|
Post by Michael on Nov 3, 2021 12:39:35 GMT -5
These are all valid points, Wayne. And it's not only the accounting of claimed events by one eyewitness in Bernard Uebel that for me at least, provides good reason for caution here. The inference in V2 and beyond that Gregory Coleman and the man who could have been Al Reich, are engaged in some kind of subsequent retrieval action that involves the ORIGINAL ransom box up to a week-and-a-half after the ransom payment of April 2, 1932, should also raise a legitimate red flag for anyone who's even casually studied this case. By your own argument here, we shouldn't believe Uebel even though one of his three accounts can be absolutely proven to have occurred. Next, call Uebel a liar to protect Jafsie ... the guy who has proven himself to be liar countless times? What's the "red flag?" These men should be considered as candidates for doing this based on the account. What part of the research into these men disputes they were close friends of Jafsie? Hell, as I've pointed out, they never did a thorough job of looking into Reich which is something the FBI was surprised to learn at the 11th hour. There is a bottom line that needs to be squarely addressed here. Was Lindbergh aware of this action if it was in fact, the original Samuelsohn box? What I'm seeing in V2 and beyond for a multitude of totally-unfounded reasons, is sheer speculation that Condon has essentially gone rogue in collaboration with the extortionist(s) and is now deceiving his hero Lindbergh by giving the extortionist(s) a running head start through the alleged separating of the money from box during his walk down Tremont Avenue. And now Gregory Coleman and possibly Al Reich are basically playing Mr. Clean by mopping up on the “damning evidence scene" for Condon, all of this happening with Lindbergh in the dark, even while Henry Breckinridge has also been involved in the St. Raymond’s follow up visits to this point? Doesn't that make them all accessories to these imagined Condon shenanigans? Gone "rogue?" Not sure what book you have been reading. The man was brought in by the people attempting to collect this ransom. His "hero," already suspicious of the Condon, observed him do something very strange and relayed what he saw. Condon acknowledged this action and gave at least three different excuses for it. None of which are believable and one which is laughable. Put everything together. It's all right there. One has to ignore a whole helluva lot in order not to see it. Now, I'm quite convinced if this was Hauptmann instead of Jafsie (who you've developed a fondness for), you'd be all over it. Ask yourself why you wouldn't be consistent? The box was seen being retrieved by an unbiased witness who didn't even know what he was witnessing at the time. Working backwards armed with all of the research I've spelled out shows exactly why this occurred. Instead you are acting like a beer and pretzel comedian by suggesting Uebel was lying while simultaneously suggesting Jafsie was honest. You cannot evade what Lindbergh saw either. You cannot avoid that he did not trust the man. I've led you to water and instead of drinking it by trying to figure out what really happened, you grew wings and flew into the clouds then smoked a bong or something. It's right in front of you man and I know you see it. You just don't "want" to see it. That's something I cannot help you with.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 3, 2021 12:50:25 GMT -5
Exactly what I was asking Joe. This is becoming the case of Who"didn't"dunit. Above is what I was specifically referring to. So Breckinridge didn't transport ransom money in his car then lie about it then? Wayne, you and I both know a LOT of people did a LOT of things they shouldn't have. What motivated them to do these things? They all had different reasons to do what they did. Some we know and others we don't. In this case, whoever retrieved that box obviously knew it was there. How? Someone told them. Next, considering what we know, their motive could be as simple as helping out a friend. Of course there are others to consider too. But these considerations do not erase the event. That's what I am seeing you so desperately trying to do.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 3, 2021 12:58:57 GMT -5
...And now Gregory Coleman and possibly Al Reich are basically playing Mr. Clean by mopping up on the “damning evidence scene" for Condon, all of this happening with Lindbergh in the dark, even while Henry Breckinridge has also been involved in the St. Raymond’s follow up visits to this point? Doesn't that make them all accessories to these imagined Condon shenanigans? Above is what I was specifically referring to. Yes I understand your position Wayne, and I also feel there is plenty of evidence here to conclude these visits were about searching for any clues of value at a time when police were still not actively involved, purposes of re-enactment, and most likely nothing more nefarious. I've previously also voiced my concern that any of these visits were openly discussed with law enforcement after the fact, and were no secret. Is it not reasonable to believe someone, somewhere along the way would have simply asked of whoever it was determined to be, about Uebel's claim of the "supposed original ransom box" having been pulled out of a boxwood bush? Would someone not have simply provided an answer to this up to and including the May 1932 Grand Jury proceedings or elsewhere within subsequent investigation? Is everything we need to know available in what's been written in books?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 3, 2021 13:18:47 GMT -5
