|
Post by jeanne on Aug 7, 2021 22:11:55 GMT -5
I suppose one could ask how an individual with a bad memory could function as a principal and teacher. Condon could create a few interesting stories to fill out his lectures, and the students would not complain if they enjoyed the lesson. I once worked for a college president who had a terrible memory. He took "for back problems" and laced the well with alcohol, so it can be done--unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 8, 2021 6:46:46 GMT -5
John Condon did not drive a car but relied on others for transportation (Al Reich, for example) and on public buses usually available. I am wondering why he did not own a car and drive himself. He may have had some serious memory problems related to his age, , or perhaps concussion suffered during sports activity. True, he may have been dissembling deliberately, but he also may have been creatively filling in details, having forgotten what really happened and then forgot the creative details when telling the story later. The details concerning the Tuckahoe lady vary so much that it's difficult to get any impression of her appearance. While he certainly could be lying for reasons of his own, I wonder if his inability to drive has anything to do with his memory problems. It's always a consideration. But as you wind your way through everything it becomes apparent exactly what's going on. While he does, at times, forget aspects concerning certain lies - this is something that expose liars in the first place. If one tells too many they start to forget exactly what they said previously. Next, if one is forgetful, then they are forgetful. Take Tuckahoe for example. He's not only giving different descriptions of that woman but changing his story completely in other places. In one version he didn't even meet a lady there but then in another goes back to saying he did. So is he forgetting then remembering? Does he have a condition where he forgets then remembers? My favorite is that Reich morphed his daughter-in-law Katherine. Why? I submit its because he was aware of certain information cops were learning. So he "adjusted" his story accordingly. More examples include how he used information from his interactions with police to later inject certain points into his stories to make them acceptable. People who are forgetful could never do such a thing. John's "dead" for example. Or Hauptmann could be CJ's "brother" is another. This he knows could be believable because it happened in several places during the investigation into several other people already. In some places the events "borrowed" occurred years earlier. Again, this is clear evidence and something clever criminals do. It would never occur to an average person to do such a thing - most especially if they are sincere and honest. It's not by accident that he's doing this either. Not to rewrite V2 here, but the Needle Salesman investigation is yet another crystal clear example. About TWO years after the fact he gives a detailed eyewitness account, description, and even suggested the man may have been the lookout. And yet only about a month later, he tells another investigator he wasn't there when the man came to the house. Did he remember two years later but then suddenly forget a month after that? Clearly no.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 8, 2021 15:07:53 GMT -5
Let me jump in with 2 questions: Again, I've got a whole book filled to the brim with facts and information, all footnoted, which exemplify this guy was a liar and did everything humanly possible to protect Hauptmann. It came down to either him or Hauptmann. Had he not been painted into a corner like that he would have never testified as he did. Hi Michael, I'm simply trying to make sense of how Condon protected Hauptmann. 1) On September 20, 1934, if Condon and Hauptmann were co-conspirators, why would Condon single Hauptmann out of a lineup of 14 men and personally question him for 10 pages of dialogue and no one else? Why would a co-conspirator do that? 2) On October 24, 1934, when Condon visited Hauptmann in Flemington, Condon tried to get Hauptmann to confess if others were involved. Why would a co-conspirator to that? Condon could not be testing Hauptmann's loyalty to the "gang" because Hauptmann had admitted nothing incriminating.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 8, 2021 16:12:05 GMT -5
Again, I've got a whole book filled to the brim with facts and information, all footnoted, which exemplify this guy was a liar and did everything humanly possible to protect Hauptmann. It came down to either him or Hauptmann. Had he not been painted into a corner like that he would have never testified as he did. Hi Michael, I'm simply trying to make sense of how Condon protected Hauptmann. 1) On September 20, 1934, if Condon and Hauptmann were co-conspirators, why would Condon single Hauptmann out of a lineup of 14 men and personally question him for 10 pages of dialogue and no one else? Why would a co-conspirator do that? 2) On October 24, 1934, when Condon visited Hauptmann in Flemington, Condon tried to get Hauptmann to confess if others were involved. Why would a co-conspirator to that? Condon could not be testing Hauptmann's loyalty to the "gang" because Hauptmann had admitted nothing incriminating. What you are doing Wayne is ignoring everything I've written in my books then ignoring what I've written in my posts. After this, you are coming up with questions that are answered if you simply would have applied all I have written. Holding an opposing view is causing you to do this. One cannot shrug off Condon's tactics/strategies/counter-measures. It's as plain as day what he was doing. I