|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 29, 2013 21:39:14 GMT -5
John, broadly, I think that's pretty much it. But I think he had already paid for services rendered, and those who were paid got greedy and wanted more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 22:40:09 GMT -5
That is quite a post you made LJ. I want to discuss it for sure. I will need to go over it first. A lot to think about and I know I will have questions. I think that what Uebel witnessed is very important too. I will post something tomorrow.
I do want to ask one question before I start working on this. Are you saying that Condon uses the $50,000 that the kidnappers want from Lindbergh as money to cover his own culpability in this extortion? And he does this by witholding the ransom money and then paying the kidnappers by installments as a way to guarantee they will not reveal his role in the extortion?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 29, 2013 22:56:03 GMT -5
Basically, yeah. Based on Uebel's testimony, I can't think of who else Condon could've been meeting besides the kidnappers/extortionists, or what else could've been in that white envelope he handed to them but ransom money. And it wouldn't have been the whole ransom, because that was in a large box; wouldn't have fit. So then, I think it was only part of the money, i.e. an installment. I think Condon withheld the full amount, paying it in installments to guarantee the kidnappers would not reveal his true role, as you say. Why wouldn't they rat him out anyway, once the final payment was made? Well, I suppose there's no way to make sure they wouldn't, but, then again, why would they? Why risk surfacing and exposing yourself to drag someone down with you, when, if you stay hidden, you won't go down at all? In any case, paying it out incrementally was maybe all Condon felt he could do to have any sort of leverage over anything.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 30, 2013 20:23:10 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?) I've been searching and searching. I still have a few places to check, but so far this is what I've found: According to Cpl Leon's Interview Condon told him that he saw a man and a girl standing on the corner which he assumed were waiting for a trolley car. He claimed he asked the man if that street was Whittemore but the man claimed they weren't from the area and did not know. He claimed the man was dark complected, about 35 years old, commonly dressed, spoke good english, and looked like a laboring man wearing a dark soft hat, and a dark overcoat. Condon then claimed the girl was about 10 or 11 and wore light clothing. According to Inspector Walsh's Interview Condon met a man and a woman on the corner, and claimed to have asked them where Wittimore Ave was. According to Lindbergh's Statement it was a man and a girl, but there was no description offered.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 30, 2013 20:42:10 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. Uebel believed this was April 2nd but according to my research he was mistaken about the date. 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? Yes, that is my position. And yes again to this last part. I believe I have that all figured out because I spent a great deal of time on it. Once its disclosed perhaps someone will claim I am wrong.... 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. Thanks to Aimee's question, I just found where Condon completely lied to the Bronx Grand Jury about his trip to St. Raymond's. And its a pretty big one if you ask me. I am surprised at myself for missing it originally, or possibly forgetting about it. Michael, Are (was) there bank records or other proof that Lindbergh paid $50,000 prior to when the "known" $50,000 ransom was paid? No there's absolutely no bank records concerning Lindbergh at all in the Archives. There's plenty concerning the actual ransom and its assembly, dis-assembly, and re-assembly, etc. I wish there was examination of everyone's personal and business accounts. They looked at Sharp's. They looked closely at Geissler's. And then Hauptmann's. But even with Condon there was just references to his financial situation but nothing more then that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2013 21:21:53 GMT -5
I have spent time going over your post and have questions and comments for you. First let me start with the "Jafsie Tells All" quote. I do agree that Condon loved to hear himself speak and he basked in the attention it brought him. I am not inclined, as yet, to cast this piece of information aside for two reasons: 1) It is true Condon discloses this info several years later. I think he felt secure enough at this point that revealing something like this in his book would not result in any investigative effort on the part of officials. I do not doubt for a moment that Condon knew many more things that he would never be able to speak about and he took these to his grave. 2) The other reason I keep this statement on the back burner is Hauptmann, himself. Why? His absolute refusal under any conditions or treatment to say anything except he was innocent. I either have to believe he is 100% not guilty of participation in any way with this crime or he is standing by his declaration of innocence because he is protecting someone - someone he cares enough about that he would rather die than reveal anything he might know or have done. This is where I am at with this issue at the moment.
