|
Post by stella7 on Jul 27, 2023 11:41:05 GMT -5
Michael
When do you believe Condon was brought into the kidnapping scheme, who do you think was involved and how did they make their case?
Oh and this really should be it's own thread and not under Lindbergh's German Families!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 27, 2023 22:14:28 GMT -5
When do you believe Condon was brought into the kidnapping scheme, who do you think was involved and how did they make their case? I believe he was brought in for the extortion part of it only. I've seen where some believed he was in this from the beginning but I do not. It was the 2nd note which was sent on March 4 that raised the ransom for bringing in an additional person. The 3rd and 4th were sent to Breckinridge because the writer believed the Police intercepted the 2nd note (See V4 page 477 to better understand why they thought this). These came together and Note #4 restates the raise in the demand again from 50K to 70K. The explanation was that they had to bring in another "lady" to help care for the child since they were to have him longer than expected. It also states they would not accept any go-between from the Lindbergh side. The 5th note was received by Condon offering him the position of go-between and ALSO tells him they don't want the $1000 of his own money he offered to give the kidnappers. Since we know the child was dead, there was no woman who was brought in for the purpose mentioned. It was Inspector Walsh who believed it was really Condon who was brought in and that the extra 20K was supposed to go to him. Next, since Condon usually combined truth with fiction, I believe its possible that one of them may have "had something on" HIM in their initial approach to get him to act as their emissary. It was something he claimed CJ told him but it strikes me as something that did not come out of thin air, so he may have been actually talking about himself and transferred it onto CJ in an attempt, if caught, to assist in his defense. It's how criminals think. Who approached Condon? Hard to say. We know Hauptmann had ample opportunity to meet Condon whether it be in various venues in the Bronx or on City Island. Mueller too and he also may have met Reich at the gym or speakeasy. It was Mueller who was supposed to know all of the "Gorillas" in the Bronx and no doubt Reich qualified as one. There was also information floating around that Reich was in the "dope peddling" business. Since Condon refused to identify Hauptmann, police believed they knew each other and the City Island investigation started afterward looking to find a connection at the 11th hour which I mentioned in my book. Reich never seemed to get the attention he deserved for a reason I just cannot understand.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Jul 28, 2023 9:01:58 GMT -5
My apologies for jumping in here Norma, as I know you did address this question to Michael. Being such an excellent genesis topic though, I’d like to add some ideas here as well at its beginning, for the possible benefit of a more inclusive and open overall discussion. The ransom note writer fully expected Lindbergh to open the ransom note, so that the whole kidnapping affair could be resolved discreetly and in privacy. This is clearly supported by the content of the nursery note, although the kidnapper made the mistake of not instructing Lindbergh accordingly, on the envelope itself. Taking for granted that Lindbergh would tear open the note immediately was a fatal error on this part, as he allowed himself to open a huge can of worms here that continued until the time of Hauptmann's arrest. Whether it was the original intention of the extortionist to arrange the exchange of the $50,000 demanded, for a live or a dead child, is a further question, worthy of its own discussion thread. Law enforcement, local and state wide were alerted immediately by the child’s father, an action the extortionist had not expected and subsequently reacted to very strongly, as evidenced by him chastising Lindbergh in his subsequent ransom note and raising the amount of the ransom demand to $70,000. I understand the reason given was that it was to supposedly cover the expenses of an additional person, ie. $20,000, for an extra “lady” as he claimed in the following ransom note. However, this appears to be a fundamental accounting error on the part of the extortionist, given that CJ later claimed each of two ladies looking after the child were to receive $10,000 apiece. So, it’s a lie from the beginning, and not a very good one at that. I also can’t believe any criminal worth the view he had chosen to climb here, would have even considered giving away such a seemingly obvious hand through this rather obvious inference that the extra $20,000 would in fact, be covering the expenses and services of so called "intermediary," John Condon, given that the case was now under police and public scrutiny. If that’s really how criminals think, I suggest that the prisons wouldn’t just be full, they’d be bursting at the seams! It was a common belief among those investigating the case in its first few days, including Breckinridge and Lindbergh, that an organized crime gang was responsible, hence the almost immediate invitation of Rosner, Spitale and Bitz to participate. The timing of their entry into the case strongly suggests this was the reason the extortionist not long after, stated they would not accept a "go-between" from Lindbergh's side. The simple reason here being the extortionist had no intention of dealing with the underworld and someone who might just as soon have preferred to shoot him between the eyes during the ransom exchange. Clearly, the underworld's entry into the case represented an unexpected wrinkle for the extortionist, who further stated they would arrange the exchange later but that Lindbergh should get the $70,000 prepared and ready in the meantime. Fortuitously for the extortionist, Condon’s timely entry into the case allowed him to sidestep the prospect of having to deal directly with fellow criminals, and the underworld faded out of the case.
