|
Post by Michael on Aug 14, 2013 20:51:12 GMT -5
If this event was part of a joke it would have to be the mother of all pranks gone wrong. Lindbergh would have somehow gotten outside help for it. So if we substitute this help to account for the ladder, note, and hand-off - then, as A&M suggested - Lindbergh would go outside then return with the child. The gone wrong part would be the "help" duping him by following it up with an extortion.
Frankly, I don't see Lindbergh calling the Police under any circumstance knowing his personality as I believe I do. However, after they are called it works out perfectly for him by dove-tailing with it exactly as it must. The FBI stray, but Lindbergh uses his influence to smack them back in line.
Regardless, he called - the big question for me is "why?" Hindsight being 20/20 as it is what was the point in doing so?
|
|
|
Post by john on Aug 15, 2013 0:04:00 GMT -5
Indeed, 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, Michael, but it's of little help in solving the Lindbergh conundrum, and I do think that Lindbergh is the proverbial elephant in the living room in the LKC whatever role his role in it was. Ahlgren & Monier's thesis never fails to draw me in whenever I read or browse their book. I especially like their analysis of Lindbergh's post-Hauptmann execution behavior, with his visits to Germany, his views on race and, especially, genetics (as the field was defined as of seventy plus years ago); and his "warning" to American Jews in his famous Des Moines (sp?) speech, carried on national radio, which his family begged him not to deliver. Viewed symbolically, from more of a Jungian than Freudian perspective, he was essentially siding with the "tribe" of which the convicted murderer of his son was a member, clearly in conflict with and opposed to the actions and well being of the "tribe" of the man who successfully prosecuted the case against that man.
A & M do more than their fair share armchair psychoanalyzing, but as I see it, WTF, so did Dudley Schonfeld and a lot of other people regarding the kidnapper prior to Hauptmann's arrest, and to Hauptmann after his arrest. Why should we back off from doing same to Lindbergh. He was known for his sadistic pranks, and he was known for his hiding his own son as a prank on his family and household staff. His "tough love" treatment of little Charlie has been well documented, to which should be added, in all fairness to Lindbergh, such behavior wasn't too far from the norm back in the day.
What has all this to do with the title of this thread? I know I've gone far afield from it, but then again maybe not. How the ransom payment went down and, more to the point, why, is a question worth pondering. Could it be that Lindbergh, while on the surface paying a ransom to get his son safely retutned to his family was in fact paying for services rendered? Before laughing this off as yet another crackpot theory it's worth taking into account Lindbergh's second family in Germany, a fact, at the other end of the spectrum, and again, ask the question "why?". Charles Lindbergh was a man of enornous complexity and contradictions, and given his fondness for pulling the wool over people's eyes I don't think that the possibility that he was a player in the kidnapping of his son (whom he may well not have wanted killed, not consciously anyway) has to be taken into account. The wild card in all this is John Condon. My sense is that he foolishly stumbled into the case via his Bronx Home News piece, though he may have been tipped off, got wind of something being "up" in the Bronx that was Lindbergh kidnapping related.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2013 16:29:11 GMT -5
I have often wondered this myself. If Charlie going missing was an arranged event then it would have been necessary to call. It should have been part of the plan. It was supposed to be a kidnapping and involving the police would validate this. I think it suggests that Lindbergh had no idea what the ransom note said since he did call before ever opening it. If Lindbergh was of the understanding that there was only going to be the nursery note then there was no urgency to open it. Establishing that a kidnapping had taken place was the priority.
