|
Post by Guest on Jan 26, 2022 13:15:18 GMT -5
Acccording to the FBi report, the ransom money began turning up almost immediately following the kidnapping. I will check this out and make a full report and post it here. It didn't show up in the Bronx near Hauptmann's or Fisch's apartment right after the ransom was paid, as you said it did. It didn't show up in the Bronx at all until mid-1933. I believe the readers on this board deserve accurate info on the case.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 26, 2022 15:47:23 GMT -5
According to the FBI Summary, the first ransom note was passed on April 4, 1932, two days following the delivery of the ransom money at St. Raymond's Cemetery. That's a quick turnaround. This has already been discussed on the Board, by the way, so the information is not new here. The note was deposited at the Manhattan East River Savings Bank by a David Marcus, a merchant who owned a store in Manhattan. The bank was located at the intersection of 96th St. and Amsterdam Avenue. This bank is within 30 minutes of the apartment in which Isidor Fisch was living with Henry Uhlig at that time. A number of other ransom notes were also passed in that area before Fisch moved to the North Bronx, whether in May or June of that year, a cluster of them eventually making it a peak area. This was a Fisch comfort zone. I suggest that this may be more than a co-incidence. David Marcus was investigated. He did not know what customer passed the note at his store, and, as formerly indicated on the board, he was not a suspect.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 26, 2022 16:54:54 GMT -5
Henry Uhlig and Isidor Fisch were said to have lived on East St. in the South Bronx--which is not far from the Manhattan border.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 26, 2022 17:13:26 GMT -5
Fisch's complete address at that time was East 157th St. in the Bronx whch appears to be about 2 miles from Upper Manhattan.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 26, 2022 17:13:34 GMT -5
According to the FBI Summary, the first ransom note was passed on April 4, 1932, two days following the delivery of the ransom money at St. Raymond's Cemetery. That's a quick turnaround. This has already been discussed on the Board, by the way, so the information is not new here. The note was deposited at the Manhattan East River Savings Bank by a David Marcus, a merchant who owned a store in Manhattan. The bank was located at the intersection of 96th St. and Amsterdam Avenue. This bank is within 30 minutes of the apartment in which Isidor Fisch was living with Henry Uhlig at that time. A number of other ransom notes were also passed in that area before Fisch moved to the North Bronx, whether in May or June of that year, a cluster of them eventually making it a peak area. This was a Fisch comfort zone. I suggest that this may be more than a co-incidence. David Marcus was investigated. He did not know what customer passed the note at his store, and, as formerly indicated on the board, he was not a suspect. On May 12, 1932, Fisch moved from the Bronx (532 East 157th Street) to East Harlem (149 East 127th Street), not the other way around, as you state. Fisch went back to Germany in early December 1933. Only one ransom bill had surfaced in what you call his comfort zone up to that date. David Marcus did not run a store at the time of the ransom payment. He was a retired merchant.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 26, 2022 17:35:02 GMT -5
Thank you very much for the information. East Harlem is actually located in Upper Manhattan.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 27, 2022 9:39:49 GMT -5
I think they absolutely would if it was done in the right way, but my point was more that Lindbergh's behavior was seemingly so obvious, once you remove the veneer of celebrity and hero, that it wouldn't really make for a compelling mystery. It would be obvious in the first 5 minutes. Got it. I feel better now.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 27, 2022 9:45:54 GMT -5
Families did try to hide children and spouses with physical and intellectual problems back then. Joe Kennedy had his daughter, Rosemary, lobotomized without his wife and other children knowing. He told them she had been sent to a convent, but not that she had had her brain probed. Jackie Kennedy's grandmother was locked in the attic of their mansion with a nurse and most people did not even know she existed. Great example Mary.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 28, 2022 11:02:17 GMT -5
Isidor Fisch and his front man Fritz laundered hot money. There does not seem to be any disagreement on that point. Fisch may have contacted by the kidnappers to launder the Lindbergh ransom money. This is a matter of speculation though it could have happened. The FBI Summary lists the points at which the ransom money showed up. There may be a relationship between the movements of Fisch and the areas where the bills were deposited and then reported. i am now researching this possibility which will take some time but will post any results on the Board when the research is completed. I have no theory in mind but am looking for a relationship between Isidor's movements and the appearance of the ransom bills. Thank you for your patience.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 28, 2022 11:31:47 GMT -5
Technically the word is "correlation" not "relationship."
