|
Post by jeanne on Dec 27, 2021 21:27:32 GMT -5
Here's another interesting coincidence: The original $50,000 of the ransom money was deposited into Condon's account at the Fordham Branch of the Corn Exchange Bank. (This $50,000 would later be replaced by bills whose numbers had been recorded.) On March 1, the night of the kidnapping, John Condon was said to be in the company of Thomas f. McManus who was a bank clerk. Was McManus a bank clerk at Condon's bank? Michael posted at one time that Thomas McManus was the brother-in-law of George V. Villiers jr. whose name was found on a piece of paper in Hauptmann's possession.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 27, 2021 23:06:42 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 I think it's important to note that Condon changed his stories and lied all over the place. Whatever reason he told Coleman that he stashed the box there was likely made up to minimize the importance and make it all seem far more innocent than it was.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 28, 2021 6:08:45 GMT -5
I understand and would agree, but this is not about Condon's story--the one usually accepted. The story being considered here is that of Bernard Uebel, the St. Raymond's cemetery guard.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Dec 28, 2021 6:13:51 GMT -5
Hi Jeanne,
You raise several good points. My comments:
Condon had already been accepted as go-between by the kidnappers so there was no need for the confirmatory note from Lindbergh that Condon was O.K. However it does fit with Condon’s grandiosity that he would seek “official” confirmation of his status from Lindbergh.
Why, do you think, Condon needed to hide the box under the bush? Why couldn’t he just return from his alleged meeting with CJ saying to Lindbergh “ Can’t believe it! He didn’t need the box after all. He just took the cash. Here’s the box. It may have prints on it.” Of course he would make sure there were none. A possible scenario is that Condon left the box + money in a pre-prepared designated place (under the bush?) as instructed in ransom note No 8. The cash was removed later when it was safe by CJ (also indicated as CJ’s intention in Note 8) leaving the incriminating box behind. The box is retrieved by Coleman several days later.
Otherwise I cannot see the need for this cloak and dagger business of the box under the bush. Except that this scenario completely negates Condon’s story of meeting CJ face to face, bargaining with him etc so for that reason it had to be kept secret.
Condon’s remark after returning to the handover site that a grave had been disturbed does indeed suggest the possibility of temporary burial of the box + money as you suggest. I wish we knew more about it.
It may well be that Coleman in retrieving the box and keeping the secret saw himself as acting in good faith as a favour to a good friend but he still left himself and Condon open to serious charges. The daytime pickup suggests Coleman didn’t think there was anything wrong with him picking up the box and keeping quiet about it as trojanusc has suggested.
Best regards,
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 28, 2021 7:49:29 GMT -5
Thank you for your comments. The wooden box had been suggested early in this scenario. It may well have been thought even then that the money would need some protection from the weather or damage from being placed in the ground. Condon's testimony in the courtroom is confusing. He says at one point that the money and box were separated and then says that they were still together when he last saw them. The kidnappers may have left with the money immediately and had it laundered as quickly as possible so not to get caught with it, and they left the box in the cemetery in case police were watching and did not want to get caught with it. It was obviously evidence, and they did not want to take any chances. Condon must have known where the box was; he probably picked the site where it was to be left, but he would not want to be found with it either. He was deeply involved with this one and would not want any detail to detract from his "official" story.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 28, 2021 8:22:55 GMT -5
The attachment lightningjew provided on Dec. 26 gives us much information through interviews with important persons connected with the kidnapping case. I suggest that members and guests of the Board review this information, especially that given by Henry Uhlig. He states that Isidor Fisch bought the Lindbergh ransom money through contributions intended (ostensibly) for his (defunct) pie company. In other words, Fisch was engaged in laundering the ransom money but did not have enough to do so, so he asked for "contributions" from his friends. On the stand, Hauptmann said that Fisch approached him for s contribution but he (Hauptmann) did not know at that time that the pie company had gone bankrupt about two years earlier. Fisch told him that he had $27,000 at that time, which may have been his goal. Fisch