|
Post by acondon on Oct 21, 2006 16:12:26 GMT -5
Ah, that is interesting because Uncle Dinny said in one of his interviews in 1937 that Nosovitsky stated two men from New Jersey were the ones who took the baby. Dinny claimed Nosovitsky masterminded the kidnapping. Who knows, this could be why Dr. Condon went to Florida to see if he recognized Garelick as CJ. Of couse Dinny also said the men took the baby. Nosovitsky or Fisch was probably CJ.
Dr. Condon was aware of Dinny's statements all along.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 22, 2006 12:07:34 GMT -5
Hi Sue and a belated Happy Birthday! Well now, this must have been some of the "following up or carrying on" that Condon mentioned to CAL and Anne in his greiving letter? As we noted previously, Condon identified nearly every male in the Bronx as CJohn? A bright person once opined that Condon was hedging all his bets until someone was arrested, and then after that he would check and see if there was a Lone Wolf with no mob connections? Lloyd Gardner entitled Chapter 2 of his book "Rosner's Game", but using the same analogy what exactly was Condons game? Clearly not to hang Charlies arms around his Moms neck? Not only does JFC ID an entire cast of CJs he forgets, so conveniently, to ID the second cabbie? Since JFC literally worships CAL he must be doing his civic duty as he is quoted "Lindbergh and Breckenridge told me to make up conflicting stories" And whats Condon travelling to Florida again for? Once he went to give regrets to Mrs. Scarface Capone? Who pays for these junkets?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 22, 2006 15:39:28 GMT -5
What is the time frame for JFC to have gone on a boat with that group of people? Everyone was suspicious of Condon from the beginning. He had to have perceived this and except for some pandering to CAL, seems (to state the obvious) to have followed his own game plan. He was just too impressed with himself not to have. Lawsy only knows what he had in mind, even after the child was found dead. I doubt anything about the case could ever be solved using Condon.
|
|
|
Post by acondon on Oct 26, 2006 3:50:24 GMT -5
Dinny claimed that he was taken aboard the boat in the early days when he (Dr. Condon) first got involved in the case. According to Dinny Condon felt that he was about to get the baby back. This brought a question to my mind, did Dr. Condon have the ransom with him when aboard the boat. Condon claimed that he could ID 4 of the 5 men. On the boat there were some men called Doc. After the ransom was paid and the baby not returned Dr. Condon's life turned into hell. When the baby was found murdered in May, Dr. Condon lived a nightmare. News people at his door, Police checking into his life, non stop. He bit off more than he could chew. My Great Grandma was correct when she told him NOT to get involved.
Dr. Condon had some money during his life. He spent a lot of his money. If his claim is true that he had $998.00 life savings, even at that time, he was a big spender and not a saver. This of course, is debateable. I think he might have just came up with that amount when offering his life savings for the baby. In other words, he would not want the kidnappers to know he had, let's say 25 grand. (They might take it.) His wife was also a teacher and I think they were doing OK. He liked to travel. The Panama trip on the otherhand, that might have been care of NJ DA. He went to Montreal, L.A., Florida. In my untrained opinion the case won't be solved by using Dr. Condon. Al Reich probably was the only one who actually knew what was really going on and he carried that secret with him to his grave.
Pat
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 26, 2006 5:43:26 GMT -5
I know this story first developed sometime after May 15th. There is also absolute proof that Condon was still communicating with a letter writer claiming to represent the gang both before and after the child's discovery. With all the quacks and wise-guys out there I think its an important development to know this was going on.
I think you're right about Reich but believe some more people may have had intimate knowledge as well. I believe if you research all the angles to death, when and if something new becomes available, the knowledge that has been gained by doing so will aid in putting 2 + 2 together without the need for someone to do it for us.
Siglinde is living proof of this. She can tell you when someone lived where, how far away from this person that person was, if someone was married to a particular person or worked here when someone worked there. She is like a human Rosetta Stone.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 13, 2006 0:42:18 GMT -5
In Dr. Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies, on page 86 we see that Mrs. Condon was unable to understand why Condon offered up $1000 of his own money for a reward. What's interesting is that she also goes on to say that Condon had a "considerable amount of the family money tied up in real estate," the assets are "virtually frozen," the family cash is "quite depleted," and that Condon was having difficulty in "straightening out his mortgages and tax payments on many of his real estate holdings."
