|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 11, 2012 15:42:38 GMT -5
I have a question about the $20,000 in gold certificates Condon "heroically" convinced Cemetery John to do without.
What I'd like to know is this: Is there any documentation or evidence that the package containing that money was opened during Condon/CJ's ransom exchange? Is there any evidence that Condon returned the package to Lindbergh (or whomever he handed it back to) open? Or was the package intact and as it was when the ransom was prepared?
I realize it wasn't necessary for the package to have been opened. Am I correct in assuming Condon knew exactly what was in the package when he went into the ransom exchange? Did he know the denomination of the bills in that package? Did he know the denominations of ANY of the currency? Did he know the serials were recorded?
I'm assuming he did know. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But if he knew, then obviously he was in a position to say to Cemetery John, "Listen…the extra money is large bills. The serials were recorded. You pass this stuff, you'll get caught. The small bills, meh…but the big stuff, no good."
What is the likelihood he said that to Cemetery John, but lied about it to look like a hero? Jafsie could certainly withstand a tongue lashing from Elmer Irey about it.
But then, of course, the next question would be: Why would he want to protect Cemetery John? The easiest answer is he didn't want to, and I'm just wrong. But if he did say that to Cemetery John, then why?
I think a few people here claimed the ransom wasn't meant to be exchanged in the first place. I'm only now beginning to understand why that might have been so. But with Condon involved, he had to hand over the ransom, or else things would look far too suspicious. Even Lindbergh's most ardent sycophants would have to wonder why kidnappers would turn down an entire ransom.
Am I in the right ball park about this? Jd
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 12, 2012 11:22:23 GMT -5
What they did was wrap the money is a "special" paper which could be identified later. Likewise with the cord used. The 50K was bundled then wrapped together, and the extra 20K was wrapped separately. Since the box was designed only for the 50K, the 70K was too large for the box and when forced inside it broke the box so the box itself had to be tied with the cord.
According to Condon, he convinced John to reduce the amount so Condon returned to the car then informed CAL they would accept 50K. Condon gave CAL the box and he removed the 20K, then handed the box with the 50K back to him. CAL in his Statement says Condon told him to remove the 20K.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 12, 2012 13:40:59 GMT -5
Just a minor point, but the box would have held the 70k if it had not been wrapped and bound.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 12, 2012 15:32:03 GMT -5
Michael,
With all due respect, I'm not sure you answered my questions. I'm particularly interested in knowing if Condon knew precisely what the packages contained before the exchange.
Did he know the serial numbers were recorded? Did he know the $20,000 contained larger bills...bills that were probably easier to spot?
Jd
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Aug 12, 2012 18:26:07 GMT -5
I think a few people here claimed the ransom wasn't meant to be exchanged in the first place. I'm only now beginning to understand why that might have been so. If you don't mind, why do you think the ransom wasn't meant to be exchanged? I am always interested to hear people's thoughts on the case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 13, 2012 8:21:06 GMT -5
No doubt in my mind. He told Inspector Walsh that you could tell what the bill denominations were without breaking open the bundles by looking at the edges. Additionally, Agent Seery wrote that Condon would be able to "testify" that in his presence CAL removed the package of "fifty dollar bills" amounting to 20K.
These FBI Reports about what someone could testify to were very specific concerning what they actually knew at the time or it wouldn't be included.
I am certain of it. He was a fly on the wall concerning any/all meetings - especially concerning the ransom money.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 13, 2012 12:54:07 GMT -5
Michael and Kevin can probably do a better job explaining it, but if nobody objects, I'd like to say what my theory is.
Why do I think the ransom wasn't meant to be paid? Well, from my perspective, this applies only if the kidnapping were a hoax, and Lindbergh were in on it.
Let's say for discussion--even if you don't agree--that the death of the child was an inside job. The three common theories that advocate this:
1. Lindbergh did it, either by accident via another practical joke or prank, or deliberately. 2. Dwight Morrow, Jr. did it. 3. Elisabeth Morrow did it.