I’ll never believe in a month of Sundays that someone of Condon’s overall reputation in the Bronx, would have even considered going along with such a proposed seamy and insulting request from criminals, ie. that he become involved in their kidnapping and extortion plans. Being asked, in effect, to roll over and play ball with criminals, given his absolute hero worship of Charles Lindbergh and in spite of his personal love of self promotion and publicity, would have had him beating a path to Lindbergh’s door alright. Only for the purpose of revealing that he believed he had been approached, unsolicited, by the criminals who had stolen his child and were holding him for ransom. It's quite possible he might have even viewed this as a greater opportunity to have his 'name in lights' and even admired by Lindbergh himself.
The simple and unspun reality here is that Condon’s true impetus for having inserted himself in the Lindbergh case, ie. his disgust that such an event could happen in America, and then hearing that Lindbergh had felt compelled to resort to bringing in the underworld to get his son back, in addition to being supported by credible documentation and his own written words, was well stated by family, friends and acquaintances.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 28, 2023 10:07:14 GMT -5
I am bringing down my earlier points so I don't have to repeat myself: While its something that should be considered, there is too much evidence that he [Condon] was doing it on purpose. Of course there were things he was forgetting because when someone lies, they do tend to forget some of the things they made up causing certain things to be replaced with new lies. Plus, Condon's technique was similar to what I consider a "good" liar does. That is, they mix lies with certain truths. A perfect example was when Condon lied about what CJ was telling him as it concerned Curtis. He was recounting a conversation that took place on March 12 about a man who did not enter the situation until March 22. But because this lie first occurred on May 14, Condon was thinking in the present when making up that conversation. What this proves is we have no idea what CJ and Condon said to each other because we can readily see that Condon had no problem making it up. Take the Silken confrontation. Condon was lying about the female passenger, Silken called him out, Condon backtracked, agreed Silken was correct, then scolded him for revealing confidential information. Or when he said Hauptmann was not CJ then took off to Florida hoping to frame Garelick. These aren't the actions of someone who has no malicious intent. Look at the Needle Salesman example I've written about in V2... He claimed he was home, gave a description, and even said he looked like the Look-Out at Woodlawn. But later, after his daughter injected herself into the scenario, Condon told a different Agent he didn't know what the guy looked like because he was not there. Breckinridge said he was there. So who was lying? Breckinridge and Condon #1 - or Myra and Condon #2? What happened was that Condon changed his story to line up with Myra's and shows he knew exactly what he was doing. The ransom note writer fully expected LindbeFrgh to open the ransom note, so that the whole kidnapping affair could be resolved discreetly and in privacy. This is clearly supported by the content of the nursery note, although the kidnapper made the mistake of not instructing Lindbergh accordingly, on the envelope itself. Taking for granted that Lindbergh would tear open the note immediately was a fatal error on this part, as he allowed himself to open a huge can of worms here that continued until the time of Hauptmann's arrest. We really don't know what the intentions were. On top of that, if what Whateley said during his 1933 interview was true, then Lindbergh had opened the note. Or when he implicated someone in the house on his deathbed. But let's assume the historical narrative for the moment... Police, and later Governor Hoffman, were amazed at Lindbergh not opening that note. To them it made no sense from the perspective of a worried parent whose child was missing. This was supposed to be a real kidnapping, therefore, it certainly was no "flaw" to believe the note would be immediately opened. Whether it was the original intention of the extortionist to arrange the exchange of the $50,000 demanded, for a live or a dead child, is a further question, worthy of its own discussion thread. I definitely agree. Law enforcement, local and state wide were alerted immediately by the child’s father, an action the extortionist had not expected and subsequently reacted to very strongly, as evidenced by him chastising Lindbergh