dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Apr 4, 2008 1:08:43 GMT -5
Michael said: "Is there anything tangible that connects the two? "
I have been working on this like a rabid woman today, let me tell you. I am learning lots abt Theosophy & even think Im beginning to connect some dots (no pun intended). But my strong suit has always been finding the info rather than analysing it. But this time I'm trying. I'm immersing myself into this Theosophy. Sorry such a long post but Im trying to get enough info so we can all kind of brainstorm on this together hopefully.
First of all, I generally try not to disrespect the religion of others. But this is just one weird religion. It was in a league all its own when it came to the "spiritualist Churches" so popular during that era. It seems so "made up". Some weird tapestry of beliefs. Its not like any sort formal Christianity. Indeed, some Theosophy concepts defy Catholicism as evidenced by its embracing the 666 because that is how two upside triangles add up. Nor does it seem to embrace regular Eastern concepts of religion either, (such as Buddhism) which I usually find to have lovely & comforting concepts. It is as if takes the Eastern concepts, but throws in a lot of same concepts as Scientology it seemed to me. Which of course came along AFTER theosophy. Im wondering if L Ron Hubbard got some of his concepts from Theosophy, in fact. Has different levels & seems to embrace superior beings & such. But it seems to have even more (although hard to believe lol ) rituals than the Catholics. But the Catholics have had two millenia for its rituals to form & exist & evolve. Theosophy so new but BAM! A ton of really intricate rituals. Theosophy seemed to lose lot of its steam after the great Depression began in earnest. I think we would be hard pressed to find many people who have even heard of it today. Has a base (w/ archives)in Chicago & I big base in Okaland, CAL(also w/Archives). But in its day, and through 1920's it was THE thing. Although I did find one revival meeting in which Billy Sunday (The Pat Robertson of the roaring 20's) condemns it as being part of the occult. Sunday's was really the only condemnation I could find about it though.
I had just been reading the other day of how scared Rosner had become when seeing the symbols. I wonder if Rosner had came into contact with the Theosophists & or the Birrittella church, which I am of the belief shared some rituals. I have not proven this yet, but my gut tell me so. (LOL I know my gut is worthless as evidence) But the thing I learned important to remember about Theosophy is that it had lots of infighting & hence, groups splintered off, and then those groups splintered off & I got the impression that there were just tons of these splintered groups scattered around the country. Most of these just withered away. Just as the Birrittella church seemed to.
The thing is, their symbols appear very innocuous to us. But none of us embrace the tenets of Theosophy. So it is just meaningless to us & our world. This might be akin to showing a middle Easterner who had no experience whatsover with Catholocism an upside down cross. They are not going to get the meaning of this. This would not strike terror in their heart as it would a devout Catholic who would IMMEDIATELY grasp what an upside upside down cross would signify. And maybe even recoil in horror upon seeing it. Im trying to give an analogy & not so sure that was a good one, but I think you get my meaning. But the more I am reading of Theosophy, the more I am finding it easy to belive that there is some symbolism that we are just not privy too. It might perhaps be Theosophys upside down cross, so to speak. I am compiling a list of the places where meetings were held in NY by going through old newspaper acrives, and the majority I have found were held at a place on Lenox Ave. Also found several lectures given at Carnegie Hall.
I found this info about two of its symbols in particular. Both singular & interlocking circles.The circles that interlock that are meant to be snakes that sit on top of one another-not next to each other. The appear to join up slightly . These are two of the meanings I have found.
Singular Ouroboros signifies:
The Ouroboros is a greek word, and means "tail swallower." The ouroboros is usually depicted in the form of a snake swallowing its tail, and is usually circular, although it is sometimes depicted in a lemniscate shape. It originated in Egypt as a symbol of the sun, and represented the travels of the sun disk. In Gnosticism, it was related to the solar God Abraxas, and signified eternity and the soul of the world. In alchemy, it represents the spirit of Mercury (the substance that permeates all matter), and symbolizes continuous renewal (a snake is often a symbol of resurrection, as it appears to be continually reborn as it sheds its skin.), the cycle of life and death, and harmony of opposites.
Double Ouroboros
A double ouroboros (two creatures swallowing one another) in alchemy signifies volatility. Spiritually, it signifies the balance of the upper and lower natures.
((Could the "lower nature" perhaps be a reference to the underworld?))
Theosophy was also big on the Swastika. (Which I have heard oft repeated-but find hard to believe, CAL had painted into top of Spirit of St Louis). I also observed the two electrical looking symbols in relation to Theosophy.
As I mentioned earlier, Alexi Carrell was a big part of Theosophy movement. I am not sure when CAL first became a friend of Carells, but I find it hard to believe if Carrell embraced Theosophy, Lindbergh did not embrace it too. But Im looking further into when Carrell became so involved . Alexi Carrell was classified as a "Great Theosophist" however & it appears as if he was really key in helping them to develop their concepts of supremacy.
Theosophists are also very big into the number 7.
There is SO much more but I tried to whittle it sown to the aspects that might be most applicable to the Spiritualist church that figures so prominently into the LKC.