Yes I understand your position Wayne, and I also feel there is plenty of evidence here to conclude these visits were about searching for any clues of value at a time when police were still not actively involved, purposes of re-enactment, and most likely nothing more nefarious. I've previously also voiced my concern that any of these visits were openly discussed with law enforcement after the fact, and were no secret. Is it not reasonable to believe someone, somewhere along the way would have simply asked of whoever it was determined to be, about Uebel's claim of the "supposed original ransom box" having been pulled out of a boxwood bush? Would someone not have simply provided an answer to this up to and including the May 1932 Grand Jury proceedings or elsewhere within subsequent investigation? Is everything we need to know available in what's been written in books? Searching for "clues?" So who told the Cops they were wandering around the crime scene while CAL and Jafsie were flying around looking for the Nelly? No one did. So why the big secret? What clues did they find that were never turned over? Could they have made the footprints later casted? Accidentally? Purposely? By the way, on the night the footprint was casted, authorities were present. That means the box was retrieved AFTER police were involved. And guess what? They "found" a BIG clue didn't they? Why didn't they turn it over? No, nothing "nefarious" with this retrieval. Neither was Condon's confirmed detour. Nope. He just had to walk out of sight down E. Tremont in order to "say a preyer" before going down Whittimore to pretend to turn over the ransom money. As if he couldn't "say a preyer" at the car or at the corner. No - he had to disappear in the direction of the look-out to say one. It was a classic " bait & switch." Like the police sketch shows, Condon went down E. Tremont, the same place the "Look-Out" had just walked down, emptied the box, walked back down to Whittemore with the box visibly under his arm so Lindbergh could see it. While down there he hid the empty box in the bush. Uebel later saw this box retrieved. Condon said CJ left with the money still in the box. Later, he claimed the box had been separated and possibly hidden in a grave. The box was not found in Hauptmann's possession. Who ever retrieved it did not turn it over. The box was never seen again. There is no "innocent" way to explain a hidden box in that location being retrieved under any circumstance. What occurred was kept from the police.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 3, 2021 13:22:25 GMT -5
Exactly what I was asking Joe. This is becoming the case of Who"didn't"dunit. Above is what I was specifically referring to. So Breckinridge didn't transport ransom money in his car then lie about it then? Wayne, you and I both know a LOT of people did a LOT of things they shouldn't have. What motivated them to do these things? They all had different reasons to do what they did. Some we know and others we don't. In this case, whoever retrieved that box obviously knew it was there. How? Someone told them. Next, considering what we know, their motive could be as simple as helping out a friend. Of course there are others to consider too. But these considerations do not erase the event. That's what I am seeing you so desperately trying to do. Michael, all I am saying is I wish there was at least one witness to confirm what Uebel says he saw. I don't know Uebel. I don't know how reliable he is. I do know he got his dates wrong, right? One thing that bothers me is that Clarence Schultz, the cemetery superintendent, did not witness any of these 3 Uebel sightings.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 3, 2021 13:37:05 GMT -5
Michael, all I am saying is I wish there was at least one witness to confirm what Uebel says he saw. I don't know Uebel. I don't know how reliable he is. I do know he got his dates wrong, right? One thing that bothers me is that Clarence Schultz, the cemetery superintendent, did not witness any of these 3 Uebel sightings. Yes, I believe he got the dates wrong. This is based on the fact his second account lines up with the documented walk-thru. Next, did Uebel know Condon walked down E. Tremont that night before heading down Whittimore? Did he know Condon said CJ left with the box then later claimed he believed the box was hidden in the cemetery? Condon IS the liar. This is just ONE example of it. He cannot be trusted because he not only gets caught lying once but everywhere. So much we never truly know what the true situation was - ever. Schultz was interviewed at his home and he said he didn't see anything so one thing doesn't have to do with another. Now, if Schultz said he was there with Uebel and saw no one that's a different story. But unless you have a source I don't that's not what happened. Cops interviewed Reihl's supervisor too. He didn't see what Reihl did so does that mean it never happened?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 3, 2021 17:12:45 GMT -5
So Breckinridge didn't transport ransom money in his car then lie about it then? Wayne, you and I both know a LOT of people did a LOT of things they shouldn't have. What motivated them to do these things? They all had different reasons to do what they did. Some we know and others we don't. In this case, whoever retrieved that box obviously knew it was there. How? Someone told them. Next, considering what we know, their motive could be as simple as helping out a friend. Of course there are others to consider too. But these considerations do not erase the event. That's what I am seeing you so desperately trying to do. Michael, all I am saying is I wish there was at least one witness to confirm what Uebel says he saw. I don't know Uebel. I don't know how reliable he is. I do know he got his dates wrong, right? One thing that bothers me is that Clarence Schultz, the cemetery superintendent, did not witness any of these 3 Uebel sightings. I just don't know what Uebel would have to lie about. His story was consistent. I don't think he knew the drastic implications of his statements. He gave accurate descriptions of key players, including Coleman's car. He also never asked for reward money or tried to claim any fame from this, unlike many of the trial players who changed their stories.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 3, 2021 17:37:27 GMT -5
