s preemptive question on meeting Col. Breckinridge: “You don’t know me. You have never met me before.” On May 14, 1932, Condon stated at District Attorney Breslin’s office: “From inside sources [likely Col. Breckinridge, who was present] I found out today the man [CJ] was betraying their trust.” What took him two days to grasp that CJ had betrayed CAL and Breck’s trust given that Charlie was dead? Why did Breckinridge have to tell him that? I just can’t see Richard Hauptmann awake one morning to find himself transformed into the kidnapper of the Lindbergh Baby. I’m likely wrong, but could he have been invited into the case for the promise of money?
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 23, 2021 22:15:40 GMT -5
So Condon somehow persuaded the kidnapper (or intermediary) to reduce the amount of the ransom from $70,000 to $50,000. This took little time for the agreement to be made. The scene Condon describes here does not sound credible at all, and it makes him look good, or so he thinks. The amount was increased in all probability to put some pressure on completing the bargain. The ninth ransom note stated that the deadline was April 8 for the transaction, and if the money was not delivered by that date, then the amount would be increased to $100,000. The money ($50,000) was indeed handed over on April 2 before the stated deadline, but there must have been some activity and an agreement reached to eliminate the additional $20,000 before that date. I suggest that the kidnappers intended to launder the money immediately and made their plans to do so far in advance of the date of April 2. One of the gang may have known that Isidor Fisch laundered money and approached him early in March to make the arrangements. Fisch usually paid 50 or 60 cents on the dollar, but this sum was more than he was accustomed to do business with. So he had to find some persons who would be willing to lend him money to pay the $25,000 (or $35,000) demanded of him. The ransom payment would not be made until Fisch had the money and could hand it over immediately. The kidnappers would not want to hold the money for very long, not even hours. Isidor had trouble raising the amount he needed to complete the deal. He worked through the weeks of March causing delay in the transaction, but the deadline of April 8 was set and was approaching. At some point, he would have contacted Hauptmann, explained the situation (at least up to a point, perhaps not mentioning some details) since he was aware that Hauptmann was making money. It's quite likely that the two did meet on Hunter's Island, and at that time, Fisch became aware of Hauptmann's financial situation and the way in which he made his money. Even so, Hauptmann and Fisch could not together raise the amount needed for the laundering operation. In prison, Hauptmann told his wife that he "gave Fisch everything." It was still not enough. They could launder $50,000 but not the $70,000. This information was conveyed to the kidnappers beforehand, who wanted very much to be out of the picture and so agreed to accept $50,000 and forget the extra $20,000. This information was conveyed to John Condon so he already knew the amount had been reduced before the meeting at St. Raymond's but invented a story to explain the situation and make himself look good in addition. So the $50,000 was handed over the evening of April 2. It was laundered immediately, Hauptmann was given his share, and he was able to have his utilities turned back on before the end of the day.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Dec 24, 2021 10:34:57 GMT -5
Mbg, I’m intrigued to hear that Susan Doyle lived at the east end of St. Raymond’s. Do you have her actual address so I can map it out, and how do you feel this is significant? We know Hauptmann wasn’t working on March 12, so he would have had plenty of time to come up with the Woodlawn Cemetery meeting plan prior to that date. He didn’t get the ransom payment then and he wasn’t financially well off enough to keep his lights on in late March and early April. This is no doubt a good part of the reason he felt he had to work at the Majestic Apartments for the period which ultimately covered March 21 to April 1, prior to his grand payday. Therefore, he would have had a full eight days and nights between Woodlawn and the Majestic to check out the next cemetery venue. And even when he was working at the Majestic, he would have had evenings under the anticipated cover-of-darkness conditions available to him. Personally, I can’t understand why he would have required outside assistance in terms of his available preparation time, or am I missing something here? With regards to Gustavus Kirby being a suspected link between Condon and Breckinridge as a nexus for subsequent activities between them, is this degree of coincidence really a surprise given their positions in life which would have placed both of them in countless overlapping social circles and personal interactions? Condon knew or had crossed paths with many thousands of individuals over the course of his lifetime as Breckinridge undoubtedly was, so it stands by statistical reason that such affiliations would have to occur, or could have many additional times, if other possible examples had been fully fleshed out. On what basis do you possibly conclude that Condon and Breckinridge had met