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 28, 2022 19:42:38 GMT -5
Isidor Fisch and his front man Fritz laundered hot money. There does not seem to be any disagreement on that point. Fisch may have contacted by the kidnappers to launder the Lindbergh ransom money. This is a matter of speculation though it could have happened. The FBI Summary lists the points at which the ransom money showed up. There may be a relationship between the movements of Fisch and the areas where the bills were deposited and then reported. i am now researching this possibility which will take some time but will post any results on the Board when the research is completed. I have no theory in mind but am looking for a relationship between Isidor's movements and the appearance of the ransom bills. Thank you for your patience. Take your time, jeanne! No rush!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Feb 13, 2022 11:25:23 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. Mbg, here are my personal thoughts on the above exchange between Condon and Breckinridge. I see Condon’s questioning statements to Breckinridge here in a different light, and one of the same general intention he claims to have imparted in his conversation with Cemetery John at St. Raymond’s Cemetery. The FBI Summary, page 186 reports that Condon sought to provide verification of CJ having been the same man he previously met at Woodlawn Cemetery, by saying to him “I never saw you before, did I? Where did I ever see you before?” To which, CJ is alleged to have said, “I am the one who spoke to you at the other cemetery.” When Condon, Gallo and Rosenhaim were close to Highfields in the early morning hours of March 10, 1932, they were met by Breckinridge who guided them from the end of the private lane to the house, but didn’t formally introduce himself to the trio until they arrived there. Once the introductions were out of way, Condon then sought to establish a similar standard of objectivity towards his sudden and unexpected injection into the case by ensuring Breckinridge, and ultimately Lindbergh, would be comfortable within the participation of this stranger. Neither Breckinridge or Condon had met each other previously and this was a courtesy gesture on Condon’s part, offered to ensure the event began on an even keel without bias of any previous association. Condon then goes the extra mile by insisting he provide his credentials in detail with both Breckinridge and Lindbergh. Of course, he would have been more than happy to hear himself repeating what he’d probably done a hundred times previously, but his main intent in this specific case, would have been to establish himself securely in the minds of both men before any time and effort were invested.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Mar 10, 2022 15:30:57 GMT -5
Lindbergh was one of the most recognizable people in the world, would he risk being seen at a nearby restaurant or other public place to make that phone call? Michael's scenario is more plausible if they all knew and were all in on it and there was never a phone call. Just trying to throw all of the options out there. I still think its possible he called from a phone booth since it seems to have been a quick call - especially if it wasn't necessary to enter an establishment because it was definitely dark an hour by 7PM. If in Princeton, there's no doubt he knew people there too so a call could have come from a residence of an acquaintance. Also remember that Curtis used Ruth Gay to call his room so that he could pretend it was a call from the kidnappers - so there could be a situation like that going on here as well. The bottom line is the documentation indicates he made two calls on consecutive nights BOTH supposedly made at 7PM. On one night he was too far away to come home, and on the kidnap night he claimed he'd only be a little late. Next, the official version is that he came in about 8:25, but we have Whited's account of seeing his car enter the private lane at 7:10PM. All the while we're supposed to believe that Lindbergh "forgot" about his obligation to attend the NYU dinner on the very night his son is kidnapped. Throw in that it was Lindbergh who left Skean behind, falsely testified that he didn't expect Wahgoosh to bark, refused to get the shutters fixed, etc. etc. etc., and that snowball that came rolling down the hill becomes an avalanche real quick. I was in Hopewell this morning, having breakfast at Aunt Chubbies, (which is on the corner of Railroad and Greenwood) and there in the corner was a very old fashioned oak wood phone booth! Definitely looked as if it could have been there since the 1930's.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 17, 2022 10:39:21 GMT -5
On January 30, 1933, BI Special Agent Hugh Larimer personally "discussed the kidnapping case" at length with Lindbergh. On page 8, Larimer relates exactly what Lindbergh told him about Condon's movements at St. Raymond's on the evening of April 2nd. Lindbergh says that Condon went south on Whittemore Avenue without going further east on Tremont (both times). Lindbergh's words, not mine:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 17, 2022 19:26:15 GMT -5