If this was truly a legitimate kidnapping, I would think (hope!) that Lindbergh would have opened that note immediately. That would have been the normal reaction of a father who finds his son missing and there is a note left in the room. He then would have had the option not to call the police and handle it privately. I would see this as being his preferred response. He hated having the media involved in anything personal. He would have tried to get his son back quietly and quickly.........if this were a real kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by mkeaten on Aug 16, 2013 3:39:47 GMT -5
Michael. You're right. Under normal circumstances, Lindbergh would have never had called the police, but he had to put a dog and pony show on for the one person who would never be drawn into the conspiracy. His wife. Once the police arrived, especially my grandfather, knew something was wrong about the whole thing. And after Lindbergh took control of the investigation, which was pretty much right away, Buster felt that the police were there more in the capacity of witnesses and not investigators. That's why Lindbergh had to be present at questionings, and was able to order the police not to follow him to the ransom drop (Which is another story entirely).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 16, 2013 17:27:28 GMT -5
Michael. You're right. Under normal circumstances, Lindbergh would have never had called the police, but he had to put a dog and pony show on for the one person who would never be drawn into the conspiracy. His wife. Once the police arrived, especially my grandfather, knew something was wrong about the whole thing. And after Lindbergh took control of the investigation, which was pretty much right away, Buster felt that the police were there more in the capacity of witnesses and not investigators. That's why Lindbergh had to be present at questionings, and was able to order the police not to follow him to the ransom drop (Which is another story entirely). Answers the question doesn't it? And we get it from someone who was not only there - but the most knowledgeable about the case. Witnesses, observers, and official representation to validate history (as its been written). Fortunately, unofficially and/or over time certain information becomes known.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2013 20:43:41 GMT -5
A quick question about the ransom payment. When Lindbergh finally agreed to the recording of the serial numbers of the bills that would be used to pay the ransom, Agent Irey from the Treasury wanted at least half the ransom paid in gold certificates. The ransom amount that was being assembled was $70,000. Do we know for sure how much of the $70,000 was in gold certificates? Was it actually half?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 24, 2013 21:45:54 GMT -5
A quick question about the ransom payment. When Lindbergh finally agreed to the recording of the serial numbers of the bills that would be used to pay the ransom, Agent Irey from the Treasury wanted at least half the ransom paid in gold certificates. The ransom amount that was being assembled was $70,000. Do we know for sure how much of the $70,000 was in gold certificates? Was it actually half? Believe it or not, J.P. Morgan actually assembled Ransom Money at various times during the negotiations. They actually prepared $190,000 in total over the course of the negotiations. The amount which was eventually paid to Cemetery John was "made up" on March 23rd. $20,000 in 20 dollar GOLD notes. (1000) $5,000 in 20 dollar FEDERAL RESERVE notes. (250) $14,980 in 10 dollar GOLD notes. (1498) $20 in 10 dollar FEDERAL RESERVE notes. (2) $10,000 in 5 dollar FEDERAL RESERVE note. (2000) 2252 Federal Reserve Notes 2498 Gold Notes The $20,000 in 50s... I don't think I've ever looked into that before (or I have forgotten) and so far all my sources are simply referring to them as "Fifty Dollar Bills."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2013 16:17:46 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for the breakdown of the ransom money. CJ did receive a bit more than half in gold certificates, just $20 shy of $35,000. From what I have been able to figure so far only about $19,050 in gold certificates was accounted for. I believe that $14,600 of that amount was from Hauptmann's garage plus the $20 gold note he had with him when apprehended.
The ransom packet that contained the $50 dollar bills remained with Lindbergh never being paid out. I don't feel that CJ really wanted it. This amount was only added because of the need to secure a go-between and CJ wanted to be able to compensate this person for their efforts.
How much money did Lindbergh actually receive back after the trial was over?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 25, 2013 20:26:03 GMT -5
How much money did Lindbergh actually receive back after the trial was over? Col. Charles A. Lindbergh last week had $14,665 deposited to his account at the Bankers Trust Company, New York. The ransom-money found in the Hauptmann garage in 1934 had been held until now as evidence by the State of New Jersey. At the request of Prosecutor Anthony H. Hauck this money will be kept in a special bundle by the Treasury Department to be used if an accomplice of Hauptmann ever should be arrested and tried. "This does not mean that I anticipate a reopening of the case," said Mr. Hauck.(The Literary Digest, June 20, 1936)
|
|
|
Post by corrine on Oct 24, 2013 2:28:42 GMT -5