in his subsequent ransom note and raising the amount of the ransom demand to $70,000. Why wouldn't they expect this? These people weren't stupid were they? Thinking they pulled this off with everyone in the house, and every other obstacle they faced as you do, that statement doesn't quite make sense to me. Of course any planned crime has considered the various scenarios that could occur - or what any criminal would believe might. So this idea they were caught off guard that the family might call the cops, if true, speaks volumes to me and the implications for it need to be looked into further. Not the causal " oh, they were caught off guard," and move on quickly to the next point as you've done. Believe me I understand why, but that's not how crimes are solved. I understand the reason given was that it was to supposedly cover the expenses of an additional person, ie. $20,000, for an extra “lady” as he claimed in the following ransom note. However, this appears to be a fundamental accounting error on the part of the extortionist, given that CJ later claimed each of two ladies looking after the child were to receive $10,000 apiece. So, it’s a lie from the beginning, and not a very good one at that. I also can’t believe any criminal worth the view he had chosen to climb here, would have even considered giving away such a seemingly obvious hand through this rather obvious inference that the extra $20,000 would in fact, be covering the expenses and services of so called "intermediary," John Condon. If that’s really how criminals think, I suggest that the prisons wouldn’t just be full, they’d be bursting at the seams! First, my comment about "how criminals think' referred to Condon's mix of truth and lies. I've never made any claims that he wrote the ransom notes, in fact, as I've written above, I don't believe he was involved in the actual "kidnapping." However, you are making several serious mistakes in your evaluation. What the note says shouldn't be disregarded. It makes sense that if they brought someone else in that would cost money, it reinforces the belief they have a live child, and it gives them even more leverage by demonstrating and inferring the ransom could continue to rise. Next, someone will take something real and use that as an impetus to spin that reality into something more. One might not even be a criminal to do this. As to how criminals think ... prisons ARE bursting at the seems, and this is with the current environment of letting many out before they should be. Now Joe, I think you are an Engineer of some sort? Whatever your area, I would defer to you about that. But when it comes to damn near living with Felons for almost three decades you might want to listen, at least sometimes, to what I have to say because I was pretty good at what I did. It's how I explain it that might be lacking because it is hard to express in words. You'd have to be inside, see it for yourself, and have me directly point it out to you. Over time and experience you'd get to where I am now. Of course that doesn't make me right here, but what I am seeing needs to be pointed out and not shrugged off as you so often do. The other thing you are doing is relying on Condon concerning what CJ told him as gospel when I've already proven he was making at least some of it up. It was a common belief among those investigating the case in its first few days, including Breckinridge and Lindbergh, that an organized crime gang was responsible, hence the almost immediate invitation of Rosner, Spitale and Bitz to participate. The timing of their entry into the case strongly suggests this was the reason the extortionist not long after, stated they would not accept a "go-between" from Lindbergh's side. The simple reason here being the extortionist had no intention of dealing with the underworld and someone who might just as soon have preferred to shoot him between the eyes during the ransom exchange. Clearly, the underworld's entry into the case represented an unexpected wrinkle for the extortionist, who further stated they would arrange the exchange later but that Lindbergh should get the $70,000 prepared and ready in the meantime. Fortuitously for the extortionist, Condon’s timely entry into the case allowed him to sidestep the prospect of having to deal directly with fellow criminals. Yes and no. Several people offered to be the go-between. Lindbergh's "side" could have included Hibben or Dudely Field Malone as examples. Neither were what you suggest. And again, the "unexpected" need here is something that needs more attention. I’ll never believe in a month of Sundays that someone of Condon’s overall reputation in the Bronx, would have even considered going along with