On January 30, 1933, BI Special Agent Hugh Larimer personally "discussed the kidnapping case" at length with Lindbergh. On page 8, Larimer relates exactly what Lindbergh told him about Condon's movements at St. Raymond's on the evening of April 2nd. Lindbergh says that Condon went south on Whittemore Avenue without going further east on Tremont (both times). Lindbergh's words, not mine: It's important for me to repeat something I think I've been consistent about... That's to accumulate each and every source one can find on every subject. To pile them to the ceiling if need be. Then, once one is comfortable enough to believe they have everything there is (or could be) found to sift through it all and cross reference to find out what the true situation was (as best one can). I've also said that "usually" the earliest and closest to the event is probably the most reliable source. That isn't always the case but the odds have shown me it is true more than not. Okay so we have the Larimer report which was typed up in early April 1933. Lindbergh is properly quoted. The question to ask is why it differs from the earlier accounts to include Lindbergh's very specific account on May 20,1932 where he claims Condon walked down Tremont and out of site before later coming back then turning down Whittemore (V2, Page 207) Larimer seems to answer that himself: Colonel Lindbergh seemed rather inaccurate as to details, and inasmuch as a later visit was contemplated, only the more pertinent points were touched upon in instant investigation. For my money, Lindbergh wasn't "forgetting" what he told Breckinridge, Lt. Sweeney, et. al. but was giving a condensed version of events to Agent Larimer. He clearly left out the part of Condon's detour Of course one might not agree with me and may claim he forgot, or left it out for a different reason. But that reason cannot be that it did not happen because he already specifically asserted it had. So the bigger question is how we can skip over everything that I've laid out and addressed in all the Volumes of the Dark Corners and come to the conclusion the Larimer source, as written, is the only one to consult on this matter? Then to point to it as if it was left out because it never happened? That would include the fact that once Condon was confronted with his "detour" that night down E. Tremont which he never denied. Instead, each time an investigator asked about it he gave them a different excuse for doing it.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 17, 2022 20:41:04 GMT -5
On January 30, 1933, BI Special Agent Hugh Larimer personally "discussed the kidnapping case" at length with Lindbergh. On page 8, Larimer relates exactly what Lindbergh told him about Condon's movements at St. Raymond's on the evening of April 2nd. Lindbergh says that Condon went south on Whittemore Avenue without going further east on Tremont (both times). Lindbergh's words, not mine: It's important for me to repeat something I think I've been consistent about... That's to accumulate each and every source one can find on every subject. To pile them to the ceiling if need be. Then, once one is comfortable enough to believe they have everything there is (or could be) found to sift through it all and cross reference to find out what the true situation was (as best one can). I've also said that "usually" the earliest and closest to the event is probably the most reliable source. That isn't always the case but the odds have shown me it is true more than not. Okay so we have the Larimer report which was typed up in early April 1933. Lindbergh is properly quoted. The question to ask is why it differs from the earlier accounts to include Lindbergh's very specific account on May 20,1932 where he claims Condon walked down Tremont and out of site before later coming back then turning down Whittemore (V2, Page ? Larimer seems to answer that himself: Colonel Lindbergh seemed rather inaccurate as to details, and inasmuch as a later visit was contemplated, only the more pertinent points were touched upon in instant investigation. For my money, Lindbergh wasn't "forgetting" what he told Breckinridge, Lt. Sweeney, et. al. but was giving a condensed version of events to Agent Larimer. He clearly left out the part of Condon's detour Of course one might not agree with me and may claim he forgot, or left it out for a different reason. But that reason cannot be that it did not happen because he already specifically asserted it had. So the bigger question is how we can skip over everything that I've laid out and addressed in all the Volumes of the Dark Corners and come to the conclusion the Larimer source, as written, is the only one to consult on this matter? Then to point to it as if it was left out because it never happened? That would include the fact that once Condon was confronted with his "detour" that night down E. Tremont which he never denied. Instead, each time an investigator asked about it he gave them a different excuse for doing it. I completely agree with you -- the earlier reports are key. So looking at Lindbergh's May 20, 1932 statement he blatantly lies when he says that "On the afternoon of April 2nd, 1932, I carried $50,000 to Doctor Condon's house." That's simply not true and Lindbergh knows it. So why do we believe anything that Lindbergh says? Both Lindbergh and Condon are among history's most unreliable witnesses. How do you choose which one to believe? And especially if Lindbergh was responsible for the death of his son, why believe anything he says?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 17, 2022 21:05:21 GMT -5
