Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2018 22:56:29 GMT -5
This is absolutely awesome!!!
She truly has phenomenal research skills. You are truly blessed to have such a friend! I sincerely thank her and you for sharing this. This definitely puts Dixon's Boat House in the northern end of Minneford Avenue. What really shocked me is that Beach Street and King Ave is listed as a vacant lot! No Condon office at that location at all!
This has given me much to think about and research. Thank you!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 15, 2018 12:30:37 GMT -5
I view Hauptmann's statement as a clear lie and deception, in part because there is not even a shred of proof of a behind-the-scenes association between Hauptmann and Condon that you're suggesting, and also due to the fact Hauptmann was obviously aware of his personal guilt within the crime.
Anna Hauptmann was a personal witness to the accuracy of the polygraph when she was tested and backed off when the subject of the kidnapping came up. Clearly, she would have communicated her findings to her husband. Ultimately, if Hauptmann had been allowed to take the test though, it seems likely to me he would have consented. Given his clearly demonstrated and almost inconceivable iron will during one interrogation after another and the trial, do you really think he would have believed some new and relatively unproven machine could have cracked him?
Are you suggesting Condon was ready to give up a clearly-demonstrated lifetime of goodwill and generosity in favor of a plan to eliminate the son of one of his heroes, Charles Lindbergh? Was this to be the "crowning achievement" after a lifetime of community and public service, which he often spoke of in reference to his role within the negotiations to return CALjr safely to his mother, then lamenting his failure to do so even after the child had been found dead?
As far as what he said in his letter about protecting the identity of the perpetrators and your notion that he thus lied and misled investigators, you seem to be connecting cause and effect dots in a rather convoluted way here to support your theory. Condon was simply being charitable in a way he was not really entitled to but that didn't stop him from demonstrating his penchant for stubborn naivety here.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 15, 2018 18:18:15 GMT -5
I view Hauptmann's statement as a clear lie and deception, in part because there is not even a shred of proof of a behind-the-scenes association between Hauptmann and Condon that you're suggesting, and also due to the fact Hauptmann was obviously aware of his personal guilt within the crime.
Anna Hauptmann was a personal witness to the accuracy of the polygraph when she was tested and backed off when the subject of the kidnapping came up. Clearly, she would have communicated her findings to her husband. Ultimately, if Hauptmann had been allowed to take the test though, it seems likely to me he would have consented. Given his clearly demonstrated and almost inconceivable iron will during one interrogation after another and the trial, do you really think he would have believed some new and relatively unproven machine could have cracked him?
Are you suggesting Condon was ready to give up a clearly-demonstrated lifetime of goodwill and generosity in favor of a plan to eliminate the son of one of his heroes, Charles Lindbergh? Was this to be the "crowning achievement" after a lifetime of community and public service, which he often spoke of in reference to his role within the negotiations to return CALjr safely to his mother, then lamenting his failure to do so even after the child had been found dead?
As far as what he said in his letter about protecting the identity of the perpetrators and your notion that he thus lied and misled investigators, you seem to be connecting cause and effect dots in a rather convoluted way here to support your theory. Condon was simply being charitable in a way he was not really entitled to but that didn't stop him from demonstrating his penchant for stubborn naivety here.
What? Most don’t believe he had anything to do with the actual kidnapping, but was likely brought in on the extortion plot as a way to both make some money (the inclusion and then exclusion of the extra $20k is just too convient) and return the kept baby to the family, generating some good will to the family in return. Upon discovery the child was dead he likely wanted out.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 15, 2018 19:39:10 GMT -5
"Are you suggesting Condon was ready to give up a clearly-demonstrated lifetime of goodwill and generosity in favor of a plan to eliminate the son of one of his heroes, Charles Lindbergh? Was this to be the "crowning achievement" after a lifetime of community and public service, which he often spoke of in reference to his role within the negotiations to return CALjr safely to his mother, then lamenting his failure to do so even after the child had been found dead?"