Although Condon of course denied it on the stand, I wonder how it even came to pass that he was asked on the stand if he had ever been a teacher of Theosophy. He said no. However, the correct term would not be "teacher of Theosophy" but "Master" so I am reasoning that JFC would have reasoned that he was not lying when he denied being a "teacher of Theosophy. Where did this question even come from? There might be lots of things people are asked, but this is a pretty odd question to just come out of left field. There was some REASON JFC was asked this, imo.
I also wonder why Lindbergh was asked upon the stand about Theosophy. Where was the fire that caused this Theosophy smoke during the trial of BRH?
I just cannot stress enough how I really feel there was some reason behind the scenes for asking this very specific question about this very weird religion that was worlds apart from other spiritualist churches of that era.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 4, 2008 9:17:06 GMT -5
I am still intrique by the visceral reaction of Rosner and Madden to the "2nd note arriving Friday"! Both reactions are unexpected: Rosner and Madden are not babes in the wood that just fell off a turnip truck--they have been around. So why the visceral reaction? - My first thought is that neither had seen the symbol in living COLOR prior to this point?
- Rosner had taken "a drawing by Thayer" of the Nursery Note to NYC to show around" on Wed. probably in B and W.
- Blood is RED--its a death threat in all languages. Occam's razor cuts both ways?
- But secondly, the Nursery Note Symbol is sloppy and indisctinctive. Therefore, Rosner may have missed its significance in Thayers drawing. Rosner is Jewish/ Yahweh, Jehovah or YHVH is the Hebrew name of God......eg Blood and the Fear of God. [oops Madden is Catholic?]
- and last but not least: What is the Symbol of the Purple Gang?
That would cut deeply acrossed religious and ethnic lines?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 4, 2008 10:50:29 GMT -5
Rick, I am shocked! You referring to Occam??
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Apr 5, 2008 12:45:07 GMT -5
Guess what spiritualist church I just came across? Same name exactly even? And this is not a 1932 church. This is a current listing.
Universal Temple of Divine Power 5281 Addison St Detroit, MI (313) 945-5967
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Apr 5, 2008 18:19:50 GMT -5
Rosner's "visceral reaction" to the ransom note? Yeah.. any possibility this was self-designed to draw him further into the mix for his own wellbeing and extend his welcome. I think it's important to keep in mind that Rosner, first and foremost was a dyed in the wool con man. There are lots of similarities within his behaviour and m.o. to that of Gaston Means. Like the goodfellas he hung with and who actually admitted as much, I don't think Rosner had a clue what was really going on because there was no gang.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Apr 5, 2008 18:34:04 GMT -5
When Lindbergh was growing up, one of his favorite reading subjects was the gallants of the WWI American 103rd Lafayette Escadrille. The swastika was one of their shoulder patch symbols. As you probably know, it's origin predates its Nazi use by centuries. The swastika painted inside the spinner cap of the Spirit of St. Louis is a reverse version, the same as seen in Indian culture and predates its association with Nazism by several years. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if it was painted there by an employee of the Ryan Co. who was involved with the 103rd or by Lindbergh in recognition of his own boyhood memories.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 5, 2008 19:45:45 GMT -5
The Nazis borrowed the swastika and perverted its meaning. The Theosophical Society was a spiritualist movement that had some of its teachings twisted by them. Lindbergh believed the whole Aryan Race BS and saw the Fascist movement in Germany as a type of Natural Selection. He wanted Germany to be successful because he identified with their beliefs and saw them as bringing order into the world.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 5, 2008 20:09:54 GMT -5
Blame it on Schliemann and the Völkisch. A few years back I was digging in my yard in the foundation of an old barn and came across a shoe buckle from the early 20th century (1921?) with the swastika embossed on it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Apr 5, 2008 20:16:40 GMT -5
What Lindbergh saw in 1930's Germany was an industry and festivity amongst its people that was sorely lacking in the Depression of America, which in itself was in a deep hangover from its wretched excesses of the 1920's. It had nothing to do with Nazism. At a time when gangsterism, lawlessness and an out-of-control press were given the same degree of respect as normal law abiding behaviour. And all of this had little to do with the swastika inside the spinner cap of the Spirit of St. Louis.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 5, 2008 20:44:48 GMT -5
I really hesitate to ask this, but did Hauptmann have any known views on the National Socialist party? I wondered why he was called a Nazi by someone (Mrs Rausch?) I also wonder if he was actually planning to return to Germany and how he would "fit in" with the new German order.
Joe, I think that if you embrace the benefits of fascism, you must also fully accept the costs.
As for the swastika on the inside of the Ryan NYP spinner, it's a complete non issue. It was a common good luck symbol of the time at a time before it's association with the Nazis.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Apr 6, 2008 9:06:45 GMT -5
Kevin, no question there were ultimate and tragic costs within that system. What Lindbergh, a then-non-political observer saw in 1936 Germany, were the initial effects on its industry, the person on the street and the perceived morale of the nation long before the final bill came in.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 6, 2008 9:57:54 GMT -5
"In the emblem of the Theosophical Society, a combination of the Ouroborous, the eastern Swastika, the Jewish Star of david and the Egyptian Ankh, its syncratic program is directly expressed.
