|
Post by bookrefuge on Oct 20, 2011 21:09:37 GMT -5
Hi. A newcomer here.
Condon, if we can believe him, said Cemetery John claimed to be a Scandinavian sailor. Curtis said the gang of kidnappers who contacted him were mostly Scandinavian sailors. And Betty Gow’s boyfriend, “Red” Johnson, really was a Scandinavian sailor. To me, that’s too many Scandinavian sailors to be a coincidence!
Scandinavian sailors seem highly unlikely suspects for the Lindbergh kidnap. Scandinavians, to my offhand knowledge, weren’t particularly involved in gang activity in the US, and a bunch of sailors—who spend so much time at sea—planning a kidnap in the Sourland Mountains? I’m wondering if the story is this. “Red” Johnson had been swiftly arrested by the police, and jailed for 18 days as their first prime suspect. With suspicion hanging over Red, could it just be that a gang of extortionists thought that posing as “Scandinavian sailors” would make them more credible as the true kidnappers? Even though “Red” Johnson was eventually released—his alibis all checked out—the extortionists would not have known this early on. Thoughts, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 21, 2011 5:54:13 GMT -5
This is a great post BR.
There were a lot of illegal Scandinavians back then. Some even being in the Sourland mountains. In fact, a role in the J. J. Devine angle of the case involves the wife of one who was deported.
However, for me, I think the key to your observation is Condon. What I've learned from all the Report reading I've done is that Jafsie, despite his unique ability to feign forgetfulness, confusion, and misunderstanding - listened well. When around the Police, he took a mental note of what they were saying or what they wanted - then he'd wrap it up into whatever story he would later tell.
Here you have Johnson being picked up by the Police, and for good reason. Condon is familiar with Sailors. He meets CJ, and low and behold he's Scandinavian but in his talk with Condon makes sure to clear Red's name!
So what we are expected to believe is CJ is negotiating with Condon for 50K, while the toddler lie dead somewhere, scared as hell the Cops are going to swoop down at any moment - but is so conscientious and noble that he doesn't forget to exonerate Red and make sure the Police aren't wasting their time concerning themselves with him.
So here we slip into another whole big mess. Is CJ doing this on purpose in order to make the Police actually believe Red IS involved? Or is he sincere? Or is Condon "adding" this information, because of the Red situation, in order to sound more believable himself?
Which brings me to your Curtis observation.... It makes sense for Curtis to inject these people because of his profession. However, again, Condon would say later that CJ told him the Police were wasting their time with the people "down soud".... a clear reference to Curtis.
But when Condon spoke with CJ, Curtis hadn't even entered the case yet. So, either Condon is lying, or CJ is not only conscientious, he's clairvoyant as well.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Oct 21, 2011 12:26:19 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael. One thing you mention really jumps out at me—why would Cemetery John be so eager to clear Betty Gow and Red Johnson? Incidentally, I do believe Betty and Red were innocent. Betty seemed to have had a genuine and mutual love for the Lindergh child. She didn’t even know she was going to be at Hopewell until Anne called her that Tuesday. And if she were a party to the crime, she’d be really setting herself up: as the last person to see CAL Jr. before the kidnap, she was automatically a prime suspect. A 23-year old girl would have to have nerves of steel to do that, and then stand up to a police grilling. As for Red, I was suspicious when I first heard about him, but his alibis were thoroughly checked by the police. I was impressed by the sincerity of his own comments in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that were thoughtfully linked to on this forum.
Which brings me back to your excellent point. If CJ is an extortionist, kidnapper, even a party to child murder—does a person like that get choked up about Betty Gow and Red Johnson? If anything, he should WELCOME false arrests and the police chasing false leads.
Then again, as you also point out, maybe CJ was using reverse psychology here—a criminal saying Betty and Red were innocent might put MORE suspicion on Betty and Red.
But in the final analysis, we have only Dr. Condon’s word that CJ said this—and the more I learn about this codger, the less I trust him. I appreciated reading the many comments on this board under the topic “The Condon Conundrum.”
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 21, 2011 17:16:41 GMT -5
The issue at hand are the degrees or levels of.... To what degree of involvement. Was it accidental? Was it forced? What are the actual motives - if any? It's real easy to make excuses for what Condon is doing. But, as a matter of fact, he is lying. However, he's not just making things up - off the cuff - he's being intelligent about it. But once his back is against the wall (or even near it) he starts the tap-dancing routine. He then becomes confused, or starts babbling and rambling a complete bunch of BS that confuses everyone or leads them to believe he's psychologically impaired. Exactly why is this going on? Why is he doing this? His goal seems to be: - Get the money to the Criminals.
- Don't let the Police believe anyone but Him is in touch with the Kidnappers.
- Insulate the Kidnappers from the Police by sometimes being rock solid certain while at other times being completey uncertain - about the exact same issue. There's even times where he is simultaneously both certain and uncertain! Say something, then deny it, then later say it again. When confronted about it, just pretend you've had a stroke or start up some explanation such as the "declaration of indentification" nonsense. It all depends upon what the moment calls for.
- Look like a Hero doing it.
So do we quickly proclaim he's part of the "gang?" That's the problem here. It's really easy to make things black and white, and it certainly could be, but there's also many shades of grey to consider. What exactly does Condon know and what doesn't he? What does CJ really tell him and what is a lie? When CJ tells Condon "would I burn if the baby is dead" ... if this is really coming from Condon then, based upon his "pattern" - he's quite aware of the child's demise.
|
|