Moving on, I posted the Bernard Uebel statement here because I also think it is significant to understanding how the extortion payment went down. It shows the involvement of more than one person in this extortion and it gives a more detailed look at Condon's actions as go between. It also reveals that St. Raymonds could have been used more than once for activity. Perhaps some thought should be given to that red barn in the cemetery and what it might have been used for in regards to the ransom payment. In the ransom note received the afternoon of April 1, Lindbergh and Condon are told to have the money ready by Saturday evening. The note goes on to say "we will inform you where and how to deliver it. Have the money in one bundle. We want you to put it in a sertain place." Could this place be a red barn in the cemetery?
This is my position also.
So you think that the $20,000 was Condon's idea and not the kidnappers and that this was all decided before the ransom note that is received in Hopewell on March 5? Since that note was mailed from Brooklyn on March 4 Condon must have been approached no later than March 3 to be the go-between. Is this when it was decided that Condon would put the letter in the Bronx Home News for the kidnappers to respond to?
Wow. This secenario has never occurred to me. I have always been suspicious about the length of time this meeting took. Does this mean that Condon is more or less now calling the shots with this extortion and even authored the Nelly note? Do you think it was also Condon's idea to have the sleeping suit sent to him?
This is interesting. I have considered the idea that Condon did not meet up with anyone when he took the money to St. Raymonds. He very well could have put the money in the red barn which was the place they wanted it and picked up the Boad Nelly note which was lying there. I have early on felt that Lindbergh was parked too far away and would not have been able to hear someone calling Hey Doctor while sitting in the car. Do you think that Lindbergh found it necessary to support the story Condon made up about CJ calling this out? What do you think his reasons would be to do this?
I am having trouble with this being the kidnappers getting an installment payment. This part of Uebel's statement involves a different car coming to Whittemore Ave. It is not the maroon car with the 4 guys and one of them looks Italian. It is a Green Ford Touring car with curtains drawn that waits for Condon to arrive. What makes you think that these are the kidnappers? If this car contains the kidnappers, then who are the guys in the maroon car in the first part of Uebel's statement? They also are in the third part of Uebel's statement. This car is the one that retrieves the ransom box used on April 2nd from a bush.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2013 12:54:43 GMT -5
OK, Michael. You know I am going to want to know what this big lie is!! I sure hope that you can post something about it. Please don't leave me hanging off a cliff here!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 31, 2013 14:50:28 GMT -5
Sorry, I can never get the damn quote function to work:
"So you think that the $20,000 was Condon's idea and not the kidnappers and that this was all decided before the ransom note that is received in Hopewell on March 5? Since that note was mailed from Brooklyn on March 4 Condon must have been approached no later than March 3 to be the go-between. Is this when it was decided that Condon would put the letter in the Bronx Home News for the kidnappers to respond to?" -Amy
That's right. My thinking is that on March 2 or 3, the people that took CAL Jr. approached Condon, whom they had since chosen as a go-between--a go-between that will be legitimized by being in possession of a note with the same symbol seen in the nursery ransom note. Given that, on what basis could Lindbergh possibly reject Condon and not give him the $50K to pass along to the kidnappers? After March 1, I think that's all the kidnappers were interested in. And to bring Condon in for this purpose, these people appealed to his vanity and mawkish sentimentality, knowing Condon would jump at the chance to involve himself in the case. As to whether Condon himself wanted the $20K or whether the kidnappers offered it to him--whose ever idea that was--I'm not sure. I think Condon could conceivably have originally just wanted to place CAL Jr. in Anne Lindbergh's arms when the time came. That could've been enough, but maybe the kidnappers sweetened the deal by offering him $20K as well, to further guarantee his participation and silence. Or maybe Condon wanted the money and made that condition himself. Not sure. But the point is that Condon was chosen by the kidnappers as a go-between to unwittingly apply pressure to Lindbergh for extra money. That's what I see. And as to the timing of things, which you describe (and which I too have laid out side by side, as you've done, just to get a complete picture): I think it's interesting that the second ransom note was written/mailed on March 4 and received in Hopewell on March 6, saying someone else has to be brought in, and then, on March 7, Condon wrote his open letter (which appeared in the Home News on March 8), volunteering to be brought in. It might be said this sequence was very purposely and carefully planned that way, since it might've looked too suspicious if Condon wrote his letter to be brought into the case, and then another ransom note was sent to Lindbergh, talking about the need for a go-between--and there's this guy Condon, conveniently having already offered his services. So it looks to me like that those two events were very purposefully flipped, to be disassociated as much as possible from one another: Condon writes his letter, volunteering to be brought in, without any apparent knowledge of the ransom note previously received in Hopewell, in which it's said someone has to be brought in. I mean, this latter scenario could be considered suspicious too, but perhaps less so than the former one.