Seems like CJ knew cemeteries pretty well. I think what needs to be looked at is when Dr Condon hands over the money to CJ. At St.Raymonds Condon wants proof of where the baby is. Cemetery John leaves and then returns 13 minutes later with the note, saying the baby is on the Boad Nelly. Where did CJ go for those 13 minutes? He must of lived very close is my guess. The cemetery was very dark at 9:00 pm. Maybe he lived walking distance threw St. Raymonds and went back to his own house to write the note. Did nypd ever check out people who lived walking distance from St Raymonds Cemetery.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 25, 2013 14:06:06 GMT -5
Seems like CJ knew cemeteries pretty well. I think what needs to be looked at is when Dr Condon hands over the money to CJ. At St.Raymonds Condon wants proof of where the baby is. Cemetery John leaves and then returns 13 minutes later with the note, saying the baby is on the Boad Nelly. Where did CJ go for those 13 minutes? He must of lived very close is my guess. The cemetery was very dark at 9:00 pm. Maybe he lived walking distance threw St. Raymonds and went back to his own house to write the note. Did nypd ever check out people who lived walking distance from St Raymonds Cemetery. Good observation Corrine. Condon himself told the Special Agent Seykora he was familiar with BOTH Cemeteries. He also told the NJSP John said: " ....I will have to talk to my partners and he went off to two men standing in the background some distance off and he came back and said all right if you you will promise not to open this for two hours I will give you a letter telling you where the baby is..." While I see no evidence they interviewed door to door, they were interested in the local environment to include those living in the surrounding area. What I know they did do was rely heavily on the Post Office and Local Carriers for information of this sort as well as the Phone Directories. If they found something interesting they would usually follow it up. For example, their main focus appeared to be on the Cemetery Employees. They obtained a complete list of both past and present employment rolls for anyone who had worked for them. In one report I have I see they (checked) the name "James Mulvey" which shows they were cross referencing names that had surfaced in previous investigations. My guess is they were interested to see if this was the same guy or a relative.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 25, 2013 18:11:52 GMT -5
Wait wait wait... Condon said that when he met CJ for the second time, at St. Raymond's, there were two other men present? Never heard that before.
|
|
|
Post by corrine on Oct 25, 2013 19:29:50 GMT -5
At St Raymonds Cemetery when the ransom money was dropped off--I dont remember reading about two men standing in the background some distance off. WOW I dont recall that part at all. I read cemetery John left walked threw the cemetery and returned 13 to 15 minutes later with the note the boy was on boad nelly. Also read of a man and a young girl near the cemetery on Tremont Ave. I would love to see that list of employees that work at St. Raymonds.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Oct 26, 2013 11:44:15 GMT -5
Also read of a man and a young girl near the cemetery on Tremont Ave. I would love to see that list of employees that work at St. Raymonds. Does anyone have a description of what the little girl looked like??
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 26, 2013 18:21:41 GMT -5
Wait wait wait... Condon said that when he met CJ for the second time, at St. Raymond's, there were two other men present? Never heard that before. This comes from the May 18th Police Conference. I have the complete document but the important part is on Ronelle's site: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/mayconference.htmlIt causes a major problem for those who often allege there is no evidence that Hauptmann had help. They also need Condon to be honest and truthful. The usual "forgetfulness" explanation does not work for remembered facts - only those which may have been forgotten. So this paints them into a corner for which there is no escape. At St Raymonds Cemetery when the ransom money was dropped off--I dont remember reading about two men standing in the background some distance off. WOW I dont recall that part at all. I read cemetery John left walked threw the cemetery and returned 13 to 15 minutes later with the note the boy was on boad nelly. Also read of a man and a young girl near the cemetery on Tremont Ave. I would love to see that list of employees that work at St. Raymonds. I wish I could upload it for you Corrine. This Report is (11) pages long and I am missing one page myself. (It could be its missing at the Archives but its possible the I accidentally skipped it when I was making a copy. I seem to remember it was an onion skin copy, and if I am right then I am probably to blame for its omission). Does anyone have a description of what the little girl looked like?? I don't remember any but I could make a check for you if you are interested.
|
|
|
Post by john on Oct 27, 2013 2:29:54 GMT -5
Odd thing about ransom payment that struck me recently: given that the ransom demand went from 50K to 75K due to need for extra help to care for the baby, or so CJ claimed, this same (so-called) frightened (so-called, or so he said) minor player was able to quickly accept Condon's late reduction of ransom payment back to 50K. I find this very odd considering how much more money we're talking about in today's dollars.
The amount of the ransom was to begin with low according to experts at the time from what I've read. It was a big job, would, it was speculated, have more likely cost Lindbergh more than 100K, even 250 or more. The rise of the demand at the same is peculiar in that if the child was dead and CJ & Associates knew this, why raise the price (fuh cryin' out loud!) given the trouble they already would have been in if caught. Or was that the reason?