I completely agree with you -- the earlier reports are key. So looking at Lindbergh's May 20, 1932 statement he blatantly lies when he says that "On the afternoon of April 2nd, 1932, I carried $50,000 to Doctor Condon's house." That's simply not true and Lindbergh knows it. So why do we believe anything that Lindbergh says? Both Lindbergh and Condon are among history's most unreliable witnesses. How do you choose which one to believe? And especially if Lindbergh was responsible for the death of his son, why believe anything he says? You make a valid point of course. It’s like the Woodlawn event. We can gather all of the accounts to see what are the obvious lies that float to the top. Sometimes discovering a lie can be more valuable then finding a truth. Condon is a confirmed liar, but there are times he’s telling the truth. We know this from others who were there - or at least part of the time. When it comes to Reich, I don’t consider him a Saint either so we have to then factor in what Riehl witnessed. Once piled up we can get an overall idea about what happened. So examining each situation case by case is important rather than simply taking an overall approach. Don’t get me wrong, that should be done too, but an either/or system is a mistake in my opinion. In the end, I attempted to do both in each of my volumes as best I could. After reading it all, it’s up to each person to draw whatever conclusions they are most comfortable with. Now, when it comes to the Condon “detour” we have Lindbergh’s eyewitness account. Then, despite it looking extremely suspicious, Condon confirms that’s what he did. I look at this and can’t imagine that Condon would conspire with Lindbergh to make himself look suspicious. That doesn’t make any sense - at least to me. Then we have the Uebel accounts that tie this event together. Additionally, we also have the NJSP memo as well as their sketch that indicates they were seeing it as well.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Mar 19, 2022 9:55:17 GMT -5
I completely agree with you -- the earlier reports are key. So looking at Lindbergh's May 20, 1932 statement he blatantly lies when he says that "On the afternoon of April 2nd, 1932, I carried $50,000 to Doctor Condon's house." That's simply not true and Lindbergh knows it. So why do we believe anything that Lindbergh says? Both Lindbergh and Condon are among history's most unreliable witnesses. How do you choose which one to believe? And especially if Lindbergh was responsible for the death of his son, why believe anything he says? You make a valid point of course. It’s like the Woodlawn event. We can gather all of the accounts to see what are the obvious lies that float to the top. Sometimes discovering a lie can be more valuable then finding a truth. Condon is a confirmed liar, but there are times he’s telling the truth. We know this from others who were there - or at least part of the time. When it comes to Reich, I don’t consider him a Saint either so we have to then factor in what Riehl witnessed. Once piled up we can get an overall idea about what happened. So examining each situation case by case is important rather than simply taking an overall approach. Don’t get me wrong, that should be done too, but an either/or system is a mistake in my opinion. In the end, I attempted to do both in each of my volumes as best I could. After reading it all, it’s up to each person to draw whatever conclusions they are most comfortable with. Now, when it comes to the Condon “detour” we have Lindbergh’s eyewitness account. Then, despite it looking extremely suspicious, Condon confirms that’s what he did. I look at this and can’t imagine that Condon would conspire with Lindbergh to make himself look suspicious. That doesn’t make any sense - at least to me. Then we have the Uebel accounts that tie this event together. Additionally, we also have the NJSP memo as well as their sketch that indicates they were seeing it as well. Interesting discussion, and not to sound like a fence sitter here, I believe that each account needs to be evaluated on it's individual merit, but also based on any relevant trending patterns. In the case of Lindbergh's claim about carrying the $50,000 to Condon's house on April 2, this would appear to have been a tough one to have misremembered, and I tend to believe there is something more substantial to this mistruth. Could it be that both Lindbergh and Breckinridge realized the ethical dilemma in which a well-know lawyer and public figure might well have been seen as aiding and abetting within the ransom payment? I wouldn't preclude the possibility here that Lindbergh simply obviated the latter's presence within the transporting of the ransom money to Condon's house by claiming he personally was the courier, in order to shield Breckinridge from any later potential legal action. I feel a similar principle may also be at work within the St. Raymond's ransom payment. While I may be criticized for placing absolutely no faith in the notion that John Condon was sandbagging his ultimate hero Charles Lindbergh by allegedly dumping the payment down East Tremont Ave., in order to give the extortionists a "running start", I feel I have good reason to. Unless.. and it's a big unless, Lindbergh was part and parcel of such a pre-arranged plan in order to ensure everything possible to appease the extortionists and secure the return of his son. But he was not part of any such plan. Why? Because he reported this deviation from a more direct return route by Condon down Whittemore Ave, to investigators. If Lindbergh had have been in on this alleged deception, he would have kept quiet about Condon's extended walk to dispel any notion that it ever occurred. So what actually went on here? I'm