"Wow. This secenario has never occurred to me. I have always been suspicious about the length of time this meeting took. Does this mean that Condon is more or less now calling the shots with this extortion and even authored the Nelly note? Do you think it was also Condon's idea to have the sleeping suit sent to him?" -Amy
I don't know that Condon was necessarily calling the shots. I don't if I'd go that far, since I don't think he was holding all the cards. Some, but not all. I think he found out at Woodlawn, on March 12, that CAL Jr. was dead, by getting a very jittery CJ to basically admit as much: CJ - "Would I burn if the baby is dead?" Condon - "Wait, what? Why would you even ask that, unless... okay, let's just get to it, shall we? He is dead, isn't he? Go on, say it; you pretty much just did..." I mean, regardless of what he later claimed, I don't see Condon just letting go of a question like the one CJ apparently asked. So I can see the conversation at Woodlawn going something very much like this, and, at that point, Condon wanted out. He obviously couldn't just go home and wash his hands of the whole thing in one clean stroke, but he had to extricate himself as cleanly as possible over the coming weeks: Condon - "Okay, I want to come out of this clean, you want your money, so here's a plan that will suit both our purposes: First, we need to convince everyone that the baby's still alive. A sleeping suit. You guys get his sleeping suit and send it to me. Meantime, they'll be putting your money together. Once it's assembled, I'll be in touch, telling you where and how to pick it up. For that, we're going to need another meeting like this one, where I pay you and you reveal to me where the baby is. Got a pencil and paper? No, okay, well, go find them. Write a note saying where the baby can be found. New England, Martha's Vineyard, I don't know, wherever. Doesn't matter; make something up. I'll wait here." I don't see Condon writing the note himself, as he would've been worried about his handwriting being identified. So he had CJ go off and do it, which could also be part of why the Woodlawn meeting took so long. CJ returned, gave Condon the note, which Condon kept for the next meeting--except there wasn't a next meeting; not really: Condon - "Okay, 'John', now I need some assurance that you guys won't say anything about my actual involvement--that we were in contact much earlier than I've claimed and so on. So I'm not going to tell you exactly where the money dropoff will be just yet. But for our next 'meeting' I'll go to the appointed location, as if you're there and I'm going to see you again. I'll hide the money somewhere in the vicinity and remove my $20K fee. I can't accept it now that it's blood money, so I'll take that portion out and return it to Colonel Lindbergh, saying that I'd talked you down. This'll also insulate you guys, since the $20K will comprise the most traceable bills. I'll also bring this note you've just written with me, acting like you'd just given it to me there. I'll be in touch with you about the date and location for all this later on. Till then." Condon then privately decided on St. Raymond's Cemetery as the location for all this, and later, once the thumbguard had been dropped on the Highfields driveway--the pressure seemingly ratcheted up by the kidnappers, Lindbergh finally deciding to pay them--Condon informed the kidnappers that April 2 was the date he would be going to St. Raymond's with their money, but to stay away until things quieted down. The kidnappers went there anyhow, but early, in the afternoon, to stake the place out, see if anything was going on. Not finding anything either way, they left. Uebel saw them (though he later thought this happened a day earlier, on April 1). Condon went there that night (April 2), hid the ransom, removed his fee and returned with it to the car, telling Lindbergh he'd just met CJ again, talked him back down to $50K and was given this note. Condon could've then contacted the kidnappers and told them to meet him at St. Raymond's the following day, April 3, for the first installment of the ransom (his only way of maintaining leverage or control over anything being hiding the ransom and paying it out incrementally). Uebel saw this too, but, as with the prior date, thought this happened the day before, on April 2. Anyway, going off of this, mailing the sleeping suit: Yes, I think Condon came up with that idea at Woodlawn--to reinforce the notion that CAL Jr. was still alive and that therefore he, Condon, was legitimately and honestly negotiating for the return of a live child. I think CJ et. al. then went to retrieve the clothing off CAL Jr.'s body from wherever they had stashed it (probably somewhere in the NJ countryside, not too far from Hopewell). They got the outer layer of clothing off the body (which is why it was missing from the corpse found later), but due to decomposition and/or exposure to the elements, this clothing was unusable as proof the kidnappers were in possession of a live child. So they needed something else--another set of pajamas that had some wear and would be recognizable as an article of clothing that belonged to CAL Jr. Someone inside, at Highfields, would've been required to get a hold of something like this, and I think that person was informed of the situation by CJ et. al.--that another set of CAL Jr.'s sleepwear was needed. I base all this primarily on the fact that the Dr. Denton suit that arrived at Condon's home appeared laundered and had some yellowish stains on it. On March 1, CAL Jr. had been changed because he had thrown up on the first set of pajamas he was wearing--a Dr. Denton sleeping suit which was then washed by Betty Gow and hung up to dry. So once the clothing on the body that CAL Jr. had been changed INTO the night of March 1 was found to be unusable by the kidnappers, I think his first spat-up-on-and-washed Dr. Denton suit which he had earlier been changed OUT OF was smuggled out of Highfields and passed along to the kidnappers, who then mailed it to Condon.