paid fifty or 60 cents on the dollar, so $27,500 would be about 60 cents on $50,000. I suggest that Fisch could not raise enough to buy $70,000, the additional money requested after the kidnapping news was made public. One of Condon's later stories concerned what happened just prior to his evening visit to St. Raymond's for the transaction. He said that a second taxicab driver came to his house with a note giving him directions to the place where he was to give the money. There are indeed several versions of this, but in one of them Condon says that he saw the taxicab driver briefly over his daughter's head, and he describes him as about 5'6" with sideboards in the Jewish style. He wore a taxicab driver's cap. This description is peculiar. An orthodox Jewish man with side-boards is not very likely to become a taxi-cab driver. Even given Condon's creative abilities, this scene is incongruous and unrealistic. The description of the man does fit Fritz, Fisch's front man, as described by Hauptmann when he first met Fisch and Fritz. I suggest the possibility that the man sent to Condon prior to the St. Raymond's meeting was actually Fritz disguised as a taxicab driver with the message that only $50,000 and not the entire $70,000 could be paid to the kidnappers that evening, and that this had already been agreed upon. There was a reason that the additional $20,000 was kept separately; no time would be needed to open the box and count out the bills. Condon's official story is likewise nonsense, that he claimed Lindbergh was not rich and could provide only the lower amount, and that the kidnapper or rep. replied immediately, "So, if we can't get $70,000 we'll take twenty." Yeah, sure. First, the rep. may not have had the authority to make any change. Plus, we have some sympathy for Mr. Lindbergh and his financial situation at this point from the men who kidnapped his child who is now deceased? Condon is proud of himself that he "saved Lindbergh some money," and thereby makes himself look heroic.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Dec 28, 2021 9:51:29 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 Thanks for posting this LJ. It's an outstanding production and historically quite accurate for the most part. I'm curious as to when this particular version of "Who Killed the Lindbergh Baby?" was released, as I've seen much of the content previously but not with this degree of clarity and some of the footage is either new to me, or I've simply forgotten it. The Anna Hauptmann, Bornmann, Uhlig and Kloppenburg interviews are great!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 28, 2021 13:23:47 GMT -5
Yeah, that's what interested me the most about this--the clarity of the old footage, the interviews, as well as some shots of key LKC locations as they looked before some of them were changed. Especially creepy were the shots of the bench and shed where Condon and CJ talked. I've seen a contemporary photo of that spot, and it looked a little different, but I imagine that must've been how it looked in the 80s.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 28, 2021 14:22:48 GMT -5
Yeah, that's what interested me the most about this--the clarity of the old footage, the interviews, as well as some shots of key LKC locations as they looked before some of them were changed. Especially creepy were the shots of the bench and shed where Condon and CJ talked. I've seen a contemporary photo of that spot, and it looked a little different, but I imagine that must've been how it looked in the 80s. I know I've seen some of these interviews before but never the one with Ethel Stockton. I wish I had seen this before writing V3 because I would have used it as a source in the part about the deliberations. My guess, here, she was only talking about "guilt or innocence" and not the decision on whether or not they recommend mercy. So going back to the original decision, since it was only one person holding up the actual verdict, then my guess it would have been the juror who was bribed - which means that man was never really in favor of an acquittal but was buying more time so he could make more money.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 28, 2021 16:49:13 GMT -5
Thank you for posting this video, lightningjew! Around 12:30 or so there is a crackling of recording where Condon describes his encounter with Graveyard John in Woodlawn Cemetery. Condon's imitation of John's voice with a German accent can be heard as you listen. Is this a sound snippet of the elusive phonograph record that people who study the LKC would love to get their hands on? Or is this just a recording of Condon's testimony in Flemington in 1935? www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/1930s-rca-recording-lindbergh-1901442099I wonder if there is a complete written transcript of that home recording and the time length of that recording? Concerning that audio record, I'd like to know what else Condon had to say about his Woodlawn Cemetery visit, and if he talks at all about the his meeting with John at St. Raymond's. I heard there are two or three places where this record still exists: The Library of Congress, the Smithsonian, and possibly at the archives of the Department of Justice.