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Nov 20, 2006 16:15:04 GMT -5
Hi Pat~I read the Rense interview. What a wonderful presentation you did! The story line brought things together so, so well. I found it to be a fascinating read and thank you for it.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jan 17, 2007 10:53:45 GMT -5
There are more than a few missing "women" in the LKC? Walsh even says in his final Chapter of the Jersey Journal that the case may well be solved "when one of the women come forward"? One of course is the mystery woman that talks John Condon into his role as go-between. My candidate is Mrs. Betty Morrow: - If Condon helped out with one of the Morrow families previous embarrassments--his name would be a house hold word. William Norris claims JFC babysat one of Dwight Morrows extramarital kids in A Talent to Deceive? In his role as teacher.
- Nearly every servant at Next Day Hill has a convenient alibi for Tuesday March 1st and even though the crime/hoax appears to everyone as an inside job--Betty Morrow, just like CAL, declares them all innozent? Even Violet Sharpe after death? However, most of the alibis are chocked full of holes plugged up later. Red Johnson first went to the movies, then he started out for Connecticut, but then stayed overnite and drove around with Margaret and Johannes Junge. DYBT?
- Because both Elizabeth and Dwight Jr. need to head for Europe immediately following Violets funeral that Betty Morrow has a huge stake in protecting Anne's siblings from investigation?
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jan 17, 2007 12:02:52 GMT -5
Hi Rick,
I wonder if one or more of the woman who need to come forward appear in pictures that once belonged to J. F. Fitzgerald, Lindbergh's bodyguard. In the photos from the Jersey City Library, Walsh is seen with Betty Gow, Elsie Whateley, Walsh's daughter, and several others having lunch at the Methodist Church in Flemington and walking as a group on the streets of Flemington. There may be other pictures.
Sue
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 17, 2007 20:55:19 GMT -5
I have a very hard time believing anyone who declared the Kidnapping to be an "inside job" actually be one of those "insiders." It's one of the reasons that I don't believe Whateley was involved despite the time he was unaccounted for. He announced to Reporters his feeling this was an inside job due to the fact the dog did not bark. It was also reported in the press that Mrs. Morrow also felt this was an inside job. She even hired her own PI's who did some investigation into the case. The Mystery woman at Tuckahoe is, well, a mystery. Condon contradicted himself about this once claiming he hadn't seen such a woman but couldn't escape the fact that he had said it multiple times. And so, in my opinion, it was probably another story (like the 2nd Taxi Cab Driver) used to hinder the Police in their efforts. Dr. Condon was a counterproductive force when it came to the Police investigations and it seems pretty clear to me to be by design. Walsh was right about him. Sue - your point is well taken. Each and every time I research at the Archives I wonder to myself if other Confederates were actually interviewed and/or investigated but cleared for one reason or another to include the fact they didn't write the ransom notes or weren't identified by Condon. I still can't figure out how Condon could identify anyone under the circumstance he claimed his up close encounters occurred. Here is a picture from the Fred Allhoff Collection of Jafsie demonstrating how "Cemetery John" concealed his appearance when they met face to face: A note on the Fred Allhoff Collection: A bunch of us, with Kurt as the trigger-man, pooled our resources then purchased this collection off of ebay. Copies were made and the originals went to their rightful place in the NJSP Archives where they belong.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 17, 2007 21:52:25 GMT -5
I have a hard time believing any of the knowninsiders were the insiders. Despite indications of such inside assistance I don't think any of these people would remain alive for long after that child died if they were linked to the kidnappers.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 17, 2007 22:54:14 GMT -5
Insightful posts, here. I, too, have serious doubts about Condon having gotten a good look at CJ. And am wondering more and more, now if there were 2 CJs. That seems to be an odd remark "Don't you want to meet John?' and maybe a little out of character for Condon to have made that up. Additionally he had to know that the police did not trust him and I can readily guess that Mr know-it-all Condon would follow his own game plan. He was clearly so narcissistic that easily he could think himself smarter than the police (and anyone else).Can't recall where I saw this and it's vague to me now, but didn't he make some remark to someone that he was supposed to tell different stories or something to that effect? Not that he would have to be coached to tell different tales. Pat made ref to Nosovitsky trying to sue Condon, but that it didn't go anywhere. How I'd like to know what that was about!
|
|
|
Post by leah on Jan 18, 2007 6:30:26 GMT -5
i think in this case condon was correct! i agree michael that i believe also people were cleared because they weren't obvioulsy involved. thats why they call them investigators.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 13, 2007 15:12:46 GMT -5
The police flatly denying to the press on 7 March that there was any ransom note. ( A Talent to Deceive). Condon at home 7 March penning a letter to the newspaper in which he quotes the $50,000 ransom demand. Some underworld figures would know the amt. In spite of this , what are we to make of Condon's mighty early knowledge of the ransom amt??