"He very well could have put the money in the red barn which was the place they wanted it and picked up the Boad Nelly note which was lying there. I have early on felt that Lindbergh was parked too far away and would not have been able to hear someone calling Hey Doctor while sitting in the car. Do you think that Lindbergh found it necessary to support the story Condon made up about CJ calling this out? What do you think his reasons would be to do this?" -Amy
Well, the barn would certainly be the first place I would choose to hide something. There could've been other hiding places around St. Raymond's too, since, as you point out, Uebel also says that he later saw someone take a wooden box out of some brush (a spot which, based on Google Maps, seems to be behind the groundskeeper's house/cemetery offices, while the barn was in a different location). And as to Condon making up hearing "Hey Doctor!" to establish someone at St. Raymond's to meet him: It's true Lindbergh corroborated this, as you say. But I think, whether or not he was doing so in this instance, Lindbergh certainly had his own reasons (albeit different from Condon's) to substantiate fabrications and obfuscate in general. I think he had his own separate but related conspiracy going. And when Lindbergh corroborated hearing "Hey Doctor!"--assuming for the moment Condon did in fact make that up--Condon's thinking could've been, "I'm lying through my teeth here. I mean, if I didn't hear that, he certainly couldn't have, so why is he backing me up on this...?" But obviously, since it would give away his own lie, Condon could never ask that sort of question aloud, so he never did.
"I am having trouble with this being the kidnappers getting an installment payment. This part of Uebel's statement involves a different car coming to Whittemore Ave. It is not the maroon car with the 4 guys and one of them looks Italian. It is a Green Ford Touring car with curtains drawn that waits for Condon to arrive. What makes you think that these are the kidnappers? If this car contains the kidnappers, then who are the guys in the maroon car in the first part of Uebel's statement? They also are in the third part of Uebel's statement." -Amy
I think they were probably all the kidnappers, that these guys probably had more than one car. Probably more than two. Would've made sense anyway, to change up your transportation as much as possible. If it wasn't ransom money in the envelope, what do you think it could've been?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 31, 2013 21:31:23 GMT -5
OK, Michael. You know I am going to want to know what this big lie is!! I sure hope that you can post something about it. Please don't leave me hanging off a cliff here! This proves both Condon and Lindbergh were liars actually. Lindbergh had claimed that while he and Breckenridge were at Condon's dropping off the Ransom Money both Condon and Reich were readying to make the trip to meet and pay the Kidnappers. Lindbergh said he became "suspicious" then said he would drive Condon in Reich's car. According to CAL, Condon then stalled a bit eventually remarking to Breckenridge that he was concerned Lindbergh would use his firearm. Lindbergh insisted. Now every bit of this, if true, is extremely important for many reasons which I will not go into but I am sure most will see anyway. Condon's version at the Grand Jury was that Lindbergh "asked" him to go with him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2013 10:00:17 GMT -5
It is hard to speculate on this because we don't know the date that this meet-up took place. I also suspect that there were additional communications between Condon and the kidnappers that we are not aware of. This could influence what this meeting is about. Since it is described by Uebel as a white envelope that could mean #10 business size or something larger. Either way it would not be able to hold the $50,000. If it is a typical business size white envelope, I would be more inclined that it was a communication of some sort. Depending on who is actually in that car and if this meeting occurs after the ransom has been paid, perhaps it might have something to do with the return of Charlie. Lindbergh and Condon were given a bogus directional note about where they would find Charlie. Was something additional being worked on in this regard?
