|
Post by rick3 on Dec 5, 2006 11:54:38 GMT -5
Who dropped Elmer Irey into the LKC? and Why? - Isnt he out of his element in a child kidnap case?
- Didnt he just get done putting Al Capone in jail for tax evasion?
- What power did he have over CAL that noone else had?
- How did he force CAL to mark the ransom or include Gold Certificates and record the serial numbers?
- If it wasnt for Irey then BRH would have gotten away scot free?
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Dec 5, 2006 18:29:59 GMT -5
I'm sorry, Rick. I couldn't resist.
3 Elmers in the Lindbergh Kidnapping case:
Elmer Ellsworth Brown (chancellor of NYU -- Waldorf Astoria dinner - March 1, 1932) Elmer Bollard (owned Mersman table with German confession) Elmer Irey (chief of IRS Law Enforcement)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 5, 2006 19:56:43 GMT -5
Elmer Johnson (Ernie Miller's friend and Violet's real date on March 1st)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 5, 2006 21:34:54 GMT -5
Rick, according to The Lindbergh Case, Jim Fisher, Arthur Brisbane had written a front page article detailing Al Capone's offer to find out who took the Lindbergh baby, in exchange for his release from prison. When Lindbergh read this, he called the secretary of the treasury, who sent Elmer Irey, head of the IRS Law Enforcement Branch, to Hopewell. Irey had built the tax evasion case against Capone that resulted in Capone's conviction and 11-year sentence. Irey assured Lindbergh Capone had no idea where to look for the baby, generally impressed Lindbergh and Breckinridge, and promised Lindbergh that his investigators would do everything they could to assist in the case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 6, 2006 6:43:13 GMT -5
Mills sent Irey with a message of assistance but without Capone's involvement. This was relayed in no uncertain terms. Capone wasn't getting out of jail under any circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Dec 6, 2006 14:53:51 GMT -5
My take on Elmer Irey is threefold or so: - True, he was not going to let Capone get out of jail free--he just put him away!
- True, he would assist CAL in getting Charlie back--if thats what you call it? (dead or alive)
- As far as we can tell, Irey's single accomplishment is to mark and record the ransom money and gold certs which wasted alot of time (weeks) and may have gotten Charlie jr killed?
- Why--well CAL was told not to send along "hot" money and Gov. Hoffman reported a rumor that one of the gang tried to get CAL to exchange $49K of it after the payment in St. Raymonds?
- Note: the newpapers broke the serial numbers just days after the payment/
- "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" [Exodus 21:23-27]
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Dec 6, 2006 17:03:32 GMT -5
"...Irey's single accomplishment is to mark and record the ransom money and gold certs..." (Rick)
In what way were the bills marked?
|
|
|
Post by rick for giz on Dec 6, 2006 19:23:28 GMT -5
Excellent point / Irey "marked down" all the serial numbers and they got printed in the papers/ all the ransom money was hotter than macadam road on a summer day? How d-u-m-b is that? Mighty got Charlie Jr shot in the head? Hard to tell?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 6, 2006 20:25:30 GMT -5
Rick, it wasn't in the game plan to have the ransom note serial numbers splashed about in the papers. Would it not have been far dumber not to have recorded the numbers?
In any case, Charlie was already dead before Hauptmann began his final pitch to line up Lindbergh for the exchange of a corpse for instant riches.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 6, 2006 20:32:59 GMT -5
Let's not forget Lindbergh trying to prevent the recording of the serial numbers in the first place. This is in A&M's book and 100% true....
Siglinde just reminded me of another 'Elmer':
Elmer Smith (Juror #6)
|
|
|
Post by rick for joe on Dec 6, 2006 21:25:40 GMT -5
Of course you could be right Joe/ but the 4 colonels and condon and irey didnt really know that for certain back then when Jafsie threw the money over the hedge? At least not to us? - If you already know the babys dead then why pay the moola?
Just surround St. Raymonds and grab everyone/
- Condon already randomly holds back $20,000?
- Is it more important to catch the perps or get Charlie Jr back all safe and sound? I agree its a judgement call and CAL said no?
Irey wanted to just roll the dice and find out? Charlie could have been killed in April?