such a proposed seamy and insulting request from criminals, ie. that he become involved in their kidnapping and extortion plans. Being asked, in effect, to roll over and play ball with criminals, given his absolute hero worship of Charles Lindbergh and in spite of his personal love of self promotion and publicity, would have had him beating a path to Lindbergh’s door alright, but only for the purpose of revealing that he believed he had been approached, unsolicited, by the criminals who had stolen his child and were holding him for ransom. It's quite possible he might have even viewed this as a greater opportunity to have his 'name in lights' and even admired by Lindbergh himself. The reality here is that Condon’s true impetus for having inserted himself in the Lindbergh case, ie. his disgust that such an event could happen in America, and then hearing that Lindbergh had felt compelled to resort to bringing in the underworld to get his son back, in addition to being supported by credible documentation and his own written words, was well stated by family, friends and acquaintances. See above first paragraph. I don't know what more one needs to see that Condon was not acting in good faith. Like I've stated numerous times in the past, it could be because he was blackmailed into it or in fear for his and his family's lives. Or it could be he was as it actually appears - a criminal himself.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Jul 28, 2023 11:05:43 GMT -5
I am bringing down my earlier points so I don't have to repeat myself: While its something that should be considered, there is too much evidence that he [Condon] was doing it on purpose. Of course there were things he was forgetting because when someone lies, they do tend to forget some of the things they made up causing certain things to be replaced with new lies. Plus, Condon's technique was similar to what I consider a "good" liar does. That is, they mix lies with certain truths. A perfect example was when Condon lied about what CJ was telling him as it concerned Curtis. He was recounting a conversation that took place on March 12 about a man who did not enter the situation until March 22. But because this lie first occurred on May 14, Condon was thinking in the present when making up that conversation. What this proves is we have no idea what CJ and Condon said to each other because we can readily see that Condon had no problem making it up. Take the Silken confrontation. Condon was lying about the female passenger, Silken called him out, Condon backtracked, agreed Silken was correct, then scolded him for revealing confidential information. Or when he said Hauptmann was not CJ then took off to Florida hoping to frame Garelick. These aren't the actions of someone who has no malicious intent. Look at the Needle Salesman example I've written about in V2... He claimed he was home, gave a description, and even said he looked like the Look-Out at Woodlawn. But later, after his daughter injected herself into the scenario, Condon told a different Agent he didn't know what the guy looked like because he was not there. Breckinridge said he was there. So who was lying? Breckinridge and Condon #1 - or Myra and Condon #2? What happened was that Condon changed his story to line up with Myra's and shows he knew exactly what he was doing. The ransom note writer fully expected Lindbergh to open the ransom note, so that the whole kidnapping affair could be resolved discreetly and in privacy. This is clearly supported by the content of the nursery note, although the kidnapper made the mistake of not instructing Lindbergh accordingly, on the envelope itself. Taking for granted that Lindbergh would tear open the note immediately was a fatal error on this part, as he allowed himself to open a huge can of worms here that continued until the time of Hauptmann's arrest. We really don't know what the intentions were. On top of that, if what Whateley said during his 1933 interview was true, then Lindbergh had opened the note. Or when he implicated someone in the house on his deathbed. But let's assume the historical narrative for the moment... Police, and later Governor Hoffman, were amazed at Lindbergh not opening that note. To them it made no sense from the perspective of a worried parent whose child was missing. This was supposed to be a real kidnapping, therefore, it certainly was no "flaw" to believe the note would be immediately opened. Whateley's overall mental health and state of mind aside, first arrival officers Wolfe and Williamson also advised Lindbergh to not touch what was believed to be a ransom note. Perhaps you're speaking here only for those who were actually surprised Lindbergh did not.
