luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Jun 30, 2019 19:16:22 GMT -5
Why did Lindbergh accept John Condon as a intermediary since John Condon was a ally of the kidnapper(s)?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 30, 2019 20:37:58 GMT -5
What choice did Lindbergh have? He couldn't very well dismiss someone who'd shown up to his house with an authentic ransom note, featuring the same symbol seen the first note in the nursery.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 1, 2019 1:07:01 GMT -5
Why did Lindbergh accept John Condon as a intermediary since John Condon was a ally of the kidnapper(s)? Condon's "story" about the Bronx Home News makes little sense in retrospect, but nobody knew - at least at first - that Condon was an ally of them. As time went on and it became clear Condon was lying everyone was suspicious. Thankfully Michael has bought to light fascinating information that makes it clear just how in cahoots he was with the extortionists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 6:06:32 GMT -5
Oh yes, Condon's Bronx Home News appeal to the kidnappers. Here is an excerpt from Condon's Hauptmann Trial Testimony concerning this letter.
TT Page 709 Cross Examination of John F. Condon by Defense Attorney Edward Reilly:
Q(Reilly) - If the kidnaping band were not anticipating something from the Bronx News, didn't you think it strange that the appeal should not be published in the metropolitan dailies? A(Condon) - No, sir.
Q(Reilly) - And you gave no indication to any agency or metropolitan daily that you had sent the appeal to the Bronx News? A(Condon) - I did not.
Q(Reilly) - And of course you did not know the kidnapers? A(Condon) - I did not.
Q(Reilly) - They might just as well have been in Massachusetts-- A(Condon) - Anything.
Q(Reilly) - (continuing) Texas, Mexico or any place? A(Condon) - Yes.
Q(Reilly) - And yet, if they were, you expected them to see the Bronx News, did you? A(Condon) - Yes, sir.
Condon expected the kidnappers would see his appeal in the Bronx Home News. Not maybe, not hopefully. He expected they would see it. Why? Because it had been arranged with the kidnappers in advance. Condon's own testimony shows this. No need to reach beyond the Bronx Home News!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 1, 2019 7:37:46 GMT -5
Oh yes, Condon's Bronx Home News appeal to the kidnappers. Here is an excerpt from Condon's Hauptmann Trial Testimony concerning this letter. TT Page 709 Cross Examination of John F. Condon by Defense Attorney Edward Reilly: Q(Reilly) - If the kidnaping band were not anticipating something from the Bronx News, didn't you think it strange that the appeal should not be published in the metropolitan dailies? A(Condon) - No, sir. Q(Reilly) - And you gave no indication to any agency or metropolitan daily that you had sent the appeal to the Bronx News? A(Condon) - I did not. Q(Reilly) - And of course you did not know the kidnapers? A(Condon) - I did not. Q(Reilly) - They might just as well have been in Massachusetts-- A(Condon) - Anything. Q(Reilly) - (continuing) Texas, Mexico or any place? A(Condon) - Yes. Q(Reilly) - And yet, if they were, you expected them to see the Bronx News, did you? A(Condon) - Yes, sir. Condon expected the kidnappers would see his appeal in the Bronx Home News. Not maybe, not hopefully. He expected they would see it. Why? Because it had been arranged with the kidnappers in advance. Condon's own testimony shows this. No need to reach beyond the Bronx Home News! What we have here is a rare instance of Reilly scoring a critical punch at Condon in particular and the prosecution's "lone wolf theory" more generally. Clearly, Condon was saying that he knew the kidnapper(s) and/or extortionist(s) before he entered the case, and had geographic knowledge of a likely tie-in of at lest one perp to the Bronx. Yet, amazingly, it seems as if, despite the vast media coverage of the Hauptmann trial, absolutely nobody said or wrote anything about Condon's inculpating admission. Why not? Did Jafsie's belated ID of Hauptmann as "Cemetery John" make everything else Condon said at the trial irrelevant?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 1, 2019 10:19:32 GMT -5
Why did Lindbergh accept John Condon as a intermediary since John Condon was a ally of the kidnapper(s)? Both LJ and USC are right. The letter with the Secret Symbol pretty much guaranteed it. Although we should at least consider the possibility, we can't assume everyone knew then what we know now. I believe everyone here should work these types of questions out for themselves. Like ... "when" do you think Lindbergh suspected Condon? We know he did, and also know what he told Special Agent Larimer and Former Asst. U. S. Atty Cowie ( See V2 Pages 200-01 among other examples). In fact, if one were to make a chart about who trusted him and who did not (and when) I think it would be interesting to see. The next thing to do is compare the circumstances which surrounded Condon's "acceptance" against other similar situations. Rosner. Madden. Bitz & Spitale. Curtis. Did Lindbergh bring in and/or accept them without suspicion and wholly based on "trust?"