- It all didnt turn out so good? It blew up in thier faces? It wasnt handled too well--they never really caught anybody for 30 months/ they only found BRH when he turned himself in with the tenner?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 7, 2006 10:16:02 GMT -5
Certainly Lindbergh wouldn't have paid the ransom if he knew the baby was dead. There were signals that this was already the case as early as the Woodlawn Cemetery meeting, with CJ asking Condon whether or not he would burn if the baby was dead. It appears Lindbergh chose to go on sheer faith and trust that if he followed the kindappers' directions, even to the point of not recording the serial numbers, they would keep their end of the bargain.
Irey's ultimatum to record numbers or he would pull his support, must have seemed like a bolt out of the blue to Lindbergh and Breckinridge. By this time, they were were well down their own pathway of trying to protect the child at all costs, unfortunately with little regard to due process of the law. Ultimately, the recording of the ransom bills serial numbers presented both a risk (upsetting the kidnappers if word got out) and safeguard (a later means of capturing them) at the same time.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 7, 2006 10:57:46 GMT -5
Hi Joe~At times I find myself wondering if "Will I burn?"actually came from CJ. One of those things we'll never know for sure. I also wonder if JFC reported that to LB at the time(?) Is this something JFC added in, later in time(?) I also wonder if there are police records of that, immediately following. Of course it's possible that CJ, in a panic, may have blurted that out-but also mighty risky to reveal a clue like that. I must say I do waffle on it, but have to consider it's maybe being one of JFC's embellishments.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 7, 2006 15:17:52 GMT -5
Mairi, you raise a very interesting point. At this stage, I'm pretty sure the "vould I burn?" question from CJ was mentioned by Condon in the post-Woodlawn debriefing at his Decatur Ave. house to Lindbergh and Breckinridge. And I don't think Irey was there this early in the process. Maybe someone else can confirm.
I've probably wrestled as much over this potential "revelation" as any other aspect of the case. What I feel it distills down to is that firstly, the baby was indeed dead by March 12, but that the original kidnapping plan did not intend for this to happen. And that the kidnapping was designed to be a low key event, a "quick snatch and live return" with no police or press involvement. This to me comes out loud and clear within the nursery note instructions and followup letters chastising Lindbergh for calling the police.
To follow this thread, I also believe that ultimate death of the baby was accidental and not intended in the original plan. And that CJ's "admission" shortly after the meeting began, indicates it was of a significant enough factor in allowing him to gain some mental and emotional comfort in proceeding with the negotiations. It seems apparent to me that Condon's reaction kind of derailed any further possibility of CJ being additionally forthcoming and CJ was able to swtch gears seamlessly into the role of self-professed go-between only.
I also note this same kind of reaction in Agent Turrou's later account of Hauptmann testing the waters for leniency if he confessed. When advised by Turrou this was up to Schwarzkopf, Hauptmann terminated the exchange and apparently never went back. (I believe Hauptmann was CJ)
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 7, 2006 16:46:05 GMT -5
Thanks, Joe~ Have read two versions of Jafsie's response to the "Would I burn" question. One goes that he quickly refuted it himself with something like" No, the baby is alive and well" (which makes me wonder if JFC was pulling from the ransom note reassurances and is convinced that CJ is only a go-between). Another version has more to the exchange-and I don't know which is valid-if either. I, too, lean toward the quick snatch /swap/no police formula-and that the child's death was probably accidental. IF (big if)we find that Nosovitsky was the perp and was a revenge thing, then I might reconsider it's being accidental. You and I are on different pages as to Hauptmann's involvement. Regarding any testing about confession, I think I've only seen one brief or vague ref to that. Even then I can consider it's being a consideration of his wife and child and the belief that if he can only live he can prove his innocence. I believe his witnesses as to where he was on important dates. I don't believe Anna Hauptmann lied. What do you make of Jafsie's resistance in ID-ing BRH?
|
|
|
Post by rick for joe on Dec 8, 2006 6:59:01 GMT -5
Thanks Mairi~It should make a terrific dart board! John is a great guy and wife Barb too. My signed Master Detective is treasured.
Joe--it was completely out of character for CAL to bend or cowtow to the demands of anyone in the LKC. Early on he threatened to shoot any cops that disobeyed his orders? Later he told Mulrooney of NYCP that he would get him fired if he surrounded St. Raymonds or tailed Jafsie? Strong language and threats.