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Dec 28, 2021 22:11:22 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? Joe, just for the record: The Doyles lived at 1218 Mayflower Ave. It took 1 minute to walk from there to the eastern entrance of St. Raymond’s Cemetery. Jafsie was familiar with this neighborhood through both dead and living relatives. He chose or was advised not to disclose this information during the investigation. It should have been brought out at the trial as a matter of fact, but of course neither the Prosecution nor the Defense would have benefited from it. After the ransom was paid, no serious efforts were made to look for CJ in the Bronx, despite the fact that he had suggested the two cemetery meeting locations and seems to have been just as familiar with them as Jafsie. Dr. Shoenfeld’s logical suggestion of how and where to search in those relevant Bronx areas was dismissed for unconvincing reasons. Even CAL opted to cruise the Chesapeake Bay with Curtis for three weeks (and likely longer had the finding of Charlie’s body not forced him back home) despite solid case leads having come from the Bronx and not a shred of evidence from Curtis. CAL had no reason to give up on the Bronx angle at that time. The most difficult to accept is the impossible stroke of luck that the kidnapper should have lived within the distribution and readership radius of the Bronx Home News. That went beyond the notion of acceptable coincidence. And that is why I brought up Jafsie’s utterances at Highfields, when he was initially introduced to Colonel Breckinridge. The quote is from Breckinridge’s statement given at Breslin’s office on May 17, 1932 (no stenographer listed): "... he [Condon] proceeded down there and he came into the room, I think I probably was the first member of the household there who greeted the doctor and he said to me, "you don't know me," and I said, "no sir, I don't" and he said, "You don't know anything about me" and I said, "no, I don't know anything about you" and he came in and told us of this letter..." It sets the tone in reading like a deliberate attempt to deny any prior acquaintance, when there was a high likelihood that they could have met on the NY athletic circuit. The Kelly story is a good example of such connections. The quote from Jafsie’s Grand Jury testimony in Asst. DA Breslin's office on May 14, 1932, was recorded by stenographer Thomas J. Riordan. Here it is again: “He said, "I can get you evidence, I can get you the sleeping suit of that baby.” From inside sources I found out today the man was betraying their trust. I said to him, “I want evidence that I can show to Colonel Lindbergh,” and he said, “We will give you evidence -- we will send you the sleeping suit.” What inside source was present at Breslin’s office that day (I had assumed it was Breckinridge but have no proof) or had confided in Jafsie earlier in the day? This newly revealed betrayal of trust must have referred to something other than the murder of the child and likely had something to do with the sleeping suit. I think that the unexpected move of the action in the case to the Bronx and the abrupt abandonment of any interest in it by the Lindbergh camp and the police should have been investigated more thoroughly. It might have revealed some interesting links or connections. Just because no ransom bills had shown up in the Bronx until June 1933 was no excuse to dismiss it in the search for CJ.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2021 11:43:57 GMT -5
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. I’m not feigning ignorance, but I am responding to a decided lack of objectivity and balanced perspective on your part. So you actually believe this lifelong resident of the Bronx and patriarch of a very well respected family, Dr. John Condon, who for the previous fifty years, despite his grandiose and histrionic nature, had dedicated himself towards community service and academia, charitable and altruistic behaviour, was now at the 11th hour of his life, successfully coerced into participating with some shady figure(s) in a scheme to gouge his national hero Charles Lindbergh for ransom payment, with absolutely no guarantee that his child would be returned or was even alive at the time? Condon then provides a description of CJ that almost mirrors that of Hauptmann, the man that according to you, he is trying to “insulate”, but who he ultimately identified as the extortionist. Why would he do that in your world of Looking Glass explanations? In addition, the extra $20,000 demanded by the extortionist(s), which if I’m correct, you believe to be Condon’s “fee” for entering into confederacy with the kidnapper(s) / extortionist(s), is returned to Lindbergh through Condon’s initiative, which you then conclude to be proof of his desire to remove highly-traceable $50 gold notes from future circulation. Had Condon not offered to help out Lindbergh and brought the full $70,000 to CJ, I can almost hear you crying, “You see, Condon was protecting his own financial interests!” Your whole fantastical explanation of Condon paying the ransom down East Tremont Ave., with his hero in the dark over Condon's real intentions, while Lindbergh’s lawyer and best friend Henry Breckinridge, as well as Gregory Coleman and possibly Al Reich can only be construed to be part of this nonsensical imagining is fraught with the kind of pitfalls that you are clearly feigning ignorance of.