|
Post by Michael on Dec 14, 2021 20:12:28 GMT -5
From Lt. Finn: Jafsie Condon would talk - and how he would talk! Then he'd shut up like one of his own City Island clams. He was always doing strange things - like hunting for Red Johnson along the water front and then defending him as violently as if Red had been his own son. And why did he go around with a bodyguard?
One time we'd see him, he'd be himself, the old master. The next time, he'd be rigged up like an Englishman's idea of a tough in a Bowery dive. Then he'd turn up as a half-witted tottering old party, pretending to be almost totally deaf.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 15, 2021 10:36:27 GMT -5
From Lt. Finn: Jafsie Condon would talk - and how he would talk! Then he'd shut up like one of his own City Island clams. He was always doing strange things - like hunting for Red Johnson along the water front and then defending him as violently as if Red had been his own son. And why did he go around with a bodyguard?
One time we'd see him, he'd be himself, the old master. The next time, he'd be rigged up like an Englishman's idea of a tough in a Bowery dive. Then he'd turn up as a half-witted tottering old party, pretending to be almost totally deaf. A pretty good assessment when it comes to how Condon portrayed himself within the case. His original motivations, ongoing intent and heart throughout though were in the right place, even though he wasn't capable of maintaining the kind of consistent mental and emotional portrayal of those qualities that are required in an effective and dependable witness.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 15, 2021 13:08:32 GMT -5
From Lt. Finn: Jafsie Condon would talk - and how he would talk! Then he'd shut up like one of his own City Island clams. He was always doing strange things - like hunting for Red Johnson along the water front and then defending him as violently as if Red had been his own son. And why did he go around with a bodyguard?
One time we'd see him, he'd be himself, the old master. The next time, he'd be rigged up like an Englishman's idea of a tough in a Bowery dive. Then he'd turn up as a half-witted tottering old party, pretending to be almost totally deaf. A pretty good assessment when it comes to how Condon portrayed himself within the case. His original motivations, ongoing intent and heart throughout though were in the right place, even though he wasn't capable of maintaining the kind of consistent mental and emotional portrayal of those qualities that are required in an effective and dependable witness. Nearly everyone involved thought the man was deeply involved. Michael has proven this. The man lied at every single turn. The constant defense of him is pretty staggering, when there is literally no evidence to support his "intent and heart," is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 15, 2021 13:37:48 GMT -5
Observation made in an anonymous letter to the Governor: I thought 'Jafsie' was supposed to be looking for "John" for two and a half years.
It is unlikely that Hauptmann would accept Condon as intermediary and then [later] rent a boat from the same [island] where Condon had a real-estate office. Unless, of course, he wasn't looking for John and/or Hauptmann wasn't worried about Condon seeing him. From Condon himself who had asserted to police that Cemetery John... "...couldn't be a resident of the Bronx without my having seen him before"(V2, P319-20) Consider now, in addition, we have the City Island connection which isn't anywhere near the size of the Bronx. From Joe Perrone: ...stated that a few days after he attended the Bronx County Grand Jury, he had taken a passenger to City Island, and there had observed Dr. Condon talking to a man whom he thought was the man that gave him the note.(V2, P320)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 16, 2021 10:06:28 GMT -5
A pretty good assessment when it comes to how Condon portrayed himself within the case. His original motivations, ongoing intent and heart throughout though were in the right place, even though he wasn't capable of maintaining the kind of consistent mental and emotional portrayal of those qualities that are required in an effective and dependable witness. Nearly everyone involved thought the man was deeply involved. Michael has proven this. The man lied at every single turn. The constant defense of him is pretty staggering, when there is literally no evidence to support his "intent and heart," is ridiculous. "Nearly everyone" and "constant defense of him is pretty staggering" are convenient descriptions to use when supporting otherwise shaky conclusions. Are you aware that the FBI didn't share your position that Condon was "deeply involved?" How do you reconcile this?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 17, 2021 9:17:59 GMT -5
"Nearly everyone" and "constant defense of him is pretty staggering" are convenient descriptions to use when supporting otherwise shaky conclusions. Are you aware that the FBI didn't share your position that Condon was "deeply involved?" How do you reconcile this? Are you playing a game of semantics? First and foremost, there are probably thousands of sources, written at random times, from various sources within the FBI that concerned Condon. Their contents contain just about everything. For example, Hoover wrote that he believed Condon was " approaching senility." Is that what you mean Joe? Or Agent Manning called him (among other things) " untruthful." Is this what you are relying on to counter the claim they didn't use the term " deeply involved?" Agent Lackey of the FBI, by his own surveillance, proved Condon invented the 2nd Taxi Driver story. By the way, lying like that during a kidnapping extortion is a very serious crime. Sisk wrote that considering Condon's involvement in the crime was definitely an option. Shall I go on? There's plenty more out there if need be. It would help if you stopped being cagey and simply laid your cards on the table.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Dec 18, 2021 19:44:04 GMT -5