used to see it daily when sitting across a desk from someone trying to BS me. If you want to believe it then you start to make excuses or say "well, he could be telling the truth." The idea was to get them their money then come out smelling like a rose. First and foremost, Condon wanted to protect himself. The plan doesn't work if his real role is revealed. Walsh tried, and it was the one time during the investigation that Condon sobered up a little - a further indication that he wasn't being "forgetful." Fear and stress don't usually make someone who is struggling cognitively more lucid. The meeting in the jail cell was for show. He's not only testing to see where Hauptmann was at, he's sending him a message. It's clear as day. And once he leaves he's heard to say "I cannot testify against this man." The Stockburger report show exactly how confident Hauptmann was after this visit. He clearly saw Condon as an ally. Condon knew who the suspect was in that lineup. It's all show. With this in mind, if he was sincere, he would have immediately identified him. Instead, he feels his thumb and goes through all of the usual nonsense designed to show he doesn't believe its him while at the same time in fear of being charged himself. He's walking a tightrope. After, he sits next to Turrou "fishing for information" (something else guilty people do) to see what his next move should be. He's conflicted and trying to find a way out of the situation. One that ends with NO identification while at the same time keeping himself out of the jailcell next to Hauptmann. Again, he TOLD Turrou it wasn't Hauptmann. He tried to use the OLD belief that John was dead. He tried the OLD alibi for Barry & Simek by invoking the "brother" excuse. He takes off for Florida in an attempt to scapegoat a kidnapper from NJ held in prison there. What questions do you need answered after considering just these things? Fact is, one cannot consider them and still consider Condon legitimate. And so, this stuff gets shrugged off and the idea is to wrestle with those things that make no sense once these things are eliminated from consideration. Upon considering them it all makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 9, 2021 8:05:32 GMT -5
What's important to remember is that what I've written about in these posts are just the tip of the iceberg. The examples are unlimitled. Taken alone each are hard to ignore but taken in their totality the whole thing is impossible to get around. Just look at the Ransom Box as another example. Forgetting that Condon lied about the ransom drop and hid that box in a bush for a minute, let's focus on what he said that box was made out of. He lied about the kinds of wood it consisted of. Wny? Well, he tells police why. So that if it was ever discovered he could easily recognize it. So lets think about this for a second.... Was it a bout of "forgetfulness?" No. Why not? Because if someone asks what the box was made out of, and he said "I can't remember" that may sound sketchy but possible. But who forgets by adding more details? Moreover, this is just another example of the lump on the thumb invention he created. One by design meant to do the exact opposite of what we were told.
And so, once authorities want to track down the guy who made that box suddenly Condon gives them bad information in an attempt to mislead them yet again. After discovering this was another lie he puts on an act that he was confused or had been mistaken about who made it. Due to their persistence, they locate Samuelsohn and discover that box wasn't made out of several kinds of special wood and was merely constructed of 5 ply maple. (See V2 pages 284-93).
Are you starting to see the bigger picture? These tactics aren't anything new to anyone who has a decent amount of experience dealing with criminals face to face on a continuing basis. The first step is to accept what you are seeing and to stop talking yourself out of it. The next step, and this is important, is to now try to figure out his exact motivation for doing so. Was it for money? For fame? Blackmail? Due to fear? Or possibly all of the above? But to quickly dispose of these questions by pretending there's no reason to ask makes little sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 9, 2021 9:33:37 GMT -5
What's important to remember is that what I've written about in these posts are just the tip of the iceberg. Michael, Hands down, I realize you know more about this case than anyone on the planet. Absolutely no doubt about that. Is there any chance (maybe in Vol. 5) that you will give us a detailed description of what you think happened, from beginning to end? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but God forbid something happens to you, what would happen to all the info you have? Granted the puzzle pieces are excellently presented in your books, but the puzzle box cover is missing.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 9, 2021 10:51:31 GMT -5