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2021 11:48:08 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? 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. So you believe Condon’s account on the Flemington witness stand where he swears that he handed the ransom payment box to CJ with his left hand, while accepting the “Boad Nelly” note with his right hand over the cemetery hedgerow off Whittemore Ave., was simply a fabricated story line to preserve his integrity?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 30, 2021 9:53:59 GMT -5
I’m not feigning ignorance.... Yes Joe, you are. For example, you forgot to mention how many people called Condon a thief and child molester. Why didn't you add those to his resume? Or what about faker, liar, blow-hard, and publicity seeker? His nickname was " Windy Jack" for God's sake. Next, Condon gave several descriptions of CJ. One had him looking Japanese. Or a twisted face from the inroads of pulmonary disease. Etc. etc. etc. And despite all of the various and conflicting descriptions, he was identifying people who looked nothing like Hauptmann. Oops. No wonder you are making this point, using it as a distraction from the other multiple facts you don't like. And then, to top it all off, Condon refused to identify Hauptmann once fact to face - on more than one occasion. Why do you engage is such tactics when debating the issue? Did you "forget" or are you just pretending not to remember? You see, presenting misleading information or claiming something as a position that no one else even holds so you have something to knock down is a cheap tactic that is usually employed by someone who knows they are wrong. To continue to say that Breckenridge was "involved" with the ransom bait & switch is your invention. To then act like its coming from me is a strategy of the worst kind. No doubt you'll continue to repeat it, because, what other recourse do you have? Addressing the facts are impossible for your position to exist so its something you absolutely must resort to. Next, the bait & switch isn't my position. It was the NJSP position. It's in the memo and shown on the sketch. It comes from Lindbergh's eyewitness account. It comes from Uebel's eyewitness accounts. And it comes from both the admissions and LIES that Condon told. All I did was roll up my sleeves and spend the time to actually find this stuff. Sorry you don't "like" it but what can I say? Should I pretend everything I found doesn't exist so that you can continue with your presentation of false narratives?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 30, 2021 10:03:15 GMT -5
So you believe Condon’s account on the Flemington witness stand where he swears that he handed the ransom payment box to CJ with his left hand, while accepting the “Boad Nelly” note with his right hand over the cemetery hedgerow off Whittemore Ave., was simply a fabricated story line to preserve his integrity? Is this a serious question? Every time I read one of your posts on Condon its as if I've fallen through the rabbit hole. The man lied so many times its hard to know when he was telling the truth. Wasn't he under oath when he lied about "Coal Barge John?" Or when he lied about the Ransom Box being constructed of many types of wood? You stress "under oath" as if he didn't lie anywhere else. He was a liar Joe, so he lied. That's what liars do.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 1, 2022 7:01:59 GMT -5
Hi Jeanne, Maybe Coleman's mission was just to check that the box and money had been picked up by CJ from the hiding place and he was surprised to see that the (incriminating) box had been left behind. He took it and it disappeared so that Condon could maintain the fiction of meeting with CJ face-to-face, bargaining with him, and handing box + cash to him. It explains the Condon/Coleman secrecy surrounding the box retrieval and disposal. Regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 1, 2022 10:01:43 GMT -5