Classic straw-man reasoning: Exaggerate or misrepresent a position to the point where it doesn't make sense, in order to discount any possible version or variation of that position. Just slows everything down. As said above, nobody's suggesting Condon knowingly got involved in the murder of CAL Jr. Rather, he got involved in what he didn't realize was an extortion plot against Lindbergh--agreeing to assist the kidnappers and cover their tracks, so he could gain fame and exposure by being the one to return the baby to his parents, plus make some money on the side (the $20K addition to the "ransom", tacked on because "another person" had to be brought in). Once Condon found out CAL Jr. was dead, it was still very much in his interest (even more so I would think) to make sure the kidnappers didn't get caught and disappeared, so they'd never reveal Condon's true involvement with them. This is why the kidnappers approached Condon in the first place: They needed a person who Lindbergh would have no choice but to give the $50K to, to pass on to them. And they knew Condon, showboating jackass that he was, would immediately agree to involve himself in this. Then, once he'd contacted Lindbergh, was involved and couldn't get out, it was revealed to Condon that the baby was dead. At that point, sh*t got real and Condon REALLY needed to lie and cover the kidnappers' trail. Again, unbeknownst to him, that was his whole function all along.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 16, 2018 2:52:02 GMT -5
Good posts above Joe!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 16, 2018 11:56:46 GMT -5
I don't want to interrupt the discussion but since I just stumbled onto this card and I wanted to post it now while I have it in front of me. On the back is written the following: " Found in Hauptmann's wallet on 9/19/34 by Special Agent THSisk"
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 16, 2018 13:17:34 GMT -5
If my response was the "strawman" to you, then yours is basically the "ostrichman." You're not listening to your common sense which should tell you John Condon wouldn't engage in what you've suggested. I'm not calling the man a saint, but he wasn't a criminal nor would he be a willing participant in this kind of ludicrous scheme, which is essentially what you're painting him as. Your convoluted scenario is long winded and rambling, clearly a desperate attempt to connect myriad blinking dots, but little more. Among your cliquey terms which include "strawman," "shrugging off," "breadcrumb trail" and a host of others, it's not difficult knowing what to expect next. The character assassination of John Condon has become a virtual industry on this board, but it's just another wing in a very elaborate house of cards that is the "Lindbergh-was-behind-it conspiracy." What does it offer? Lots of titillating innuendo, suppositions and fist-bumping, but no real proof. Rarely, has so little meant so much to so few.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 16, 2018 13:51:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 16, 2018 14:34:09 GMT -5
If my response was the "strawman" to you, then yours is basically the "ostrichman." You're not listening to your common sense which should tell you John Condon wouldn't engage in what you've suggested. I'm not calling the man a saint, but he wasn't a criminal nor would he be a willing participant in this kind of ludicrous scheme, which is essentially what you're painting him as. Your convoluted scenario is long winded and rambling, clearly a desperate attempt to connect myriad blinking dots, but little more. Among your cliquey terms which include "strawman," "shrugging off," "breadcrumb trail" and a host of others, it's not difficult knowing what to expect next. The character assassination of John Condon has become a virtual industry on this board, but it's just another wing in a very elaborate house of cards that is the "Lindbergh-was-behind-it conspiracy." What does it offer? Lots of titillating innuendo, suppositions and fist-bumping, but no real proof. Rarely, has so little meant so much to so few. If my response was the "ostrichman" to you, then yours is basically the..."ostrichman." You're not listening to your common sense which should tell you John Condon wouldn't be taken seriously enough by kidnappers for them to even bother responding to his Home News letter, let alone see it as quickly as they did, unless there was some pre-laid plan for this. I'm not calling the man a criminal, but he wasn't a saint either, and lied all over the place as proof of this. Your tired scenario is as long winded, rambling, and unbelievable as Condon himself, clearly a desperate attempt to ignore myriad blinking dots, but little more. Among your cliquey terms which include "ostrichman", "fist-bumping", and a host of others, it's not difficult knowing what to expect next. The character whitewashing of Condon and Lindbergh has become a virtual industry on this board, but it's just another wing in a very elaborate house of cards that is the "Lindbergh-had-nothing-to-do-with-it-because-he-was-Lindbergh conspiracy." What does it offer? Rarely, has so little meant so much to so few.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 16, 2018 15:05:46 GMT -5