What certain facts am I ignoring and what am I making up? Condon told Special Agent Turrou that he was " not going to identify the man because he was doubtful whether Hauptmann was John." " He asserted that the real John was killed long ago and that the money was taken away from him by his confederates. He intimated that the real men who are responsible for the kidnaping and murder of the Lindbergh child are now somewhere in Long Island, around Bayshore." (V2, Pages 312-13). You ignore this in order to sell a story that just isn't true. Why do you do this Joe? Do you forget or simply hope everyone else will? Next, there is absolutely no source that attributes the "lump" Condon claimed existed had anything to do with a "a thenar eminence muscle." This is merely something that you've invented. If not, please post the state police source because I haven't seen it. Next, Condon checked everyone who was ever a suspect for this lump. He asserted it was an identifying attribute. He also claimed many other things at various times. This would include the "mutton chop hand" you mentioned. Hauptmann had neither a lump nor a mutton chop hand. Never had either before the crime, during the crime, or after the crime. If so please give me your source. Fact is there are none. I could go on and on. YOU claim to believe Condon. Yet, you have to invent or ignore things in order to make him appear to be honest. Look at what he said and did. Stop pretending you don't see what's right in front of you. Same with the footprint. It did NOT match Hauptmann's size. So he was either lying about that too, or it Hauptmann wasn't CJ. This idea that the NJSP seized every shoe Hauptmann ever owned in order to compare it to those casts, matched them, but then chose not to use them in Court is asinine. After Lindbergh and company were duped by CJ, Condon was going just about everywhere looking for possible information on him and listening to anyone who might be able to help identify him. How do you think he came away with this notion that CJ was killed and his confederates stole his money? And then he intimates that those responsible for the kidnapping and murder of the Lindbergh child are now somewhere in Long Island, around Bayshore? Why wouldn’t he have just provided Turrou with a street address and time of day the bad guys could be picked up? Here you’re even considering that Condon, as the co-conspirator you believe he was, would actually show his hand to a Federal Agent, admitting as much? With the amount of information you’ve taken in and digested at face value only, it’s not too difficult to see how much you can preferentially adopt and project Condon’s own belief system at times, when you feel it assists your theory. I have never seen a reputable source that describes the physical characteristic that Condon testified belonged to CJ, strictly as a congenital lump or defect. You sure you haven’t been reading Zorn in some dark corner? Condon was clearly talking about a well-developed musculature at the base of the thumb, PALM side. Never anything else. This is called the thenar eminence muscle group and it’s made up of three individual muscle bands (you can research their actual names if you like) and I’ll do my best to find the actual case source reference, which I know is out there. What you seem determined on doing here is to grimly hang on to this lumpy notion of yours and the debacle it’s become, which I feel in part is due to the fact you’ve committed this misinformation and your own psychoanalysis of what Condon’s message was all about, to your book. Therefore it is, end of discussion. And to apparently reinforce your argument, you include a well meant but misleading source from another LKC contributor who points out Condon’s demonstration to Lindbergh in the nursery, regarding the specific muscular development on the back of his hand, and one he had developed from “fifty years of pushing chalk.” So without skipping a beat, you trot this out as a means of declaring yet one more act of deception on Condon’s part. The TRUTH here is that Condon was demonstrating to Lindbergh, ANOTHER example of MUSCULAR DEVELOPMENT, when he notes in Jafsie Tells All, “Here on the BACK, between and below the base of thumb and forefinger. See that round LUMP of muscle that protrudes there?”) Condon is referring to a DIFFERENT muscle group which has been developed by a specific trade or task, in his case, a schoolteacher. BTW, I’m not claiming this is where the term “lump” came from but do consider the possibility that Condon may have also used this example which applied directly to him, as a means of previously demonstrating how certain muscle groups can be developed based on the type of job and task being performed. Regarding the footprint, your argument is moot and simply doesn’t eliminate either possibility that it could have been Hauptmann or it could not have been Hauptmann, because you have not addressed all potential factors to support a valid conclusion. And we don’t really know for certain if it was CJ who made that imprint, do we?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 9, 2021 12:31:54 GMT -5
Condon wasn't "clearly" talking about anything. He couldn't even remember if it was on the left, right, or both hands. That's what happens Joe, once someone lies so often they can't remember exactly what they said previously. In case you don't remember yourself, suspects were eliminated based upon this missing attribute, while others wasted precious police man hours investigating people because they had a lump or deformity on their hand. Fact is, and I think I've made an irresistible case for it - Condon MADE IT UP! Kinda like what you are doing now in order to explain away why Hauptmann did not have such a lump. In fact, he never did so you are wasting your time on this one. But carry on anyway, might as well earn your lifetime membership to the Jafsie Club. Regarding the footprint.... YOU are the one who claims Condon was honest and telling the truth. So here you whip out your slide-rule and consider he's leading cops to a footprint that actually wasn't CJ's? Amazing. I'm telling you now that print didn't belong to CJ because if it did, hello, Condon would have NEVER brought the cops to see it in the first place.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 9, 2021 12:50:19 GMT -5