Is it possible that CJ bungled, that Mr. Big ordered little Charlie, heretofore healthy and in good care, killed due to reduction of payment for already exceedingly risky crime? Just pondering. This is an issue that I haven't seen discussed much on Lindy forums: the rising of the price the kidnappers were demanding, the quick willingness to accept much less. Does this smell of extortion? As opposed to kidnapping, I mean.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2013 15:27:01 GMT -5
Interesting post John. Increasing the ransom from $50,000 to $70,000 occurs in the very first mailed ransom note received at Highfields on March 5. They say that because they will have to take another person to it(go-between) and because they will have to hold Charlie longer they are adding an additional $20,000 to the ransom amount. Perhaps the kidnappers felt they(actually Lindbergh) would have to pay the go-between for his services?
I am posting something here that appears on Ronelle's hoax board. It involves Condon and St. Raymond's cemetery. It comes from a statement given by Special Officer Bernard Uebel who was working from St. Raymonds cemetery. It states the following:
At 12-55 P.M. April 14th, 1932 we interviewed Bernard Uebel of 116 Swinton Avenue, special officer in St. Raymond's Cemetery badge 1097. He stated that on April 1st, 1932, about 1-30 P.M. he saw a dark complexioned man with three or four others get out of a maroon sedan on Whittemore Avenue and St. Raymond's Cemetery (where ransom money is alleged to have been passed as pictured and mentioned in the newspapers). He stated that said men walked around as if they were looking for someone, they stayed about three or four hours and then drove away...(omit) Description of dark complexioned man:- Apparently an Italian....
Uebel further stated that on April 2nd, at about 2-30 P.M. while operating a cement mixer, he observed Dr. Condon park his auto at section 5 on Whittemore Avenue (same location as others parked on previous day) with a man driving him, car was faced east. Both alighted from car and Dr. Condon walked over to a Ford touring car, painted Green, no license obtainable, with side curtains drawn, containing several men, said car having driven up after Dr. Condon's and they parked behind his auto on Whittemore Avenue, facing south. Dr. Condon talked to them a few minutes and rejoined his friend, they both walked south on Whittemore Avenue, in the meantime the gree [sic] touring car with men, turned about and drove away. When Dr. Condon and friend reached section 8, Dr. Condon left him, walked across Balcom Avenue into marshes, then walked in an easterly direction in marshes alongside of ditch for about four city blocks, then came out at a red barn in the cemetery, rejoined his friend in section 8, walked back to his parked car taking a course on the inside of the hedge, parallel to Whittemore Avenue. His friend got into the automobile but Dr. Condon walked to Ford touring car which had again parked in same place. Dr. Condon took a large white envelope out of his pocket and handed it to an occupant of said automobile. He then walked back to his car and got in it with his friend, backed up and drove north on Wittemore Avenue toward E. Tremont Avenue and Ford, T.C. followed. Uebel stated that he was on a mixer about three hundred yards from parked automobile and he observed everything that took place as he had field glasses with him. He also stated that he spoke to Dr. Condon as he passed, as he knew him, Uebel could not describe Condon's friend or any occupant of the Ford, .....(omit)
Uebel stated that at about 7-45 A.M. Monday April 11th, 1932 he saw the maroon automobile again, no license number obtainable, drive up and park on Whittemore Avenue, at the same location, with same dark complexioned man sitting alongside the driver. He observed the dark complexioned man walk to a box-wood bush in the rear of 3254 E. Tremont Avenue,. which is about 75 feet west of Whittemore Avenue, reach into bush, take out a box and put it under his coat, go back to automobile and drive away.