The Society was founded in NYC in 1875 by the Russian emigrant Helena P. Blavatsky (1831-1891), decribed by WB Yeats as a "primeval peasant". In Joyces "Finnegans Wake" she appears as a hen scratching her mysterious writings from a dung-heap. This is her "Secret Doctrine" published in 3 volumes in 1888., a mythical pou-pourrie such as is found, for example, in the paintings of Max Beckham, inbued with the spirit of fin-de-siecle salon spiritualism.
In 1879 the Society moved its main seat to Adyar in India. The mixture of Eastern spirituality and Western occultism made a decisive contribution to the developement of abstract painting. Wassily kandinski and Piet Mondrian were among the Societies devotees.
Blavatskys programme of "science, religion and philosophy" which she sought to promulgate with a keen sense of dramatic effect, also made Madame Blavatsky a herald of the New Age movement of the late 20th century.
"According to her theory, the whole cosmos consists of a seven-stage process (Septinary) of evolution and involution. The goal of humanity is the upward developement of the sexual, material body to the ethereal, astral light body. This path leads from the currently dominent Aryan mother-race to a sublimated race of people that she saw emerging in the America of her own time. It is clear that such doctrines, which were easily compatible with the inhuman racial doctrines of Guido von List and Lanz-liebenfels would become the esoteric supports for the formation of Nazi ideology." Alchemy and Mysticism--Roob--page 348
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 6, 2008 10:33:01 GMT -5
Joe, the cost of fascism may be ignored, but it is always on the table for anyone to see. I was hoping you could shed light on my question regarding Hauptmann. Rick, This is a simple solution? Ockham would turn over in his grave. How many people are now involved?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Apr 6, 2008 10:57:33 GMT -5
Kevin, from my recollection Scaduto or Kennedy mentions that many of Hauptmann's friends were becoming involved in local clubs to discuss and support the activities of the "New Germany." Apparently he had joined one or at least gone to some meetings but wasn't impressed by the fact there were too many people ordering others around. I've also heard about Pauline Rauch's comments towards the Hauptmanns including complaints of late night parties and that she didn't like them, but for the fact they paid their rent on time.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 6, 2008 11:27:23 GMT -5
I am not asking this question to vilify Hauptmann as a Nazi. Personally, he doesn't strike me as someone with strong political beliefs. I ask more in relation to the idea which I have seen offered that he was intent on returning to Germany. I was wondering how his past record would play in the New German Order. It never ceases to amaze me how much is not known about Hauptmann. It seems everyone even remotely involved in this case has been analyzed and dissected, yet so much still seems enigmatic about the principal player.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Apr 6, 2008 12:26:27 GMT -5
So I have been trying to resist even ASKING this question. But I can no longer just let it remain unsaid. I just have to bring this up because it is used in the LKC so frequently.
For the most part, I have tried to adhere to the principles of Occams Razor. Or at least used it to keep myself "in check" if my theories seemed to be going to far astray.
But do you really think that Occams Razor is always in every single instance applicable? How can OR alway possibly apply? I do not see how it can.
Because how would one apply the principles of Occams razor to to three plane crashes on 911? If applying the OR principles to 911, wouldnt it be more likeky that there had been some sort of simultaneous control tower failure rather than a fringe group of radical Muslims having hijacked three American planes ?
I am just using 911 as an example here, of course.
I admit I am no expert in mathematical theory. So I could just be talking out of my _ _ _ here. But when applying OR, does OR factor in all, or even ANY, of the weird variables of human behavior & motive? And has any case that we know for a fact is solved (or at least not being questioned 76 years after it hapened) been put to the test to prove that the simplest is always necessarily going to be the answer?
Okay. I said it. Now Im gritting my teeth & squeezing my eyes shut in anticipation of how Im going to get skewered for evening daring to questions the principles behind Occams Razor . LOL
I am even tempted to ask myself: "Who in the Hell do you THINK you are, Dena?!"