Condon wasn't "clearly" talking about anything. He couldn't even remember if it was on the left, right, or both hands. That's what happens Joe, once someone lies so often they can't remember exactly what they said previously. In case you don't remember yourself, suspects were eliminated based upon this missing attribute, while others wasted precious police man hours investigating people because they had a lump or deformity on their hand. Fact is, and I think I've made an irresistible case for it - Condon MADE IT UP! Kinda like what you are doing now in order to explain away why Hauptmann did not have such a lump. In fact, he never did so you are wasting your time on this one. But carry on anyway, might as well earn your lifetime membership to the Jafsie Club. Regarding the footprint.... YOU are the one who claims Condon was honest and telling the truth. So here you whip out your slide-rule and consider he's leading cops to a footprint that actually wasn't CJ's? Amazing. I'm telling you now that print didn't belong to CJ because if it did, hello, Condon would have NEVER brought the cops to see it in the first place. Hoooo boy..... You just ignored what I wrote about your "lump", didn't you? I'm not claiming anything of the sort as to why Condon led investigators to the footprint. I know he believed it was made by CJ, but I don't know that it was for sure and neither do you. So why are you just speculating here and making it sound like fact? As an aside here, you continually advise me to stop pretending I don’t see what’s in front of me. While it’s never directly in front of me, for many years now and under just about every condition and consideration, I’ve been seeing pretty much the same old tottering house of cards that for me, best symbolizes the way you’ve come to explain this case and inaccurately paint many of its participants, quite surrealistically. So you tell me, as you claim to be the authority on discernment here.. How on earth does one stop seeing what just won’t seem to go away?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 9, 2021 12:52:42 GMT -5
Michael, Hands down, I realize you know more about this case than anyone on the planet. Absolutely no doubt about that. Is there any chance (maybe in Vol. 5) that you will give us a detailed description of what you think happened, from beginning to end? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but God forbid something happens to you, what would happen to all the info you have? Granted the puzzle pieces are excellently presented in your books, but the puzzle box cover is missing. Thanks Wayne. Well we both know there is always something to be learned don't we? Even now there isn't a day that goes by where I don't learn (or re-learn) something. I also have the luxury of benefiting from not only my research but everyone else's over the years as well. That includes their mistakes as well as my own. Right now I'm focused on V4. Regardless, I've always been hesitant to give exactly what you are seeking. I feel like you can lead a horse to water then should let it decide for itself what to do from there. Ever notice people get angry at information they don't like? " Why, that's a conspiracy you're talking about!" And? Just look at what happened to Bobby Franks. If conspiracies didn't exist either Loeb or Leopold would have to be innocent. Anyway, who knows what tomorrow brings right? But if I got hit by a car or something I'm quite sure someone interested in the case would wind up with my collection. After about five years or so of reading through it I'm sure they'd be where I am at. That is unless its Joe. Might be time to write up a will.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 9, 2021 13:04:03 GMT -5
Michael, Hands down, I realize you know more about this case than anyone on the planet. Absolutely no doubt about that. Is there any chance (maybe in Vol. 5) that you will give us a detailed description of what you think happened, from beginning to end? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but God forbid something happens to you, what would happen to all the info you have? Granted the puzzle pieces are excellently presented in your books, but the puzzle box cover is missing. Thanks Wayne. Well we both know there is always something to be learned don't we? Even now there isn't a day that goes by where I don't learn (or re-learn) something. I also have the luxury of benefiting from not only my research but everyone else's over the years as well. That includes their mistakes as well as my own. Right now I'm focused on V4. Regardless, I've always been hesitant to give exactly what you are seeking. I feel like you can lead a horse to water then should let it decide for itself what to do from there. Ever notice people get angry at information they don't like? " Why, that's a conspiracy you're talking about!" And? Just look at what happened to Bobby Franks. If conspiracies didn't exist either Loeb or Leopold would have to be innocent. Anyway, who knows what tomorrow brings right? But if I got hit by a car or something I'm quite sure someone interested in the case would wind up with my collection. After about five years or so of reading through it I'm sure they'd be where I am at. That is unless its Joe. Might be time to write up a will. I'm sure I've digested most of what you've written Michael, and you and I certainly see the interpretation much differently. I also believe you know more about this case than anyone else on the planet.. I just think your "mileage" could be a lot better. Just a little detail here.. now if I do make it into your will, could you do me a favour and specify your collection first be transferred to electronic files? I'd rather read hard copies, but I'm sure my house isn't big enough for all that paper!