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jul 1, 2019 11:14:21 GMT -5
Why did Lindbergh accept John Condon as a intermediary since John Condon was a ally of the kidnapper(s)? Personally, I don't believe John Condon was an ally of the kidnappers or had anything to do with them, before the response to his Bronx Home News letter. He never aligned himself with them unless you can call "assisting" them at the request of Charles Lindbergh to ensure they got their money for the safe return of his son, with minimal police intervention. It's little wonder anyone who does believe this kind of stuff, ie. that Condon was an ally of the kidnappers, seems unwilling to point out just one example of this guy ever having shown anything but allegiance to his originally stated objective and desire to return Lindbergh's son to his mother's arms. That may sound too simple and even corny to some and usually evokes the kind of response that attempts to cloud things up by painting others with having an "emotional connection" to characters within the case. Ridiculous. This is an 87-year-old not-at-all-cold case that means virtually nothing in today's world, although I certainly would never say it was not interesting, intriguing and capable of pulling you in head first to discover what I'd consider to be the remaining 20% of a jigsaw puzzle that features Bruno Hauptmann as it's centerpiece. The "Lindy Did It" theory is as old as this case and as I've said for years, it's a big old tottering house of cards that keeps having to support itself through highly debatable speculation, as other sections fall apart. It's little wonder the "smoking gun" to support it remains this elusive.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jul 1, 2019 11:24:35 GMT -5
Oh yes, Condon's Bronx Home News appeal to the kidnappers. Here is an excerpt from Condon's Hauptmann Trial Testimony concerning this letter. TT Page 709 Cross Examination of John F. Condon by Defense Attorney Edward Reilly: Q(Reilly) - If the kidnaping band were not anticipating something from the Bronx News, didn't you think it strange that the appeal should not be published in the metropolitan dailies? A(Condon) - No, sir. Q(Reilly) - And you gave no indication to any agency or metropolitan daily that you had sent the appeal to the Bronx News? A(Condon) - I did not. Q(Reilly) - And of course you did not know the kidnapers? A(Condon) - I did not. Q(Reilly) - They might just as well have been in Massachusetts-- A(Condon) - Anything. Q(Reilly) - (continuing) Texas, Mexico or any place? A(Condon) - Yes. Q(Reilly) - And yet, if they were, you expected them to see the Bronx News, did you? A(Condon) - Yes, sir. Condon expected the kidnappers would see his appeal in the Bronx Home News. Not maybe, not hopefully. He expected they would see it. Why? Because it had been arranged with the kidnappers in advance. Condon's own testimony shows this. No need to reach beyond the Bronx Home News! What we have here is a rare instance of Reilly scoring a critical punch at Condon in particular and the prosecution's "lone wolf theory" more generally. Clearly, Condon was saying that he knew the kidnapper(s) and/or extortionist(s) before he entered the case, and had geographic knowledge of a likely tie-in of at lest one perp to the Bronx. Yet, amazingly, it seems as if, despite the vast media coverage of the Hauptmann trial, absolutely nobody said or wrote anything about Condon's inculpating admission. Why not? Did Jafsie's belated ID of Hauptmann as "Cemetery John" make everything else Condon said at the trial irrelevant? You actually believe from this testimony at the Flemington trial that Condon is admitting he was in prior league with the kidnappers, and that is why he fully expected them to respond to his Bronx Home News letter? I'd respectfully suggest you re-read the exchange.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 1, 2019 11:32:43 GMT -5
Personally, I don't believe John Condon was an ally of the kidnappers or had anything to do with them, before the response to his Bronx Home News letter. He never aligned himself with them unless you can call "assisting" them at the request of Charles Lindbergh to ensure they got their money for the safe return of his son, with minimal police intervention. It's little wonder anyone who does believe this kind of stuff, ie. that Condon was an ally of the kidnappers, seems unwilling to point out just one example of this guy ever having shown anything but allegiance to his originally stated objective and desire to return Lindbergh's son to his mother's arms. That may sound too simple and even corny to some and usually evokes the kind of response that attempts to cloud things up by painting others with having an "emotional connection" to characters within the case. Ridiculous. This is an 87-year-old not-at-all-cold case that means virtually nothing in today's world, although I certainly would never say it was not interesting, intriguing and capable of pulling you in head first to discover what I'd consider to be the remaining 20% of a jigsaw puzzle that features Bruno Hauptmann as it's centerpiece. The "Lindy Did It" theory is as old as this case and as I've said for years, it's a big old tottering house of cards that keeps having to support itself through highly debatable speculation, as other sections fall apart. It's little wonder the "smoking gun" to support it remains this elusive. Joe,
This first thing I see you doing is conflating two (three actually) separate issues. One may be true without the other being true. Or both could be false and both could be true. One doesn't rely on the other. So you "might" be rejecting Condon's involvement based upon your belief that it would support the "Lindbergh Did It" position. The other thing is that I have seen you consistently speak of Condon in endearing terms over the years which has led me to consider the "idea" of what you believe he represented could be clouding your judgment because it ties in with the overall conclusions you have drawn.