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 6, 2008 12:44:18 GMT -5
Dena, I try to keep Occam's razor in mind as much as possible. However, there is no universal here that I know of. Perhaps this crime is vastly more complicated than I and others think, who knows? I guess my main reason for keeping it simple is the overwhelming belief that the more involved in a crime, the more links, evidence, and loose lips should be evident. I just don't see it here. When you consider the amount of time spent in investigating this case by so many one would expect to see far more results revealing the conspiracy of a large gang or organization. You brought up 9/11 as an example, look at how relatively fast that crime was revealed. It's just too difficult to conceal and control the actions of a group. Anyway that 's my feeling. I really hope anyone who believes otherwise will continue to look for the larger conspiracy in this case. My only advice would be, for what it's worth, to keep one eye on Hauptmann at all times. If there were many more involved than there must be a connection to him.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Apr 6, 2008 15:02:02 GMT -5
Well, my eye is on BRH. For years I thought he was just an innocent patsy. I no longer think that. But to believe he acted alone, one would have to accept Condons testimony. And I do not think anyone here honestly accepts everything Jafsie said as the gospel truth. I mean, for Petes sake, Condon couldnt even pick out BRH in a lineup! Out of EVERYTHING, this should have been the easiest thing of all. But he couldn't even do this. He had to ask the officer which one it was. And Condon's lies just went on & on. Lies that defied credulity. The lies he told but that were not investigated further, for example. It was obvious many in LE knew Condon was full of crap. And WANTED to investigate further. At least some of them wanted to . One interesting thing that Condon claimed that I dont see discussed too often was when he referred to one contact as "Calabrese". how in the Hell would he know that someone was a "Calabrese"? Rather than just any Italian? "Calabrese" is pretty darn specific. And not only have I found some people in the Bronx with the surname of Calabrese, but as it turns out, Calabria is the tip of the boot in Italy. With many ties to Cosa Nostra. But apart from that, how could Condon identify anyone as "Calabrese"? Was this perhaps at attempt to point to point the finger at the mob? Why would he want to point the finger anywhere away from the man he claimed he talked to for an hour in the cemetery, "John"? And it defies all defies logic that some old retired coot in the Bronx who ostensibly just wanting to help, and claims to be totally in the dark, puts an ad in a Bronx paper & voila'. the kidnappers answer HIS ad to act as go between! We tend to disregard everything BRH said & did as lies. Yet Condon, who we ALSO know for a fact lied & changed stories etc, but we accept his words as FACT? There were far too many lies he told to just disregard WHY he told them. And Condon just did not tell little mistruths because he was simply getting old & senile. They were very specific lies he told. Such as who made the box & where it came from. Yet not pressed on this. Why? Because it would challenge the lone wolf theory? What was the prosecution so damned afraid would happen if the there were more involved than one? Because there is much more at stake here, imo. Justice was NOT done by only getting BRH. This baby did not get justice when the prosecution insisted on sticking to this lone wolf theory. I just think that BRH was lower on the food chain when everyone wants to put him at the top. And I DO think the signs that more were involved are present at many turns. I think Condons outrageous lies are proof that there was more to this than met the eye. For instance, I think it very strange that this Enrico Cerardi happened to live so close to the home of Condons birth family on 169th st. And we klnow what a gadabout old busybody Condon was. I find it hard to believe that Condons world did not ever collide with Cerardi's. Esp since Cerardi grew up in the Bronx and had been a boxer, which was one of Condons passions. Teaching young men to box. And this is all apart from Condon claiming the man went to a nearby house and the house is in direction of a JJ Faulkner. A former student. Which just happens to be the same name that is signed on a deposit slip. And I just recently learned that Condon made a trip to Montreal to try to ID CJ. Why Montreal? I could just go on & on about Condon so I will try to limit myself. But frankly, inasmuch as a man who died 18 years before I was even born can, he just pisses me off. But I think that because leads were not followed up on as they should have been, does not mean that those leads did not exist. And I do not neccessarily think that it was a great big conspiracy involving many people with tendrils that reached out that far. I think that people at the Birrittella church were involved though. Which I am thinking, the more I am reading about it , that may have been one of the many splinter groups of the main Theosophy movement. Where I believe Condon attended, although this was not followed up as it should have been, as far as I can tell. I fail to see how anyone can look at Condons lies, that went on & on ad infinitum, and not see him as involved in this crime. It just seems as if people want to have it both ways when it comes to Condon. They want to accept his testimony that points to BRH & BRH alone. But to do so, one would have to disregard many of the things Condon said & did. If Condon was such a straightshooter, why did he change his stories so many times? So did Condon lie when he said that he talked to kidnapper on phone & someone in background shouted shut up in Italian? Or was that the truth? Was Condon lying when he said a woman came up to him at Tuckahoe? Because obviously this woman was not BRH in drag. And this of course would PROVE that more than BRH was involved. Yet he gets on the stand & identifies BRH as Cemetery John. No other people involved. CJ/BRH completely alone. And this of course helped to strap BRH into the chair. And Im not even saying that BRH did NOT belong in that chair. But it was not fair in any sense, be it legal or moral, to have BRH be the only one in that chair if others are involved. But in the end, when all things are added up, to accept that JFC told the truth and nothing but the truth,on the stand, one has to accept that he was NOT a big old liar. And to accept that he was not a big old liar, we then cannot disregard his own words that more people were involved, as evidenced by "statto cicci" (sic) and the Tuckahoe woman. You cannot have it both ways when it comes to John F Condon. Yet it seems to me that people consistently do this. My