So....what power/leverage did Irey bring over CAL. Its not obvious to me what it is or why CAL needed Irey to pay the ransom? The money may not have been officially "marked" but Gold Certs ended up being easy to spot! Why didnt CAL send Irey packing? Did Irey know something we dont?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 8, 2006 7:49:34 GMT -5
I am quite sure Lindy pulled this with just about everyone. Most would cave fearing expulsion and/or negative repercussions of having crossed CAL. Here we have someone who wasn't backing down. I personally believe CAL feared the perception of the situation. Everyone wanted to run the investigation but the Treasury Agency was merely another 2nd fiddle. If they walked away because of CAL's conduct it wouldn't look so good and honestly they didn't seem to care if they did. Their most recent success had them smelling like a rose and they had other matters to deal with in which they were #1.
We also have to remember these Federal Agencies were basically independent of one another. It wasn't until sometime in late '33 the President made the FBI the 'hub' for all the Federal forces assisting with the investigation.
I can think of a reason he would.
|
|
|
Post by rick for michael on Dec 8, 2006 8:38:32 GMT -5
The risk to CJohn is huge. He meets with Condon not once but twice? [in the Constance Morrow kidnap threat--a money drop was used] What assurance does CJ have that CAL, Jafsie or the NYSP wont double cross him? None that we can tell? So CJ knows some information that makes it safe for him to go pickup the dough. Even if Charlie Jr. is already tot. Maybe CJ knows something about Condon. One reason for CAL to pay is the threat of blackmail.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 8, 2006 10:10:15 GMT -5
Probably no more than uncertainty given his age and mental state, the two and a half years of time passed since his encounter with CJ and the confusion, circumstances and presentation of Hauptmann at the police lineup. To me, Condon's withholding an identity is consistent with his oft-stated respect for the underdog and he had no intentions of "piling on" for the sake of simply satisfying investigators if he wasn't absolutely certain. Some will always say he was coerced into identifying Hauptmann by Wilentz or others and certainly he would have felt the pressure, but I believe he came to realize Hauptmann really was the man.
I think Michael's response about the reasons for Irey's position and resolve really hits the nail on the head, but that the perception that CAL was pulling all of the strings everywhere too often becomes a critical black or white bullet to support other suspicions and agendas.
My personal read is that Lindbergh deep down, felt it was his responsibility to take on this ultimate single-minded mission to bring about the safe return of his son. This because someone had broken into his home, taken his child, and so that individual had affronted him personally and directly. He had no hesitation in immediately notifying the police because he realized a crime had been committed, but chose to deal with the kidnappers directly as many families of kidnapping victims had chosen to do before him.
Despite Lindbergh's disdain for excessive public adulation for his Atlantic flight, I think his perceived pedestal position in the eyes of the American people had seriously affected his judgment in the kidnapping case. I think he probably believed that with enough planning and support from a few close allies, he could "land in Paris" again by accomplishing the safe return of Charlie.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 8, 2006 13:32:34 GMT -5
Is not risk taking consistent throughout this case? Is it not the ultimate risk to drive to Highfields on a cold windy night and kidnap one the most famous babies in the world from one of the most famous icons of the day with a houseful of people on a lightweight ladder? What of storing Lindbergh ransom notes in an a rather unsecured garage? How about spending those notes in the vicinity of "ground zero"? Who is it that seems to have a history of taking such risks without the benefit of careful preparation?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Dec 8, 2006 21:05:03 GMT -5
Condon is the only source to know anything of CJ . Seeing the light 3-4 years later to me is not enough. What is it that makes us believe Hauptmann is CJ? Is it the 5'8'' 160 lbs ?Is it the deep voice? or is it the hacking cough and enlarged thumb? What we have is nothing other than assumption. I am not falling into the group that accepts Condon level minded when condemning Condon and distorted when he shows doubt. We even had a family member on these boards that felt he led the family to believe he could not be sure. There are countless accounts that Condon expressed doubts. Yet it is this man alone that we profile CJ and mysteriously equate it with Hauptmann's personality.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Dec 8, 2006 21:07:37 GMT -5
condemning Hauptmann
sorry
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 8, 2006 22:38:32 GMT -5
Gary, I can't agree completely with this. As Rick pointed out we know by the very nature of the meetings that CJ was a man capable of taking great risks. The location of the meetings and the method of direction also provides us with information about CJ.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Dec 8, 2006 23:57:21 GMT -5
I have no doubt there was great risk in this crime. How that points specifically to Hauptmann and confirms he is CJ is what I don't understand one can do. IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 9, 2006 0:36:56 GMT -5
-Another from Siglinde-
J. Elmer Moore (young neighbor of CAL who saw car on night of snatch).
Here's an example to demonstrate what I've written above:
Schwarzkopf requested that Irey attend the May '32 conference to which Irey acquiesced by sending Wilson instead of attending himself.
