|
Post by anon on Mar 8, 2009 18:38:12 GMT -5
Ronald cotton was fully recognized by a rape victim. It took the jury just 40 minutes to sentence ronald to Life plus 40 years. Ron saw another inmate in prision that looked exactly like him! Bobby Pool later admitted to raping jennifer years ago. But, Jenifer fingers Ronald cottom #2 time--only he gets 2 life sentences this time around. But....then comes DNA. and inside the rape kit was a single sperm. And what do you think.....bobby pool guilty. ronald released after 11 years? ouch! So much for the eye witnesses? eg Condon, Hochmuth and Whitehead? One single cell might solve the LKC as well?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 9, 2009 8:33:32 GMT -5
Rick, that's why I put so little stock in anything other than physical evidence. Witnesses, journalists, authors, and the multitude of others who are on record carry little weight unless the evidence corroborates it. Just the facts, ma'am.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 10, 2009 16:07:49 GMT -5
I think an eyewitness is pretty powerful stuff. The ear-witness is, I think, far less reliable and studies have proven this to be true. Now since the introduction of DNA we've all heard of cases where the wrong man was convicted based upon a mistaken eyewitness account. If I were to hazard a guess I think more are correctly identified then not. What scares the hell out of me is what happened concerning this case (to just name a few)... - Lindbergh testifying before a Grand Jury, in essence, he wouldn't be able to identify the voice - then testifies in Flemington it was definitely Hauptmann.
- Perrone being talked into identifying Hauptmann. Especially since everyone else he did identify looked nothing like him at all.
- Condon being threatened into making an identification.
- Whited inventing his eyewitness account - and the Prosecution knowing this.
- Hochmuth inventing his eyewitness account - and the Prosecution knowing this.
- Rossiter inventing his eyewitness account - and the Prosecution knowing this.
- Alexander inventing her eyewitness account - and the Prosecution knowing this.
When a Jury is faced with the Burden of Proof these things start to pile up and hardly make for any real Defensible position. Take these things away and I believe there's nothing to show Hauptmann committed the Burglary which led to his Murder Conviction. Even if you believe he wrote the notes and built the ladder - it doesn't prove he committed the Kidnapping by personally entering High Field's Nursery and taking the child. So in this case it wasn't a mistake, rather, Perjury and Prosecutorial misconduct which ruined the Eyewitness accounts.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Mar 10, 2009 19:31:06 GMT -5
Straight-up, black and white lies are understandable, especially where there is reward money involved--the Prosecution spent $50,000 on just their handwriting experts. But partial truths, or half-truths are alot more clever and insidious: - Condon tells so many stories we cant possibly keep track of all of them.....this implies some underlying motive to deflect, mislead, confound or protect the Truth? "Someone killed Fisch in Germany, Red and Betty should be found innocent, CJ talked to 2 other men at St. Raymonds, CJ had big ears and a hacking cough?" JFC sees the secret symbol before opening the letter......Someone on the phone says Statti Citti in Italian? JFC rows out to meet the gang? "He cant remember who made the wooden box"? "I can never finger this man"?
- Curtis has even better imagination....he meets 7-8 different persons, 5 men and 2 women, he goes to Newark, Long Island and Cape May but can never locate these gang members or the safe houses when accompanied. He sails around looking for a Mystery yacht with CAL for 3 weeks.
- Condon is never charged with anything, and Curtis is fined $1000 and released on his own recogniscense? or on his own Nonsense?
- So which gang had Charlie--JFCs Italian Mafia gang or Curtis' Scandanavian Seaman gang?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Mar 11, 2009 12:59:37 GMT -5
Hi Rick~~
"....this implies some underlying motive to deflect, mislead, confound or protect the Truth" (Rick)
How about looking to Condon's psychological makeup. Pathological liar, self aggrandizement, narcissism. (If I had a DSM handy I believe I could turn right to the page.) He was determined to hold center stage, to be the grand rescuer. He had to keep his role propped up with multiple tales and serial liars can't always keep up with which lie they told when. When confronted with a contradiction they can only prop that up with another lie. I agree, there seems to be nothing we can trust of his claims. ~~~~~Do you ever get the feeling that his family rather despaired of him? Where were his two sons during all this? The daughter supposedly said "We can't control him". One source said that his wife cried all the time.
|
|
|
Post by rg3 on Mar 12, 2009 7:51:35 GMT -5
Yes Mairi-JFC is like the 2nd string quaterback that begs and begs to gett into the game and then throws an interception? However, outright perjury is a crime in most States:
"Governor harold Hoffman of NJ had planned to have JFC Condon arrested. He was not sure of the grounds he could do this. But he felt the olde man was guity of perjury in that he had told so many contradictory stories. Then too, in the governors opinion, Dr. Condons behavior after the trial discredited him as a reliable witness as much of his written and spoken contradictions. First he had lectured on the LKC to congregations and civic groups; next he had set out ona vaudville tour, advertised in Variety as the most enigmatic colorful and widely publicised personality in America". The Vaudville Tour had barely gotten off the ground when it was severyly criticised by local clergy and the whole project was cancelled. Dr. Condon was reported to be leaving for a sea trip on a holiday since no arrest warrant had been sworn he could not be considered a fugitive from Justice. Condon was sailing for Cristobal. Hoffman announced he wanted Condon held for questioning regarding serious discrepancies in his stories. That night, on the Grance liner Santa Rita, Dr. Condon and his daughter Myra sailed for Panama" VGBurns pg 69.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 12, 2009 15:39:44 GMT -5
Who is the criminal here? Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black.