Michael, all I am saying is I wish there was at least one witness to confirm what Uebel says he saw. I don't know Uebel. I don't know how reliable he is. I do know he got his dates wrong, right? One thing that bothers me is that Clarence Schultz, the cemetery superintendent, did not witness any of these 3 Uebel sightings. I just don't know what Uebel would have to lie about. His story was consistent. I don't think he knew the drastic implications of his statements. He gave accurate descriptions of key players, including Coleman's car. He also never asked for reward money or tried to claim any fame from this, unlike many of the trial players who changed their stories. Interesting, but you didn't know him, right? Here's what Katharine Arthur Dunning, a student of Condon's at New Rochelle, wrote about Condon in "What Jafsie Told His High School Girls" published in Liberty Magazine May 16, 1936. Again, this is someone, unlike us, who knew Condon: "Much has been said of Dr. Condon – and greatly has he been mocked and laughed at. But none who knew him as we his pupils did could doubt for an instant his absolute sincerity and honesty of purpose. The world is slow to analyze but quick to judge, and in days to come I think the story of Dr. Condon in his connection with the Lindbergh kidnaping will be considered one of the world’s great ironies – the irony of a good and cultured man who took to his heart too literally the Golden Rule."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 3, 2021 17:58:10 GMT -5
Interesting, but you didn't know him, right? I didn't know any of them. But what I do know is the files. These files contain all the information anyone needs to know about Jafsie. All his lies, misdirections, and deceptions are there for everyone to see - or ignore. Condon's own mailman said he was a nut. So find something where someone says how great he was and I'll show you someone who did not see that he lied to the police about the 2nd Taxi Driver, the Women at the Bazaar, who was with him at Tuckahoe: One version it was Al Reich and the other was Kay Condon. If someone "confused" those two they're much worse off than I thought! In several versions he claimed he met a woman there, yet, other versions, to include his GRAND JURY testimony, he claimed he didn't meet anyone. Another "version" was she was a "no show." Shall I go on? The man went to Florida hoping to blame Sam Garelick already arrested there for a different kidnapping. That's honest? That's evidence of a "good and cultured man?" Of course there's the Needle Salesman fiasco. Why would Condon say he was there one month then claim he wasn't only a month later? Not only that, he suggested the Needle Salesman may have been the Look-Out. Is there anything from this former student about Condon being a magician? Or what about "Coal Barge John," or the "Gang of Five?" Even his own cousin called him out on that. Do you deny he told this story? How can you possibly reconcile this stuff? Should I go on? As you know, I could write a book about it - oh that's right I did. So there's a book full of these highlighted examples above - its just the tip of the iceberg. He's lying everywhere. And you know he is. So what you are attempting to do is call into question someone Else's credibility as if it somehow reinstates Jafsie's. That makes no sense to me. Especially when part of Uebel's story has been substantiated, and the box retrieval dove-tails with what Lindbergh saw, and what the police suspected occurred. You and Joe have to ignore quite a bit here. My question is "why?"
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Nov 3, 2021 18:12:58 GMT -5
Commenting here on the remarks of Miss Dunning, pupil Often teachers, ministers, priest, and politicians will assume a persona when they are in front of an audience. What the student, parishioner, and voter may perceive is not necessarily the true self. While this iis not always mean evil intentions, it does mean that the real identify is buried or tuned out for the sake of delivering a message. The public personal may be superficial or artificial. Miss Dunning could not know the real John Condon just by listening to his lectures. Many teachers become actors to make their points and keep the students' attention. The same holds true for ministers and politicians. We need to understand that. It's part of a job, or thought to be. It can also be classified as "showing off" for the sake of being admired. P.S. I have known of a few such myself.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Nov 4, 2021 15:44:06 GMT -5
Hi Metje, I agree with your last post and from a personal perspective. The UK serial killer Doctor Harold "Fred" Shipman murdered my aunt among his many other victims as I have mentioned previously. When the investigation began his patients were outraged that such a good, caring family man should be suspected of killing a rich widow (his last victim, not my aunt). They thought it was a vendetta against him by folks he'd upset e.g he never hesitated to prescribe expensive treatment/operations when clinically justified. Free to the patient but expensive for our National Health Service. His patients thought he was the best doctor in their small town, and he probably was. Local florists were swamped with orders for flowers to celebrate his acquittal when it came. It never did. And as the evidence mounted at his trial, those orders one by one were cancelled. He was revealed as a monster with well over 200 victims.