Hi, Sherlock: Thank you for continuing to post on this idea. Bernard Uebel's statement is detailed and has credibility. I will try to discover in this New Year if there is any routine report filed at the St. Raymond's for the dates in question. In some organizations guards must file a report at the end of their shift, esp. if they see anything unusual. The maroon sedan's license was traced to Gregory Coleman, a good friend of John Condon. Both Condon and the maroon sedan were spotted at St. Raymond's at about 2:30 p.m. in the afternoon of April 2. Uebel recognized Condon and spoke to him, so there was no mistake in the identify. There was also a green Ford touring car that appeared that afternoon, but there is no mention of the occupants meeting with the occupants of the maroon sedan, so Condon may have conferred with two separate groups. It looks like a dress rehearsal for the evening scene (my wording) when the transaction of the ransom money actually occurred. Lindbergh was the driver in the evening, lending some credibility to Condon's account though Lindbergh did not see much but did hear a voice and observed Condon's walking about E. Tremont and Whittemore Ave. Uebel reported that he saw the maroon sedan again on April 11 and that a man got out of the car, picked up the box, placed it under his coat and drove away with it. So he was not just checking on the whereabouts of the box, according to the report, but he actually retrieved it and took it with him. This is nine days after the transation, however. The wooden box was used probably because it could withstand the weather. It's also possible that it was buried. Uebel might not have been in a position to see if it was dug up from under a bush. Condon did testify thata grave had been "disarranged," so the ransom box might have been buried in a particular site. One ransom note to Condon does say that a particular site would be chosen for the exchange. In my earlier post I had cited sources for some of this detail, including Michael's "Dark Corners" and the trial transcripts of Condon's testimony as well as the ransom note. Condon's account of what happened the night of April 2 does not seem realistic.What happened after Lindbergh heard a man call out "Hey Doctor" is reported wholly by Condon who is not reliable. It appears that the scenario was deliberately set up with Condon as either director or major participant. Consider that the area was near the graves of his father and older brother, so he would know the site well and would not need to ask a man and a little girl for directions, eg. Condon's comments re: the reduction of the ransom by $20,000 and the ready response from the kidnapper or the rep. does not sound plausible. They had already made the agreement, but a story had to be invented. And shaking hands through a bush? Really? I suspect that Condon had to protect the kidnappers because he needed to protect himself and he knew much more than he could tell officially. At Woodlawn the man called CJ was said to be a reluctant intermediary but had to complete the assignment because the kidnappers had something on him. (I am currently working on this angle.) Perhaps CJ was not the only person involved who had something in his history that needed to be hidden. Unfortunately Condon's account about the ransom transaction was not investigated, probably because the detectives did not know all the details and what they heard did not "square" with what they wanted to hear. Thanks again and best regards, Jeanne
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 1, 2022 10:33:21 GMT -5
Hello, Sherlock once again: One more thought, but it's not related to the narrative just given. When Eugene Wurz, Isidor's friend Fritz, entered the US his occuption was given as house painter. Fritz was Isidor's front man in the laundering of hot money. At the interview which was posted by LJ, Henry Uhlig stated that Fisch borrowed money from his friends in order to "buy" (his expression) the Lindbergh ransom money. The reason given for the loan, Isidor claimed was to invest in his pie company, which had actually gone out of business. Since Fritz, the front man in acquiring some of Fisch's hot money, was a painter, it occurred to me that the ladder used in the kidnapping may have belonged to Fritz, the ladder he would have used when he was painting houses. The ladder was in three sections, convenient to adjust according to the height of the house. Since you have commented on the kidnapping ladder previously, I wondered what your thoughts might be re: this possibility. Thanks much, Jeanne
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 1, 2022 10:54:36 GMT -5
Sorry, the name is "Gewurz" and sometimes spelled "Gewurtz." Eugene and his brother were listed on board ship entering the US from Austria where they had visited with their father. Eugene was born in Switzerland, but the family moved to Austria where Eugene grew up and went to school. Hence the "German with the Austrian accent." The name is spelled "Gewurz" in the ship's record and his occupation identified. The occupation of painter prompted my question about the kidnapping ladder.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 1, 2022 11:29:50 GMT -5
Hi Jeanne Re your post: I meant to suggest that Coleman was checking to see that the box+ cash were no longer in the hiding place. He found to his surprise the empty box still there so removed it for disposal. Against this is the 9 day delay following the "handover." Why wait?