Okay…back in 1932, when there weren't 100 cable channels plus the Internet, the media would have chewed up Lindbergh and spit him out in a saliva-covered pulp. So, he had to cover up the death of the child to save his and his family's face. It's not entirely dissimilar to the Watergate cover-up with Nixon's presidency vulnerable.
So, Lindbergh--either by himself or with some sort of help--concocts a false kidnapping to draw attention away from the actual perpetrator(s) of the crime.
Things get way, way, way out of control, despite the appearance of Lindbergh being in full control. Lindbergh being in control is simply DAMAGE control. He has to keep things as far away from himself and his family as possible. How does he do that? By having everyone around Highfields. It's called hiding in plain sight.
Things begin to go out of control by bringing in the gangsters. The gangsters see the ransom note, and take copies with them. That leads to the possibility of forgeries. According to these theories, that is precisely what happened. Subsequent ransom notes were forged, if you believe the theories.
Enter John C. Condon and his infamous letter in the Bronx Home News. That opens up an industrial size can of worms. Why? Because the "kidnappers" respond to it and agree to let him be go-between. Of course, if you subscribe to one of these theories, you know it CAN'T be a real kidnapper. It's an extortionist; perhaps someone who forged one or some or all of the subsequent ransom notes.
Condon's involvement screws everything up. Now, Lindbergh and his cronies have to deal with Condon and whomever the supposed kidnappers are. By now, they're in too deep into the cover-up.
Or, perhaps Condon is precisely who Lindbergh WANTS in the hoax. It's practically impossible to say. Lindbergh may have thought Condon was the type of buffoon who would do anything he said. Hell, Schwarzkopf certainly was!
Anyway, here's the important part: Contact has now been made with the extortionists. Lindbergh knows they aren't the kidnappers/murderers. If the extortionists are given the ransom money, and they get caught, then innocent people will be put to death, or at least put away for the rest of their lives. Okay, granted, they aren't COMPLETELY innocent, but they aren't guilty of kidnapping or murder. They are just con artists, like Gaston Means. What they are doing is heinous, but not electric chair-worthy. So, the best way to get out of this predicament, save innocent lives, and keep the cover-up afloat, is to find a way not to exchange the ransom. Lindbergh knows they don't have his son, so he can simply say, "Screw you bastards, you aren't getting the money." What are the extortionists going to do? Call the police? Lindbergh should have said to them, "I want proof you have the boy. Send me his fingerprints." He didn't. He accepted a clean set of Dr. Denton jammies that could be purchased pretty much anywhere. He didn't ask to see the boy's fingerprints because he knew the extortionists didn't HAVE the kid.
But he should have, because that would have been the easiest way to hold back the ransom. By not getting prints, he could have said, "I'm not dealing with the real kidnappers." The extortionists couldn't say anything, Lindbergh could claim he was dealing with another set of hoaxsters, and he could prevent people from being jailed or executed.
That's why I think the ransom money was never meant to be exchanged…assuming there was a hoax. If Lindbergh had been dealing with the real kidnappers, though, then obviously holding back ransom money would have been more dangerous. If he had insisted on seeing the fingerprints, the kidnappers could have said, "We are doing this OUR way. You don't like it, your son dies." They would have gotten the ransom. Perhaps Lindbergh knew, or sensed, however, the boy was already dead. He could have said, "No, I'm Charles Lindbergh, and we are doing this MY way." The boy is dead, and he'd still have his ransom money. The problem with THAT is, of course, that without the ransom exchange, he would not be able to see the killers of his boy meet justice.
So, in conclusion, I feel that the ransom was not meant to be exchanged, IF Lindbergh knew who killed his son, or if he did it. It would ensure nobody got hurt. But…that didn't happen, did it?