I'd say Mairi is probably correct in her assessment of Condon.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 12, 2009 16:35:59 GMT -5
I'd have to say Condon is guilty of a crime somewhere in all of this. It's either perjury, obstruction (the same Curtis was eventually convicted of), and/or accomplice. In each and every report Condon's honesty is questioned by EVERYONE.
One such report from the FBI says he's either guilty or, in essence, suffering from dementia - or some other mental malady.
I find it irresistable but to believe there's a lot of people who should have been arrested in connection with this crime either directly or indirectly.
Some where and some most certainly weren't.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Mar 14, 2009 7:39:59 GMT -5
"In Jafsie Tells All(?)" Condon therorizes that the ransom note had in fact been left inside the crib but in all the excitement had been inadvertantly been removed to the window ledge before being rediscovered by Lindbergh. Although totally implausible it was the only theory that would protect Condon and explain why, if he knew the notes true location, he had not asked CJ about that in VanCortland Park?" "The authors of this book are themselves divided as to whether the evidence suggests that Condon was an extortionist or just the unwitting dupe of the other extortionists" Crime of the Century page91 Note: Alhgren and Monier were the only ones to ask "Was there really any kidnapping" and answer NO!
So is it just a coincidence that Condon fled for Panama at the end of December 1935 with a State Police chaperone to avoid arrest, whereas CAL, Anne and Jon had already fled for England immediately before Xmas on December 22, 1935? Had JFC lost his protector?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 14, 2009 8:34:22 GMT -5
If anything, the evidence suggests that Condon didn't have a clue to what happened that night. But, as usual he didn't let that stop him from telling all. Never let facts get in the way of a good story!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2009 18:23:19 GMT -5
The note's location is a double-edged sword. Either he spoke with John or he didn't. Either John knew what he was talking about or he didn't.
See my point?
If Condon is talking to John, and John knew what he was talking about - why then the need to make things up?
Therefore, IF John is legitimate, then the note was originally left in the crib just as Condon says he was told.
If not, then either John isn't legit or Condon is lying. Pick your poison. Neither is a desirable conclusion IF John rec'd the ransom.
If you remember that Condon was caught with his pants down about the note inside the note. The symbol was inside the second sealed note and he knew what the symbol was before he opened it...
And this was before he supposedly met John....
As far as Jafsie Tells All!.... If anyone is Christian, then you'll know that the Messiah was predicted by Isaiah. However, while Jesus is accepted as that person by Christians, there are others who do not believe this due to the fact he isn't the Warrior-type Isaiah describes. Now if you jump to Revelations, John's visions show Jesus as the Horseman wearing the crown, and wielding a sword - therefore, fulfilling this prediction in the future thereby proving he was indeed the Messiah and did meet the obligation of the original prophecy.
And so, if you can follow my logic, this is exactly what Condon does in JTA! concerning his role in these events. He's trying to explain and/or legitimize the things he did which contradicted and/or didn't make sense by and through this publication ex post facto without intereference, molestation, and on his very own terms.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Mar 15, 2009 8:02:27 GMT -5
Yes, JFC is a very clever fellow. First he maximises his options so that he can identify almost anyone who is a serious candidate for CJ...tall ones , short one, dark ones, fat ones/ John Gorch looks like Paul Wendel just in case he gets nabbed? or Fisch...etc.
Next he does the same clever trick with every aspect of the case. He tells multiple versions so that he can backtrack and say he also said that, or saw that too? Similary, JFC gets in trouble in Dutch's Hysteria on the safety pin issue. Its impossible to tell whether CJ knows about them or not. But JFC shows them to him to make certain he knows about them to implicate him in the kidnap he never made? Also it helps to create the illusion that CJ knew about them on the fly to convince CAL that these guys are the kidnappers? Sadly, they dont have Charlie Jr. and dont know anyding? JFC is just taking them thru school--"kidnap school." [[Thats why somebody had to enter the Nursery to be credible]] The only one we know for certain entered the Nursery was JFC!
As for CAL and his earwitness testimony--well, I think we know now that he was nearly deaf from flying in open cockpits so he could say he heard just about anything he wanted to stick.
So--both CAL and JFC lied. Both CAL and JFC strapped BRH to the chair. Then, both CAL and JFC fled the USA in December 1935 to avoid answering further questions from Gov. Harold Hoffman? Thus, they must have been in collusion on the lying and leaving.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 15, 2009 9:17:56 GMT -5
How clever is he to get involved in this whole affair? Is it clever to place yourself on the tip of the sword thus exposing oneself to the scrutiny of all? Would you call that a clever position to find yourself in? And for what did this "clever" man do this for? Where is the evidence of a rich bounty that would certainly be the reward for such a risky action? A clever man would realize long before the point that the position is untenable. Even if you pass the initial scrutiny, you would never be able to enjoy the financial reward. I'd say Condon's actions are far from clever,they are more like that of a man driven by an almost insatiable need for adulation.
|
|