I would expect a professional house painter to have a reliable, store-bought, commercial ladder for his daily use instead of the ramshackle contraption found at the Lindbergh home. This ladder, unsuitable for vertical climbing (as it proved, maybe) strongly resembles a 'cat' ladder or roof ladder used by tilers and roof construction workers where they crawl along it rather than climb it. I would expect that anyone embarking on a $50,000 ransom caper would reduce his risks as far as possible by discretely buying a sturdy sectional ladder, different sections in different locations, thereby ensuring reliability, non-traceability and anonymity. I have always found that the home-made kidnap ladder theory fails the "common sense" test. On the other hand roof workers may well 'knock together' a makeshift ladder on site for temporary use especially in the cash-strapped 1930's.
Best wishes,
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 2, 2022 13:06:51 GMT -5
Hi, Sherlock: Thank you for responding once again. Bernard Uebel reported that he saw the maroon sedan at St. Raymond's Cemetery on April 11, nine days following the transaction of the ransom money (supposedly). On the afternoon of April 2 at 2:20 p.m. Uebthe Bel saw the maroon sedan there also, just hours before the evening of the transaction. The sedan was licensed to Gregory Coleman, associate editor/reporter of the "Bronx Home News" and friendly with John Condon. Now the question is why Coleman would wait nine days before retrieving the box, perhaps to see if the money had been taken from it. There is a possibility for the late checking and the retrieval of the box. This is only a theory, but it is a distinct possibility with some backup sources. In "Kidnap", George Waller states that "The Bronx Daily News" had Condon's permission to break the story of his role. How Waller knew this is another question. On Sunday, April 10, the "Bronx Home News" published an article stating that "the source of Jafsie was unknown." I had submitted the idea that Coleman helped Condon retrieve the box, which could have been incriminating evidence against the kidnappers, in return for a "scoop." So on April 10, this news had not been released, but on April 11 the box was retrieved and taken out of the cemetery so that it would not be discovered. Condon's identity could then be safely published. Thank you also for your comments regarding the ladder used in the kidnapping. In a list of passengers, Eugene Gewuertz is identified as a fireman, as is his brother, but no fireman (or house painter) would use such a ladder. (Eugene has been identified by some sources as Isidor's front man Fritz.) The spelling of the last name given here is most likely the accurate, given that an umlaut would have been used in the original, to be replaed by an "e". Best regards, Jeanne
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 2, 2022 13:26:37 GMT -5
I was able to find a newspaper article dated April 13 published in a Pennsylvania Newspaper revealing Condon's identity . The article was written by James Kilgallen. Condon is quoted as stating the he "was refraining from talking freely because of fear of jeopardizing the negotiations.' I suggest that the ransom box had to be retrieved before Condon's identity became known and before someone else discovered it and used it as incriminating evidence.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 2, 2022 14:16:24 GMT -5
In summary: On April 10 the Bronx News reports there is no source for a ransom transaction or ID of Jafsie. Various stories are suggested, all incorrect.
On April 11 the ransom box is retrieved from St. Raymond's by a man who is riding in or driving the maroon sedan licensed to Gregory Coleman.