"Nearly everyone" and "constant defense of him is pretty staggering" are convenient descriptions to use when supporting otherwise shaky conclusions. Are you aware that the FBI didn't share your position that Condon was "deeply involved?" How do you reconcile this? Are you playing a game of semantics? First and foremost, there are probably thousands of sources, written at random times, from various sources within the FBI that concerned Condon. Their contents contain just about everything. For example, Hoover wrote that he believed Condon was " approaching senility." Is that what you mean Joe? Or Agent Manning called him (among other things) " untruthful." Is this what you are relying on to counter the claim they didn't use the term " deeply involved?" Agent Lackey of the FBI, by his own surveillance, proved Condon invented the 2nd Taxi Driver story. By the way, lying like that during a kidnapping extortion is a very serious crime. Sisk wrote that considering Condon's involvement in the crime was definitely an option. Shall I go on? There's plenty more out there if need be. It would help if you stopped being cagey and simply laid your cards on the table. When Condon walked east on Tremont Ave and eventually down a bit on Whittemore Avenue at St. Raymond's cemetery to meet up with CJ on the night of April 2 he was within a few yards of the unmarked double grave of his father and oldest brother. When he handed the $50,000 to CJ in the famous ransom box, CJ stood in a corner next to a wall along which several of Jafsie's cousins were buried, the most recent one in October 1931, the 11-year-old grand-daughter of his maternal first cousin. How did Hauptmann pick this route and that particular spot on his own by sheer coincidence? What are the odds? And why didn't Jafsie reveal that he was most familiar with this small part of huge St. Raymond's cemetery and wonder how Hauptmann could have known that? Or did Hauptmann and Jafsie know each other? Joe, any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 18, 2021 21:28:54 GMT -5
Are you playing a game of semantics? First and foremost, there are probably thousands of sources, written at random times, from various sources within the FBI that concerned Condon. Their contents contain just about everything. For example, Hoover wrote that he believed Condon was " approaching senility." Is that what you mean Joe? Or Agent Manning called him (among other things) " untruthful." Is this what you are relying on to counter the claim they didn't use the term " deeply involved?" Agent Lackey of the FBI, by his own surveillance, proved Condon invented the 2nd Taxi Driver story. By the way, lying like that during a kidnapping extortion is a very serious crime. Sisk wrote that considering Condon's involvement in the crime was definitely an option. Shall I go on? There's plenty more out there if need be. It would help if you stopped being cagey and simply laid your cards on the table. When Condon walked east on Tremont Ave and eventually down a bit on Whittemore Avenue at St. Raymond's cemetery to meet up with CJ on the night of April 2 he was within a few yards of the unmarked double grave of his father and oldest brother. When he handed the $50,000 to CJ in the famous ransom box, CJ stood in a corner next to a wall along which several of Jafsie's cousins were buried, the most recent one in October 1931, the 11-year-old grand-daughter of his maternal first cousin. How did Hauptmann pick this route and that particular spot on his own by sheer coincidence? What are the odds? And why didn't Jafsie reveal that he was most familiar with this small part of huge St. Raymond's cemetery and wonder how Hauptmann could have known that? Or did Hauptmann and Jafsie know each other? Joe, any thoughts? As Michael has documented quite well, it is unlikely the ransom was ever paid on Whittemore and that Condon likely handed it over further down Tremont. The entire Whittemore ruse was to give the kidnapper(s) a chance to get a head start and to hide the ransom box in some bushes. It was seen being retrieved at a later date by one of Condon's associates, when Condon claimed it had been handed over to the kidnappers.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 18, 2021 22:00:44 GMT -5
Interesting information, Mbg! Perhaps Condon intended to leave or bury the ransom box at the grave of one of his relatives. He would then be able to remember the location well and provide directions exactly to others who would become recipients of the contents of the box.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 18, 2021 22:25:24 GMT -5
Since the box was never found, we could consider the possibility that the box is still buried (or was reburied) in the grave of a Condon relative. It could have been a damning piece of evidence of Condon's involvement if it had been found at that time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 19, 2021 10:11:28 GMT -5