|
|
|
Post by Joseph F. Condon on Oct 23, 2021 13:29:47 GMT -5
Jafsie would have been very familiar with mutton chops and muscular developments in the hands of carpenters and other tradesmen. Jafsie's father and Jafsie's older brother James were both stone masons. Every night when they came home from work, their hands were sore and calloused. So as a child Jafsie would have seen and been familiar with the characteristics. Therefore those with rapacious yearnings to sell books should do some research before villifying someone who is not around to defend himself.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 23, 2021 18:20:05 GMT -5
Jafsie would have been very familiar with mutton chops and muscular developments in the hands of carpenters and other tradesmen. Jafsie's father and Jafsie's older brother James were both stone masons. Every night when they came home from work, their hands were sore and calloused. So as a child Jafsie would have seen and been familiar with the characteristics. Therefore those with rapacious yearnings to sell books should do some research before villifying someone who is not around to defend himself. I agree that John Condon would have been very aware of human physiology at large, not only from his own hereditary physical traits based on the information you've provided, but also given his personal and life-long participation within sports and sincere interests in advancing youth within sporting activities. I do believe he knew exactly what he was referring to based upon his impressions of the handshakes he intentionally experienced with Cemetery John at Woodlawn and St. Raymond's Cemeteries. Here and within his descriptions given, he was unquestioningly referring to the thenar eminence band of muscles on the palm of the hand at the base of the thumb, made up of the three individual Pollicis Brevis muscles, aka the Mutton Chop. During his dinner with Lindbergh a year after the kidnapping, Condon also demonstrated his own developed musculature, the result of fifty years of "pushing chalk" on a blackboard. This particular band of muscles, found between the base of thumb and first finger on the back of the hand is know as the First dorsal interroseus, a common trait among tradesmen (and teachers) who employ a grip emphasizing the thumb and first finger. Given Jafsie's propensity for changing his story during its course though, I also believe many of his truly-altruistic intentions tend to be overshadowed by an ever-present web of suspicion, which is based primarily on the impressions of the New Jersey State Police "finest".. and little more.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 23, 2021 18:57:17 GMT -5
Jafsie would have been very familiar with mutton chops and muscular developments in the hands of carpenters and other tradesmen. Jafsie's father and Jafsie's older brother James were both stone masons. Every night when they came home from work, their hands were sore and calloused. So as a child Jafsie would have seen and been familiar with the characteristics. Therefore those with rapacious yearnings to sell books should do some research before villifying someone who is not around to defend himself. Good information. So now we know where he got the idea for this invention. I personally don't have to vilify the man because the documentation does that all by itself. Remember, he was familiar with this "callous" feature and was quick to point out Hauptmann did not have it, that he wasn't the man, and was not going to testify against him. So - pick your poison. Glad Joe agrees too. Obviously Jafsie knew what a muscle development vs. what he claimed was on CJ's thumb(s). In fact, he called it a "fleshy development" not a "muscular" one. Can't have it both ways although I believe Joe will try despite his praise for Jafsie's abilities to know and determine what it would have been. Also remember originally Jafsie said nothing about his feature at all. Later he claimed it was on the right thumb, another time the left thumb, yet another later time claimed it was on both, and of course later still and back to right again! Fact is, because of the threats from the Authorities, Jafsie reversed course and wound up testifying against Hauptmann. Can't blame him though. Had he stuck to his guns his ass would have been thrown in the slammer right next to Hauptmann - where he belonged. By the way, wasn't Jafsie familiar with a Taxi Cab and their drivers too? And yet, he claimed one delivered the ransom note on April 2nd. This despite at least three law enforcement officers from at least two different agencies watched his home and saw absolutely NO ONE. So being familiar with something and telling the truth aren't mutually exclusive.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 26, 2021 10:36:53 GMT -5
Jafsie would have been very familiar with mutton chops and muscular developments in the hands of carpenters and other tradesmen. Jafsie's father and Jafsie's older brother James were both stone masons. Every night when they came home from work, their hands were sore and calloused. So as a child Jafsie would have seen and been familiar with the characteristics. Therefore those with rapacious yearnings to sell books should do some research before villifying someone who is not around to defend himself. Good information. So now we know where he got the idea for this invention. I personally don't have to vilify the man because the documentation does that all by itself. Remember, he was familiar with this "callous" feature and was quick to point out Hauptmann did not have it, that he wasn't the man, and was not going to testify against him. So - pick your poison. Glad Joe agrees too. Obviously Jafsie knew what a muscle development vs. what he claimed was on CJ's thumb(s). In fact, he called it a "fleshy development" not a "muscular" one. Can't have it both ways although I believe Joe will try despite his praise for Jafsie's abilities to know and determine what it would have been. Also remember originally Jafsie said nothing about his feature at all. Later he claimed it was on the right thumb, another time the left thumb, yet another later time claimed it was on both, and of course later still and back to right again! Fact