As you imply, we see only the public mask and not the ferment inside the brain behind it.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Nov 4, 2021 19:46:39 GMT -5
Hello, Sherlock: Thank you for sharing the events that caused your family so much grief. I am so sorry this happened to innocent persons who trusted the wrong man. John Condon appeared to be the center of attention and admiration--witness his scrapbook in which he pasted the history of all his awards and achievements. He could adjust his stories according to the moment--in such a way that he appeared to be the man of the hour with all homage due him. That desire for attention may well have exceeded his desire for the truth. Forever he would play the hero and enjoy the praises. The story of the box which housed part of the ransom money points to the tragic flaw. The tale he told did not happen the way he told it. There was a reason for the deception, and that reason needed to be hidden.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 5, 2021 8:21:48 GMT -5
For me, I just can't get over how many examples there are. The account of Robert Riehl, as an example, shows every time someone outside looks in that they see something very different. I'm still not sure it was Condon he encountered, but it if was, what he did see is rather important. As he approached, the man sitting on top of the column (who was supposed to be Cemetery John) tells the other man (who history records as Condon) "here comes a cop." In another source Riehl claims he said "there's the Cop coming." So what this tells me is that "CJ" trusts "Condon" in this situation to the point where HE IS WARNING HIM. Then the man jumps down toward Condon and runs away and disappears. Condon has a brief conversation with Riehl then, according to him, chased and caught up with CJ. Another lie. If he did catch up it was because this man was waiting for him.
Then there's the whole Curtis nonsense which really reveals Condon's strategies. Condon told Breslin, on May 14, that during his conversation with CJ, on March 12, that he was told the child wasn't in Norfolk. We know he's talking about Curtis because his later statements make this crystal clear. And yet, Curtis did not appear at Hopewell until March 22! There can be no doubt this man was lying. Not only that, but there are patterns, methods, and reasoning behind what he's doing. And again, these are just a FEW examples. The amount of instances are seemingly limitless. It's impossible to ignore.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 6, 2021 9:04:25 GMT -5
These are all valid points, Wayne. And it's not only the accounting of claimed events by one eyewitness in Bernard Uebel that for me at least, provides good reason for caution here. The inference in V2 and beyond that Gregory Coleman and the man who could have been Al Reich, are engaged in some kind of subsequent retrieval action that involves the ORIGINAL ransom box up to a week-and-a-half after the ransom payment of April 2, 1932, should also raise a legitimate red flag for anyone who's even casually studied this case. By your own argument here, we shouldn't believe Uebel even though one of his three accounts can be absolutely proven to have occurred. Next, call Uebel a liar to protect Jafsie ... the guy who has proven himself to be liar countless times? What's the "red flag?" These men should be considered as candidates for doing this based on the account. What part of the research into these men disputes they were close friends of Jafsie? Hell, as I've pointed out, they never did a thorough job of looking into Reich which is something the FBI was surprised to learn at the 11th hour. There is a bottom line that needs to be squarely addressed here. Was Lindbergh aware of this action if it was in fact, the original Samuelsohn box? What I'm seeing in V2 and beyond for a multitude of totally-unfounded reasons, is sheer speculation that Condon has essentially gone rogue in collaboration with the extortionist(s) and is now deceiving his hero Lindbergh by giving the extortionist(s) a running head start through the alleged separating of the money from box during his walk down Tremont Avenue. And now Gregory Coleman and possibly Al Reich are basically playing Mr. Clean by mopping up on the “damning evidence scene" for Condon, all of this happening with Lindbergh in the dark, even while Henry Breckinridge has also been involved in the St. Raymond’s follow up visits to this point? Doesn't that make them all accessories to these imagined Condon shenanigans? Gone "rogue?" Not sure what book you have been reading. The man was brought in by the people attempting to collect this ransom. His "hero," already suspicious of the Condon, observed him do something very strange and relayed what he saw. Condon acknowledged this action and gave at least three different excuses for it. None of which are believable and one which is laughable. Put everything together. It's all right there. One has to ignore a whole helluva lot in order not to see it. Now, I'm quite convinced if this was Hauptmann instead of Jafsie (who you've developed a fondness for), you'd be all over it. Ask yourself why you wouldn't be consistent? The box was seen being retrieved by an unbiased witness who didn't even know what he was witnessing at the time. Working backwards armed with all of the research I've spelled out shows exactly why this occurred. Instead you are acting like a beer and pretzel comedian by suggesting Uebel was lying while simultaneously suggesting Jafsie was honest. You cannot evade what Lindbergh saw either. You cannot avoid that he did not trust the man. I've led you to water and instead of drinking it by trying to figure out what really happened, you grew wings and flew into the clouds then smoked a bong or something. It's right in front of you man and I know you see it. You just don't "want" to see it. That's something I cannot help you with. Again with your claim