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 13, 2007 21:04:21 GMT -5
While I don't believe it was published in the NY Times until March 9th (and I could be wrong) I am quite sure it had been published in other papers previous to his letter. The Washington Post, for example, published an article on March 4th with this in it: Offer to Pay Kidnapers $50000 Ransom...
I could search to see what Condon's explanation was, if he was ever asked, as to where he learned of this sum. We also have to remember that by the time he mentions it the Kidnappers had already raised the sum to $70,000. Perhaps Condon mentions the $50,000 knowing this is a bluff but I think its important to put all of the facts on the table to consider.
He was grilled in the May 20 Grand Jury Hearings... would you like me to look through them to see what I can find?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 13, 2007 22:06:46 GMT -5
Thank you Michael~~I appreciate the info about the ransom amt. I hadn't known it was publicized that early. No need to search for other dates on it. I can see that Condon could have been onto the amt since the news had it already. I'll make a note of the 4 March/Washington Post. It's a help to know that timing.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Mar 7, 2007 8:55:36 GMT -5
Hi. New to the board. I have a question that I haven't found info on and thought with all the knowledgeable people here, this would be the best place to ask. I've read before that at one point the "JJ Faulkner" bank deposit was attempted to be tried to in-laws of Condon's. Does anyone have any info on this? Thanks a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 7, 2007 18:20:45 GMT -5
You've come to the right place and glad to have you as a new Member.....
I think you are referring to Condon's son-in-law Ralph Hacker. His name surfaced during the Giessler investigation. Lt. Finn apparently made this mistake because the person in question was Rudolph Hacker and no relation.
A good source for this is Dr. Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies, on page 121.
However, you may be referring to one of Dr. Condon's former students - James J. Faulkner. He lived very near St. Raymond's Cemetery (where the ransom was dropped off).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 21, 2007 19:42:24 GMT -5
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 28, 2007 18:03:26 GMT -5
Will pose this again for consideration. I believe it was Michael who suggested the pay-off was made "around the bend" out of sight. Condon knew the police were suspicious of him -may even have picked up on Lingbergh's doubts about him. So does he come back around in view and call out, himself, "Hey Doctor", carrying the(by now empty) ransom money box and then seeming to transact the ransom hand off(?) Could this be Condon "doing a little dance" for Lindbergh's benefit, as witness(?)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 28, 2007 19:02:34 GMT -5
I don't believe he even had the box by then....
I think its possible Condon did yell, well, whatever was actually yelled, but I think at this point he may have been taking a risk. There was a look-out and so it seemed they were worried about Condon having been followed and/or a trap of some sort. How could Condon know the Police didn't actually disobey Lindbergh? In fact, it seems to me, that was the reason for the drop and then fake delivery - just in case. And so if Condon does yell this and someone sees the situation that there is no one there then he is sunk.
Either way I think it was for the benefit of anyone but Condon because he had already dropped off the cash plus I don't think, if I am John, that I would want someone as far away as Lindbergh to hear me unless that was the whole idea.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 29, 2007 21:34:50 GMT -5
Agent Sisk testified they had a sound recording of Condon talking like CJ. I have a transcipt of it but I'd love to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by john76 on May 9, 2007 19:23:16 GMT -5
I suspect John Condon other contacts with the kidnappers that never became public.
Condon's letter was published on March 8; on March 9 he had his response which is itself suspicious.
Lloyd Gardner (The Case that never Dies) reports that Condon described a letter from the kidnappers to him when he was questioned by Bronx ADA Edward Breslin. Condon also describean oral message to in to NJ Trooper Samuel Leon. In these communications the kidnappers indicated they wanted Condon to be a go between and they said they would give him the "signature" so CAL would know he was in touch with the kidnappers.
The police suspected Condon, questioned him and opened his mail. They searched his house and, in a recently redecorated room, pulled all of the wall paper off of the wall. From the time young Charlie was found up the the trial Condon was suspected by the police.
There are also other reasons to suspect Condon.
Is there any evidence that tends to rule out John Condon as a suspect? I have never heard of any.
Finally while Condon was eccentric he was also a very intelligent man who had a graduate degree and taught at a local college.