is, because of the threats from the Authorities, Jafsie reversed course and wound up testifying against Hauptmann. Can't blame him though. Had he stuck to his guns his ass would have been thrown in the slammer right next to Hauptmann - where he belonged. By the way, wasn't Jafsie familiar with a Taxi Cab and their drivers too? And yet, he claimed one delivered the ransom note on April 2nd. This despite at least three law enforcement officers from at least two different agencies watched his home and saw absolutely NO ONE. So being familiar with something and telling the truth aren't mutually exclusive. Michael, that’s a nice little bit of sleight of hand, to quote one of your favourite expressions. A quick directional change to imply what we’re looking for on Hauptmann’s hand at Greenwich Station in September of 1934, are calluses, and not the muscular development feature associated with carpenters and other tradespeople that Condon was actually referring to. You lifted this reference of another such characteristic from Joseph Condon’s above post and are now using it to alter the narrative as to what Jafsie was purportedly basing his observation upon. I don’t think it would surprise too many people that Hauptmann’s hands, if they were callused in March and April of 1932, would have naturally softened up over the course of two-and-a-half years from the time he gave up manual labour for a living, which was of course a few days after the St. Raymond’s ransom payment. As an aside, can you think of anyone in this case that you’ve become adept at calling out for what you’ve just employed yourself? Hint: He was a 'go-between' and sometimes writes letters to the newspapers. I’m also curious as to what you mean by “Glad Joe agrees too,” or is this just an additive effect to the same sleight of hand? Next, you believe Condon should have been tossed into jail like Harry Walsh no doubt would have delighted in doing? I just think you’ve been channeling your LKC detective action figure hero far too long. Through all of your dedicated dissection of, and personal musings about this case, is there even anyone else you might be able to even suggest, was the real Cemetery John, and that Condon was incorrect in his description of CJ that he gave to investigators following his two cemetery meetings that pretty much nails Hauptmann to a tee, and based upon his ultimate “declaration of identification”? In twenty years do you happen to have any alternate and worthwhile candidates? Don’t hold back here.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 26, 2021 12:54:55 GMT -5
Good information. So now we know where he got the idea for this invention. I personally don't have to vilify the man because the documentation does that all by itself. Remember, he was familiar with this "callous" feature and was quick to point out Hauptmann did not have it, that he wasn't the man, and was not going to testify against him. So - pick your poison. Glad Joe agrees too. Obviously Jafsie knew what a muscle development vs. what he claimed was on CJ's thumb(s). In fact, he called it a "fleshy development" not a "muscular" one. Can't have it both ways although I believe Joe will try despite his praise for Jafsie's abilities to know and determine what it would have been. Also remember originally Jafsie said nothing about his feature at all. Later he claimed it was on the right thumb, another time the left thumb, yet another later time claimed it was on both, and of course later still and back to right again! Fact is, because of the threats from the Authorities, Jafsie reversed course and wound up testifying against Hauptmann. Can't blame him though. Had he stuck to his guns his ass would have been thrown in the slammer right next to Hauptmann - where he belonged. By the way, wasn't Jafsie familiar with a Taxi Cab and their drivers too? And yet, he claimed one delivered the ransom note on April 2nd. This despite at least three law enforcement officers from at least two different agencies watched his home and saw absolutely NO ONE. So being familiar with something and telling the truth aren't mutually exclusive. Michael, that’s a nice little bit of sleight of hand, to quote one of your favourite expressions. A quick directional change to imply what we’re looking for on Hauptmann’s hand at Greenwich Station in September of 1934, are calluses, and not the muscular development feature associated with carpenters and other tradespeople that Condon was actually referring to. You lifted this reference of another such characteristic from Joseph Condon’s above post and are now using it to alter the narrative as to what Jafsie was purportedly basing his observation upon. I don’t think it would surprise too many people that Hauptmann’s hands, if they were callused in March and April of 1932, would have naturally softened up over the course of two-and-a-half years from the time he gave up manual labour for a living, which was of course a few days after the St. Raymond’s ransom payment. As an aside, can you think of anyone in this case that you’ve become adept at calling out for what you’ve just employed yourself? Hint: He was a 'go-between' and sometimes writes letters to the newspapers. I’m also curious as to what you mean by “Glad Joe agrees too,” or is this just an additive effect to the same sleight of hand? Next, you believe Condon should have been tossed into jail like Harry Walsh no doubt would have delighted in doing? I just think you’ve been channeling your LKC detective action figure hero far too long. Through all of your dedicated dissection of, and personal musings about this case, is there even anyone else you might be able to even suggest, was the real Cemetery John, and that Condon was incorrect in his description of CJ that he gave to investigators following his two cemetery meetings that pretty much nails Hauptmann to a tee, and based upon his ultimate “declaration of identification”? In twenty years do you happen to have any alternate and worthwhile candidates? Don’t hold back here. But he didn't say callus. He said a "fleshy growth," and made it seem like it was an actual growth on his thumb. Even if you ignore that I fail to see how you can disregard his dozens of other outright lies of critical importance.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 26, 2021 13:23:37 GMT -5