each other through Kirby as a result of them both having known him on an individual basis? And for Michael's benefit, I haven't even considered the quantum-based serendipitous element that quite often seems to come into play here in real life. As you probably know, Addison Kelly, the Princeton University halfback had been taught and trained by Condon, and was also a former classmate of Breckinridge. Once Breckinridge heard this Condon story in Hopewell, he sought to confirm the veracity of the claim, discovering Kelly was conveniently then in New York City. A meeting was hastily arranged and Condon and Kelly enjoyed a completely unexpected and joyous reunion. Why would Breckinridge have arranged the meeting other than to check out this unfamiliar Bronx resident who suddenly appeared on the scene with a letter from the kidnapper? While we're discussing this, can I also ask what you believe to have been, Breckinridge’s intimate knowledge if any, about who had kidnapped or had been recruited to kidnap CALjr, at the time he also would have potentially enlisted Condon in some kind of pre-arranged plan? Regarding those statements you quote, I’m not sure what to make of them given their limited "capsule" representation, but I would immediately consider that each is worthy of further discussion to ensure that their meaning is being interpreted only within their intended light and nothing else. I do know through personal experience, it can be very difficult through a written report taken by someone else, in this case almost ninety years later to state unequivocally that the accounting is 100% accurate through intention, the subject was not misspeaking, taken out of context, or the like. Can you elaborate a bit more on these two accounts, and firstly, were they taken down by a stenographer?
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 24, 2021 10:47:53 GMT -5
So Fisch had his share of the ransom money, Hauptmann had his, and others may have had to be compensated as well if Isidor needed to borrow money from other friends. When Fisch left to visit with his family in Germany, he gave what was left of his share in the keeping of Hauptmann. When he died, Hauptmann combined the two portions of the money and lived off them. Fisch was interested in expanding his fur trade, selling furs caught in the US to customers in Germany. Hauptmann hoped to return to Germany permanently, and it's possible that he could make his living there as a partner in Fisch's international fur trade. The death of Fisch put an end to these hopes, but he would continue to live on the ransom money while in the US. His claim that Fisch owed him $7000 could well have been the truth, but the amount might have been somewhat more. If he did lend Fisch $7000. to help launder the ransom money, he would have received at least $14,000 in return since Fisch, or so it was claimed, purchased hot money for about 50 cents on the dollar. So Hauptmann got caught passing the ransom money, but as he said to his wife in prison, if Fisch were still alive, he would not be in the predicament in which he found himself. Not that he would have escaped totally, but if Fisch had revealed what he knew, the outcome could have been very different, Fisch would know more about the men with whom he dealt and so could assist the investigation. Fisch may also have involved a few others of his acquaintance with the case, esp. if he needed to borrow more money. Cemetery John may have been one of Fisch's acquaintances, but like Condon, CJ could not tell what he knew since he also had a problem in his background.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 25, 2021 11:31:42 GMT -5
Happy Holidays to Everyone! With a little time on my hands this morning, I would like to continue some thoughts on the current thread. It looks very much as if Condon was conducting a rehearsal (my word) of the transation exchange that would occur later that evening, after 9:30 and held in darkness on Saturday, April 2. Lindbergh was not present at 2;30 P.M. rehearsal. Bernard Uebel would have recognized him, so the man accompanying John Condon to St. Raymond's cemetery that afternoon was another friend. Coleman's maroon sedan was parked near the cemetery. Condon very likely oriented Coleman to the site they chose to hve the ransom box picked up on April 11 when Coleman would return and have the box picked up. There must have been a very friendly relationship between these two (Coleman being a reporter/editor for the Bronx News to which Condon regularly sent articles including his comments on the kidnapping early in March). Possibly Coleman was doing a favor for Condon in picking up the box, or he may have been looking for a scoop Condon promised him. Uebel saw the maroon sedan parked for several hours on Friday, April 1, but it drove away. There may have been some miscommunication between the two, or something went awry and Condon could not keep the appointment. The green Ford touring car also figures into this scene. This car may have carried the kidnappers or reps. to the scene at St. Raymond's, and again Condon would have oriented them to the site and the spot where the box was to be left. At this time, Condon would have had the opportunity to give the kidnappers information that the ransom money would be $50,000 and not the $70,000 later requested. Again, I submit that