When Condon walked east on Tremont Ave and eventually down a bit on Whittemore Avenue at St. Raymond's cemetery to meet up with CJ on the night of April 2 he was within a few yards of the unmarked double grave of his father and oldest brother. When he handed the $50,000 to CJ in the famous ransom box, CJ stood in a corner next to a wall along which several of Jafsie's cousins were buried, the most recent one in October 1931, the 11-year-old grand-daughter of his maternal first cousin. How did Hauptmann pick this route and that particular spot on his own by sheer coincidence? What are the odds? And why didn't Jafsie reveal that he was most familiar with this small part of huge St. Raymond's cemetery and wonder how Hauptmann could have known that? Or did Hauptmann and Jafsie know each other? Joe, any thoughts? I've always been amazed at this entire scene. It shows a level of preparation that blows my mind. It's design is perfect. As I've said in the past, the spot in front of the greenhouse only gives a limited view of the street. One cannot see down Whittemore or down East Tremont past a certain point. We have this man and woman - or girl depending on which version Condon decided to tell - standing there that Condon approached to ask directions, the reasons for which vary from tale to tale. Condon also later testified he wasn't familiar with Whittimore Ave. But since he had already told Special Agent Seykora that he was familiar with it and that several members of his family were buried there - he's obviously attempting to distance himself personally from this venue while in court. Why? Well, what we see now, thanks to Mbg, is the place where he ultimately lied about handing over the ransom was a specific spot he was intimately familiar. This isn't the action of someone who is confused - and he's doing this for good reason. The odds of Cemetery John randomly and/or accidentally standing there is beyond the scope of all reason. Of course he wasn't, it was all a ruse, which makes this scenario even worse.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 19, 2021 11:00:04 GMT -5
"Nearly everyone" and "constant defense of him is pretty staggering" are convenient descriptions to use when supporting otherwise shaky conclusions. Are you aware that the FBI didn't share your position that Condon was "deeply involved?" How do you reconcile this? Are you playing a game of semantics? First and foremost, there are probably thousands of sources, written at random times, from various sources within the FBI that concerned Condon. Their contents contain just about everything. For example, Hoover wrote that he believed Condon was " approaching senility." Is that what you mean Joe? Or Agent Manning called him (among other things) " untruthful." Is this what you are relying on to counter the claim they didn't use the term " deeply involved?" Agent Lackey of the FBI, by his own surveillance, proved Condon invented the 2nd Taxi Driver story. By the way, lying like that during a kidnapping extortion is a very serious crime. Sisk wrote that considering Condon's involvement in the crime was definitely an option. Shall I go on? There's plenty more out there if need be. It would help if you stopped being cagey and simply laid your cards on the table. I’m just seeking truth and clarity within this case, Michael. And it’s sometimes a bit difficult to lay anything on a table that's already littered with cards representing at times, half-baked interpretations and assumptions towards what the evidence (accurately or inaccurately reported,) conclusively portrays. As a prime example, the whole Tremont Ave. “handoff” and boxwood bush scenario, used to apparently demonstrate Condon was a “confederate of the kidnappers,” is fraught with one major pithole I identified when V2 first came out, which you essentially have no answer for, yet continue to promote and lobby for regardless. The construction of the ransom box and confusion about who built it and what it was made of is another example of overstating the significance of inaccurate recollection of an event, at a later date. To your credit, you point out that Hoover regarded Condon as “approaching senility.” I believe that was a very valid observation, and have little difficulty in seeing why much of his testimony only seemed to confuse and befuddle investigators. And I'm sure Condon's formal letter offer to Hoover that he and Al Reich were standing by for potential employment within the FBI, didn't do much to counter his opinion. It must also be factored in that Lindbergh, Breckinridge and Condon carried on for two months during negotiations, their actions essentially unchallenged or unmonitored closely by law enforcement. Can Condon’s mind and memory truly be counted upon during this time, one which would have been extremely stressful on a man even half his age of 72? Or are you content in simply discounting this possibility to continue to lobby support towards the notion he was first and foremost lying to protect himself from being exposed as a criminal confederate? Regarding your point about the seriousness of the crime of Condon obstructing justice through disparities in his accounting of details within his case involvement, have you considered the seriousness of the criminal role, ie. a “confederate of the kidnappers,” which you accuse him of? I don’t think I have to remind you that Hauptmann was convicted and executed under terms of the felony murder doctrine, which would ultimately have ultimately drawn in any accused accessories making them likely to suffer a similar fate. Where then, would that have left the man who’s only originally-expressed purposes within his case involvement, were to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return their child to them, and failing that, to ensure the perpetrator(s) were apprehended, within a surrealistic world of analysis and judgment?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 19, 2021 11:30:45 GMT -5