Michael, that’s a nice little bit of sleight of hand, to quote one of your favourite expressions. A quick directional change to imply what we’re looking for on Hauptmann’s hand at Greenwich Station in September of 1934, are calluses, and not the muscular development feature associated with carpenters and other tradespeople that Condon was actually referring to. You lifted this reference of another such characteristic from Joseph Condon’s above post and are now using it to alter the narrative as to what Jafsie was purportedly basing his observation upon. I don’t think it would surprise too many people that Hauptmann’s hands, if they were callused in March and April of 1932, would have naturally softened up over the course of two-and-a-half years from the time he gave up manual labour for a living, which was of course a few days after the St. Raymond’s ransom payment. As an aside, can you think of anyone in this case that you’ve become adept at calling out for what you’ve just employed yourself? Hint: He was a 'go-between' and sometimes writes letters to the newspapers. I’m also curious as to what you mean by “Glad Joe agrees too,” or is this just an additive effect to the same sleight of hand? Next, you believe Condon should have been tossed into jail like Harry Walsh no doubt would have delighted in doing? I just think you’ve been channeling your LKC detective action figure hero far too long. Through all of your dedicated dissection of, and personal musings about this case, is there even anyone else you might be able to even suggest, was the real Cemetery John, and that Condon was incorrect in his description of CJ that he gave to investigators following his two cemetery meetings that pretty much nails Hauptmann to a tee, and based upon his ultimate “declaration of identification”? In twenty years do you happen to have any alternate and worthwhile candidates? Don’t hold back here. But he didn't say callus. He said a "fleshy growth," and made it seem like it was an actual growth on his thumb. Even if you ignore that I fail to see how you can disregard his dozens of other outright lies of critical importance. I only mentioned the subject of calluses because it was brought up by Joseph Condon as a common feature of the hands of carpenters and tradesmen, and used as a springboard by Michael to then imply this was what Jafsie was referring to and that Hauptmann did not have them at Greenwich Station. Little wonder too, with him having given up professional carpentry between April 2, 1932 and September of 1934. Condon never made any reference to the muscular development he was referring to all along, as being a callus or some kind of congenital growth. These "dozens of outright lies of critical importance" you're referring to. Do you have a Top 5, or even the one in your mind that makes John Condon guilty of some crime that even comes close to the murder of a child?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 26, 2021 13:57:22 GMT -5
But he didn't say callus. He said a "fleshy growth," and made it seem like it was an actual growth on his thumb. Even if you ignore that I fail to see how you can disregard his dozens of other outright lies of critical importance. I only mentioned the subject of calluses because it was brought up by Joseph Condon as a common feature of the hands of carpenters and tradesmen, and used as a springboard by Michael to then imply this was what Jafsie was referring to and that Hauptmann did not have them at Greenwich Station. Little wonder too, with him having given up professional carpentry between April 2, 1932 and September of 1934. Condon never made any reference to the muscular development he was referring to all along, as being a callus or some kind of congenital growth. These "dozens of outright lies of critical importance" you're referring to. Do you have a Top 5, or even the one in your mind that makes John Condon guilty of some crime that even comes close to the murder of a child? 1. The second taxi driver. There wasn't one. Many, many people watching that house - nobody saw him. 2. The fact he deliberately hid who made the ransom box from police, claiming it to be some special design with multiple kinds of wood when it was nothing of the kind. 3. The fact he lied about the kidnap gang taking the ransom box with them, sending police on a wild goose chase, when he clearly hid it in the bushes near the cemetery and had retrieved it in secret. 4. His giant charade about identifying Hauptmann. He had no interest in doing so until his own freedom was threatened. 5. His "negotiation" to "save" Lindbergh $20K when it involves the life or death of the most famous baby in the world, then conveniently removing the most traceable bills. Other fun ones: 1. His constant shifting about the lady in Tuckahoe. 2. His never-ending changes about CJ's appearance. Did he have a fleshy "growth" on his thumb? Did he have "almond eyes," like a "Chinese or Japanese"? Did he have a prominent brow/forehead or was he wearing a hat so low you could barely see the forehead? Did he have a hacking cough? 3. Condon said the kidnappers "sounded Italian" when they said "Statti Citto!" He also heard what sounded like a "gang" on the phone. Yet some how these people disappeared when it was his freedom or say Hauptmann was a lone wolf.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 27, 2021 11:48:51 GMT -5
All of your Top 5 examples and their associated inferences are essentially opinion to support any number of alternative conspiracies in this case, and not conclusive proof. The fact that Condon has never been conclusively proven to have consorted with the kidnappers or extortionists for his personal gains demonstrates how one can multiply disparate half-baked examples of purported wrongdoing on his part and get something that doesn't even come close to critical temperature. Of course, my points below are also personal opinion, but I’d venture they represent what’s also required here to formulate a truly balanced, consistent and unbiased viewpoint that addresses some of the biggest red herrings this case continues to generate ninety years on.