best example of this being that people accept Condons ID of CJ, and take his words as gospel when they want to make things fit neatly together, but disregard Condon's other statements that indicate more people involved than BRH. And I do believe that Condon lied because he was involved. And people DID try to come forward and indicate others potential involvement. Like Uncle Dinny in one instance. But it was disregarded. look at NSDAP. Disregaded totally in 1948, as far as I can tell. Every single time anything offered up to authorities, but did not fit BRH Lone wolf theory, it was disregarded. I think this had the effect of shutting people who DID know something perhaps, up. I will probably regret saying this, LOL, but just as those people on the grassy knoll on Dallas that day tried to come forward & say "Wait-I SAW something!" were disregarded, so were those who tried to come forward in LKC. Because their statements did not fit another supposed lone wolf theory. I have read consistently over the years about the many confessions, letter etc written after the kidnapping, of people claiming knowledge. Now, I admit, my knowledge on this subject is shaky. But if accurate, how do we KNOW that people who wrote in professing to know more didnt actually know more but it had been disregarded?? Are all of the things I have read over the years about people writing to profess they knew more just urban legend? Or is this true? (I should write to Mark - I bet he would know about this). If not urban legend, and these confessions do exist, or did exist at one point, how do we KNOW FOR SURE that they were all bunk? Were they investigated or just taken with a grain of salt since the case was considered "solved"? I think it is a HUGE investigatory mistake to dismiss Condons contradictory statements & words & not examine every single one under a microscope. And one of the main reasons this case is still being discussed 76 years after it happened. I will give him this. I think that Condon tried to muddy the waters at every turn. As if by creating enough chaos that finger would never get pointed back at him so that it would stick. And he did a damned good job of it. It worked. He got away with it. I cannot understand how others cannot see what has become to me, as plain as day. And dont EVEN get me started ( ) on what Condon told Oursler about a psychopathic killer taking him (Condon) to a room where he observed pickled heads in jars. If BRH had ever said this we would be all over this as prooof of his sick personality. But Condon said it & its just dismisssed as some quirky tale? What a double standard of a man who just thrust himself into this case for seemingly nothing more than altruistic reasons.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 6, 2008 16:35:53 GMT -5
But Condon was suspected and he was watched. Was this guy the boldest criminal in history, projecting himself into the limelight and all of that exposure? Why would Hauptmann sit by while a fellow conspirator sent him to the chair? What's in it for Condon, is there a money trail ? Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the guy couldn't be involved. It just seems to me that there are too many obstacles in the way. As for all the other leads, I think the police and BOI did follow up on a lot of them. I know there is one helluva lot of paperwork on all of these characters. But just look at how many people claimed to be CAL Jr. Does the fact that there were numerous claims to be CAL's son make it more likely that one is true?
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Apr 6, 2008 17:49:45 GMT -5
Kev, You are right. It does not make it more likely that they are Cal's son. I was not very clear on that. I did not mean to infer that just because there were many instances that constituted proof of anything. Each instance needs to be taken separately of course. But I do not think that anyone coming forward AFTER the trial & execution were taken seriously. And if it was investigated, is there proof that it was? I have read some of the FBI reports. They totally dismissed the Cerardi bunch for instance even though Cerardi had been in North haven Maine at time of babys stay there, had been at Englewood, and of all the places in the world Cerardi could have been he just happens to rent an old shack close to Highfields & where baby's body was found. Wish I were better at stats so I could figure the odds of these three things dismissed by investigators as coincidendal. They may have "investigated" it, but HOW did they investigate it exactly? Was long time surveillance done on this bunch? I would think not or the investigators might have noticed that Cerardi had held his wife in a boarded up room for 2 years and almost starved her to death before she was rescued in 1934. Couldnt have watched this man who certainly bore watching very closely it seems to me. I wish more than anything in this world I could just sit in those archives for months & read every single scrap of paper. (I would be in absolute heaven if I could do this ;D ). But as I can't, Im going on what I know & have learned from books & you guys on here have taught me. But I admit, I havent seen all the documentation. Not MOST of the documentation, I concede. And I think there might be huge holes in my theories because of this. But as I have mentioned before, in many instances the investigators (FBI in this instance) couldnt even spell a surname correctly. And (I still havent got book I ordered yet! ) but there were mistakes that were made on very small details. That indicates carelessness to me. Kev said "Was this guy the boldest criminal in history, projecting himself into the limelight and all of that exposure?" But Condon DID love the limelight. He reveled in it. Even when it would have behooved him to keep his mouth shut. He LOVED the exposure. He went on the lecture circuit even. For a BUCK. Even if he had not been the big old liar that he was, his motives were tainted by making a buck off this crime. Surely he did not need the money. Didn't his real estate office do fine? He loved the exposure. The attention. The limelight. I think most of his actions prove this. The guy was an attention hog. This old narcissist could not RESIST the attention. The guy loved to lead a parade. But If the lies Condon told were truly investigated why were there no satisfying answers or conclusions reached then? Because I sure have not seen or heard of any other than the standard pat answers that sort of just pooh-pooh & dismiss Condon as a mere eccentric. This "explanation" of Condon as just being an eccentric wackadoo just does not cut it for me though. Some instances just off the top of my head: 1. The box maker (I think it was "Peremi" (sic?)). Condon says he had the box made by this old woodworker within certain time frame. Turns out old guy dead & couldnt have made box. Any reasonable conclusion ever given for this? How did he clearly & rationally explain a dead man having made this box? And then in another instance he claims this was an antique box that had been in his attic. LE never presses JFC on this but just let it slide. 