Are you playing a game of semantics? First and foremost, there are probably thousands of sources, written at random times, from various sources within the FBI that concerned Condon. Their contents contain just about everything. For example, Hoover wrote that he believed Condon was " approaching senility." Is that what you mean Joe? Or Agent Manning called him (among other things) " untruthful." Is this what you are relying on to counter the claim they didn't use the term " deeply involved?" Agent Lackey of the FBI, by his own surveillance, proved Condon invented the 2nd Taxi Driver story. By the way, lying like that during a kidnapping extortion is a very serious crime. Sisk wrote that considering Condon's involvement in the crime was definitely an option. Shall I go on? There's plenty more out there if need be. It would help if you stopped being cagey and simply laid your cards on the table. When Condon walked east on Tremont Ave and eventually down a bit on Whittemore Avenue at St. Raymond's cemetery to meet up with CJ on the night of April 2 he was within a few yards of the unmarked double grave of his father and oldest brother. When he handed the $50,000 to CJ in the famous ransom box, CJ stood in a corner next to a wall along which several of Jafsie's cousins were buried, the most recent one in October 1931, the 11-year-old grand-daughter of his maternal first cousin. How did Hauptmann pick this route and that particular spot on his own by sheer coincidence? What are the odds? And why didn't Jafsie reveal that he was most familiar with this small part of huge St. Raymond's cemetery and wonder how Hauptmann could have known that? Or did Hauptmann and Jafsie know each other? Joe, any thoughts? Mbg, having never heard of any of direct evidence of Condon’s deceased relatives being buried so near the areas of interest or anywhere else specifically within St. Raymond’s, I’m extremely curious as to where this information originates. Wasn’t Condon questioned about this before or during the trial? What is your understanding of his response? How many Condon relations, direct or indirect, might also be buried at St. Raymond’s given that it is the only Catholic Cemetery in the Bronx, and the many years that Condons and their families lived in the Bronx? Considering that your points were not highlighted as a factor in Condon’s case involvement at the time, how is that this information might be relevant today, having been totally missed by investigative scrutiny of the time? Could it be there may be many more of his relations buried there, and have you been able to map out precise locations relative to his actual travels within the cemetery on the night of April 2? I’m certainly looking forward to discussing this in more detail!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 19, 2021 11:55:08 GMT -5
When Condon walked east on Tremont Ave and eventually down a bit on Whittemore Avenue at St. Raymond's cemetery to meet up with CJ on the night of April 2 he was within a few yards of the unmarked double grave of his father and oldest brother. When he handed the $50,000 to CJ in the famous ransom box, CJ stood in a corner next to a wall along which several of Jafsie's cousins were buried, the most recent one in October 1931, the 11-year-old grand-daughter of his maternal first cousin. How did Hauptmann pick this route and that particular spot on his own by sheer coincidence? What are the odds? And why didn't Jafsie reveal that he was most familiar with this small part of huge St. Raymond's cemetery and wonder how Hauptmann could have known that? Or did Hauptmann and Jafsie know each other? Joe, any thoughts? I've always been amazed at this entire scene. It shows a level of preparation that blows my mind. It's design is perfect. As I've said in the past, the spot in front of the greenhouse only gives a limited view of the street. One cannot see down Whittemore or down East Tremont past a certain point. We have this man and woman - or girl depending on which version Condon decided to tell - standing there that Condon approached to ask directions, the reasons for which vary from tale to tale. Condon also later testified he wasn't familiar with Whittimore Ave. But since he had already told Special Agent Seykora that he was familiar with it and that several members of his family were buried there - he's obviously attempting to distance himself personally from this venue while in court. Why? Well, what we see now, thanks to Mbg, is the place where he ultimately lied about handing over the ransom was a specific spot he was intimately familiar. This isn't the action of someone who is confused - and he's doing this for good reason. The odds of Cemetery John randomly and/or accidentally standing there is beyond the scope of all reason. Of course he wasn't, it was all a ruse, which makes this scenario even worse. How do you know Condon was intimately familiar with the location where the 11-year-old granddaughter of his maternal first cousin was buried? Did he even know her name? Did he go to the funeral? And you're essentially concluding, or perhaps suggesting that all of the St. Raymond's "perfect storm" locations were orchestrated ahead of time by someone who was intelligent enough to do so, but stupid enough to potentially lead investigators directly to his front door? With all due respect, I'd suggest you don't rush this one into V5 before its time.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 19, 2021 12:09:22 GMT -5