Next, I accept your position on Condon as an option to consider. That would have to be that Condon was lying, and that he was purposefully obstructing justice in order to assist Lindbergh to achieve his ultimate goal. A necessary evil so to speak. Sort of like Breckinridge transporting the ransom which he knew compounded a felony and could have gotten him disbarred.
The problem I see with this is that it did not end after the child turned up dead. From here any legitimate argument would have to be one like he was afraid he'd be killed if he did not lie and misdirect police. So of course all things should always be considered as options. Like I wrote above, I think everyone should look at it then draw their own conclusions - or leave it open ended if they are not ready to do so yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 11:56:32 GMT -5
The next thing to do is compare the circumstances which surrounded Condon's "acceptance" against other similar situations. Rosner. Madden. Bitz & Spitale. Curtis. Did Lindbergh bring in and/or accept them without suspicion and wholly based on "trust?" Well, Rosner came in because he was recommended by Thayer to Breckinridge. Madden, Bitz & Spitale came in because of Rosner. This whole underworld angle was given the stamp of approval by Lindbergh. I don't think this is trust based on Lindbergh's part on any of these individuals. Lindbergh is trusting Thayer and Breckinridge to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" on this angle. Things get run by CAL, of course, but he depends on Thayer and Breck to advise him. Rosner, Madden, Bitz & Spitale and Curtis did not have the secret symbol which raised Condon to another level in this whole thing. Does this mean Lindbergh trusted Condon? I say no. Breckinridge moved in with Condon to stay on top of this whole negotiation process. I think Lindbergh ended up having to actively work with Curtis because Charlie was not recovered after the ransom was paid. CAL would have to "keep looking" until the body was returned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 12:10:06 GMT -5
Well, Joe, like it or not, the kidnappers chose Condon. Lindbergh did not. Condon went to Hopewell with the "secret symbol" and a letter from the kidnappers telling Lindbergh to give Condon the money. This is not Lindbergh initiating this negotiation. CAL accepts using Condon because that is who the kidnappers say will act for them. That is the plain and simple truth. Its in the ransom notes!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jul 1, 2019 12:30:04 GMT -5
Personally, I don't believe John Condon was an ally of the kidnappers or had anything to do with them, before the response to his Bronx Home News letter. He never aligned himself with them unless you can call "assisting" them at the request of Charles Lindbergh to ensure they got their money for the safe return of his son, with minimal police intervention. It's little wonder anyone who does believe this kind of stuff, ie. that Condon was an ally of the kidnappers, seems unwilling to point out just one example of this guy ever having shown anything but allegiance to his originally stated objective and desire to return Lindbergh's son to his mother's arms. That may sound too simple and even corny to some and usually evokes the kind of response that attempts to cloud things up by painting others with having an "emotional connection" to characters within the case. Ridiculous. This is an 87-year-old not-at-all-cold case that means virtually nothing in today's world, although I certainly would never say it was not interesting, intriguing and capable of pulling you in head first to discover what I'd consider to be the remaining 20% of a jigsaw puzzle that features Bruno Hauptmann as it's centerpiece. The "Lindy Did It" theory is as old as this case and as I've said for years, it's a big old tottering house of cards that keeps having to support itself through highly debatable speculation, as other sections fall apart. It's little wonder the "smoking gun" to support it remains this elusive. Joe,
This first thing I see you doing is conflating two (three actually) separate issues. One may be true without the other being true. Or both could be false and both could be true. One doesn't rely on the other. So you "might" be rejecting Condon's involvement based upon your belief that it would support the "Lindbergh Did It" position. The other thing is that I have seen you consistently speak of Condon in endearing terms over the years which has led me to consider the "idea" of what you believe he represented could be clouding your judgment because it ties in with the overall conclusions you have drawn.
Next, I accept your position on Condon as an option to consider. That would have to be that Condon was lying, and that he was purposefully obstructing justice in order to assist Lindbergh to achieve his ultimate goal. A necessary evil so to speak. Sort of like Breckinridge transporting the ransom which he knew compounded a felony and could have gotten him disbarred.