As far as the question of risk(s)....
I agree risks were taken, but were these risks calculated or just insanity? Was Hauptmann, for example, completely crazy? Would CJ sit and chat with Condon for over an hour without some sort of confidence he could escape? What would give him this confidence? Same goes for the 'snatch.' Was it reckless abandon or was there a plan developed?
For my money someone who is completely flying by the seat of their pants may get lucky once....rarely twice....but no way time after time after time again and again and again.
I think what we see is exemplified is nerve and guts - not suicide or a deathwish - which leads us to what logical conclusion?
|
|
|
Post by rick for michael on Dec 9, 2006 7:31:57 GMT -5
Well there are a couple possibilities:
1. Either veryone involved already knows that Charlie Jr is dead (eg thats why we are only asking for a sleeping suite)?
OR
2. Theres is no possible way to get caught or arrested? Because CAL and/or Condon need to prevent that?
3. We still arent certain who is CJ: BRH/Fisch/Nosovitsky?
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Dec 9, 2006 7:56:43 GMT -5
1. Either veryone involved already knows that Charlie Jr is dead (eg thats why we are only asking for a sleeping suite)? (Rick) I'm confused. I didn't realize that Lindbergh and his team were asking for the sleeping suit (or "suite"). I thought it was the kidnapper(s) that decided on their own to send that.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 9, 2006 8:27:51 GMT -5
Ok, let's say that CJ is not Hauptmann, that's fine with me. What I am saying, though, is that whoever it was, he was certainly a man capable of undertaking enormous risk. And his ability to mitigate that risk was somewhat limited. I mean, he was capable of planning, but only to a certain extent. For example, the method of directing Condon to the meetings was obviously intended to prevent any sort of preemptive police action. On the other hand, a determined police "tail" on Condon and the readiness of a strike force may have resulted in a capture of CJ. Or how about a substitute for Condon? I am sure the NYPD could find a big Irish cop who somewhat resembled Condon. What it boils down to is this; CJ was a risk taker with a limited ability to plan , a trait that seems perfectly compatible with Hauptmann. Or CJ was really not taking such a risk with his cemetery meetings and therefore had little reason to plan or fear. IMHO
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 9, 2006 9:54:58 GMT -5
I think my point is this:
Unless this party at Woodlawn and St. Raymond's (if they were the same person) is armed with some kind of insider knowledge then they are operating with complete disregard for their own safety. I don't believe they would have been successful at any stage...most especially the actual kidnapping....if this was their methodology.
Obviously it wasn't.
The ladder itself, as Kevin has proven to me, shows a high level of planning and fore-thought, therefore, I can't accept this level of preparation on one hand only to be completely disregarded in order to explain away what would amount to lack of preparation by assigning or chalking this up to a generic form of the word "risk."
So what I see is a level of risk - certainly - but a group that is prepared - therefore - they have taken steps to minimize the risk. For me the irresistible conclusion is a member of the gang knew one or more on the inside who was providing them information.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 9, 2006 10:48:06 GMT -5
I think it was a growing and workable sense of trust, albeit fragile, that developed from the beginning between CJ and Lindbergh & company. And it was this sense of trust that was able to overcome any potential threat of double crossing by either side at any given point in the negotiations.
In the accepted scenario, we understand CJ was stringing Lindbergh along the entire course of events. But through his actions, he also succeeded in achieving trust by continually playing up to Lindbergh's respect for acting upon a given plan - answering Condon's plea to the kidnappers in the Bronx Home News, calling him within a specified timeframe, meeting twice as pre-arranged, providing repeated assurance the baby was being fed well per the Lindbergh diet request, sending the sleepingsuit as proof they had the child.
Lindbergh responded by expressing through Condon's classified messages and discussions with CJ, that he was willing to play by the requested rules and deal discreetly with no police or press involvement. Lindbergh's word obviously meant something of significance to CJ.
In my opinion, because of the obvious degree of risk involved, there was a constant need on the part of CJ to keep this sense of trust alive in Lindbergh's mind to be able to overcome any hesitation he might normally have felt as things escalated towards his payoff at St. Raymond's. Perhaps some of the negotiations process delays might also be explained by the continuous need on the part of CJ to regain comfort in proceeding to the next step.
Despite any of this possibly being true, in my estimation CJ still showed more nerve, daring and determination than would seem humanly possible as well as a heart almost devoid of true human compassion.
|
|