Poor response LJ. Some of what you say makes sense unless you consider the probable crime to have been committed by BRH, and him alone. Then Condon would be the perfect choice as an intermediary (hey - he worked!) and for his letter to have been very quickly seen by Richard. The disagreements with the crime point to the $50K small kidnap price which worked perfectly for Hauptmann, and that over the years nobody squalked - nobody knew! So your side is really short sighted and obviously incorrect in looking at a solved crime. Just as a personal note, I've never been able to decide if you're a twelve year old trying to sound like an adult or an adult trying to sound like a twelve year old. Please clue us in kid.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 16, 2018 16:24:29 GMT -5
Poor response(s), Jack. As usual. And on another personal note, given your behavior (which you’ve just given yet another handy example of), I’ve never been able to decide myself whether you’re a twelve year old trying to sound like an adult or an adult trying to sound like a twelve year old. Either way, clue us in, kid. I’ll say it again: You still here, mein fuhrer? Christ, where’s an underground bunker and a Walther when they’re needed...?
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Jan 16, 2018 16:39:35 GMT -5
Poor response(s), Jack. As usual. And on another personal note, given your behavior (which you’ve just given yet another handy example of), I’ve never been able to decide myself whether you’re a twelve year old trying to sound like an adult or an adult trying to sound like a twelve year old. Either way, clue us in, kid. I’ll say it again: You still here, mein fuhrer? Christ, where’s an underground bunker and a Walther when they’re needed...? Good one. (Actually, I think he's jealous. Of Michael. I sure ain't waitin' for a book from Jack.) I will say no more.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 16, 2018 16:42:46 GMT -5
Fist-bump! ;-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 0:42:04 GMT -5
I view Hauptmann's statement as a clear lie and deception, in part because there is not even a shred of proof of a behind-the-scenes association between Hauptmann and Condon that you're suggesting, and also due to the fact Hauptmann was obviously aware of his personal guilt within the crime. If you view Hauptmann's statement as a lie, I have no problem with that. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I just don't happen to agree with your position on this statement. Both Condon and Hauptmann have not only the Bronx, but also City Island in common. Hauptmann has been going to City Island since 1928 I believe he had said. Condon has been going there for many years earlier than that. I don't think there is anything wrong suggesting the theory that these two men could have crossed paths on that island. It deserves consideration and exploration. It is something I am seriously looking at. You are free to agree or reject my theory. That is fine with me. I have certainly done this with theories you have suggested that don't have a shred of proof behind them. Anna was clearly exploring options for her husband's defense. She wasn't doing this experiment as part of an interrogation of herself which it sounds like the demonstrators wanted to turn it into. She was certainly correct to not proceed any further once she realized this is how they intended to use her curiosity about the polygraph. Here is a link to a picture of Anna hooked up to the polygraph. There is no date with the picture to say when this took place. www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-USA-APHS253211-Hauptmann-Lindbergh/f04719fab30b4ba99f9454e7293a4bfb/19/0Hauptmann begged for a polygraph test. No matter what Anna communicated to him about it, pro or con, he wanted to take it. Could it be that he was trusting that this newer invention would prove that he is not the murderer of the Lindbergh baby and that is why he wanted to take it. Could that possibly be why he was being denied such access? I NEVER said or implied Condon was involved with Charlie's death. Please don't twist the meaning of what I say to suit yourself. Well Condon thought