that you’ve “led me to water.” Please do me a big favour, Michael. Do not spend any more time trying to lead me (others may also agree) “to water.” Too often your personal pond has the taste of diluted grape Kool-Aid with a bitter almond aftertaste. You’re interpreting my comments so that you can simply be argumentative here and lobby for the support of your own published conclusions. Note: I did not say that Uebel should not be believed regarding what he claimed to have observed, but I question exactly what it is he saw and exactly what activities the men who visited St. Raymond’s, were involved in. And what Uebel claims to have seen is entirely independent of whatever it is you believe Condon and others were doing tramping around St. Raymond’s Cemetery in broad daylight after the ransom payment. Please don’t think you can convince me that your own measure of the personal honesty and integrity of either men have anything to do with each other. Within this entire accounting of the events which took place, there is need for caution in interpretation, which is supported by the valid questions which have previously been raised. Your simple and sinister Judge Roy Bean interpretation which casts a very negative blanket over Condon, Coleman, Breckinridge and probably Reich is fabricated by your own black or white connection-of-choice-dots argument, that seeks to leave no room for rebuttal from others. This timeless scripture we’re always hearing about how you’ve laid things out for others to come to their own conclusions, constantly comes under fire when you strongly suggest to them that their Model T must be black and that they’d have to be crazy to want the colour of their choice! Sadly, this appears to have become the general rule of thumb under which you present evidence that supports your conclusions. I respectfully believe that you’ve provided an enormous contribution to the LKC community at large within your always-excellent research, but that you’ve been crunching this case for way too long without a break for needed and healthy reflection. Your career in law enforcement, one having to constantly deal with the workings of the criminal mind, I think is also telling in the mindset you’ve employed to this point to arrive at these conclusions. I sincerely hope that in retirement, you begin to pay less homage to the likes of Walsh, Parker, Garsson, Loney, Hoage and others, and begin to smell the roses a bit more often.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Nov 6, 2021 10:23:11 GMT -5
Please bear with me as I suggest that the Board members continue to take a look at the evidence, evaluate, and investigate in the attempt to discover what really happened before, during, and after the night of March 1, 1932. Personal attacks do not assist us in this investigation. We need to be polite, consider one another's points respectfully and professionally Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Nov 6, 2021 11:03:15 GMT -5
Please bear with me as I suggest that the Board members continue to take a look at the evidence, evaluate, and investigate in the attempt to discover what really happened before, during, and after the night of March 1, 1932. Personal attacks do not assist us in this investigation. We need to be polite, consider one another's points respectfully and professionally Thank you. ❤🤘👍❤
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 6, 2021 11:25:46 GMT -5
Here is the problem I have with the St. Raymond’s “bait and switch” scenario.
IF Lindbergh was responsible for his son’s death and subsequent cover-up, then Lindbergh was hands-down the biggest, most devious, and dangerous liar in the case, right?
This is the scenario stated in Vol. 2:
• After Condon got the box with $50,000, he immediately walked east on Tremont, past Whittemmore and out of Lindbergh’s sight.
• There, Condon gave the $50,000 to one of the extortionist.
• Condon then walked back to Whittemore with the empty box under his arm and walked south down Whittemore.
• There, Condon hid the empty box.
• Condon then returned to Lindbergh and the car.
So whose testimony is Condon’s “bait and switch” scenario based on? How do we know Condon’s movements that he walked east on Tremont after he got the box with the money? Where does this come from?
It’s all base solely on Lindbergh’s testimony. No one else’s.
This is Condon’s version of events:
• After parking at Bergen’s, Condon walked to Whittemore, looked around, then walked east on Tremont (because he wanted to use the streetlights to see if anyone was hiding behind the tombstones).
• Condon then returned to Whittemore where he heard CJ say “Ay, Doctor” (or whatever he said).
• Condon paralleled CJ south on Whittemore and the two men had their first discussion.
• Condon returned to the car. Got the $50,000. Walked directly down Whittemore. Gave the box and money to CJ. Returned to the car.
So who do we believe? Condon or the man supposedly responsible for Charlie’s death?
This might actually help…
In the same May 20th, 1932 statement to Walsh, Lindbergh said (before he arrived at Bergen’s Greenhouse) that he had personally picked up the $50,000 from Bartow’s house and driven it to Condon’s house.
According to Bartow, Lindbergh was lying about this. He said that Reich and Breckinridge had picked up the money from his house and that he (Bartow) called Lindbergh to confirm that he was to hand over the money to Reich and Breckinridge (this is from Bartow's trial testimony).
So if Lindbergh was lying about something as simple as this in his May 20th, why do we believe what he said in the same statement about what he saw about Condon’s movements?
Woodward and Bernstein brought down Nixon’s presidency because every fact that went into All The President’s Men was based on at least 2 witnesses account. If they had an account from just one witness with no one else to support it, that witness account, no matter how damning, did not go into the book.