When Condon walked east on Tremont Ave and eventually down a bit on Whittemore Avenue at St. Raymond's cemetery to meet up with CJ on the night of April 2 he was within a few yards of the unmarked double grave of his father and oldest brother. When he handed the $50,000 to CJ in the famous ransom box, CJ stood in a corner next to a wall along which several of Jafsie's cousins were buried, the most recent one in October 1931, the 11-year-old grand-daughter of his maternal first cousin. How did Hauptmann pick this route and that particular spot on his own by sheer coincidence? What are the odds? And why didn't Jafsie reveal that he was most familiar with this small part of huge St. Raymond's cemetery and wonder how Hauptmann could have known that? Or did Hauptmann and Jafsie know each other? Joe, any thoughts? As Michael has documented quite well, it is unlikely the ransom was ever paid on Whittemore and that Condon likely handed it over further down Tremont. The entire Whittemore ruse was to give the kidnapper(s) a chance to get a head start and to hide the ransom box in some bushes. It was seen being retrieved at a later date by one of Condon's associates, when Condon claimed it had been handed over to the kidnappers. I can only imagine how distraught poor old Lindy would have been, had he been out of the loop within this alleged scheme, knowing that his best friend and lawyer Henry Breckinridge while driving his green Ford touring car, was part and parcel to the supposed Condon-betrayal 'ransom box retrieval' by the 'lantern-jawed man.' What a tangled web..
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 19, 2021 12:23:21 GMT -5
It does appear that the scene at St. Raymone's had an intricate design--which i am now trying to piece together. First, Condon walks alone down East Tremont St. but does not see anyone. Lindbergh is waiting in the car and still has the ransom box and money at this point. Condon then returns to the car, and then both hear the voice saying something like "Hey Doctor." So someone was waiting for Condon. Condon then headed down Whittemore Ave in the direction of the voice, the man moving parallel to him as they move among the gravestones. There may have been a specific place designated beforehand though the unknown man may not have been familiar with St. Raymond's and so had to follow Condon's movements. Mbg said that Condon's father and older brother were buried at St. Raymond's in an unmarked grave, so Condon would certainly know that area of the cemetery, and I suggest that because of his familiarity that that place was chosen for the exchange. Condon, however, did not bring the money with him and so had to return to the car to pick up the ransom box which held the $50,000 ransom money. From that point it is difficult to know exactly what happened; Condon's stories vary so much from time to time. He could have returned to the place where he left the unknown man who was supposedly preparing a note giving the child's location. The note could have already been prepared and in Condon's possession, and he may have then hidden the box in an agreed-upon place in the cemetery. The man from the kidnapping gang would not want to be caught with the box; he would not take any chances of being observed by police, and he would also move to launder the money as quickly as possible. He would have had someone waiting for him in a car parked not far away. Though Lindbergh heard a voice (so we know that someone was waiting there), he did not see any action between persons. We have only Condon's statements about the conversation and action, and his stories are not always consistent.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 19, 2021 12:39:27 GMT -5
The grave site of Condon's father and older brother was said to be unmarked. Condon would be familiar with that area in St. Raymond's Cemetery but would find it difficult to give directions to anyone since there was no marker. This could account for the confusion of the man who was designated as the person meeting Condon that night to collect the ransom and therefore needed to follow Condon's movements though the tombstones to meet at the desired place. The box had to be left in a particular spot, first to be well hidden and then possibly to found later.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 19, 2021 13:14:37 GMT -5
Since the box was never found, we could consider the possibility that the box is still buried (or was reburied) in the grave of a Condon relative. It could have been a damning piece of evidence of Condon's involvement if it had been found at that time. A witness saw the box being picked up by one of Condon's associates. It is clearly not buried in a family plot still given this.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 19, 2021 15:48:06 GMT -5
Thank you for responding. Do you know which of Condon's associates picked up the box? Do you know where he picked it up? I appreciate your comments.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 20, 2021 3:36:59 GMT -5
Thank you for responding. Do you know which of Condon's associates picked up the box? Do you know where he picked it up? I appreciate your comments. Michael's The Dark Corners Volume II is well worth the read on this subject. Cemetery worker Bernard Uebel saw three separate events, culminating in reporter Gregory Coleman returning in his maroon automobile with a passenger, believed to be Condon associate Al Reich, in the passenger seat. The car stopped on Whittemore and the passenger got and retrieved a wooden box from some bushes behind a house on the opposite side of Whittemore from where Condon claimed the ransom was exchanged. The likely scenario here is that Condon went further down Tremont, out of view of Lindbergh. The money was handed over there. He then backtracked and went down Whittemore. This "secret" drop allowed the extortionist to get away with the money should any cops or witnesses see whats going on. Then Condon concocted the whole story about the Cemetery payoff to misdirect from what really happened. For this ruse to works, it was crucial he come back empty-handed, so he hid the box in some bushes and later had it retrieved to be destroyed. Remember that Condon did everything he could to lie about that box so it could never be identified. He claimed it was made from many kinds of wood - a lie. He claimed multiple parties made it for him, when it was Samuelsohn all along. One or two of these slips ups is one thing, but he did it all the time. About the box. About the extortionists. About his whereabouts. About the second taxi driver.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Dec 20, 2021 7:47:18 GMT -5