it was going to be. That is the hook they used on him to get him involved. He believed he was going to be given the opportunity of a lifetime. He would get to return the "Little Eaglet" to his mother's arms. This would give him the kind of fame he always dreamed of having. And what the heck if he makes some money along the way. Its all good, right? So he agrees to help them get the money and to protect their identity. Its not my "notion" Joe. The truth is in Condon's words and actions for over 2 and a half years. If you really take a good look at the things he said and did, you will see that he contributed nothing to help solve this crime. Leon Hoage did a 24 page report on Condon which gives a good picture of Condon's ever-changing narrative of his involvement with this case. Here is a link to that report. It is from Ronelle's excellent Hoax website. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/egoist.pdfIf you really believe what you state above, then I have some beautiful ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. You will absolutely love it. You are in for the shock of your life when Michael's Volume 2 is published!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 17, 2018 1:23:30 GMT -5
Just went through the Hoage report. I mean, you really can't deny anything the guy says, but I dunno, still seems kind of long-winded and rambling... ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 17, 2018 9:42:30 GMT -5
Can we please move this discussion of Condon and Hauptman out of here and only discuss Belongings and Charlie's Things like it should be? This is something, way back when, that I used to do by moving posts. But so many posts had "cross-over" material that I was spending hours moving them, then once the discussion meandered to another point then moved back again. Also, I found myself in a hole wondering how or what qualified me to move posts with multiple points, and topics included. In the end I simply realized it's kind of an impossibility due to the nature of the case and I gave up. I wish there was a better way, but even if I had a army of techies I don't think it could be done. Trial and error proved that to me long ago...
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 17, 2018 9:59:13 GMT -5
if you people came on the Bronx Lindbergh tour we go to city island to where condons violin shop was, his house, and dixons boathouse. I have pictures if anybody wants a copy
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 17, 2018 10:00:56 GMT -5
I can wait for the book cause Ive heard everything. I firmly believe Hauptman was cj
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 10:23:27 GMT -5
if you people came on the Bronx Lindbergh tour we go to city island to where condons violin shop was, his house, and dixons boathouse. I have pictures if anybody wants a copy Steve, I would love a peek at your collection. I really wish you would put a book together on this case. Maybe you and Sue Campbell could create something together. I would absolutely buy it!! Do they still have a Bronx Lindbergh tour?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 17, 2018 10:52:50 GMT -5
Just to put the record straight, "souped-up" doesn't mean anything unless you're a hot car.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 17, 2018 13:20:45 GMT -5
What did Hauptmann mean when he said that Condon held the key to his cell. Do you believe anything Condon said would have enabled Hauptmann to walk a free man? It seems entirely reasonable they could have crossed paths before the kidnapping, and I've never disagreed with you here. Hauptmann continued to regularly "ein bummel" the area after the kidnapping and given his proven guilt in the crime and acknowledgement at the trial that he was previously aware of who Condon was, it would have been a very brazen thing to do. Along the lines of the brazenness it takes to involve yourself in the kidnapping of the son of Charles Lindbergh up to the point of continuing to flaunt Lindbergh ransom money, even when you're out of non-gold certificates. He essentially carried on for two and a half years in plain sight, so it should also tell you something about his personal level of confidence and belief he would not be recognized at large. And don't forget, Hunter's Island seems to have been his preferred destination, so perhaps he viewed the access to it that was afforded by City Island to be a bit of a gauntlet, knowing full well Condon might be around City Island but not on Hunter's Island.
I'm not aware of Hauptmann "begging" for a polygraph test after Anna had been impressed with the accuracy of the machine, so do you have a verifiable source which proves Hauptmann retaining his initial stance?