Fisch could not launder the sum of $70,000 before the deadline of April 8, so the kidnappers, eager to leave this situation as soon as possible, agreed to the reduced sum. One could wonder why they did not seek to launder the money elsewhere, but this appears to be an amateur group, and an inexperienced group goes with what they know. The baby was dead, it was a capital crime, and they needed to get out of the picture as soon as possible. What Condon knew is a serious question, but he was in this one up to his neck, and the plan had to work for everyone connected to it. The evening transaction went as planned though Condon had to embellish his account considerably for the record. If the transaction occurred following 9 p.m. Hauptmnnn would not have been able to pay his utility bill even hough the money would have been laundered immediately. He very likely paid the debt with the money he received from his work at the Majestic, but quit that day in the knowledge that he would not have to work again. He had played a role, that much seems evident, but he must have known that the deal was done on April 2, and his contribution to the laundering of the money would be doubled. Following the death of Isidor Fisch, his contribution was more than doubled.He would not need to work and his utilities would remain connected.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 25, 2021 12:03:23 GMT -5
One More Point: Bernard Uebel's account seems credible. He would have been about 27 years old in 1932 and used binoculars to follow the action on April 1 and April 2. He recognized Condon and spoke to him, he reported. He worked the day shift, evidently and so would not be in a position to observe the action in the evening. In the 1940 Census he was living on East Tremont Ave. so it was likely that he continued to work as a guard at St. Raymond.s given the proximity. He did not appear to have any ax to grind.. My question is whether the guards would have been required to submit a report at the end of their shift. If that was the case, then there would have been some record of Uebel's observations during his shift on April 1 and April 2. Has anyone searched for the St. Raymond's records for those days?
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 25, 2021 16:05:40 GMT -5
Sorry, one correction to the above: the kidnappers (or their rep.) in the green Ford touring car would have told John Condon on the afternoon of April 2 that they had agreed to reduce the amount of the ransom from $70,000. to $50,000. It would have been important for him to know this before the evening when the transaction was completed. Obviously, he could not have told Lindbergh of this plan, so he took the additional $2,000, in a separate packet. It would then be easily excluded from the other bills.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 25, 2021 21:13:55 GMT -5
Joe, yes, there are coincidences. It seems that in the given St. Raymond’s cemetery scenario even the police thought there were too many in one place to make Jafsie not look suspicious, so suppress them they did. Jafsie helped them in this effort by never mentioning the paternal plot. It should also be mentioned here that his cousin Susan Doyle lived directly across the street from the eastern-most entrance to St. Raymond’s, a potential entrance or escape route for CJ. It’s as if CJ/Hauptmann, who I believe was involved in this case up to his neck, was trapped in the Condon web without even knowing it when he decided on another cemetery as a safe meeting place to negotiate the ransom payment. When did he pick and settle on St. Raymond’s? He worked full-time from March 21 to April 2. When did he have the time to scout it out to ensure a safe escape? I think there was more going on behind the scenes than we know. I’ve posted on this board before that I think Jafsie was brought into the case by Col. Breckinridge. The common denominator: Gustavus T. Kirby, Jafsie’s co-founder of the NY Amateur Athletic League and Breckinridge’s fellow Olympic fencer and head of the United States Olympic Committee. Jafsie and Breckinridge could have met years earlier, hence Jafsie’s preemptive question on meeting Col. Breckinridge: “You don’t know me. You have never met me before.” On May 14, 1932, Condon stated at District Attorney Breslin’s office: “From inside sources [likely Col. Breckinridge, who was present] I found out today the man [CJ] was betraying their trust.” What took him two days to grasp that CJ had betrayed CAL and Breck’s trust given that Charlie was dead? Why did Breckinridge have to tell him that? I just can’t see Richard Hauptmann awake one morning to find himself transformed into the kidnapper of the Lindbergh Baby. I’m likely wrong, but could he have been invited into the case for the promise of money This is interesting Mbg! Jafsie did this in a couple of places, and when I saw the " I heard it from..." type of response I merely considered it was coming from him and this was just another line of BS. Considering that he was actually being told something from another source seems like a sensible consideration and one that I have never made myself. Time to find the others and start thinking them over from the perspective that he actually was getting this information from someone. One More Point: Bernard Uebel's account seems credible. He would have been about 