not sure really, but within my two cents, I tend to put more faith in the possibility that Condon actually took his walk down East Tremont Ave. during the initial scouting of the St. Raymond's entrance, while he was not carrying the ransom payment. It makes far more sense to me that Jafsie would have felt a higher degree of trepidation at the onset of his expected meeting with CJ, who did very little to initially attract his attention from his location amongst the tombstones. So Condon simply did what made sense to him at the time. Without CJ's assistance to guide him, Condon basically went "looking for him," knowing he would at least have the safety of a good distance between him and the unknown. Later, Lindbergh incorrectly reported the walk having taken place after Condon had the ransom payment with him. Condon simply went along with this error in order to not rock the boat and have others question the credibility of the man he respected so highly. It's why he came up with so many reasons to explain this suspected action. He really only believed in one. The one he related at the trial and in his book.. fear of the unknown. Again.. just a theory which with everything else, I'm hopeful will continue to generate further discussion.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Mar 19, 2022 14:44:36 GMT -5
Wayne, do you know who transported the original ransom payment amount to Condon's house, ie. the one that had not had its serial numbers recorded?
I believe it basically sat around Condon's dining room for about a week until he himself took a streetcar to his bank, where he had it placed in a safe deposit box.
Just wondering if there might be some confusion (convenient or otherwise) on Lindbergh's part, for this particular part of his testimony.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 19, 2022 20:45:54 GMT -5
Wayne, do you know who transported the original ransom payment amount to Condon's house, ie. the one that had not had its serial numbers recorded? I believe it basically sat around Condon's dining room for about a week until he himself took a streetcar to his bank, where he had it placed in a safe deposit box. Just wondering if there might be some confusion (convenient or otherwise) on Lindbergh's part, for this particular part of his testimony. Hi Joe, I'm sure that Michael as a better chronology of the $50,000 delivered to Condon's house. I'll have to double-check my files, but I will get back to you. Can we attribute Lindbergh's mistakes to confusion in the Larimer report? Maybe but I don't think so because there are so many things he told Larimer that simply were not true. As you know, I am on the fence with Condon being the biggest liar in this thing. If Condon had said that he met Al Capone at Highfields on his first trip to Lindbergh's house, then we would know that Condon is lying. Capone was incarcerated in an Illinois prison that night, so we would know that Condon is lying. With Condon, I just don't see anything provable that he was lying as opposed to being confuse. Only supposition. No empirical proof at all. But with Lindbergh, we come across the person who is the greatest liar in the case. He seemed to lie or mislead in everyone of his statements. Do you have Larimer's report? Here are the highlights of this one-on-one interview with the BI: 1) Lindbergh claimed on the weekend prior to the kidnapping, that only Olly and Elsie were at the house. No one else. He knew that Henry, Aida, and Alva Breckinridge were there all weekend. 2) Lindbergh wasn't sure if he went to Highfields on "Friday or Saturday, February 26 or 27." Since October 31, 1931, when the Lindberghs had first started staying at Highfields on the weekend, Lindbergh had never been there on a Friday. 3) As for the evening of March 1, 1932, Lindbergh said Betty Gow was "continuously...either in the kitchen or the west parlor on the first floor from 8:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M." 4) He said the Whateley's "were in the kitchen on the first floor during that period" (from 8:00 to 10:00). 5) He said that "Shortly after the discovery of the missing child (at 10:00), Red Johnson, Betty Gow's friend, phone to her at the Hopewell residence." 6) He said that "Red Johnson was venereally afflicted." Not necessarily a lie, but how would he know that? 7) He said that Condon's first meeting with CJ was at Rosemont Cemetery in the Bronx. There are more, but I think you get the idea.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Mar 20, 2022 8:00:54 GMT -5
Wayne, most of the published accounts concerning the routing of the first ransom payment, (50K with Lindbergh still required to raise the additional 20K) appear to have been sourced from Waller's book (page 63) which talks about armed guards from J.P. Morgan & Company taking it from their location to the Fordham Branch of the Corn Exchange Bank. Condon, on the other hand in "Jafsie Tells All," describes how the money somehow ended up in his house, where it sat under a table in his dining or living room. I don't have my copy of the book with me right now, but he retells his experience along those lines. Apparently the money was with him for about a week before he finally removed it himself and placed it in a safe deposit box. So something doesn't add up here. In any case, I was wondering if Lindbergh might have had anything to do with transporting the first amount and simply transposed that experience with the second payment, which he later claimed he brought to Condon's house.