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you believe he had a direct hand in Charlie's death. Perhaps I'm thinking of the general consensus here on this board about that possibility, where people tend to go out on a limb and then scamper back into the branches for cover when someone calls them out. But let's get real for a minute about knowledge, intent and actions. Condon was in on the efforts to return Charlie to his parents from the start. You can believe he acted altruistically in defense of his hero and Uncle Sam, albeit to see his name in lights at the same time, or that he was part of a fakenapping, which it appears to me, you believe. So Charlie turns up dead. What is Condon's reaction? He stands quietly outside Swayze's Funeral Home, continues to pursue "John" hither and yon, remains entirely consistent in his professed innocence before certain investigating authorities that wanted to lynch him at times, remains entirely cooperative and even jovial with police assigned to him, and even accepts a dinner invitation later with his daughter as the guests of Charles and Anne Lindbergh. Are these the actions of a man who would clearly have recognized the egregiousness of his once seemingly-innocent actions? At what point to you consider and explore the obvious?
Amy, I've come to understand the world we see is our personal perception of it, we are essentially the cause and not the effect. I have great difficulty in trying to understand how you believe this.
I've read Hoage's hatchet job, which is also inaccurate and embellishes to suit his personal taste. It's pretty obvious that Condon wasn't the only one who wanted to see his name in lights.
I would suggest Amy, that you read more about John Condon's life and times leading up to the evening he sent that letter to the editor of the Bronx Home News. It might add some perspective and balance.
I'm very much looking forward to reading Michael's treatment of Condon. It will be tough to surpass Gardner's innuendo, but I trust no effort will be wasted in turning him into someone only a mother could love!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 17, 2018 14:40:14 GMT -5
This is very confusing. We don't know of any meeting of Condon and Hauptmann that was acknowledged by Hauptmann to have taken place BEFORE HAUPTMANN's ARREST. So as far as Hauptmann would admit, he first saw Condon on the night of his (Hauptmann's) arrest at the Greenwich NYPD station in September 1934. And we all know that Condon could NOT identify Hauptmann as CJ at that time. But that timing was already known to all law enforcement by the time of the Flemington trial a few months later.
So Hauptmann said absolutely nothing about knowing something about Condon prior to March 1, 1932.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 17, 2018 14:47:21 GMT -5
Can you please specify the date on which such a dinner took place? I'm totally unaware of such an event.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 14:50:44 GMT -5
I would suggest Amy, that you read more about John Condon's life and times leading up to the evening he sent that letter to the editor of the Bronx Home News. It might add some perspective and balance. We clearly see things in a different way about parts of this case and it is not my intention to belabor those differences, especially when it doesn't change any of the positions we hold about this case. I do always think about what people share though, and will do that with the thoughts you have shared with me. I think you should know that I have been looking into Condon's life, for quite a while, starting from the time he was born and in the end you will see that it is your perspective on this man that needs tweaking. That's all I am going to say. Its not my story to tell.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 17, 2018 18:05:31 GMT -5
I'm very much looking forward to reading Michael's treatment of Condon. It will be tough to surpass Gardner's innuendo, but I trust no effort will be wasted in turning him into someone only a mother could love! I think it's important to have all facts to consider about Condon. Sounds like you are writing off what I've turned up before it's even out there but I think you will see their value once you get them. I will be interested in your perspective. I would just like to remind people what excuses those who "like" him give: 1. He's old. 2. He's eccentric. 3. He's confused. Those who believe one of the above always seem to accept whatever it is they "like" about whatever it is he said. However, one of the above excuses are always invoked once he says or does something they do not like. So his whatever his "condition" truly was seems to disappear (poof!) when they need to it, but he becomes so afflicted again when they need that to happen as well. Fact is there was a method behind everything he said or did, and I will clearly demonstrate that with facts.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 17, 2018 18:39:00 GMT -5