On April 13 the news is out publicly that Jafsie is John Condon-- together with his comments. He states that he cannot give more information for fear of damaging the "negotiations." Good cover-up. it worked. Some investigators ,however, (Inspector Walsh eg.) became suspicious of Condon and his role.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 2, 2022 17:19:14 GMT -5
Hi Jeanne, The nine day interval between the reputed cemetery transaction and Coleman retrieving the box is indeed a puzzle. Immediately after receiving the "boad Nellie" note on April 2 Lindbergh flew up the coast to try to find the boat. Within a few days he knew he had been deceived. I would expect CJ, knowing the trick would soon be exposed, would want to get away with the cash ASAP. Maybe Condon, after returning from his trips up the coast with Lindbergh, prompts Coleman to check the box burial site fully expecting it to be empty. Coleman does so on April 9 and to his surprise finds the empty box left behind. He tucks it under his coat, and it disappears for ever. As you say Jeanne, its likely the quid pro quo for this was Coleman's exclusive access to Condon for his inside information and scoops.
The buried box theory is consistent with the clear instructions from CJ in Ransom note No 8 that the box + cash is to be left in a certain place for pickup later in order to avoid a trap. But Condon, as ever, needs his moment of glory and says he met CJ face-to-face, bargained with him, saved Lindbergh $20K etc. etc. so the hidden box scenario is kept quiet. And we have only the word of a serial liar (Condon) that CJ was there at all that night although its sure Dr C was being closely watched. And as for the "Hey Doc" which the partially deaf (aircraft engine noise) Lindbergh heard, it could well be Condon, the aspiring ventriloquist, up to his tricks again. Nothing is too far-fetched where Condon is concerned.
This is all speculation and its quite possible that Condon did meet CJ and they placed the box in the agreed hiding place together but this meeting would be potentially risky for CJ in the event of a police trap. Hence the instruction to "place the box in a certain place."
Best regards,
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 3, 2022 0:36:29 GMT -5
Hi Jeanne, The nine day interval between the reputed cemetery transaction and Coleman retrieving the box is indeed a puzzle. Immediately after receiving the "boad Nellie" note on April 2 Lindbergh flew up the coast to try to find the boat. Within a few days he knew he had been deceived. I would expect CJ, knowing the trick would soon be exposed, would want to get away with the cash ASAP. Maybe Condon, after returning from his trips up the coast with Lindbergh, prompts Coleman to check the box burial site fully expecting it to be empty. Coleman does so on April 9 and to his surprise finds the empty box left behind. He tucks it under his coat, and it disappears for ever. As you say Jeanne, its likely the quid pro quo for this was Coleman's exclusive access to Condon for his inside information and scoops. The buried box theory is consistent with the clear instructions from CJ in Ransom note No 8 that the box + cash is to be left in a certain place for pickup later in order to avoid a trap. But Condon, as ever, needs his moment of glory and says he met CJ face-to-face, bargained with him, saved Lindbergh $20K etc. etc. so the hidden box scenario is kept quiet. And we have only the word of a serial liar (Condon) that CJ was there at all that night although its sure Dr C was being closely watched. And as for the "Hey Doc" which the partially deaf (aircraft engine noise) Lindbergh heard, it could well be Condon, the aspiring ventriloquist, up to his tricks again. Nothing is too far-fetched where Condon is concerned. This is all speculation and its quite possible that Condon did meet CJ and they placed the box in the agreed hiding place together but this meeting would be potentially risky for CJ in the event of a police trap. Hence the instruction to "place the box in a certain place." Best regards, Sherlock Lindbergh spent his time “searching” playing cards and practical jokes. It was pretty clear he wasn’t all that interested in the stated mission. This theory leaves out Condon’s trip down Tremont in the direction of the lookout. It is pretty clear, to me at least, that Condon paid the ransom elsewhere then hid the box himself. This gave the kidnappers a getaway and sent the police on a false mission for a box which was in “safe” hands the whole time. Not to mention Condon’s other lies about the box including who built it, the materials used, etc. It’s clear Condon wanted to hide that box to NEVER be found. From the extortionists perspective, there was no reason to have the box on them - it was a smoking gun. The money probably got dumped in a bag quickly somewhere on Tremont and then it was up to Condon to ensure the box was destroyed and shield the kidnappers as much as possible. Doing it this way gave them a head start, completely misdirected investigators and made Condon look like a hero.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 3, 2022 5:37:33 GMT -5