IF Lindbergh was responsible for the death and cover-up of his son, then how can we can take his unsupported word on anything?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 6, 2021 11:27:56 GMT -5
Sadly, this appears to have become the general rule of thumb under which you present evidence that supports your conclusions. I respectfully believe that you’ve provided an enormous contribution to the LKC community at large within your always-excellent research, but that you’ve been crunching this case for way too long without a break for needed and healthy reflection. Your career in law enforcement, one having to constantly deal with the workings of the criminal mind, I think is also telling in the mindset you’ve employed to this point to arrive at these conclusions. I sincerely hope that in retirement, you begin to pay less homage to the likes of Walsh, Parker, Garsson, Loney, Hoage and others, and begin to smell the roses a bit more often. Leading to water = leading to the facts. That's all I meant by that. Unfortunately Joe, you continue to be more worried (or possibly obsessed) with what you think I believe and attempting to counter whatever that is by any means necessary. Why? Because you don't "like" what these fact might support, once again, based on what you believe my personal theories are. I suggest you focus on the facts themselves and let the chips fall where they may. It's a much easier process and in the end achieves a greater good. Plus, it won't leave you out over your skis like you get from time to time. There are a whole host of things to consider: All three of Uebel's accounts, one of which has been proven. Next, Lindbergh's account, Condon's various responses, and what the NJSP believed actually took place. Condon's actions and statements concerning the Ransom Box, and its builder. There's more but I don't have all day. But instead what I see you doing is trying to neutralize everything by suggesting "I" am overplaying my hand. What hand? Just look at the facts instead of being so caught up in trying to read my mind. And again, as it concerns Condon this is just one of MANY like scenarios concerning his lies and deceptive conduct. So it ALL must be considered in their totality. This, of course, is something you refuse to do instead coming up with powder puff bio pieces about how Condon's hero was Lindbergh and loved this country, etc. etc. It's an obvious attempt at distraction away from the facts at hand.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 6, 2021 11:57:52 GMT -5
Good post Wayne.
The term "bait & switch" is something I use because I believe it appropriately covers what occurred. Concerning "who" to believe is always a tough situation when neither person can be trusted to tell the truth. I mean we absolutely cannot trust Condon because there are so many documented accounts of his untruthful words and behavior. Even moreso than Lindbergh's suspicious conduct, untruths, and sometimes questionable actions. But in this case, Lindbergh saw what Condon did, and Condon himself backs up that he did this. The problem here is that he gave, as usual, at least three differing explanations for why he did what he did. I see that you decided to use only one which is obviously what you believe is the best choice. That reason was that he was afraid someone was hiding behind the tombstones. The second explanation, which you don't seem to like, is that he walked that way to give him sufficient time to say a prayer. I can see why you didn't choose that one. And his third different explanation was that he became confused and didn't know where he was going. This is definitely not the choice you want for sure! According to Seykora, Condon actually told him he walked an "extra block" down E. Tremont.
By the way, the example you give of Lindbergh lying is spot on. However, once again, I believe when looking at ALL the information it points to the most likely conclusion (see my post above to Joe).
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 6, 2021 12:09:22 GMT -5
...But in this case, Lindbergh saw what Condon did, and Condon himself backs up that he did this. Right, same account but different times when Condon walked down Tremont. That is my point. Lindbergh said he saw Condon walking east of Tremont after Condon had taken the box. Condon says he went down Tremont before he had the box. With 2 such unreliable witnesses, how can you choose? And what was the reasoning for Condon, Reich, and Coleman to retrieve the box later? Why did they need to do that?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 6, 2021 17:35:41 GMT -5
Please bear with me as I suggest that the Board members continue to take a look at the evidence, evaluate, and investigate in the attempt to discover what really happened before, during, and after the night of March 1, 1932. Personal attacks do not assist us in this investigation. We need to be polite, consider one another's points respectfully and professionally Thank you. I guess my post might have had something to do with the bong I was apparently smoking up in the clouds after I had sprouted wings. Anyway, you are absolutely correct metje, and point well taken.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 6, 2021 17:53:54 GMT -5
...But in this case, Lindbergh saw what Condon did, and Condon himself backs up that he did this. Right, same account but different times when Condon walked down Tremont. That is my point. Lindbergh said he saw Condon walking east of Tremont after Condon had taken the box. Condon says he went down Tremont before he had the box. With 2 such unreliable witnesses, how can you choose? And what was the reasoning for Condon, Reich, and Coleman to retrieve the box later? Why did they need to do that? Condon does state in Jafsie Tells All that his unexpected walk down Tremont St. occurred before the first time he proceeded down Whittemore Ave. I'm not suggesting either version, his or Lindbergh's account of Condon with the ransom payment is the correct one, but I've always wondered about exactly what took place after CJ called out to Condon, "Hey Doc!" Condon turned around and began walking back towards St. Raymond's in an attempt to now fix CJ's location within the cemetery. My question here is, was he able to immediately "find" CJ who had been concealed behind a tombstone? And if he did, was he then able to immediately follow CJ's path southwards inside the cemetery parallel to Whittemore Ave., OR did Condon actually walk further down Tremont Ave. in an attempt to follow CJ's direction, which he hadn't yet determined accurately? After all, at this point Condon would not have known of CJ's intended meeting location at the corner of Whittemore and the cemetery side road. If Condon's walk down Tremont Ave. did take place before he had the box, then his first reason for having taken this detour might well make some sense here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 6, 2021 18:24:54 GMT -5