2 Tuckahoe woman. What reasonable explanation Condon give for this? how did he reconcile this with saying BRH acted alone? And was Condon being watched when this happened? If not, why not? 3. JFC says he saw CJ but did not report it because not his business. The police bought this? the man had interjected himself at every twist & turn but then says this is not his business? This is just absurd. 4. What explanation Condon give for asking officer escorting him during lineup to point out BRH to him? He ever questioned on this? what reason he give for this? 5. How come story changed on note brought to his door? he was alone. Then Myra saw. Then she didnt. (story changed cupl times I think) & then no attempt to stop the man & question him. As baby still believed to be alive at this juncture, why wasn't this important event noted? 6. What explanation Condon give for lowering the ranson from $70,000 to $50,000? Did agents ever question him on what he was thinking when he did this? What was his rationale? What did he think gave him the authority to do this? I know the authorities were angered over this. But still, he just seemed to get off the hook for having clearly overstepped his bounds in this egregious manner. 7. Said while talking to kidnapper he heard kidnapper talking to somebody else ("says he write articles for newspapers..") and "shut up" said in Italian. If BRH acted alone, who were these people that Condon said he heard? 8. Only Riehl saw Condon talking to man in cemetery? But couldnt ID him? So I guess we know JFC was talking to SOMEBODY if we accept Riehls statememnt. But CJ, who obviously knew he was in big trouble if busted because he supposedly mentioned it to Condon, sits there in cemetery talking to Condon for an entire HOUR? And listens patiently to Condon hold forth while he gives CJ this pedantic lecture? And Condon's 72 year old eyes (I never saw him where glasses in photos-dont know if he did or not) are able to spot a tear, in the dark,that he has brought to CJ's eye? What explanation Condon give for this ridiculous scenario? This whole story is just plain silly. 9 Why did Condon, this big brave man who by his own words was not scared to take on a youth he heard talking trash at a restaurant about the LK, go extra block at cemetery to get his nerve up? Nerve is one commodity Condon never seemed to lack. Was that REALLY it? He said that once. And then said something else (cant remember exactly what now but he did change the story of why he did this. ) As for BRH keeping his mouth shut, that one is the easiest of all for me. Why have people throughout time, and still do today, kept their mouths shut? Because they are scared for their families. And despite BRH obviously having his multitude of faults, he seemed to truly love his own child. (Which is the one thing that makes me question how deep his involvement actually went in Lindbergh baby's death. As a true sociopath is incapable of loving any child, even their own. But I guess thats another topic.) These are just a few questions I have regarding Condons behaviors that I have NEVER been given a completely satisfactory explanation of. Seems to me when questioned Condon would just get all huffy & puffy & then the police backed off. One or two, maybe explainable in reasonable manner. But ALL of these? And as survellance is part of an investigation, yet all of these above questions just sort of float off with no rational or reasonable explanations ever given, why should I have faith that the surveillance Condon was supposed to be under are any more adequate? And how good was this survellilance on him anyway if that one taxi driver was able to slip past everyone at Jafsies house, including the hawk eyed press? That doesnt seem like very good surveillance to me if only he & his daughter Myra (who sometimes was present-sometimes not depending which story was told) ever saw this man. And this was when baby was still assumed to be alive. Condon also went all over the US giving lectures on the LKC. Didnt there come a point where the surveillance on him was curtailed? And if all of these things I have mentioned were pefectly reasonable & believable, why was he being watched in the first place? But just because for whatever reason the police found nothing, I do not think that we should stop looking at him as a suspect today. And last but not least, lets look at his actions that we know happened and are not up for debate. Despite Condon's words about only wanting to have returned this baby to its mother & doing his patrotic duty because he felt this had brought shame on america, he went & gave lectures on this crime. He was not a law professor. But a dillatente. And he not only gave lectures on this crime, but posed with a ladder & made money off of this crime. He exploited the tragedy of this babys death for a buck. Blood money. And how can one possibly reconcile this with the altrustic light he pretends to bask in? He exploited his role as "Jafsie". To me this is not unlike the people of today who write to serial killers in prisons in order that they can then sell the letters online at places like Daisy 7 & SK Central. Same exact thing. Hey, Kev, I still adore ya'. ;D Hope it doesnt seem like Im on the attack. But the questions of Condons involvement in this are REALLY gnawing at me. But as strongly as I do believe he was involved, I am WILLING to consider other reasonable counterpoints for Condons actions. But I don't feel as if I have ever truly heard any satisfactory reasons for the bizarre actions Condon took all throughout this entire saga. Nor for the bizarre things he said on a consistent basis. Not taken point by point. And I'm just not so sure the surveillance on these players was TRULY that good to the point where nothing slipped by law enforcement. Now I'll go back & read your question again because I think when I start talking about Condon I just get all worked up and lose track of your original point . Sorry. I need to go buy a lottery ticket & win so I can move to NJ & become Mark's shadow in the archives. LOL Some people want to go to Hawaii. But my fantasy is to make it to the NJSP archives. If I ever win, poor Mark. GRIN
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 6, 2008 18:06:46 GMT -5
hi Dena--here's yet another fascinating coincidence RE: the Calabrese Italian lookout at Woodlawn:
"Capone was also impressed by Cristino's story and by Wendel the inventor, on the surface. Wendel was housed in the Lexington, the hotel in Cicero that Capone had taken over and converted to his private fortress and from which he dominated Chicago-area crime and politics. Scarface Al, as he was known to moviegoers and headline writers, treated Wendel "royally" says the affidavit, and actually advanced him $700 as a down payment on the partnership. At the time, however, Capone quietly sent his troops out to investigate Paul Wendel and quickly learned "he was a crook and a faker and that he had conned Cristano by switching the tar for the alcohol". Capone got his money back and "threatened to take Wendel for a ride". Cristano must have been a persuasive talker, for all he got from his role in Wendel's little swindle was "embarrassment". He must have also been conducting a vendetta against a man named Calabrese, because when Wendel came forward with his latest scheme, to turn the Lindbergh child over to Capone, Cristano said he didnt want to get involved and sent Wendel to Calabrese, not further identified in the affidavit. Calabrese apparently contacted the Capone gang with Wendel's proposition and was told that if Wendel's name was so much as mentioned in front of Capone, bodies would be falling all over Chicago and New Jersey. So ended Wendel's escapade in trying to con Capone a second time, and I marveled at the mans gall or insensitivity or absolute insanity"
Scapegoat/ Scaduto/ pages 273-274 [affidavit by Harry Green]
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Apr 6, 2008 18:52:25 GMT -5
Rick, this is fascinating. And certainly is worthy of looking below the surface more . Wish I had that old Scaduto book. Cant find it. I need to order it. Also, I had kept think that Calabrese was in reference to someone actually FROM Calabria rather than the name of a real person. I found this out when doing a search in newspaperarchive.com. Some of those with surname of Calabrese also had ties to the Bronx (Of course, didn't they ALL, it seems? LOL) As I have said before, I think every little nit picky detail needs to be re-examined. Including this. No matter if it SEEMS unconnected. It might just be unconnected too. But you never know in this case. Because obviously something has been missed. So, Rick, how do you think that old Jafsie would have known, COULD have known, that this guy was a "Calabrese"? Be it in origin or surname? I mean, what explanation did Condon not ever give (lol) for saying this? What prompted him to say this in the first place? Slip of the tongue perhaps? Wild speculation that he just THOUGHT he looked like a "Calabrese"?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 6, 2008 18:59:51 GMT -5
Dena, I guess my prejudice with Condon is that I see him as a man who thoroughly enjoys his own sense of importance. In other words, I see him as the great exaggerator. I don't particularly believe anything this guy says. I know, every lie has a grain of truth. But picking the right grain from Condon's beach is likely to be an exercise based on prejudice or luck. I dismiss everything this guy says unless it is witnessed by at least two others! To see him as part of a major crime, I just can't get there.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Apr 6, 2008 20:00:43 GMT -5
Well, I agree somewhat. He seems like too much of a buffoon to pull this off by himself. LOL Maybe I have placed too much emphasis on Condons being in charge because I just don't trust him. I have a real visceral reaction to Condon for some reason. I dislike & distrust him even more intently than I ever did Lindbergh even. Which is to say, a lot. However, in my earlier rant & rave post against Condon, I forgot to mention something very important which ties Condon in with someone consideed to have ties to the LK. In 1938 there was a judgment entered against "J F Condon" in a suit brought by a "John J Nosovitsky" in Bronx Co. But Cerardi seems like he would be more the brawn, not brains if involved in a crime like the LKC . So lets maybe look at the head of Birittella church some more. I read (need to find source) that Peter Birrittella practiced some sort of "sexual" healing on some women who came to him. With his wifes permission, no less. Now aside from my purely prurient interest, (LOL) this seems pretty darn racy for early 1930's. Downright wicked even. So I have to ask myself how in the Heck this "Reverend" Birrittella was not only able to get his wife to go along with this, but to get other women to go along with this shades of Rasputin sex scheme? I could be really wrong on this, but I just never had the impression that this was something women would do in 1932. Nowadays yes. But this just seems REALLY slutty for 1932. And not the norm. Although Im sure I am probably being very naive. It was the days of speakeasies & bathtub gin after all.
And now I am going to answer my own question by speculating that this Reverend Birrittella might be the sort of man who could have sold ice cubes to Eskimos if he was the sort of man who could get his wife & other women to go along with this. But I would think that a man who could pull this off could be pretty darn ....charismatic. This shows me he had the ability to get others to go along with his schemes. NO matter how unseemly. And so, I am going to wonder if this "Reverend" , by utilizing his skill of talking others into things, could have talked others into pulling off or taking part in this crime.
I also know that in a religious setting , the way the leader often gets control is by urging others to "confesses" their shortcomings. But its not like Catholic confession where its held inviolate. But rather as a method of gaining CONTROL of a group or person because now the one who took the confession has a weakness to hold over the head of the one who confessed. And power. We have often speculated about it seemed as if somebody had something on Condon. Something they were using to get him to go along with things. Maybe it is within here that lies the rub.
I am basing this on absolutely not one scintilla of evidence, I admit. Nada. But what I do know is something about human behavior. And how sometimes the smartest of people can get sucked into the damndest things & not even realize it until its too late. By charismatic leaders. History is full of people like this. People who drank the proverbial Kool-aid. And it sure seems as if Breckinridge & Lindbergh bought into the sexy Revendrends nonsense. So, wouldn't it stand to reason that he would be a good one to look further into? The charismatic charlatan type? After all, it WAS Birritella & Cerrito who interjected themselves into this even before Condon with their contacting BreckinBRIDGE (AS Cerrito called him) & telling him that someone with the initials of "JFC" would be entering the case. Because I guess the only alternative to that would be to surmise that the Birrittellas had psychic powers. ;D And while I do believe that many people do indeed have those powers, I dont believe the Birrittella's are among them.