I read your list of Lindbergh "lies" and I have to question each and every one, by asking, given the entire set of circumstances, are these what you would call genuine lies, as they relate to criminal complicity? Is there a deliberate attempt on Lindbergh's part in each of these instances to deceive, with the clear intention of completely changing the story line of empirical events to suit some personal and even criminal agenda?
This is not a criticism leveled specifically at you in this particular post, but I have never seen the word "lie" get so bandied about as it does here on this discussion board, whenever it comes to statements made primarily by Lindbergh and Condon, and to a lesser extent, Breckinridge. We even see this in the case of Lindbergh offering his personal opinion of Wahgoosh's abilities as a watchdog, where his words are to the effect that he "wouldn't expect much from that dog." The general reaction here? Of course, Lindbergh is “lying.” Really? That’s a lie?
Why is this? I feel this effect is due in large part to the indisputable fact that the above three individuals were there, for nearly two-and-a-half months between the kidnapping and discovery of the baby's corpse, relatively unchallenged and unaccounted for by law enforcement, essentially free to carry on in any way they felt was most beneficial towards the safe return of the child. They didn't keep accurate records that we can now easily reference like real time police reports, they often disagreed with one another and they were all under enormous stress from multiple angles, so the often-multiple versions for what went on within the ransom negotiations and beyond, don't surprise me at all. The same goes for any conflicting accounts from the five individuals, not counting Charlie, who were at Highfields on the evening of March 1, 1932, only their situation is based on a different set of event dynamics. In this case, it was just another evening, albeit a little different in that Charles, Anne and Betty had never been at Highfields on a Tuesday night before. Until their world basically exploded with the realization that the baby had been kidnapped, and that this was no joke. Given that they were all pressed into action to recall their exact movements of that day up to, and shortly after 10:00 pm, I'm surprised at just how well their independent accounts mesh with each others’ for the most part.
In any case, for what their worth, I’ve add some personal insights towards your list below:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Joe,
I'm sure that Michael as a better chronology of the $50,000 delivered to Condon's house. I'll have to double-check my files, but I will get back to you.
Can we attribute Lindbergh's mistakes to confusion in the Larimer report? Maybe but I don't think so because there are so many things he told Larimer that simply were not true.
As you know, I am on the fence with Condon being the biggest liar in this thing. If Condon had said that he met Al Capone at Highfields on his first trip to Lindbergh's house, then we would know that Condon is lying. Capone was incarcerated in an Illinois prison that night, so we would know that Condon is lying. My question in this purely-theoretical scenario is, would Condon really have been "lying" if Al Capone had been brought to Lindbergh's house a few days after Condon's first visit, and Condon had then returned to the house, at which point they actually did meet? Or would he simply have been incorrect about the actual occasion and date on which he met Capone?
With Condon, I just don't see anything provable that he was lying as opposed to being confuse. Only supposition. No empirical proof at all. Given Condon's degree of respect and idolatry towards Lindbergh, as well as his sincere desire to serve the Lindbergh and safely return their child to them, I couldn't agree more.