Condon did not have the box or money with him when he went down Tremont Ave. nor when he first responded to the man calling "Hey Doc" Lindbergh would have been witness to this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 20, 2021 11:57:57 GMT -5
And it’s sometimes a bit difficult to lay anything on a table that's already littered with cards representing at times, half-baked interpretations and assumptions towards what the evidence (accurately or inaccurately reported,) conclusively portrays. As a prime example, the whole Tremont Ave. “handoff” and boxwood bush scenario, used to apparently demonstrate Condon was a “confederate of the kidnappers,” is fraught with one major pithole I identified when V2 first came out, which you essentially have no answer for, yet continue to promote and lobby for regardless. The construction of the ransom box and confusion about who built it and what it was made of is another example of overstating the significance of inaccurate recollection of an event, at a later date. So I'll take this as a "no" to my request. Condon was absolutely a confederate to the extortionists. His continuous lies, misdirection, and actions prove this beyond all doubt. To your credit, you point out that Hoover regarded Condon as “approaching senility.” I believe that was a very valid observation, and have little difficulty in seeing why much of his testimony only seemed to confuse and befuddle investigators. And I'm sure Condon's formal letter offer to Hoover that he and Al Reich were standing by for potential employment within the FBI, didn't do much to counter his opinion. It must also be factored in that Lindbergh, Breckinridge and Condon carried on for two months during negotiations, their actions essentially unchallenged or unmonitored closely by law enforcement. Can Condon’s mind and memory truly be counted upon during this time, one which would have been extremely stressful on a man even half his age of 72? Or are you content in simply discounting this possibility to continue to lobby support towards the notion he was first and foremost lying to protect himself from being exposed as a criminal confederate? Among other things, of course, but its interesting to see that this is now your new position. So, you see, you cannot have it both ways. If the man was senile nothing he said or did could be trusted. And yet, you paint everything based on sincerity and good faith. His mind and memory can be tested by the things he said that WERE the TRUTH. His reactions during the interview when his back was against the wall, or during the time he was denying Hauptmann was CJ. His testimony screams it to anyone who would bother to notice. Take the Man & the little girl for example. Condon originally claimed it was a little girl. Lindbergh claimed it was a little girl. But when Walsh interviewed him, this little girl morphed into a woman. Did Condon "forget" when he referred to her as a "woman?" No. We know this because in other later statements she morphs back into one. Something like this, for me, shows he knows what he's doing. He didn't want Walsh to hear this was a little girl. Why? Perhaps because his dead 11 year old was relative was lying in a grave nearby and he was being accused of complicity during this interview? Or maybe because Walsh was bringing up the "situation" that occurred between him and the girl at school? The man was out in the woods having a secret meeting with Reich, and you have him being senile, where you need him to be, but 100% honest and sincere everywhere else. His efforts to find a Scapegoat in Garelick, for example, is merely met with a shrug from you. Sorry, that's not how life works. Maybe in Disney World but certainly not anywhere else. How do you know Condon was intimately familiar with the location where the 11-year-old granddaughter of his maternal first cousin was buried? Did he even know her name? Did he go to the funeral? And you're essentially concluding, or perhaps suggesting that all of the St. Raymond's "perfect storm" locations were orchestrated ahead of time by someone who was intelligent enough to do so, but stupid enough to potentially lead investigators directly to his front door? With all due respect, I'd suggest you don't rush this one into V5 before its time. Well, he told Special Agent Seykora for one. No doubt you find this a stretch because what other choice do you have? You've painted yourself into this corner, for whatever reason, and now come up with every excuse in the book - some at cross purposes to each other. And yet, the man waved over his 1st Cousin's son to tell him the story about the boat he was on concerning the kidnappers he encountered there. He told cops CJ couldn't have been from the Bronx or he would have known him. But here you have him not knowing where his own relatives are buried? IDK, you do you but I think others will draw from their common sense. As far as V5 goes.... I'm still trying to get you to read V1 thru V4. So try not to get ahead of yourself. I can only imagine how distraught poor old Lindy would have been, had he been out of the loop within this alleged scheme, knowing that his best friend and lawyer Henry Breckinridge while driving his green Ford touring car, was part and parcel to the supposed Condon-betrayal 'ransom box retrieval' by the 'lantern-jawed man.' What a tangled web.. What planet do you live on Joe... Mars? Venus? Uranus?