First off, thanks Michael for posting what you could about what may be a very significant lie. It distresses me that so much lying was going on by a lot of people who are key players in this case. Plus nobody really trusts each other either except for Lindbergh and Breckinridge who are joined at the hip through this whole thing.
Getting back to the quote above. I have a question. Who brought the ransom money to Condon's house? Gardner says that Al Reich brought the $50,000 to Condon(picking it up from F.D. Bartow's) and that Breckinridge brought the additional $20,000 himself. This scenario does not seem to fit with what is quoted above. I also noted in Gardner's book he writes that there is a "hurried conversation" that includes Condon expressing doubt about the wisdom of Lindbergh accompanying him. I believe I read somewhere that Condon was concerned that the kidnappers would be expecting Reich to be there so to settle the issue it was decided that they would use Reich's car like you mention. Instead it seems Condon is worried that Lindbergh might want to shoot CJ or could he be worried that the whole exchange would fall through when the look-out sees that it is not Reich in the car but someone else? When CJ and Condon first speak at St Raymonds, CJ asks Condon who is in the car. I guess the lookout must have tipped CJ that it was not Al Reich driving the car this time.
Condon is probably lying. I don't recall reading that Lindbergh "asked" to go along. I will do some checking to see if it is described that way by other authors and if they have a source for it.
Was Al Reich ever looked at seriously as a possible member of the extortion gang?
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Nov 1, 2013 16:56:04 GMT -5
Thank you Michael for trying to get the description of the little girl. Has anyone else read or seen anything about ::)the little girl, standing with the man??
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 1, 2013 19:16:27 GMT -5
Who brought the ransom money to Condon's house? Gardner says that Al Reich brought the $50,000 to Condon(picking it up from F.D. Bartow's) and that Breckinridge brought the additional $20,000 himself. This scenario does not seem to fit with what is quoted above. The way I write it makes sense to me as I write it but I can see where it can be confusing. Assistant Attorney General Joseph Lanigan participated in the Trial Preparation Notes. Here is what is contained in Statement of Fact Which Alfred J. Reich Will Testify To: He will testify that on April 2, 1932 he went to Mr. Bartow's house on 66th St. with Col. Breckinridge. Col. Lindbergh was there. They stayed there for quite some time, and finally he left with Col. Lindbergh and had the package which contained the $50,000. They left in Col. Lindbergh's Franklin to go to Dr. Condon's home. Col. Breckinridge took the other package of $20,000 and left in his Ford and he met them at Dr. Condon's home. In my mind this fits perfectly. Initially, Condon and Reich are the ones who make the move to deliver the Ransom, but Lindbergh puts on the breaks. (Speaking of Lanigan - here is a link to a letter he wrote that is at the Hoboken Historical Museum): hoboken.pastperfect-online.com/32340cgi/mweb.exe?request=record;id=04BAE9D6-D41C-4251-BE30-793468730887;type=301I also noted in Gardner's book he writes that there is a "hurried conversation" that includes Condon expressing doubt about the wisdom of Lindbergh accompanying him. I believe I read somewhere that Condon was concerned that the kidnappers would be expecting Reich to be there so to settle the issue it was decided that they would use Reich's car like you mention. Instead it seems Condon is worried that Lindbergh might want to shoot CJ or could he be worried that the whole exchange would fall through when the look-out sees that it is not Reich in the car but someone else? When CJ and Condon first speak at St Raymonds, CJ asks Condon who is in the car. I guess the lookout must have tipped CJ that it was not Al Reich driving the car this time. Do you really believe Condon was worried about this? And if so - why? Seems to me, just as Lindbergh suggested, he was stalling. By suggesting this bogus reason to keep Lindbergh from going he's hoping Breckinridge would "buy it" then suggest to Lindbergh he shouldn't go. No, it didn't work. Lindbergh's nature, no matter what the reason, would never allow for such a transaction without his participation. Condon is probably lying. I don't recall reading that Lindbergh "asked" to go along. I will do some checking to see if it is described that way by other authors and if they have a source for it. No, he claimed Lindbergh ask "him" (Condon) to go. If Lindbergh is telling the truth, then Condon told him he was going, then Lindbergh disqualified Reich and inserted himself. Condon was never asked. What he typically seems to do is throw Lindbergh's name around for whatever decision he makes. It indemnifies him from the specific action where he feels the need to invoke Lindbergh's name - even if its not true. Was Al Reich ever looked at seriously as a possible member of the extortion gang? Reich was viewed with some degree of suspicion. There were letters written to various people accusing him of a role. He was looked at, from what I can tell, as a result of any investigation where his name crossed over into it. But in reality it wasn't much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 8:54:49 GMT -5
Yes, it does make sense after reading Al Reich's Statement of Fact. This lines up with what Gardner states in his book about who brought the ransom money to Condon's house.