Law enforcement, local and state wide were alerted immediately by the child’s father, an action the extortionist had not expected and subsequently reacted to very strongly, as evidenced by him chastising Lindbergh in his subsequent ransom note and raising the amount of the ransom demand to $70,000. Why wouldn't they expect this? These people weren't stupid were they? Thinking they pulled this off with everyone in the house, and every other obstacle they faced as you do, that statement doesn't quite make sense to me. Of course any planned crime has considered the various scenarios that could occur - or what any criminal would believe might. So this idea they were caught off guard that the family might call the cops, if true, speaks volumes to me and the implications for it need to be looked into further. Not the causal " oh, they were caught off guard," and move on quickly to the next point as you've done. Believe me I understand why, but that's not how crimes are solved. Of course, criminals can be stupid and do stupid things. That's why they invariably get caught. If they weren't stupid, more people would probably be lining up to be one. I believe the ransom note writer makes his concern quite clear, through his repeated admonishments and warnings to Lindbergh.
I understand the reason given was that it was to supposedly cover the expenses of an additional person, ie. $20,000, for an extra “lady” as he claimed in the following ransom note. However, this appears to be a fundamental accounting error on the part of the extortionist, given that CJ later claimed each of two ladies looking after the child were to receive $10,000 apiece. So, it’s a lie from the beginning, and not a very good one at that. I also can’t believe any criminal worth the view he had chosen to climb here, would have even considered giving away such a seemingly obvious hand through this rather obvious inference that the extra $20,000 would in fact, be covering the expenses and services of so called "intermediary," John Condon. If that’s really how criminals think, I suggest that the prisons wouldn’t just be full, they’d be bursting at the seams! First, my comment about "how criminals think' referred to Condon's mix of truth and lies. I've never made any claims that he wrote the ransom notes, in fact, as I've written above, I don't believe he was involved in the actual "kidnapping." However, you are making several serious mistakes in your evaluation. What the note says shouldn't be disregarded. It makes sense that if they brought someone else in that would cost money, it reinforces the belief they have a live child, and it gives them even more leverage by demonstrating and inferring the ransom could continue to rise. Next, someone will take something real and use that as an impetus to spin that reality into something more. One might not even be a criminal to do this. As to how criminals think ... prisons ARE bursting at the seems, and this is with the current environment of letting many out before they should be. Now Joe, I think you are an Engineer of some sort? Whatever your area, I would defer to you about that. But when it comes to damn near living with Felons for almost three decades you might want to listen, at least sometimes, to what I have to say because I was pretty good at what I did. It's how I explain it that might be lacking because it is hard to express in words. You'd have to be inside, see it for yourself, and have me directly point it out to you. Over time and experience you'd get to where I am now. Of course that doesn't make me right here, but what I am seeing needs to be pointed out and not shrugged off as you so often do. The other thing you are doing is relying on Condon concerning what CJ told him as gospel when I've already proven he was making at least some of it up. I don't shrug anything off in this case, as you commonly imply. It's all considered and mulled over, perhaps much more than you appreciate. And while I appreciate your perspective from inside, I certainly don't shrug off the possibility you might have become, for lack of a better term, "institutionalized" by your previous work experience as I question the overall perspective gained from such a high degree of exposure and research going on simultaneously, once a potential theory is formulated. I prefer a very wide open perspective. It was a common belief among those investigating the case in its first few days, including Breckinridge and Lindbergh, that an organized crime gang was responsible, hence the almost immediate invitation of Rosner, Spitale and Bitz to participate. The timing of their entry into the case strongly suggests this was the reason the extortionist not long after, stated they would not accept a "go-between" from Lindbergh's side. The simple reason here being the extortionist had no intention of dealing with the underworld and someone who might just as soon have preferred to shoot him between the eyes during the ransom exchange. Clearly, the underworld's entry into the case represented an unexpected wrinkle for the extortionist, who further stated they would arrange the exchange later but that Lindbergh should get the $70,000 prepared and ready in the meantime. Fortuitously for the extortionist, Condon’s timely entry into the case allowed him to sidestep the prospect of having to deal directly with fellow criminals. Yes and no. Several people offered to be the go-between. Lindbergh's "side" could have included Hibben or Dudely Field Malone as examples. Neither were what you suggest. And again, the "unexpected" need here is something that needs more attention. Fair enough, but for the record, I'll put my money on the historically accepted