27 years old in 1932 and used binoculars to follow the action on April 1 and April 2. He recognized Condon and spoke to him, he reported. He worked the day shift,evidently and so would not be in a position to observe the action in the evening. In the 1940 Census he was living on East Tremont Ave. so it was likely that he continued to work as a guard at St. Raymond.s given the proximity. He did not appear to have any ax to grind.. My question is whether the guards would have been required to submit a report at the end of their shift. If that was the case, then there would have been some record of Uebel's observations during his shift on April 1 and April 2. Has anyone searched for the St. Raymond's records for those days? It's a good question but the problem is there's no way to know. All we can do is speculate that because police/investigators didn't mention it in the reports then most likely there weren't any. I've searched for everything I possibly could over the years but the beauty of this case is that there are always places that someone hasn't looked. For example, I pursued the Trenton PD reports for the time when they guarded the morgue. I know they exist because I once had a point of contact that told me they did. Unfortunately, I couldn't get my hands on them. Perhaps one day somebody else will.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Dec 26, 2021 10:35:07 GMT -5
And it’s sometimes a bit difficult to lay anything on a table that's already littered with cards representing at times, half-baked interpretations and assumptions towards what the evidence (accurately or inaccurately reported,) conclusively portrays. As a prime example, the whole Tremont Ave. “handoff” and boxwood bush scenario, used to apparently demonstrate Condon was a “confederate of the kidnappers,” is fraught with one major pithole I identified when V2 first came out, which you essentially have no answer for, yet continue to promote and lobby for regardless. The construction of the ransom box and confusion about who built it and what it was made of is another example of overstating the significance of inaccurate recollection of an event, at a later date. So I'll take this as a "no" to my request. Condon was absolutely a confederate to the extortionists. His continuous lies, misdirection, and actions prove this beyond all doubt. You tend to use the terms "confederate to the extortionists" and "beyond all doubt" a lot. I'd really like to know, and I know for a fact that others here would as well, what exactly is it you believe Condon was guilty of, when you portray him as purportedly aiding and abetting the person or persons who were attempting exchange a dead baby for a lot of cash? How exactly was Condon a confederate? Surely you must have a pretty clear jigsaw picture by now based on the many examples you consider to be slam dunks, but each of which is worthy of an intelligent round of debate or two. Just like the two I gave above in my previous post. Please don't feel you have to trot out yet another laundry list of words, actions and events, interpreted the way you see most fit. Certainly you must have some thoughts about what Condon was truly in this case for. What do you feel were his honest intentions, if they in fact were not those he privately and publicly stated from beginning to end, ie. to serve the Lindberghs and safely return their child to them, and failing that to find those responsible for Caljr's death?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Dec 26, 2021 10:58:49 GMT -5
Michael, we know Lindbergh on one occasion and either accurately or not, claimed that Condon took the walk down East Tremont Ave. while he had the ransom box with him. Contrary to this, at the Flemington Trial, Condon testified that his walk down East Tremont occurred before he he had even met up with CJ for their meeting at St. Raymond's, and he repeats this accounting of events in Jafsie Tells All. What accounting or report are you referring to when you state that Condon claimed the same thing as Lindbergh? Lindbergh revealed his eyewitness account on May 20, 1932. Lindbergh also told Breckinridge what occurred, and Breckinridge was the source who imparted this information to Special Agent Manning. Manning's account is reflected in his report and the FBI Summary of which I am sure you have a copy. One of the explanations Condon provided Manning, once asked, was that he took the detour because he was afraid someone would stick him up and take the ransom money from him. Prior to this, there are several versions. On May 13, Condon claimed to have gone to the corner and waited for five minutes before heading back to the car when a voice cried out causing him to turn back and head down Whittemore Ave. There is nothing about a detour in this account. On May 14, Condon refused to answer any of Breslin's questions about it. During his Grand Jury testimony on May 20, 1932, he essentially gave the same story as he did in his May 13 statement except he was walking around "there" [at the corner] and waited 10 to 15 minutes before heading back toward the car. On June 2, 1932, Inspector Walsh interrogated Condon: Q: When you got out of the car with the money to make payment why did you walk up Tremont Ave. with the money and then come down to the opposite corner of Widdeman [sic] Ave. and Tremont opposite the cemetery?