I believe that Michael posted this on Ronelle's hoax board. I have never seen this in any book I have read so far. Michael, was Condon ever asked about any of claims made in this statement? Was Officer Uebel discredited somehow? I just don't know what to make of this.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 27, 2013 18:37:08 GMT -5
John, I think it does smell of extortion, though maybe not quite the kind we would assume. First, it's interesting that $50K was the same amount stipulated in a kidnap threat made against one of Lindbergh's sisters-in-law a few years prior to the LKC. That may've been just a coincidence, but, at any rate, since it was such a low amount, I think $50K was a just a handy, nominal, throwaway sum. The amount didn't really matter because, I believe, the ransom was originally never meant to be paid. I think the people who removed CAL Jr. from Highfields had already been paid upfront but then decided to blackmail Lindbergh for an extra $50K, treating the ransom as if it was meant to be paid all along. I think the amount was subsequently raised to $70K because, as that note said, someone had to be brought in once "a world affair" had been made of the whole thing. I believe the extra $20K was that someone's fee for their services as go-between, a fee disguised as jacked-up ransom. I also believe that that someone was Condon and, once he learned or figured out CAL Jr. was dead, he realized he couldn't accept any payment for his services. So he had to wash his hands of the whole mess as much as possible by removing his fee--the extra $20K--from the ransom packet, claiming he had heroically done so to save Lindbergh money by having talked CJ down to original $50K amount. All of which brings me to Amy's post: Yeah... I saw this on the Hoax board several months ago. Pretty dynamite stuff, at least at first glance. As far as I'm concerned, it's a smoking gun (or at least a red flag). Of what exactly, I don't know, but, if true, I think Uebel's account proves that Condon was somehow playing both sides against the middle, and that, by extension, there was much more to this whole thing than the official story.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 27, 2013 18:46:06 GMT -5
Odd thing about ransom payment that struck me recently: given that the ransom demand went from 50K to 75K due to need for extra help to care for the baby, or so CJ claimed, this same (so-called) frightened (so-called, or so he said) minor player was able to quickly accept Condon's late reduction of ransom payment back to 50K. I find this very odd considering how much more money we're talking about in today's dollars..... ...Just pondering. This is an issue that I haven't seen discussed much on Lindy forums: the rising of the price the kidnappers were demanding, the quick willingness to accept much less. Does this smell of extortion? As opposed to kidnapping, I mean. I think there are several things to take into consideration: The Kidnappers "warned" Lindbergh and supposedly he did not heed their warning. (This is important for many reasons but I won't go off on a tangent here). By keeping with the warning they could not declare the child was dead as a result. So this raise in the Ransom fulfills their threat. Next, Amy is correct. I actually believe as Inspector Walsh believed - that Condon was the guy they brought in and this money was (in theory) meant for him. As I've suggested in the past, the reasons for Condon removing this sum and Cemetery John quickly agreeing with it was twofold: It relieved some guilt from Condon, in his mind, by returning his fee. Next, Condon further attempts to insulate the Kidnappers by removing the most traceable bills - the $50s. Condon then tries to make himself look like a Hero proclaiming his actions "saved" Lindbergh money in hopes of fooling the Investigators concerning his real motives. However, the Treasury Agents didn't buy it and were completely outraged by this move prompting them, as well as the NJSP to suspect him. Not that they didn't in the past but this raised their suspicions exponentially. I believe that Michael posted this on Ronelle's hoax board. I have never seen this in any book I have read so far. Michael, was Condon ever asked about any of claims made in this statement? Was Officer Uebel discredited somehow? I just don't know what to make of this. Way back when Ronelle would take certain posts from different Members then incorporate them into her pages on the web site. This comes from a post I made probably 12 years ago already. I think people who read this Board can see that I say many things that never made it into any of the Books. Even if someone went to the Archives to look him up they won't find what I have. They'll find only this document that's quoted above. Am I patting myself on the back? Yes, kind of I suppose. That's why I am among the millions who are writing a book on this case because all of these facts I am privy to ruin what is now considered "History." Anyway Amy I will share with you that his dates are mixed up, and that Condon denied giving a white envelope to anyone. I cannot explain this without bringing in everything else that ties in with it. That's why I am not afraid of someone using what I've posted in their publication because one needs ALL the material in order to intelligently cover this material. Finding ALL that material can be done but it takes about 10 years (if you're lucky) to find. That's why I feel fairly confident it won't happen until I do it.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 28, 2013 0:18:55 GMT -5
Could you possibly share the corrected dates for Uebel's account?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 28, 2013 8:00:52 GMT -5