I do think he could have been concerned about this. Using the first two ransom notes as a guide, Condon has been brought into this by the kidnappers. He is their agent, not Lindbergh's. I know that he liked to present himself as the true patriotic American who came to Lindbergh's aid, but everything he does during and after the negotiations aids the extortion of the money and protects the perps from apprehension. If his motive from day one was only to get Charlie back then after the corpse of Charlie is found he would not have spent years changing up his story about the events with CJ, never really identifying anyone as CJ, not even Hauptmann, and never being honest with police officals concerning crucial details.
So I can see Condon being afraid of Lindbergh going along with his gun. Condon can't be sure if he will be able to control Lindbergh (who could!)if he wants to confront CJ. Condon is expected to deliver that money to CJ not bring someone along who could put a bullet in him. Condon was not able to prevent Lindbergh from going in Al's place, how could he be sure that he could keep Lindbergh from taking matters into his own hands at this critical point in the negotiations? Plus Condon's own life would have probably been in jeopardy if he failed to accomplish what he was selected to do.
I understand now. I misread what you wrote originally on this. I thought you meant Lindbergh had been asked by Condon to go along. I understand now that Condon was claiming that Lindbergh asked him to go along. I still think Condon is lying. Condon had been operating under the assumption that he and Al Reich would go to deliver the money which is the way he wanted it. Why he felt a need to lie about who asked who, I am not clear on. Condon was the go-between why would he need to be asked to go at this point in the negotiations?? This is just another self-serving lie if you ask me or is Condon just having one of his "senior" moments and not recalling correctly what took place?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 2, 2013 10:45:23 GMT -5
So I can see Condon being afraid of Lindbergh going along with his gun. Condon can't be sure if he will be able to control Lindbergh (who could!)if he wants to confront CJ. Condon is expected to deliver that money to CJ not bring someone along who could put a bullet in him. Condon was not able to prevent Lindbergh from going in Al's place, how could he be sure that he could keep Lindbergh from taking matters into his own hands at this critical point in the negotiations? Plus Condon's own life would have probably been in jeopardy if he failed to accomplish what he was selected to do. I do see where you are coming from and it makes perfect sense. When it comes to Condon, I've find myself seeking a motive for a lie first when all motives should be looked at like you have done here. Thank you for sharing because this perspective is important and certainly should be considered. I understand now. I misread what you wrote originally on this. I thought you meant Lindbergh had been asked by Condon to go along. I understand now that Condon was claiming that Lindbergh asked him to go along. I still think Condon is lying. Condon had been operating under the assumption that he and Al Reich would go to deliver the money which is the way he wanted it. Why he felt a need to lie about who asked who, I am not clear on. Condon was the go-between why would he need to be asked to go at this point in the negotiations?? This is just another self-serving lie if you ask me or is Condon just having one of his "senior" moments and not recalling correctly what took place? It's my fault for this misunderstanding. I rec'd a "C+" (and I was really trying!!!) in English Writing back in College and its easy to see why. On top of that I've regressed, and forgotten so much of what my Professor tried to correct about what was referred to as an "awkward" style of writing. So just ask me to clarify when it looks confusing and I will do my best... Okay. It's seems to me, and this is just my opinion, that by invoking Lindbergh's name as the reason for why he did just about anything, Condon believed this would remove suspicion concerning his action. In fact, where I see this occur it creates a "bookmark" to see why he's doing it. And so here we are in the Bronx Grand Jury, and its called to see if a crime has been committed. Condon is the guy who handed over the money and did not get the child back. He looks guilty of "something" and suspicion surrounds him. What's the best way out of this sticky situation? Say he was only going along because Lindbergh asked him to. I saw somewhere else (which I can't locate at the moment (!!!)) Condon saying, in essence, he could not and would not deny Lindbergh his help in securing the return of his child. This is a tactic that seems to work, because absolutely no one would ever question Lindbergh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 11:02:13 GMT -5
I see what you are saying. He is using the "Lindbergh Get Out of Jail Free" card. Very effective. Confuse and confound and even lie when necessary all under the umbrella of helping Lindbergh get his son back. Sure worked for him!