A: Because I wanted to see if there was anybody else there. In June of 1934, Condon claimed that after speaking to the man with the girl, he "walked up East Tremont" away from Whittemore Avenue in front of the Cemetery then waited there. As he started to " walk away" he heard someone cry out causing him to " walk around and down Whittemore Ave." I've considered that the car was parked down E. Tremont in front of the Florists - but in the opposite direction of his actual detour and that he might just be restating what he always had. Or, in the alternative, he was changing his story to explain his suspicious detour while in possession of the ransom money as an attempt to neutralize it. Regardless, its clearly what he was doing in JTA! We already know about his first trip based on his earliest accounts didn't include such a detour, and he also had already admitted this detour was when he was in possession of the ransom when he spoke to Manning, Walsh, and Keaten about it. The question then comes to mind, if Condon essentially supported the claim by Lindbergh that he took the walk down East Tremont Ave. with the ransom box, through acknowledgement of this to investigators who questioned him about it later, why would he state something different at the trial and subsequently in JTA!? I can think of a number of motivations for this, primarily within the area of damage control and to ensure there were no hiccups at the trial noticeable by the defense. Have you pursued this at all and are you willing to discuss further?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 26, 2021 17:05:00 GMT -5
So I'll take this as a "no" to my request. Condon was absolutely a confederate to the extortionists. His continuous lies, misdirection, and actions prove this beyond all doubt. You tend to use the terms "confederate to the extortionists" and "beyond all doubt" a lot. I'd really like to know, and I know for a fact that others here would as well, what exactly is it you believe Condon was guilty of, when you portray him as purportedly aiding and abetting the person or persons who were attempting exchange a dead baby for a lot of cash? How exactly was Condon a confederate? Surely you must have a pretty clear jigsaw picture by now based on the many examples you consider to be slam dunks, but each of which is worthy of an intelligent round of debate or two. Just like the two I gave above in my previous post. Please don't feel you have to trot out yet another laundry list of words, actions and events, interpreted the way you see most fit. Certainly you must have some thoughts about what Condon was truly in this case for. What do you feel were his honest intentions, if they in fact were not those he privately and publicly stated from beginning to end, ie. to serve the Lindberghs and safely return their child to them, and failing that to find those responsible for Caljr's death You are feigning ignorance. You damn near answered your own question within the question itself. Additionally I've stated on this Board, numerous times actually, what I believe Condon was guilty of. He was brought in by those people attempting to extort the Lindberghs. His job was to insulate them, protecting them from arrest, while insuring the ransom was safely collected. This makes him an accessory and he committed obstruction numerous times throughout his involvement. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm quite certain there was an alphabet soup of charges he should have faced. It's pretty simple if you think about it and trying to intentionally make it complicated doesn't change the facts. He successfully did his job. The money was paid. Condon continuously lied, obstructed, and misdirected. He had police chasing their tails. Once Hauptmann was arrested, he did everything he could to protect him - even going so far as to travel to Florida in hopes of framing another kidnapper from NJ incarcerated there. In the end, it was either Hauptmann or him... And this time the he put on the show against Hauptmann and not the other way around. This time he was actually working for the authorities in order to save himself from arrest. Had he been actually honestly working for the Lindberghs some of these men would have been arrested on May 12 - perhaps all. Instead of riding around on a bus ordering it to be stopped, or looking over mugshots identifying people who looked nothing at all like Hauptmann, he could have had them stake out Bickford's and merely pointed him out as he got out of his car. He knew who he was Joe. There would have been no hesitation whatsoever once he was arrested. Instead, he was trying to help him and not the other way around. It's as plain as day. You see it, but for whatever reason you don't want to believe it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 26, 2021 17:48:52 GMT -5
The question then comes to mind, if Condon essentially supported the claim by Lindbergh that he took the walk down East Tremont Ave. with the ransom box, through acknowledgement of this to investigators who questioned him about it later, why would he state something different at the trial and subsequently in JTA!? I can think of a number of motivations for this, primarily within the area of damage control and to ensure there were no hiccups at the trial noticeable by the defense. Have you pursued this at all and are you willing to discuss further? To answer the question "why" someone lies depends on the situation. In this case it wasn't an isolated incident. We have examples of this man lying all over the place. What was the motivation for each - especially if he was acting in good faith? You see, there cannot be any in that regard mainly because there were just too many. And so we are now left to ponder. Not whether he was "good" but rather how "bad" instead. Take the Needle Salesman for example. In March of '34, he tells Seykora he was present when he arrived, gives a detailed narrative, a detailed description, and adds he believed he may have been the