Right, same account but different times when Condon walked down Tremont. That is my point. Lindbergh said he saw Condon walking east of Tremont after Condon had taken the box. Condon says he went down Tremont before he had the box. With 2 such unreliable witnesses, how can you choose? And what was the reasoning for Condon, Reich, and Coleman to retrieve the box later? Why did they need to do that? First, since you have agreed that Condon cannot be trusted I guess that's one thing we can finally put to rest. And yet, you are still avoiding the points that I've previously made and seem hell bent on making it a Condon vs. Lindbergh situation when its not. It's almost like I am addressing your points but you are ignoring most of mine. So to address this "C v L" argument, I will say once again that everything must be considered as it involves this scenario. Uebel's accounts. One was proven to be true AND Uebel had no idea what Lindbergh or Condon said or did the night of April 2nd. Next, he had no idea what the police believed happened. He had no idea Condon would lie about the box maker or about the physical construction of this box, or his comments about the box being seperated from the money despite saying CJ left with both. So when different things, independent of one another, dovetail these are things that support the other. Furthermore, Lindbergh never changed his story that I know of. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, Condon told three versions - four if you count his earliest recollections that do not include this detour. Next, you are using the tactic of only mentioning the things that help your position along, but omit completely those that do not as if they did not occur or never existed. For example, Condon gave multiple versions, but you seem to be clinging to the June 1934 interview for the idea that he gave different timing for it. Even here he doesn't say he walked a block. Pull out your map. In Vigil, its Coleman's observations: It would have been easy for a group of the kidnapers to remain at a point on Whittemore Ave. or within the cemetery and, hidden in the darkness, observe anybody on the lighted Tremont Ave. The innumerable tombstones in the cemetery also provide excellent hiding places. Think about this. It's Coleman's thoughts, and who uses it later? Next, Coleman writes: Down this street, for a distance of a block Dr. Condon walked. No one was in sight. He waited a few minutes and then turned about as if to go away. A cry, "Hey doctor," halted him. He turned around but could see no one. A heavy six-foot evergreen bush forms a continuation of the retaining wall as Whittemore Ave. approaches Balcolm Ave. Dr. Condon looked towards the bush and queried: "Where are you?" He saw a movement in the bush. He walked cautiously, "Here I am, Doctor", a voice said softly, and the Doctor was once more face to face with the abductor, but this time separated by the wide evergreen. Got that map? Check it out for me and tell me if Condon had walked a block down East Tremont when this occurred how'd he'd be anywhere near that bush. Fact is, what Coleman described was Condon walking a block down Whittemore. That is unless Jafsie had bionic ears and the ability to teleport there. Now let's look at some other sources. May 13, Condon omits this stroll down East Tremont. May 14, he, in essence, pleads the 5th because, as he said, he might incriminate himself. That's a smart, sober, and savvy decision. On May 20, at the Grand Jury, the same day he testified he never went to Tuckohoe to meet anyone and did NOT, he merely says he was walking back to the car when someone yelled causing him to travel down Whittemore. On this same day, Lindbergh gave his statement mentioning Condon's detour down East Tremont. The rest is mentioned above where Condon offers at least three different explanations - so he's admitting to the detour but changing his story three times concerning why he did what he did. So the fact that you skip over all of this stuff and imply that each and every version was before he had the money is a mistake. Seykora had summarized Manning's reports, and he never mentions that and what he writes is consistent with Lindbergh's story and that Condon told him it was the second time: Condon states that on his second trip back to the cemetery on the night of April 2nd.... That's pretty important - right? Now its a Lindbergh AND Manning v. Condon. And even if he did say that each time despite proof he did not, its irrelevant considering he's constantly telling lies and completely different stories about it.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 6, 2021 19:42:49 GMT -5
Michael, I'm simply asking questions. Isn't that the point of a discussion board?
Again, what was the reasoning for Condon, Reich, and Coleman to retrieve the box later? Why did they need to do that?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 6, 2021 21:59:20 GMT -5
Right, same account but different times when Condon walked down Tremont. That is my point. Lindbergh said he saw Condon walking east of Tremont after Condon had taken the box. Condon says he went down Tremont before he had the box. With 2 such unreliable witnesses, how can you choose? And what was the reasoning for Condon, Reich, and Coleman to retrieve the box later? Why did they need to do that? ...Furthermore, Lindbergh never changed his story that I know of. Unless I'm mistaken, that's because Lindbergh mentioned Condon's trip down Tremont carrying the box with the money just once. In his May 20th, 1932 statement to Walsh. He did not mention Condon's trip down Tremont in his trial testimony. Does anyone have more of Lindbergh's statements regarding this? Is there anything in Lindbergh's Grand Jury testimony? My transcript of his Grand Jury testimony ends just as Lindbergh arrives at Bergen's Greenhouse.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 7, 2021 7:19:10 GMT -5