Could you possibly share the corrected dates for Uebel's account? There's a both a short and long answer to this question. I'll give you the long answer.... Here's what I did: When I first started researching I never thought I'd write anything. It was just for fun, and I was always taught that when you debate a topic you "choose a side" then battle it out to its logic conclusion. And so I would return from the Archives and post the interesting things I found. As a result there was lots of valuable discussion but I'd also see certain personalities shrug it off or immediately make up irrational excuses why certain things should not be considered. At some point I decided it was advantageous to see this occur and figure out why it was occurring. I noticed there's an emotional investment in this case not unlike rooting for a favorite Sports Team. And so as I continued to research at the Archives, then find new things, I saw that I was going through material that virtually everyone had ignored. Then, as I continued to go back through material, I realized I was learning more and more - certain documents that meant nothing the first time around now became important because of this knowledge. I was finding that people no one have ever heard of held valuable clues to this thing. So when I looked through Fisher's books to see exactly how much time he spent at the Archives I was horrified. To see someone reprimand others about their beliefs while having spent so little time where so much is required inspired me to have a goal behind this research. Unfortunately I cannot write worth a damn but once I am done I will properly address that. After finding this Report on Uebel I decided to find as much as I could on him. Unfortunately the Archives don't work like we think they would. In some places yes - it does - but that can be very misleading. Each report is a mystery in itself. You could take it at face value, see there's no follow-up where it should be or that his name appears no where else in the index card file then give up. Or you can take a decade and meticulously comb through each and every report. Crazy, I know, but that's what I did. And I enjoyed every minute of it and still do. Even today if I drove down to go through a collection that I have been through many many times before I absolutely know I will find something I missed, or learn something new because my knowledge is further along then when I last did. Does any of this make any sense? Anyway, to figure out these dates which you are interested in LJ, I had to go to all of the Condon Reports. I had to go to all of the Breckenridge Reports. I had to go to ALL of the "cross-over" Reports. You see where I am leading you? Condon was not there on those dates because he was verifiably somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by corrine on Oct 28, 2013 11:53:08 GMT -5
Uebel stated that on April 2 at 2:30 in the afternoon - he observed Dr Condon on whittmore ave by St Raymonds Cemetery. He even stated that he spoke with him said hello or something. So let me get this straight was Dr Condon at the cemetery twice that same day on April 2 --- Was Dr Condon at St Raymonds with Lindbergh at 9:00 that same night also ? Maybe I have something mixed up.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Oct 28, 2013 13:34:38 GMT -5
Oh yes, Michael..please check to see if you have a description of the "little girl". Thank you! ..(Let me guess...she was thin with dark mid-length hair?)
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 28, 2013 20:45:21 GMT -5
Okay, so, Michael, if I'm understanding correctly, you were able to verify through all your research and cross checking that Condon was in fact elsewhere on the specific date and time quoted by Uebel in his statement, and therefore Uebel must've gotten his dates mixed up. Is that right? If so, is there anything to indicate on which date this exchange Uebel observed DID take place?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2013 22:06:43 GMT -5
I so agree with you. Trying to fully understand Condon and his role in this whole case is like trying to walk through a mine field without blowing up. It is so hard to believe what he says. Example:
" Near St. Raymond's Cemetery is a certain house. From the identical place where the kidnaper stood before he left to get, or write, the note, an active man could travel on foot to that nearby house, write the note, without anyone there knowing why he was doing it, and return with it, on foot, all within the space of thirteen minutes. Who lives in that house near St. Raymond's Cemetery? The answer, for what it may be worth, is A close relative of Bruno Richard Hauptmann ."
This quote is from Jafsie Tells All. If this is true and he knew it in 1932, then he must have known Hauptmann in order to know what he reveals here. Or is this just Condon trying to sell his book by putting stuff like this into it? No wonder Gov. Hoffman wanted to have a talk with this guy!!!!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 29, 2013 15:23:01 GMT -5
I too wondered how Condon could've known about Hauptmann's supposed relative living close to the cemetery. Seems to reveal intimate knowledge of and associations with guilty parties that it would be wiser not to give away. But going back to what Michael has recently said elsewhere about people interpreting the same information differently (and also considering that the Jafsie Tells All bloviation was written a few years after the kidnapping), I took this tidbit about Hauptmann's relative as something that Condon was claiming he found out post-1932 and, fictitious or not, included it in his book to reinforce the verdict which had since been passed in Flemington. In any case, because Condon declines to go into any further detail or give the name of this relative of Hauptmann's, I really didn't put too much stock in it, one way or the other. Above and beyond anything else, it is Condon after