I think the police were correct in their suspicion.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 9, 2007 20:50:47 GMT -5
Hi John~Interesting thoughts about Condon, you posted. Combined with being an authority figure most of his life, he was also much too impressed with himself, in my view.Surely he couldn't have escaped knowing the police were suspicious of him, but then I think he thought he was much smarter than they. I get the feeling he was following his own game plan. Given the awful tangle of his tales how can one get a handle on what that plan was He even did the sort of "patriarch " thing with Anne and CAL. I can't quite bring myself to think he was part of the crime, but believe he took numerous liberties within the event. He just had to be the"know all/be all". I can't believe he recognized Hauptman and think he found himself in a terrible fix, in good part of his own making. Do you think the police blackmailed him into that ID?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 10, 2007 5:10:41 GMT -5
The only thing that I can think of is that no ransom money was traced back to him... and they were looking for this connection as well as many others. Of course this seems to relieve him of any known benefit which of course assumes certain things.
Other then that, he seems to do many things which I think are indicative of guilty knowledge.
I think its pretty obvious they forced him into it with the threat of arrest. If there was something else "they had" such as the charge involving the little girl then I haven't run across them using it in the source material yet.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on May 18, 2007 19:35:38 GMT -5
Good post John. While I can't get to the point where Condon only was a meddler or do-gooder at best, or may of have had some intimate knowledge of who was behind the plot at worst. But the more I think about it, the more a couple things bother me. The first is that after the first police meeting to 'identify' Hauptmann, Condon revealed info about Hauptmann's social schedule and other details about his personal life to the press. How in the world would he have known that? Secondly, when Perrone delivered the note he received to Condon's house, how was Milton Gaglio able to pinpoint within a block of where Perrone got the note? That couldn't have been just a lucky guess.
|
|
|
Post by john76 on May 19, 2007 17:45:13 GMT -5
The police believed John Condon was involved with the extortionists. He made two statements to the effect that he had special communitations from the extortionists which were not part of any ransom note but just personal messages to him. The NY police searched his home to the point of tearing all of the wallpaper off the walls of a recently redecorated room. Police opened his mail. The New Jersey State Police wanted to indict him in New Jersey before the trial. The police clearly believed he was part of the extortion plot.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 21, 2007 17:32:25 GMT -5
Maybe this has already been gone over. On the other forum was the suggestion that Condon already knew of a kidnap plan. (kidnap of a "prominent " person{?}) Did he hear this from his nephew, "Uncle Dinny" Doyle(?) All of which is Bronx related. May be the solution to why Condon put his letter in that particular newspaper and why the kidnapper(s) saw it? So there lurks Nosovitsky, again asking Dinny Doyle if there is any scandal about Condon. Is this seeking blackmail material(?) If, just if Noso was involved with the LKC, did Condon know this all along(?)---hence all the contradictions, lies, etc(?) He thought he could get the baby back, keep his mouth shut, be famous(?) Who was it, Paglio, who questioned Perrone about a specific note pick-up address? Did he, through Condon, already have a bee in his bonnet? Anyone have any ideas if that address is connected to any of the players?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 3, 2007 20:18:39 GMT -5
In the Oursler report section of Ronelle's board this is quoted:
Q "One final question Doctor. Are you absolutely sure Hauptmann didn't have any accomplices?
A I think he did have an accomplice
Q Who?
A I will answer that with an old Irish story. Says Mike to Pat, what do you think of a woman that deceives her husband. Says Pat to mike I think she is terrible. Says Mike to Pat, what do you think of a man that deceives his wife. Says Pat to Mike I think he is a wonderman.
With this Condon departed laughing.
What do some of you take on this conversation? Did Condon know of an accomplice that betrayed Hauptmann and would not expose him because is considered the wonderman in this example.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 4, 2007 7:02:58 GMT -5
From Condon's position within the overall investigation, I don't discount the possibility he was privy to information that spawned his analogy. If the story is accurate, it certainly reinforces my own belief that Anna knew at the very least, of her husband's involvement in the LKC and possibly far more than she let on to investigators. Was she determined, deceptive and cool under pressure? No question in my mind there and I think she ultimately became the champion fighter for her husband's legacy for the most part by "learning from he best," the man she was married to for nine years and whom she professed to know better than anyone. I'd also be willing to bet when she asked Richard in their apartment on the morning of Sept. 19, 1934, if he had done anything wrong and he replied in German that his arrest was due to a gambling problem, that was the tipoff for her that the jig was up and for her to play dumb at all costs.
|
|