I also have read in more than one source that some of the Morrow & Lindbergh servants attended the Birrittella church.
Kev, I know you have been to the archives. And I know Michael is there a lot. And you too Rick. Do you guys or anyone else on the board know anything more at all about this Peter Birittella? Did he have a record , for instance? And exactly which persons in the Lindbergh/Morrow circle attended his church? And do we know for sure that Condon attended this church? I know that Condon was asked in court if he had been a teacher of Theosophy & this makes me again wonder if Birrittella church was a splinter group of Theosophy. The info I have been able to find on Peter B. is sorely lacking. I Have found much more on Mary Cerrito than Birrittella. I know that if the marriage to Peter was actually her third & that her maiden name was not Cerrito but was "Marietta". (I am basing this if she did not lie on her marriage cert). She was born in Palermo on 13 June 1893 and died in Pelham (WestchesterCo) in March of 1976 (I believe).
Anybody have any thoughts ideas or critiques on this theory that I just came up with that thus far I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to prove with? I really would like to know if anyone else thinks there could be anything to this. Because really, I am basing this pretty much on that one statement. Which is slim to say the least. But at least it does factor in Condons not being in charge because hes too much of a buffoon. And accounts for somebody having control over him. As well as giving a plausible explanation of how a kidnapper would KNOW that the Lindberghs had varied from their regular schedule of not having returned to Next Day Hill if Rev Birrittella had ministered to the Morrow/Lindbergh servants at his church.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 6, 2008 20:30:17 GMT -5
I thought it was Rosner who brought in these two fellow con artists. I didn't know they said anything about Jafsie.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Apr 6, 2008 21:00:19 GMT -5
You mean Rosner who brought in Cerrito & Birrittella? But wasn't it during the "seance" held with Breckenridge (I think it was HB-I will dubl ck) that Cerrito said the "spirits" told her that somebody with the initials "JFC" would shortly be entering the case?
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Apr 6, 2008 21:27:22 GMT -5
Kev, you are right. I was wrong. It was Rosner. I just got out Dr Gardners book. Rosner was hanging out with HB at Highfields. He had set up shop , calling Madden hourly & screening calls. Acting very important. Made NJSP furious (understandably so imho). He just happens to select a telegram from stack of msgs. Mrs Anne Lindbergh Hopwell, New Jersey COMMUNICATE WITH ME AT ONE REGARDING YOYR BOYS WHERABOUTS. FOR FULL PARTICULARS TELEPHONE HARLEM----------- REVEREND (PETER BIRRITTELLA) How fortunate that Rosner selected that particular msg, eh? So Rosner gives this telegram to HB . Rosner also noted that Birrittella was Italian. Rosner then calls the Harlem Reverend & Birrittella agrees to come out on next train. Breckinridge & rosner meet him & the "plumply pretty" medium Mary Cerrita at Princeton Station. Cerrita wanted to go to Highfields but Breckenridge takes them to room at the Princeton Inn instead. Seace was done. Mary moaned & twisted about. Then the Rev took over. Jeez, I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall during this show. Anyway, It was at a later date (This I need to get further details on, sorry) that Mary Cerrita recalled, that during a seance (also unclear which seance, I will look up) that at one point she had said "I see intitials. They are like a light. They are JFC". Sure she did.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 7, 2008 7:20:51 GMT -5
Yeah Dena, these people are the true scum of the LKC. Taking advantage of people in a time of crisis, like those who scammed people using the tragedy of 9/11. I have no respect for Rosner and his crew as well as the other scam artists that came out of the woodwork and rank them below the actual murderers. If Condon was in any way connected, I would say the same applies to him.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Apr 7, 2008 8:32:35 GMT -5
Good way of putting it. They are true scum alrighty. They take advantage of the suffering of others. Any thoughts on my Birrittella "theory"? I know I am basing it on a slim statement. But someone trusted by a congregation is really in a position to exploit their control over others. I wish I knew more abt Violets attendance at this Divine Power Temple. Bet he really exploited power over women.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 7, 2008 12:12:47 GMT -5
Dena, I as I said, I am pretty much a "nuts and bolts" guy. These type of nuts are a little beyond me. My instinct is that Rosner, having been paid , was looking to justify his participation and either knew of B & C or found them. Whether or not there was more to it, I haven't a clue. I don't put much stock in the foretelling of the next ransom note to Breckinridge. I think it was a last ditch effort to throw out something of value and part of the repertoire of any con artist. Was this so called church a den of conspirators? I personally don't see it, but who knows? I would have a hard time reconciling Hauptmann's involvement with this gang. I just don't see any connection. I think they are all so dishonorable that they would surely rat each other out in a NY minute. I don't think that there is any evidence of a money trail here either and I know these people wouldn't be volunteers. No matter what , there is always a payoff somehow or somewhere and that often is the demise of those gaining from ill got money.
|
|