lookout he saw at Woodlawn. In April of '34, he tells Sisk and O'Leary that he wasn't home when this man showed up at his house, therefore, he could not give a description. Since this man came to his home "on or about" March 15, 1932, I think its safe to say he didn't "forget" that he was or was not there at the time. Neither can we reasonably conclude that he "forgot" that he was or was not there in about a months time between interviews. But what we DO see is at the very time he changed his story, his daughter Myra injected herself into the narrative in which she previously did not exist. Therefore, it was necessary for Condon to exit the picture for this new story to take root. This is not someone who is confused about anything. The 2nd Taxi Driver story fits into this as well. Condon lied about it. We absolutely know this. His original story was that Myra was not present. And concerning that fact he told the truth. We know this because it was Det. Creamer who revealed she left the house at 7PM, and by all accounts Condon walked in the kitchen at 8PM having claimed a Taxi Driver just handed him that note. But Myra later injected herself into this story too. Why is she doing this? Because she's trying to protect her father. So - protect him from what? Think about that Joe. You think its all "good faith" and that this guy was on the level. And yet his own daughter didn't have as much faith in him as apparently you do now. The woman from Tuckahoe. He lied about who drove him. He said it was Reich then later said it was Kay. Sorry but its impossible to confuse the two. So why did he do it? Because police learned it wasn't Reich so he had to change it up, and he had in fact accompanied Kay there which was probably the nexus for why he made this story up in the first place. You see, he wouldn't use Kay to transport him to meet with the kidnappers - he would have used Reich. So his first version was believable, which is why he lied. Next, he said he met a woman there who was an emissary of the kidnappers, later testified he met no one there, then later still wrote in JTA! that he did again. He didn't remember, forget, then remember again. He's telling different stories at different times to adjust to the changing circumstances. Next, we have these new revelations from Mbg. Despite faced with a mountain of lies and conflicting statements, you shrug it off as a mere coincidence. So here we have a bit of damning information concerning the Ransom drop. Condon admitted it. Later, he changes his story up, lying by making it the first trip when he did not have the money. Why would he do that? For obvious reasons. It explains it in a way where it has far less impact and actually sounds plausible to a certain degree whereas in line with the truth he looks guilty as hell and his explanations make him look even worse. This is exactly why you wanted this version to be true. You may not admit it, but its what you were shooting for when you originally asked to about it, and you are hoping this new line allows for a way to arrive there from some different angle. Once JTA! comes out, anyone in the know has a conflict: expose this liar and possibly ruin the conviction, or simply ignore it. Hoffman saw it and did his best to bring it all out. However, he only had so much time to do so all the while trying to run NJ. What i've done has taken me decades to put together.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 27, 2021 1:09:25 GMT -5
Added to which, conclusions arrived at with new information gathered after decades of research do not add up to a radical pet theory or agenda that's being pushed, just because it contradicts the official line. On another note, I came across this last night. An LKC documentary which I'd never seen, from the early 80s I think. I don't know how accurate it is, but it features some interesting interviews with Anna Hauptmann, Lewis Bornmann, and Hans Kloppenburg. www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIKsp6pefCg
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Dec 27, 2021 13:04:44 GMT -5
Thank you for your post. According to his interview the aging Henry Uhlig states that Isidor Fisch had borrowed money from Hauptmann ostensibly to invest in the Knickerbocher Pie Company and that this money was used to purchase the Lindbergh ransom money. On the stand Hauptmann testified that he met Isidor Fisch in March or April of 1932 and lent him money to invest in the pie company and found out only later that the company had gone out of business two years previously. Fisch also borrowed money from Augusta Hile (Karl Henkel's mother) and from the Mordieck family for this purpose. Uhlig was a friend and furrier associated with Fisch throughout his stay in the U.S. He would be in a position to know of Fisch's intent and action regarding the Lindbergh ransom money and to be involved in laundering it.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 27, 2021 13:30:35 GMT -5
Commenting here on the various versions of the stories Condon told about the "second taxi driver": At one point Condon said that he saw the "taxi driver" over his daughter Myra's head as the man was leaving. He described him as being about 5'6" tall with long "sideboards" in the Jewish style. This resembles the appearance of Eugene Gurwitz, the man called "Fritz" who was Isidor Fisch's front man in the laundering business.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 27, 2021 15:57:43 GMT -5
Sorry about the spelling of the name: It is actually "Gewurtz"
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Dec 27, 2021 17:12:30 GMT -5
Hi Jeanne,
Your great posting (Dec 23, 2021) prompted the following thoughts:
On April 11 1932 Bernard Uebel, cemetery worker, saw a maroon car opposite the cemetery. A man got out, retrieved a box from under a bush, he put it under his coat and entered the vehicle which then was driven away. The car number plate was traced to the wife of Gregory Coleman, associate editor of the Bronx Home News.