Hi trojanusc, I completely agree that Lindbergh's mission to find the "boad Nellie" was a charade to help portray him as the anxious father. Condon paying the ransom money elsewhere then hiding the box, which I agree is quite possible, makes his dramatic testimony at the trial "with the box in my left hand and my right reaching for the note etc. etc" a tissue of lies, so no surprise there. He had to hide the box because he said he'd given it with the cash to CJ. Indeed the box was "hot" and CJ would want nothing to do with it. But if the money was dumped in a bag somewhere on Tremont why specify the box and its dimensions so precisely if it was, in effect, not needed? To me it suggests a pre-prepared hiding place as instructed in Ransom note No 8. Somehow, and I admit I'm not clear how.., this has to be put into the picture of what happened on that night. Thanks for your perspective on this aspect of the case, Best wishes, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Jan 3, 2022 6:19:37 GMT -5
Hi trojanusc, I completely agree that Lindbergh's mission to find the "boad Nellie" was a charade to help portray him as the anxious father. Condon paying the ransom money elsewhere then hiding the box, which I agree is quite possible, makes his dramatic testimony at the trial "with the box in my left hand and my right reaching for the note etc. etc" a tissue of lies, so no surprise there. He had to hide the box because he said he'd given it with the cash to CJ. Indeed the box was "hot" and CJ would want nothing to do with it. But if the money was dumped in a bag somewhere on Tremont why specify the box and its dimensions so precisely if it was, in effect, not needed? To me it suggests a pre-prepared hiding place as instructed in Ransom note No 8. Somehow, and I admit I'm not clear how.., this has to be put into the picture of what happened on that night. Thanks for your perspective on this aspect of the case, Best wishes, Sherlock [b Morning, Sherlock - what are you doing up so early?
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jan 3, 2022 7:48:43 GMT -5
This board has members all over the world, and different parts of the world have different time zones. What is morning in EST is afternoon or evening in Europe and Asia..
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 3, 2022 11:31:49 GMT -5
Hi IloveDFW , I am resident in Europe and posted around lunchtime (local time) as aaron points out. I'm not yet at the point where I leap out of bed before sunrise to make a posting! Ha! Ha! Regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 3, 2022 18:06:48 GMT -5
Hi trojanusc, I completely agree that Lindbergh's mission to find the "boad Nellie" was a charade to help portray him as the anxious father. Condon paying the ransom money elsewhere then hiding the box, which I agree is quite possible, makes his dramatic testimony at the trial "with the box in my left hand and my right reaching for the note etc. etc" a tissue of lies, so no surprise there. He had to hide the box because he said he'd given it with the cash to CJ. Indeed the box was "hot" and CJ would want nothing to do with it. But if the money was dumped in a bag somewhere on Tremont why specify the box and its dimensions so precisely if it was, in effect, not needed? To me it suggests a pre-prepared hiding place as instructed in Ransom note No 8. Somehow, and I admit I'm not clear how.., this has to be put into the picture of what happened on that night. Thanks for your perspective on this aspect of the case, Best wishes, Sherlock Perhaps there was an intention of burial but to me the ransom box specifications seem to again point to just another one of the note writer's flights of fancy, adding extraneous info to put a spotlight on something unnecessary to hide what's really happening. Kind of like a magician's trick - lots of waving of a wand, fancy words and a puff of smoke to misdirect you from the assistant sneaking out the back of the disappearing chamber. In this case, so much attention and spotlight is put on the box it that one must wonder why. Condon did everything he could to hide the maker, lie about the materials use and lie about what ultimately happened to it. Why? It seems that while everyone was so focused on the box, it never left Condon's control, except in a bush for a few days.
|
|