Unless I'm mistaken, that's because Lindbergh mentioned Condon's trip down Tremont carrying the box with the money just once. In his May 20th, 1932 statement to Walsh. As far as I know that's it. It's possible that he restated it several times but that it wasn't noted because he didn't contradict himself like Condon constantly did. Of course what he told both Agent Larimer and Cowie proves he never trusted him. It started with the arrangements of the drop itself which caused him to replace Reich in the first place. It got worse after seeing Condon take that detour. In fact, Lindbergh predicted that Condon would never identify CJ. He did not mention Condon's trip down Tremont in his trial testimony. Why would he? The goal was to convict Hauptmann at that point - not Condon. Does anyone have more of Lindbergh's statements regarding this? Is there anything in Lindbergh's Grand Jury testimony? My transcript of his Grand Jury testimony ends just as Lindbergh arrives at Bergen's Greenhouse. It's 12 pages long. Tell me what pages you need.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 7, 2021 7:33:20 GMT -5
Michael, I'm simply asking questions. Isn't that the point of a discussion board? I'll have to disagree with you here. This isn't a discussion - not really. You are asking questions, get answers, then engage in a word search. If you don't find them you reload and ask different questions hoping to find them in the next reply. You aren't considering the content, or evaluating the impact they have on your position. Instead you are throwing everything at the wall, to include the kitchen sink, hoping something will stick. Anything I say that upsets it is of no consequence. Again, what was the reasoning for Condon, Reich, and Coleman to retrieve the box later? Why did they need to do that? Asked and answered. To support my point above, I've already said that I'm not sure "who" retrieved the box. And yet, you pose this question as if I had. So you didn't pay attention to my answer and tells me you aren't really interested in what I have to say. So what's the point in continuing? Look, nobody knows how hard it is to invest in something only to find out the preferred conclusion just isn't the correct one. I've spent months on certain angles only to find a document at the Archives or have Siglinde provide me with information to upset it. But its not a waste of time regardless. In the end, there's knowledge that didn't exist before it all started. Now, for you to ask me a question like the one above, that has already been answered throughout the discussion, shows me it doesn't matter what I say at this point. Why would Condon want the ransom box that he hid on scene to conceal his ruse retrieved? Seriously?
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Nov 7, 2021 8:35:50 GMT -5
The story of the box that held the ransom money is intriguing and puzzling. John Condon had the box made according to certain size specifications indicated on a ransom note. He gave various stories about this box. One, that he had it made of special kinds of wood, indicating that that the construction was unique and complex. Once he said that it had it constructed this way because it resembled a certain ballot box that he recalled. Once he said that the box was a family heirloom. Let's take a look at these stories. First, there was no need to have the box constructed in any complex manner, only to fit the size of the bills and possess the necessary depth to house the bills. If the box had been this complicated, it would have taken a great deal of time to build it. Why would anyone want to make the operation complex and lengthy? Second, does anyone know of a "ballot box" that was really made of all these woods? Was it actually the size of a "ballot box"? And why would anyone want to offer a "family heirloom" in a kidnapping situation? None of this makes any sense. The kidnappers would not want to keep the box, nor would they want to keep the original money by which they could be traced. If the box was unique, they would not want to be caught with it. It's likely that the night the money was handed over, they took it, counted the bills and had them laundered ASAP. The box may never have left the cemetery at all. After counting the money, they may well have simply shoved it back under the hedge. They would not want to be identified if they were caught with it. If that is what happened, they Condon would have known what they would do and so retrieved the box, knowing exactly where it was. Then he managed to get rid of it. It became evidence, and he would not want the box to incriminate him if it were found in his possession. Then everyone would know possibly--that is was not made of special types of wood, that it did not resemble any ballot box, and that he had deliberately held up the chain of events for several weeks while he pretended that the box was being made. Your comments are welcome.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 7, 2021 12:14:17 GMT -5
...But in this case, Lindbergh saw what Condon did, and Condon himself backs up that he did this. And what was the reasoning for Condon, Reich, and Coleman to retrieve the box later? Why did they need to do that? Condon's job in this was to likely get the extortionists their ransom money, while keeping them from ever being caught. Condon gave the extortionists a head start, by quickly handing over the ransom money further down Tremont. He then returned to Whittemore, box still in hand, as if nothing had just transpired. He then again ventured out of sight, this time down Whittemore, where he took his time and hid the box. The police were then sent on a wild goose chase looking for a ransom box - one that was made of so many kinds of wood that it could never possibly be re-created (spoiler alert: that was a lie). In reality, Condon knew exactly where this plain wooden box was and returned to get it and dispose of it. Thereby ensuring nobody would ever be "caught" with it.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 7, 2021 12:16:31 GMT -5
After counting the money, they may well have simply shoved it back under the hedge. They would not want to be identified if they were caught with it. If that is what happened, they Condon would have known what they would do and so retrieved the box, knowing exactly where it was. Then he managed to get rid of it. It became evidence, and he would not want the box to incriminate him if it were found in his possession. Then everyone would know possibly--that is was not made of special types of wood, that it did not resemble any ballot box, and that he had deliberately held up the chain of events for several weeks while he pretended that the box was being made. Your comments are welcome. Except that it's unlikely the money was ever counted or he ever liaised with the extortionists in this area. He simply took his time and hid the box. The money was transferred further down Tremont. This way all evidence (footprints, etc) led nowhere.
|
|