I think this is a fair summary of Uebel’s account of the incident. And it may have happened as described but there are a number of improbabilities here:
1. Coleman, a respectable man with a secure career, was committing a serious offence in secretly collecting the box, with possible fingerprints on it. If indeed Condon told him where it was, he and Condon could be charged with conspiracy to withhold evidence. Coleman's career and reputation would be ruined. Coleman was a good friend of Condon but a request to pick up the box would show Coleman that Condon was not being straight with law enforcement. Under these circumstances I cannot see him accepting this risky mission. It is an unlikely “scoop” for the BHN as the whole thing was kept secret.
2. Uebel seems to have been by pure chance in a position to observe: (a) A maroon sedan containing four men parked on Whittemore avenue at 1.30 pm on April 1st 1932. (b) Dr Condon handing a large white envelope to a man in a car at 2.30 pm on April 2 1932, the afternoon before the evening ransom payment. (c) The above-mentioned box pickup from under the bush on April 11 1932.
All these occurred on the road outside the cemetery. We don’t know Uebel’s duties as a cemetery worker or whether he was responsible for a section close to the road or not. He does seem to be always “on the spot” and to remember sometimes innocuous sightings e.g. four men in a maroon car on Whittemore, in detail. 3. The box pickup allegedly took place during Uebel’s day shift. Surely the best time for such a clandestine operation is at night with fewer folk around and the cover of darkness.
4. The pickup was nine full days after the ransom payment. A long period to leave the box unattended with the risk someone else might find it.
Finally, Uebel’s accounts are those of a sole witness with no corroboration. This isn’t his fault; sometimes it happens that way. Maybe it happened as he described. The above points do however reflect my current doubts.
Jeanne, you have queried why this was not investigated more fully. It may indicate inefficiency or scepticism on the part of the investigators. I cannot see them wilfully ignoring such dynamite information as the box pickup.
Best wishes,
Sherlock.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 27, 2021 21:03:21 GMT -5
Hello, Sherlock: Thank you for your excellent comments and for continuing the conversation. The maroon sedan owned by Gregory Coleman (traced by its license number) was seen near the St. Raymond's cemetery on April 1 and April 2 during the afternoon and was so noted by the guard Bernard Uebel. His report was well detailed and seems credible. Coleman was a reporter/associate editor of The Bronx News and must have known John Condon for a long time. Condon had written articles for the paper a number of times. Coleman very likely thought Condon to be sincere in his attempt to act as intermediary and return the Lindbergh baby to his mother. Uebel stated that he saw Condon on the afternoon of April 2 and spoke to him thereby identifying him. Uebel did report that on April 11 he saw the maroon car again, that a man came out, retrieved a box, placed it under his coat, and returned to the car which drove away. As you point out, this action appears to be abetting a crime, but Coleman may not have viewed it in that way. Condon was attempting to do something heroic by acting as intermediary. The identification of Condon as jAFSIE was broken by The Bronx News following the ransom transaction. I suggested that Coleman did Condon a favor by rescuing the box for him, and in return Condon agreed to allow Coleman to reveal his identification to the public. That was the "scoop." The appearance of the green Ford touring car raises other questions. One source relates that Lindbergh was persuaded to give Condon a written statement to be delivered to the kidnapper(s) validating Condon personally and giving his permission for Condon to release the ransom money to them. Uebel saw Condon give a large white envelope to someone in the green Ford. This may have been the Lindbergh statement. The Ford then drove away, perhaps to deliver the statement to Number #1 and then it returned to assure Condon that everything was OK for the evening. Condon would then show the man or men in the Ford the site where the transaction would take place. At the earlier time he would show the driver the site where the box would be hidden. I called this a rehearsal for the final scene to take place that evening. Condon must have chosen the site which was near his father's and brother's grave. It's difficult to believe that this was wholly a coincidence.
Best wishes at this time, Jeanne
|
|