all. But the Uebel report: Yeah, this is explosive. What do you think was going on? My own personal interpretation, based on Uebel getting his dates wrong, is that, first of all, Uebel didn't see this on April 1 & 2, but rather on April 2 & 3--that is, the day of and the day after the ransom drop. So, based on that assumption (and it is just an assumption), here's what I see happening: The kidnappers had already been paid upfront, the $50K ransom mentioned in the nursery note being nothing more than a red herring to make this look like a real kidnapping. But some or all of the kidnappers got greedy and wanted that extra $50K, deciding to go for it by treating it as if it was actual ransom. After this double-cross and to get their extra money, the Bronx-based kidnappers needed a buffer, a go-between. So they approached the well-known local community leader Condon, knowing he would be eager to involve himself in a major world affair like this: "We're the kidnappers of the Lindbergh Baby and are deeply ashamed, in way over our heads. Everyone knows you, the great Dr. Condon, as someone who's devoted his life to helping others in distress; will you help us?" Condon agrees, but wants $20K for his services and the privilege of returning CAL Jr. to his mother. They then work out a plan to "establish" communication with each other: First, the kidnappers will write a second note to Lindbergh, in which it's established that another person has to be brought in, and in which Condon's $20K fee will be disguised as jacked-up ransom (raising the total from $50K to $70K). Meanwhile, a few days later, Condon, "unaware" of this second ransom note (after all, all things being equal, how could he know about it?), will put an open letter in his local paper, asking to be brought into the case. The kidnappers will respond, sending Condon a communique with the same symbol as seen in the nursery ransom note, proving Condon is dealing with the same people who took CAL Jr. Based on that, how could Lindbergh possibly reject such a clearly legitimate go-between as Condon and not give him the $50K to pass along to the kidnappers? This is their thinking. Anyway, a meeting is arranged at Woodlawn Cemetery. It is here that Condon gets it out of a very nervous and jittery CJ that CAL Jr. is in fact dead ("Would I burn if the baby is dead?"), and with a dead child now in the mix, things have just gotten way too heavy, way too dangerous, and obviously Condon cannot except any money for his services. He has to wash his hands of the whole thing as much as is still possible at that point. So it is here, at Woodlawn, that Condon has CJ go off somewhere to fetch a pencil and paper. Maybe CJ really did live nearby, or maybe he had these things on him, but anyway, it is here that the "Boad Nelly" receipt is written, the next moves decided on. Condon takes the receipt, tells the kidnappers he'll be in touch and that he'll get them their money (thereby buying their silence about his actual involvement). Condon then decides that another "meeting" has to be set up to extricate himself. He spends the next few weeks working this out in his head, then, once CAL Jr.'s thumbguard is discovered on the Highfields driveway on March 29--the pressure seemingly ratcheted up by the kidnappers--Condon tells them that their money will be at St. Raymond's Cemetery in a few days. The kidnappers go there a few days later, on April 2, to stake the place out and get the lay of the land, but, not finding anything--no money--they leave. Uebel sees them. Condon goes there that night with Lindbergh and the ransom box. To reinforce the idea that someone's there for a second meeting, Condon pretends to hear a man calling "Hey Doctor!". But really there's no one there at all. All Condon does is walk off into the cemetery, hide the money somewhere on the grounds and remove his $20K fee (which he has no choice but to forfeit, it being blood money now that CAL Jr. is dead). He's brought the "Boad Nelly" receipt from Woodlawn and returns to the car with it and the $20K, claiming that he'd just spoken with CJ again, was given this note, and that he also managed to save Lindbergh $20K, by having talked CJ down. Condon then contacts the kidnappers again, telling them to meet him at St. Raymond's the following day, April 3, for payment. Uebel sees this meeting too. He sees Condon walk off into a marshy area around a barn, where the money's been hidden. The kidnappers arrive and he gives them a portion of the money, which he's keeping hidden and paying out in installments for the time being--until things quiet down, to make sure the kidnappers don't say anything about his actual involvement, etc. That's what I see happening here. Now, as Linda Richman (Mike Myers) used to say: Discuss...
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Oct 29, 2013 20:03:22 GMT -5
LJ, Are you saying CAL paid out $50,000 twice?
Michael, Are (was) there bank records or other proof that Lindbergh paid $50,000 prior to when the "known" $50,000 ransom was paid?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 29, 2013 21:20:10 GMT -5
I think the kidnappers had already been paid upfront. What that sum would've been I don't know, but I think the $50K ransom in the note was just a decoy figure, never meant to be paid.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Oct 29, 2013 21:23:54 GMT -5
Could it be that Lindbergh, while on the surface paying a ransom to get his son safely retutned to his family was in fact paying for services rendered?
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Oct 29, 2013 21:33:00 GMT -5
John and Lightningjew....
Phase I - Could it be that the extortionist got his money? Then.. Phase II - A second payoff was given to others in order to put Charlie in another family? Remember, CAL went on an unscheduled flight to Connecticut.
|
|