Well, I guess that with the completely closed investigation of little Charlie's abduction and death to be seriously looking into Condon makes me wonder where have you been? Excellent post above Joe. They won't listen to facts. I would have hoped that the leader of this pack would have supported me as he would have supported one of his minions when I proved a while back by using existing evidence that Lindbergh had nothing to do with the crime. Instead he was politely uncommenting. At least he didn't bash me . But my proof and Joe's notation that if Lindbergh would have known the note told to not contact police he would have certainly done just that. So lets see some facts by all about those two points! If Lindbergh would have been a part of the crime he would have wanted the initial ransom note adulterated - which he didn't want - and Joe's comment should by you be someday addressed!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 17, 2018 20:20:31 GMT -5
Can you please specify the date on which such a dinner took place? I'm totally unaware of such an event. Hey Hurtelable, I wondered about that dinner as well. I've spent a lot of time trying to catch Condon in a blatant, irrefutable lie and I thought this dinner with CAL had to be it. But with all things Condon, who knows? Here are the "facts" -- 1) In Jafsie Tells All, pages 211- 214, Condon says he was invited by CAL to Highfields for dinner "late in March 1933." Condon recounts the dinner ending with teaching baby Jon Lindbergh how to do the 3 Stooges routine of snapping his fingers to sound like a galloping horse. 2) Joyce Milton "confirms" the dinner in Loss of Eden, pages 272-273. But Milton says the dinner was a ploy, that "Charles and Colonel Schwarzkopf cooked up a plan to lure Condon into incriminating himself." Of course, Milton does not cite any reference to where she got this info. Hurt, if you don't have these two books, let me know and I will try to post the relavent pages. If anyone knows more about this dinner, please share.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 18, 2018 7:53:21 GMT -5
There are a number of sources out there and I know it's also in Jim Fisher's first book. It happened in March 1933 and I believe the dinner was Schwarzkopf's idea, an attempt to fully satisfy himself that Condon was clean. Harry Walsh was virtually the lone dissenting voice left, and I'd venture to say he was driving Schwarzkopf nuts in the background over his ongoing suspicions of Condon. Lindbergh, who believed Condon was on the up and up, would invite Condon to dinner and after engaging him with niceties alone, try to determine if he had even a perceived trace of guilty knowledge about the crime.
Apparently Lindbergh had expected Condon to bring his family with him, which I think speaks as much of this being a friendly social occasion in Lindbergh's mind. When Condon showed up by himself, Lindbergh insisted on having him invite his daughter Myra, who lived in West Englewood. Lindbergh picked her up himself, and then returned both of them to West Englewood, where Condon spent the night. During the evening, Lindbergh thanked Condon for his efforts and determination, even offering to cover his personal expenses, which Condon refused. Instead Condon asked for the three wooden animals and the safety pins from the crib, to which Lindbergh assented. Condon requested to see their new baby Jon, and he was brought downstairs by Anne Lindbergh. This is when Condon demonstrated the galloping horse trick with his hands, which Lindbergh also learned that evening.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 18, 2018 8:26:15 GMT -5
It's only confusing when you imply that I said Condon and Hauptmann had previously met, which I didn't. I said they may have crossed paths but I also believe Hauptmann was fully aware of who Condon was by the time CJ made his first call to Condon's home phone. During Wilentz's questioning of Hauptmann at the trial, Hauptmann stated something to the effect "most everyone in the Bronx knows who Doctor Condon is," which within the context of the specific questioning, would indicate Condon's name was already well know by most people in the Bronx, including Hauptmann. CJ, whom I believe was Hauptmann, also asked the question of Condon as to whether he sometimes wrote articles (plural) for the papers, so he was referring to more than Condon's original open letter to the BRH offering his support as a go-between. And knowing who you're dealing with would definitely be an advantage to anyone who wanted to avoid that person on the street as well.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 18, 2018 8:53:51 GMT -5
There is a method and reason behind anyone's statement.. this is a universal truth. Your treatment of Betty Gow painted her in a pretty unflattering and one-sided light, without offering any tangible connection between that behavior and her potential complicity within this crime. I do look forward to your second book, as I have enjoyed the first one a great deal for it's research value, and will certainly offer my perspective on your treatment of John Condon.
|
|