What is this Lindbergh mystique that generates such profound devotion from people?!! I seem to recall someone else who professed such a level of dedication to Lindbergh. Wasn't it Colonel Schwarzkopf who said "There is nothing I wouldn't do for Colonel Lindbergh -- there is no oath that I wouldn't break if it would materially help his well being. There is not a single man in my outfit who wouldn't lay down his life for Col. Lindbergh." If you find the reference for Condon's statement, I would like to see it.
I wanted to ask you about something else that Condon said about CJ. Condon mentioned that CJ said he was from Boston and would have to travel down to the Bronx in order to meet with him. Was anything ever developed along this line of investigation or did it go the way of the "fleshy lump" and become a non issue?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 4, 2013 9:36:00 GMT -5
I wanted to ask you about something else that Condon said about CJ. Condon mentioned that CJ said he was from Boston and would have to travel down to the Bronx in order to meet with him. Was anything ever developed along this line of investigation or did it go the way of the "fleshy lump" and become a non issue? Amy, My first step in answering this was to find the Report where Condon first said this. He absolutely say it but unfortunately I haven't been able find it. I have so many Condon Files to search and comb thru. Could you tell me where you read this so I have a "jumping-off" point? My biggest problem hasn't been remembering information but where I have chosen to file it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2013 13:08:39 GMT -5
In Gardner's book, on page 68, he relates the conversation between Condon and John. John tells Condon that he is from north of Boston and a sailor. This is also mentioned in several other books. I still need to locate where it is that John talks about the travel distance but I remember reading it. Gardner does not footnote a specific report for this portion of the conversation but does reference an undated report in Gov. Hoffman's collection plus he does sight Jafsie Tells All for portions of the Woodlawn Cemetery meeting. Hope this helps.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2013 13:42:47 GMT -5
Michael,
I found where I read Condon saying both things! It is in an Alpine N.J. statement dated July 7, 1932. It is signed by Lieut. Keaton and Inspector Walsh. Did they ever do any follow-up to this statement?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 5, 2013 6:02:26 GMT -5
Michael, I found where I read Condon saying both things! It is in an Alpine N.J. statement dated July 7, 1932. It is signed by Lieut. Keaton and Inspector Walsh. Did they ever do any follow-up to this statement? Thanks Amy! I filed it in my "2nd Taxi Investigations" which was why I was having such a hard time finding it. It's a wild one, and should prove to anyone that Condon was not on the level. I will have to do some thinking about how I can properly answer your question. In the meantime, here's the Report below which explains why I chose to file it where I did:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 6, 2013 8:56:30 GMT -5
Amy,
I've given some thought to your question and I am not exactly sure how to respond. For example, Condon made his "mystery" trip to Becket, Mass, via Danbury, Conn. in May of 1932. I have Reports I've obtained from the Connecticut State Police dated May 21st regarding this event. I also have a Pittsfield, Mass Letter written from their Chief of Police, John L. Sullivan - to Schwarzkopf regarding it. NYPD immediately interviewed Condon on June 1st apparently trying to debrief him about this specific trip. Shortly thereafter in July of '32, John Gorch became a suspect. The Gorch investigation led to Boston in the end. I have much on Gorch, and I know that Sue had researched him in the past as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 21:09:41 GMT -5
Michael,
Your answer is fine. I was interested if any time was spent investigating a possible Boston connection to the LKC because of Condon's statements about CJ and the gang. I see by your response and also by reading the FBI Summary Report that Gorch was investigated but they were not able to connect him to the kidnapping. Plus his handwriting according to Osborn was not a close enough match and also Condon and Al Reich were negative in their identification of him.