But with Lindbergh, we come across the person who is the greatest liar in the case. He seemed to lie or mislead in everyone of his statements.
Do you have Larimer's report? I think so, but I'll confirm as I continue my scanning of hard copies.
Here are the highlights of this one-on-one interview with the BI:
1) Lindbergh claimed on the weekend prior to the kidnapping, that only Olly and Elsie were at the house. No one else. He knew that Henry, Aida, and Alva Breckinridge were there all weekend. Are you 100% certain he didn't process the wording of the question as meaning the weekend before the weekend immediately prior to the kidnapping? I can see it being taken two ways, as in someone on Sunday, saying "last Thursday." Do they mean three days ago or ten days ago?
2) Lindbergh wasn't sure if he went to Highfields on "Friday or Saturday, February 26 or 27." Since October 31, 1931, when the Lindberghs had first started staying at Highfields on the weekend, Lindbergh had never been there on a Friday. Is this a lie or faulty recollection given by someone who was by no means as consistent within his detail orientation as the average person probably believed?
3) As for the evening of March 1, 1932, Lindbergh said Betty Gow was "continuously...either in the kitchen or the west parlor on the first floor from 8:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M." Of course, we know Betty and Else were up and down the stairs a few times between 8:00 and 10:00 pm, but I have to think Lindbergh would have paid little attention towards the exact placement of his servants on what he would have considered to that point, to have been a relatively uneventful evening.
4) He said the Whateley's "were in the kitchen on the first floor during that period" (from 8:00 to 10:00). I'd have to think the same idea applies here.
5) He said that "Shortly after the discovery of the missing child (at 10:00), Red Johnson, Betty Gow's friend, phone to her at the Hopewell residence." I wouldn't call this a lie but more faulty recollection. He would have had no reason to lie here as there were enough independent accounts of when Johnson called. If push came to shove here, he would simply have been shown he was wrong.
6) He said that "Red Johnson was venereally afflicted." Not necessarily a lie, but how would he know that? Someone, perhaps Betty told him? I don't know, but how would this even relate to the kidnapping?
7) He said that Condon's first meeting with CJ was at Rosemont Cemetery in the Bronx. Again, I have to think this would have been faulty recollection with no reason to lie. There were plenty of independent accounts to verify it was Woodlawn Cemetery.
There are more, but I think you get the idea. And I believe each and every one of those, would need to be evaluated on its actual weighted merit and relevance towards the crime as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 20, 2022 11:56:23 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Let's take #1 first. I just can't give Lindbergh the benefit of the doubt on this one. He is officially relating to law enforcement what happened over the course of the kidnapping. Here's exactly what he said about the weekend prior to the kidnapping: See? No doubt. Alva was already at Highfields when Lindbergh arrived with Henry and Aida Breckinridge in the late afternoon on Saturday. And according to Oren Root, he was there that weekend too, but I haven't been able to confirm that. I just don't understand much of Lindbergh's statements. One adjective I personally don't associate with the first man to fly solo across the Atlantic is "confused." So the question is, what's going on? Attachments:
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Mar 20, 2022 14:03:36 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Let's take #1 first. I just can't give Lindbergh the benefit of the doubt on this one. He is officially relating to law enforcement what happened over the course of the kidnapping. Here's exactly what he said about the weekend prior to the kidnapping: <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> See? No doubt. Alva was already at Highfields when Lindbergh arrived with Henry and Aida Breckinridge in the late afternoon on Saturday. And according to Oren Root, he was there that weekend too, but I haven't been able to confirm that. I just don't understand much of Lindbergh's statements. One adjective I personally don't associate with the first man to fly solo across the Atlantic is "confused." So the question is, what's going on? Wayne, can you provide a few more details about this account? What specific statement is this, when was it taken and what is the reference leading up to it? I'd just like to see the entire picture here. Clearly Lindbergh's accounting of who was at the house on the weekend prior to the kidnapping is not totally inclusive, but read it carefully and you'll see that he's not incorrect. Who is it you feel he might have been trying to deceive here, if as you imply he's intentionally lying and not simply overlooking the additional details of all people present, as well as the actual stagger of all arrivals? I mean, what do you feel the motivator might have been here, if clearly there were others like Henry and Aida Breckinridge, the Whateleys and Anne to chime in independently with no apparent concern over trying to keep intact some "fabricated party line?" And no, I wouldn't term Lindbergh a "confused" person either.. when he was in his pre-planned and synchronized element, and not having to deal this kind of family horror that no one would have been prepared for. Anne saw first hand what this event did to her husband and clearly expressed those thoughts in her autobiography.