narrative and my own conclusion here, for now.I’ll never believe in a month of Sundays that someone of Condon’s overall reputation in the Bronx, would have even considered going along with such a proposed seamy and insulting request from criminals, ie. that he become involved in their kidnapping and extortion plans. Being asked, in effect, to roll over and play ball with criminals, given his absolute hero worship of Charles Lindbergh and in spite of his personal love of self promotion and publicity, would have had him beating a path to Lindbergh’s door alright, but only for the purpose of revealing that he believed he had been approached, unsolicited, by the criminals who had stolen his child and were holding him for ransom. It's quite possible he might have even viewed this as a greater opportunity to have his 'name in lights' and even admired by Lindbergh himself. The reality here is that Condon’s true impetus for having inserted himself in the Lindbergh case, ie. his disgust that such an event could happen in America, and then hearing that Lindbergh had felt compelled to resort to bringing in the underworld to get his son back, in addition to being supported by credible documentation and his own written words, was well stated by family, friends and acquaintances. See above first paragraph. I don't know what more one needs to see that Condon was not acting in good faith. Like I've stated numerous times in the past, it could be because he was blackmailed into it or in fear for his and his family's lives. Or it could be he was as it actually appears - a criminal himself. Condon wasn't a criminal, as you're speculating. His overall life's dossier and reputation, doesn't speak to any of this unless the researcher confines their research to well chosen, singular sources.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 28, 2023 13:49:55 GMT -5
Whateley's overall mental health and state of mind aside, first arrival officers Wolfe and Williamson also advised Lindbergh to not touch what was believed to be a ransom note. Perhaps you're speaking here only for those who were actually surprised Lindbergh did not. What issues do you have concerning Whateley's mental health? Next, its common knowledge that every cop who arrived early on saw a sealed note on the window sill. However, it was only assumed by them that it lay there in its original state prior to their arrival based on what they saw and were told. That doesn't mean Lindbergh didn't open it prior, or was the one who sealed it in an envelope in the first place. Naturally, we'd all assume that as well if not for Whateley's 1933 interview or Keaten's communication with Sisk as he toured the crime scene in the summer of 1934. Finally, who do you believe wasn't surprised? Of course, criminals can be stupid and do stupid things. That's why they invariably get caught. If they weren't stupid, more people would probably be lining up to be one. I believe the ransom note writer makes his concern quite clear, through his repeated admonishments and warnings to Lindbergh. That's not what I asked you. You have a group of people who pull off the impossible right under Lindbergh's nose. And Lindbergh is the guy, remember, who was so smart as to not even open the ransom note for fear of corrupting fingerprints. Fingerprints that turned out not to exist. Not on the note, not on the window, not in the room at all. This despite all the various people in that house having touched everything prior. Next, its interesting to see you now believe what's in the Ransom Note. The Ransom Note writer also made it quite clear about the increase in ransom from 50K to 70K too didn't they? Condon wasn't a criminal, as you're speculating. His overall life's dossier and reputation, doesn't speak to any of this unless the researcher confines their research to well chosen, singular sources. You very point, if turned around, could be used against you.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 2, 2023 13:58:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 1, 2023 8:26:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Sept 1, 2023 18:32:05 GMT -5
I am aware that there were many such letters written concerning Condon. Thank you for posting this one!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Sept 1, 2023 18:49:55 GMT -5
It's nice to know that when even the vaunted source documentation falls flat in supporting a theory, there's always a Mrs. Peters out there somewhere in Anytown America, who knows the case inside out and is able to save the day.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2023 8:06:35 GMT -5
I am aware that there were many such letters written concerning Condon. Thank you for posting this one! Tons. I happen to find this one during my most recent trip to the NJSP Archives and thought it a good example of how so many regular people looked at the outrages scenarios then made common sense observations after rejecting the unbelievable.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Sept 2, 2023 16:08:56 GMT -5
So many regular people did see right through Condon and were quite willing to let important people know about it. Just thought I would share one letter I happen to have that shows Condon's shenanigans were not going unnoticed by many types of people: imgur.com/5ZELiIOSo glad to know that people are once again able to visit the archives for researching this case.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Sept 7, 2023 17:39:16 GMT -5
"Since Condon refused to identify Hauptmann, police believed they knew each other and the City Island investigation started afterward looking to find a connection at the 11th hour which I mentioned in my book."