These issues have been asked and answered. Not only in V2 thru V4 but right here on this very Board. Feigning ignorance won't work. Is this was you call "seeking truth and clarity within this case?" It seems to me you are trying to muddy the waters on purpose and not the other way around. No one named Breckinridge as a party to anything nefarious. His presence during the walk-thru helped to prove that Uebel saw everything he claimed to have - much to your chagrin.
Condon did not have the box or money with him when he went down Tremont Ave. nor when he first responded to the man calling "Hey Doc" Lindbergh would have been witness to this. Condon made two trips. During his first he did not have the box. However, Condon returned to the car, was given the box, and had the it when he wandered down E. Tremont out of sight before doubling back to head down Whittemore. Both Condon and Lindbergh said this in addition to others they both spoke to about it. Only Lindbergh claimed to have seen the Lookout, and in the words of Judge Trenchard: Can you believe THAT?Thank you for responding. Do you know which of Condon's associates picked up the box? Do you know where he picked it up? I appreciate your comments. Just to piggyback on what USC wrote.... It's included within specific pages, but also is complemented by the entire section on this man. It ALL dovetails together. So I wouldn't recommend jumping to any one page but read it in its entirety. Then I have some additional information in V3, and even a little bit in V4 as well.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Dec 20, 2021 13:36:37 GMT -5
This discussion is why this board rocks.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Dec 20, 2021 18:45:55 GMT -5
When Condon walked east on Tremont Ave and eventually down a bit on Whittemore Avenue at St. Raymond's cemetery to meet up with CJ on the night of April 2 he was within a few yards of the unmarked double grave of his father and oldest brother. When he handed the $50,000 to CJ in the famous ransom box, CJ stood in a corner next to a wall along which several of Jafsie's cousins were buried, the most recent one in October 1931, the 11-year-old grand-daughter of his maternal first cousin. How did Hauptmann pick this route and that particular spot on his own by sheer coincidence? What are the odds? And why didn't Jafsie reveal that he was most familiar with this small part of huge St. Raymond's cemetery and wonder how Hauptmann could have known that? Or did Hauptmann and Jafsie know each other? Joe, any thoughts? Mbg, having never heard of any of direct evidence of Condon’s deceased relatives being buried so near the areas of interest or anywhere else specifically within St. Raymond’s, I’m extremely curious as to where this information originates. Wasn’t Condon questioned about this before or during the trial? What is your understanding of his response? How many Condon relations, direct or indirect, might also be buried at St. Raymond’s given that it is the only Catholic Cemetery in the Bronx, and the many years that Condons and their families lived in the Bronx? Considering that your points were not highlighted as a factor in Condon’s case involvement at the time, how is that this information might be relevant today, having been totally missed by investigative scrutiny of the time? Could it be there may be many more of his relations buried there, and have you been able to map out precise locations relative to his actual travels within the cemetery on the night of April 2? I’m certainly looking forward to discussing this in more detail! Joe, Condon either never revealed to the authorities that his father and brother were buried off Whittemore & East Tremont Aves or, if they found out, he was told to keep mum about it because it would have appeared as if Jafsie himself had chosen the place for the ransom payment, given his familiarity with the location. Jafsie was also well acquainted and in known contact with his maternal first cousin Susan Conlin Doyle, whose family members are buried along the wall where the ransom payment took place. He even had a meeting with Dennis Doyle, Susan’s son, during the ransom negotiations. I did the research on the burial sites on my own. In his will, Jafsie’s father, John S. Condon, had stipulated that two graves be purchased in a plot in St. Raymond’s Cemetery. He was buried in one of them in 1896. His oldest son, James B. Condon, was buried in the other in 1926. The two graves are located in Section 3, Range 6, Plot 57, Grave 1. I was provided this information by the friendly office staff at St. Raymond’s. (Jafsie’s mother died in 1914. She and Jafsie’s brother Michael, who died in 1883, are buried in St. Mary’s cemetery in Yonkers.) Rab and I went to St. Ray’s in 2018 to look for the Condon gravesite. Since there is no gravestone we were unable to pinpoint its exact location, but looking at the map one can see how close Section 3 is to Whittemore and East Tremont Aves. And the walled northern border of Section 6, where Susan Doyle’s family’s graves are located and Jafsie handed the money to CJ standing in the the upper-left corner, is close to Section 3 as well. Who knows, perhaps Jafsie had a private chat with his dearly departed when he embarked on his nocturnal mission. In one of his statements he even said he walked along that road (the one separating Sections 3 and 6). Did Jafsie mislead the police? If so, why? Or was there a coverup? In V2, Michael covers the many conflicting, misleading and confusing statements and testimonies given about possible Condon relatives resting in St. Raymond’s in great detail. How two of Jafsie’s closest relatives buried there escaped detection at the time is an important question. And again: How did Hauptmann pick this place? Something is odd here. Wayne will post a map of Old St. Raymond’s Cemetery shortly.