The problem I see with this is that it did not end after the child turned up dead. From here any legitimate argument would have to be one like he was afraid he'd be killed if he did not lie and misdirect police. So of course all things should always be considered as options. Like I wrote above, I think everyone should look at it then draw their own conclusions - or leave it open ended if they are not ready to do so yet. Michael, as much as I may have over the years, spoken about Condon in what you repeatedly conclude are endearing terms, I have a very good understanding about who the man was, warts and all. Sorry, as much as you seem to need there to be, there is no emotional connection. I have no personal feelings for the man, other than to appreciate his lifelong record of public service and community involvement, and I don't think it helps your case by repeating this again and.. In fact, you may want to consider the possibility that in light of Condon and Lindbergh having been your personal whipping boys for years, this might influence your perspective just a little. This would be a great place to inject a little "Know what I mean?" but I digress. Opinions aside, in your NJSP archival research, do you have any documented evidence of Condon ever having strayed from his intentions and desire to return Lindbergh's son to his mother's arms, and further to pursue the kidnappers after May 12, 1932? That is information on Condon I would truly be interested in.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jul 1, 2019 12:41:22 GMT -5
Well, Joe, like it or not, the kidnappers chose Condon. Lindbergh did not. Condon went to Hopewell with the "secret symbol" and a letter from the kidnappers telling Lindbergh to give Condon the money. This is not Lindbergh initiating this negotiation. CAL accepts using Condon because that is who the kidnappers say will act for them. That is the plan and simple truth. Its in the ransom notes! Amy, given the fact that gangsters were running amok at Highfields and the trepidation that must have caused the kidnappers, I'd venture the sudden appearance of an elderly and community-minded schoolteacher on the scene, would have appeared like manna from heaven. Of course the kidnappers responded to Condon.. after all it was he who reached out to them in essence through his half altruistic / half self-serving letter to the Bronx Home News. The synchronicity, as Jung would have called it, was their relative geographical locations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 13:25:41 GMT -5
The synchronicity, as Jung would have called it, was their relative geographical locations. There is nothing "coincidental" going on about location and the use of the Bronx Home News. Condon's "big heart" never needed to reach past his own neighborhood because Condon already knew the kidnappers were Bronx based before he put his pen to the paper that letter was written on and his court testimony clearly reveals that!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 2, 2019 7:02:19 GMT -5
Michael, as much as I may have over the years, spoken about Condon in what you repeatedly conclude are endearing terms, I have a very good understanding about who the man was, warts and all. Sorry, as much as you seem to need there to be, there is no emotional connection. I have no personal feelings for the man, other than to appreciate his lifelong record of public service and community involvement, and I don't think it helps your case by repeating this again and.. In fact, you may want to consider the possibility that in light of Condon and Lindbergh having been your personal whipping boys for years, this might influence your perspective just a little. This would be a great place to inject a little "Know what I mean?" but I digress. I can't understand why you can't take anything I write at face value. I don't "need" you to be anything. It's what I see, and apparently you're telling me that's not really how you feel - despite all of your previous posts which I believe supports it. Case in point is where you mention above his "lifelong record of public service" but omit all of the other really bad and/or suspicious conduct (BTK had similar accomplishments). But again, saying it doesn't help my case by repeating it doesn't make sense to me. I was responding to your post where you brought it up. Furthermore, I don't have a "case" and its merely what I'd call on observation. You just made one about me above about "whipping boys" or whatever and have done this for quite some time yourself. I don't agree, and merely give observations based on whats in the documentation. But I don't question that's what you feel or take offense to it in any way and certainly don't have a problem if you want to use it again as some sort of rebuttal in the future. Opinions aside, in your NJSP archival research, do you have any documented evidence of Condon ever having strayed from his intentions and desire to return Lindbergh's son to his mother's arms, and further to pursue the kidnappers after May 12, 1932? That is information on Condon I would truly be interested in. The totality of the documentation is what is needed to answer this question. I've tried my best to reveal as much as I could in V2. Whether or not Condon, among other things, wanted to deliver the child back to Lindbergh is up to each and every researcher to decide on their own. I would never tell someone what to believe after consulting the facts as they exist in the material. But to further pursue the kidnappers after May 12th? They eventually had Hauptmann standing right in front of him. That "search" was over. And Condon said it wasn't him. You've said yourself that everything centered and surrounded Hauptmann so what more proof do you need? Now - do I personally think that was his intent? Perhaps in the beginning. But I absolutely believe Inspector Walsh was right when he said Condon was the guy who was brought in causing the ransom to go up by 20k. So at that point when he was brought in, he may have been under the impression that child was still alive, and it could have something used to recruit him.
|
|