Jd
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 13, 2012 13:14:24 GMT -5
First off, anyone that objects to an opinion shouldn't be on a forum. your thoughts are as good as anyone. Second, I don't even try to explain anything that involves one J. Condon. That's not to say that I think he a criminal, just a loon. Of course in the LKC even loons are not really loons
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 13, 2012 14:29:16 GMT -5
JD, assuming he as involved, what're your thoughts on Lindbergh's motives for concocting a false kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 13, 2012 15:33:36 GMT -5
First of all, let me say I have one major problem believing the kidnapping was a hoax. That problem is this: If it was a hoax, then who built the ladder? When and where was it built? Did Lindbergh build it himself? If so, when and where? Did he himself put the ladder up against the house? When did he do that? If he didn't do it, then who did, and how much could Lindbergh trust that person?
Anyway, to keep this brief, my guess is if it were a hoax, and if Lindbergh did concoct a false kidnapping, it was to save himself and his family from embarrassment, not to mention incarceration.
Lindbergh was still one of the most famous and beloved men in the world, even five years after his historic flight.
The scandal would be beyond devastating to him and his family.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 13, 2012 22:08:41 GMT -5
Right, but my question is, what scandal would you be referring to?
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 14, 2012 10:53:00 GMT -5
Seriously? What scandal? The most famous man on the planet? One of the most beloved heroes in the entire history of mankind? Implicated in the death of his own son?
I certainly hope your question was a rhetorical one. Jd
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 14, 2012 15:17:02 GMT -5
Uh, well, seriously, what I'm asking is, seriously, in what way, seriously, would Lindbergh have seriously been implicated in the death of his son (rhetorically speaking, of course)?
|
|
|
Post by GaryB on Aug 14, 2012 16:33:06 GMT -5
In my earliest days of reading the case I thought Charles had a chance to be involved. The longer I reflected upon it the more I found it hard to believe. If the child died one way or another in their care why not just say the child fell out of bed. They would have believed him. These things happen all the time. A kidnapping investigation only brings them into the public eye ( which he hated) more and beyond a tragic accident.
With that said the view Charles Lindbergh involved is certainly one to consider one time or another when you study the case. I mean the things he did were strange.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 14, 2012 16:54:50 GMT -5
Gary, I don't believe it's that simple. First of all, there is no way of knowing if Lindbergh panicked. Not likely, I admit, but not totally beyond the scope of comprehension.
Secondly, there's no guarantee "they" would have believed him. The public, yeah. The media...maybe, maybe not. Law enforcement, maybe, maybe not.
If LE were required to conduct an investigation, it could have been disastrous. I mean, look at how disastrous their investigation of Violet Sharpe was. And that was with a chief of police who was a total Lindbergh sycophant (Schwarzkopf).
Can you imagine what would have happened if Lindbergh had said to the police, "My son fell out of his crib and died," and LE responded with, "We'll see about that."
Not likely, but not wholly implausible. Too risky to take that chance.
Instead, Lindbergh hid in plain sight, allowing police and media pretty much to live at Highfields during the initial investigation.
I still believe the main obstacle to believing Lindbergh perpetrated a hoax is the inability to figure out where the hell the damned ladder came from. Who built it? Where? When? How?
Another reason I have trouble with the hoax theory is that Lindbergh would have had to confide in someone close to him. I can't envision a scenario in which he was the only person who knew about the hoax. That would mean HE built the ladder, and HE wrote the ransom notes. Again...where? When?
A confidant had to be in on it. And that brings up this question: Was the confidant, or were the confidants, so loyal to Lindbergh that they would allow an innocent man to be executed in the electric chair? Would they have kept silent their entire lives, even long after Hauptmann was put to death?
The more confidants you have, the less control you have over what they say, where they say it, and when they say it.
But on the other hand, who knows...maybe Lindbergh DID have that sort of loyalty from people. Maybe they had no problems whatsoever with some illegal immigrant with a criminal record fry.
Jd
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 14, 2012 19:33:30 GMT -5
For me I believe CAL would think this would make him look negligent and unable to properly care for his own child. A kidnapping would exempt him from such scrutiny. After the kidnapping, CAL was loved even more then he was prior.
|
|