but didn't Condon do just that, very dramatically, during the trial? if JFC was not intent on id'ing BRH, why did he flip during the trial?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 7, 2023 22:30:46 GMT -5
"Since Condon refused to identify Hauptmann, police believed they knew each other and the City Island investigation started afterward looking to find a connection at the 11th hour which I mentioned in my book." but didn't Condon do just that, very dramatically, during the trial? if JFC was not intent on id'ing BRH, why did he flip during the trial? I did my best to explain this in the section containing pages 306-34. In short, he ran out of time and options. If he did not show up to court or testified that Hauptmann wasn't CJ, then he most certainly would have been charged as an accessory to the extortion, with obstruction, and/or compounding a felony.
|
|
|
Post by Miakat on Sept 20, 2023 10:24:27 GMT -5
Condon possibly let slip that he knew (or knew of) Hauptmann prior to Hauptmann's arrest. In Jafsie Tells All (the Liberty Magazine series and the book) during the lineup Condon asks Hauptmann his name and Hauptmann says "Bruno Richard Hauptmann". Then shortly afterwards Condon calls him Richard (while speaking to him in German no less). There is no logical reason why Condon would assume Hauptmann went by Richard and there was no reason for the Police to say Hauptmann preferred to be called Richard before the lineup, not to mention the ethics of saying Hauptmann's name to Condon before the identification. Does the police transcript of the lineup contradict what Condon says in Jafsie Tells All? I can't seem to find a copy.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 20, 2023 16:06:53 GMT -5
Condon possibly let slip that he knew (or knew of) Hauptmann prior to Hauptmann's arrest. In Jafsie Tells All (the Liberty Magazine series and the book) during the lineup Condon asks Hauptmann his name and Hauptmann says "Bruno Richard Hauptmann". Then shortly afterwards Condon calls him Richard (while speaking to him in German no less). There is no logical reason why Condon would assume Hauptmann went by Richard and there was no reason for the Police to say Hauptmann preferred to be called Richard before the lineup, not to mention the ethics of saying Hauptmann's name to Condon before the identification. Does the police transcript of the lineup contradict what Condon says in Jafsie Tells All? I can't seem to find a copy. My compliments on noticing this. It definitely takes a good eye to notice. So, here's what I've got... It says in JTA! (p221): I asked each his name. Each replied. I listened with genuine curiosity to the reply of John. "Bruno Richard Hauptmann," he said. Here is what the Transcript records (p104): Dr. Condon: What is your name?
Hauptmann: Richard Hauptmann
Dr. Condon: What is it again?
Hauptmann: Richard Hauptmann JTA! (p223): I whispered to him: "Wahrheit ist besser, Richard." The Transcript does not record what was said in German, only the following ... (p104):
Dr. Condon held a conversation with Hauptmann in German.
|
|