I can't help but wonder about a New England connection in this case. Condon and Fisch were both in Connecticut plus Condon was in Massachusetts. And there is the Boad Nelly note putting Charlie in the Massachuetts waters. Also the Morrow family with their connections to Smith College, and Amherst, both in Massachusetts.
Thanks for confirming that the Boston connection was looked into. If you have a picture of John Gorch you could post, I would appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 7, 2013 6:44:41 GMT -5
Thanks for confirming that the Boston connection was looked into. If you have a picture of John Gorch you could post, I would appreciate it. There was an anonymous letter sent to Gov. Moore which started this whole Gorch investigation. Reporters had given chase when Jafsie was on his trip so while mysterious it certainly wasn't a "secret." Did this trip instigate that letter? I can't say. However, the police were originally looking for Gorch in NYC but eventually wound up in Boston. He had ties to NJ, and even Hopewell I believe but I'd have to dive back into the files to confirm this. The thing I've learned about Condon is he seems to have support for specific things going on around him - at the time. In other instances he gleans information from Investigators then uses that information to support his cause. Furthermore, I have always believed he sometimes actually did mix in truth with the fiction he would create. The problem is figuring it all out. Knowing he's doing this is the easy part and it certainly throws him into the "Accessory" category - at the very least. But of course these are all just my observations and there's many who simply think he was somehow "on the level."
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Nov 7, 2013 9:50:10 GMT -5
Amy, I've given some thought to your question and I am not exactly sure how to respond. For example, Condon made his "mystery" trip to Becket, Mass, via Danbury, Conn. in May of 1932. I have Reports I've obtained from the Connecticut State Police dated May 21st regarding this event. O.K. Micheal...why did Condon go through Connecticut..do you have any idea??? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 7, 2013 17:19:49 GMT -5
O.K. Micheal...why did Condon go through Connecticut..do you have any idea??? Thanks I just think he was passing through. His attention seemed to be on Becket. BTW, I have continued my search for a more thorough description of the girl but discovered Condon, yet again, claiming it was a "woman." This time its what he was telling Coleman. So far that's twice where he claimed he met a man and a woman - all the others are that it was a little girl. Since Lindbergh claimed it was a little girl then it gives us reason to suspect Condon is lying when he claims it was a woman. Now there must be a motive for such a lie but I cannot figure it out at the moment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 12:08:21 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for the picture of John Gorch. So many persons of interest were checked out by LE but ended up as dead ends. I have another person to ask you about but will do it under another thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2014 18:15:50 GMT -5
I am putting a link to an article I found recently. It made me think about Uebel's statements about seeing Condon at St. Raymonds and it also made me think about the Rice Paper Notes. In this article Condon talks about his concern about his public image. This article appeared after Charlie's body was found and Condon would soon be appearing before the Bronx Grand Jury. An interesting read! news.google.com/newspapers?id=O5JRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hmkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5162%2C3992614
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 1, 2014 21:08:51 GMT -5
Here's something that was in Hoffman's File on Condon and seems to compliment both your post Amy as well as John's: Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 0:23:50 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for posting the additional items. Condon likes nothing more than to be the center of attention. All the attention that Curtis was receiving must have drove Condon nuts. Making all kinds of statements puts the focus back on him where he squarely wants it. The page labeled "False Statements Made by Dr. Condon" is interesting. Did Gov. Hoffmann have someone keeping track of all the claims Condon had/was making in the newspapers? I came across this aerial photo of St. Raymonds cemetery. Corbis dates it as 1934. The letters A and B appear in the photo. I believe these represent where Lindbergh(A) was parked the night of April 2, 1932 and (B) is where Condon handed over the ransom payment. There is no lighting on Whittemore Avenue. It must have been very difficult to see CJ in that cemetery. I also wonder how well Lindbergh could have heard CJ call "Hey Doctor" from where he was parked with his windows up. www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/U289378ACME/aerial-view-of-saint-raymonds-cemetery?popup=1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 8:34:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Mar 2, 2014 8:52:51 GMT -5
awesome finds amy! that aerial picture shows quite a dog-leg turn, is that road/lane that faces the cemetery not a real road? was wondering why Lindy didn't part along it instead. maybe too afraid of spooking CJ by moving his car?
|
|