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 20, 2021 18:51:40 GMT -5
Wayne will post a map of Old St. Raymond’s Cemetery shortly. Here is the map from Mbg:
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Dec 20, 2021 18:57:06 GMT -5
Excellent work here Mbg! You are to be congratulated on your research. There is still much to know. We have to keep working.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 20, 2021 19:27:59 GMT -5
I agree. This could hardly be a coincidence, and it indicates that Condon had a much greater involvement with the kidnapping case than simply the role of a helpful intermediary. He must have chosen the spot where the ransom money was delivered and helped the member of the gang to a spot familiar to him so that he could recover the ransom box at a later time. Thanks much for your work, Mbg.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 20, 2021 20:22:11 GMT -5
I should add that it's not just the place in St. Raymond's Cemetery that Condon chose for the transaction, but most likely he chose St.Raymond's Cemetery himself or suggested it to the kidnappers. Obviously he had been communicating with the kidnappers behind the scenes, but we do not know yet when this communication began. The subterfuge had to have been started much earlier. He is helping to keep the kidnappers' identity from being discovered. Why was he doing this?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Dec 21, 2021 8:52:58 GMT -5
Hi Jeanne, "The box had to be left in a particular spot, first to be well hidden then possibly found later" from your Dec 19 posting.
"We will inform you where and how to deliver it. Have the money in one bundle. We want you to put it in a certain place. There is no fear that somebody else will take it. We watch everything closely....." from Ransom note No 8.
The insistence of the kidnappers that a box be used and the specifying of the dimensions of the box are instructive. For a face to face handover there was no need for a box at all; the kidnapper could have brought his own bag. Specifying the dimensions could indicate a pre-planned hiding place and a later pickup as you suggest. A face to face meeting with Condon would be damning in the event of a trap. It had to be avoided.
This is supported by the kidnapper's instructions in Ransom note No 8 above. What possible alternative explanation is there for "We want you to put it in a certain place" and "There is no fear somebody else will take it." It clearly indicates a "leave it and we'll get it later" intention. Which would make Condon's claim of having bargained with CJ directly manifestly untrue.
Whether it actually happened as planned on the night is another matter. We have to factor in Condon's stroll down Whittemore and his return with the box alone or still with the package intact.
In summary, the above evidence does support your point of leaving the box in a particular spot for later collection.
Best regards,
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 21, 2021 11:00:42 GMT -5
Hello, Sherlock, You make some good points here. It does appear that Condon receives communication from the kidnappers that he does not reveal to anyone, notes or calls that give him directions, or he may give some directions. He does not reveal all that he knows for some reason, whether through a promise or fear for himself. His daughter Myra may have had some insights here. What did she observe, or what did her father tell her? Condon may have been senile or heading in that direction, but there must have been a reason Myra was keeping a close eye on him. Sometimes older folks have trouble remembering, but sometimes they have delusions and then believe what they have invented. I am wondering if Condon made up stories to fill a void or to help him grasp a situation. I have known older folks who do just this, and it's impossible to set them straight. Condon may have functioned in his comfort zone fairly well but needed someone beside him (eg. Al Reich, Myra) to help him navigate outside his house. I am not suggesting that he was crazy, but if he invented stories to help him understand and explain what was going on, he would have believed them and thought them the truth. There must have been a reason that some members of his family wanted to place him in an institution. Thanks for your response and confirmation of the approach.
|
|