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 20, 2022 17:56:54 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Let's take #1 first. I just can't give Lindbergh the benefit of the doubt on this one. He is officially relating to law enforcement what happened over the course of the kidnapping. Here's exactly what he said about the weekend prior to the kidnapping: <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> See? No doubt. Alva was already at Highfields when Lindbergh arrived with Henry and Aida Breckinridge in the late afternoon on Saturday. And according to Oren Root, he was there that weekend too, but I haven't been able to confirm that. I just don't understand much of Lindbergh's statements. One adjective I personally don't associate with the first man to fly solo across the Atlantic is "confused." So the question is, what's going on? Wayne, can you provide a few more details about this account? What specific statement is this, when was it taken and what is the reference leading up to it? I'd just like to see the entire picture here. Clearly Lindbergh's accounting of who was at the house on the weekend prior to the kidnapping is not totally inclusive, but read it carefully and you'll see that he's not incorrect. Who is it you feel he might have been trying to deceive here, if as you imply he's intentionally lying and not simply overlooking the additional details of all people present, as well as the actual stagger of all arrivals? I mean, what do you feel the motivator might have been here, if clearly there were others like Henry and Aida Breckinridge, the Whateleys and Anne to chime in independently with no apparent concern over trying to keep intact some "fabricated party line?" And no, I wouldn't term Lindbergh a "confused" person either.. when he was in his pre-planned and synchronized element, and not having to deal this kind of family horror that no one would have been prepared for. Anne saw first hand what this event did to her husband and clearly expressed those thoughts in her autobiography. Joe, The first attachment is from the Larimer report, page 5. PM me if you want me to send you this report. I do understand what you are saying... Lindbergh's statement, like most of what he says, can be interpreted in 2 or more ways. Here's what happened on Saturday, February 27th (the weekend prior to the kidnapping): 1) "After lunch" Henry Ellerson drove Anne, Charlie, and Alva Root from Next Day Hill to Highfields. Anne said they arrived there between 5:30 and 6:00. 2) Lindbergh did not go with them. Instead, he drove from Next Day Hill to Manhattan where he said he worked at the Rockefeller Institute, then he picked up Henry & Aida Breckinridge around 4:00 and they all arrived at Highfields between 6:00 and 6:30. Re-read the Larimer paragraph. By the time Lindbergh arrived at Highfields on Saturday evening, the household consisted of: Lindbergh, Anne, Charlie, Ollie, Elsie, Henry, Aida, Alva, and maybe Oren (who claims he was there). Wouldn't a less than confused Lindbergh want to list all the people he knew were at this house that weekend? I did not mean to attach the 2nd attachment, but since it's here, that's from Page 139 of Lindbergh's autobiography, The Autobiography of Values.Again, it can be read 2 ways, but to me it sounds like Lindbergh is saying he went outside following the kidnapping and discovered the ladder "under the nursery window." I don't think you can say that Lindbergh went to where the 2 ladder holes were and could see the ladder some 75 feet away in the dark night.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Sept 21, 2023 13:22:36 GMT -5
Charlie may have had Hunter's Syndrome which is characterized by a large head, big ears, broad nose, prominent forehead, widely spaced teeth, claw hands, thick lips. It is usually found in boys and first diagnosed about the age of two. There does not appear to be any cure even now. Charlie didn't have claw hands or widely spaced teeth, or thick lips. Watch the videos of him.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 21, 2023 22:24:54 GMT -5
Charlie may have had Hunter's Syndrome which is characterized by a large head, big ears, broad nose, prominent forehead, widely spaced teeth, claw hands, thick lips. It is usually found in boys and first diagnosed about the age of two. There does not appear to be any cure even now. Charlie didn't have claw hands or widely spaced teeth, or thick lips. Watch the videos of him. He did have weird dentition issues, though widely spaced teeth might not be the best descriptor.
|
|