1. Was he actually a taxi driver, or could he have been someone who approached the house on foot? I’d agree that a lighted taxi vehicle would have attracted more attention for anyone whose job it was to be watching the house, (and assuming they were actually watching the entire time) but does this same degree of visibility apply for a pedestrian in the dark? I believe Condon, in one of his accounts actually identifies a vehicle having been there, but I wouldn’t want to state unequivocally if this was just later assumption on his part, based on the appearance of the driver, another unrelated vehicle or false memory by the time he began talking to investigators weeks later. 2. I believe from all of the evidence available, Condon was not intentionally lying or trying to deceive investigators about the ransom box at all. Condon’s first choice for having the box built was Frank Peremi Sr., and his original plan, as related to Henry Breckinridge, was to have it constructed out of multiple types of relatively-exotic woods which would distinguish it if it was eventually recovered. Believing Peremi’s quote was too high even with a more simplified list of required wood types, Condon then went to Abraham Samuelsohn, who took the job. By the time Condon was asked to identify the ransom box builder, he was clearly confused and the trail led from Peremi’s son (Condon by this time only remembered the elder as “old man Peretty) to Samuelsohn, who then recalled having built the box. What distinguished it though was the lock’s key which Condon retained, which perhaps was one of the reasons a more elaborate box construction wasn't required anyway. What here would have been the point for this to have been some kind of deliberate deception?
3. There is no conclusive evidence that the event Bernard Uebel claims to have witnessed was someone from ‘Team Lindbergh’, ie. possibly Al Reich, in concert with Gregory Coleman, removing the original ransom box from the boxwood bush a week after the ransom payment. I believe that if Condon had surreptitiously and without Lindbergh’s knowledge, placed what was an empty original ransom box in the bushes after giving CJ the $50,000 further down E. Tremont and a considerable head-start towards his retreat from the cemetery, he would have been going against every grain and fibre of his consistently-demonstrated desire to serve the Lindberghs and safely return their child to them. IF Condon actually did do this, then Lindbergh would have previously consented to such a plan, feeling it would provide an extra margin of safety towards ensuring the kidnapper(s) / extortionist(s) remained unmolested by any investigators who might have ventured onto the scene. Again, there would have been consistency here. But.. the fact that Lindbergh actually revealed to investigators, Condon’s action of walking down E. Tremont out of sight before returning, tells me Lindbergh was not aware of any such plan and that Condon’s actions and differing accounts of this, were nothing more than genuine concern for his personal safety while in the process of carrying a very large sum of money into a darkened cemetery. I consider that any of his multiple explanations for having done this could well have been part and parcel of his true reasoning.
4. I believe that Condon, rightfully so, felt he had been mistreated by a specific element of investigators, the primary offender having been Harry Walsh of the NJSP specifically following the embarrassing debacle at Alpine, where if Walsh had been more astute and less ego-fueled, should have clearly understood that Condon had nothing to do as a confederate within the kidnapping or extortion. Despite the fact that Condon refused to identify Walsh as the bully he was, capable of having done the same to Violet Sharp during the visit to Condon by the British consulate, these feelings were nevertheless in part responsible for Condon’s refusal to declare an immediate identification at Greenwich Station. Condon, although he believed Hauptmann suited the description of the man he had negotiated with at Woodlawn and St. Raymond’s, nevertheless felt Hauptmann needed every protection accorded him under the American justice system and truly believed in siding with the underdog, a sentiment he consistently displayed. He was also genuinely concerned for his and his family’s safety as he believed there were still accomplices at large, as he told Agent Turrou. Two-and-a-half years had also passed from the time of his cemetery meetings with CJ, and Condon wanted to be absolutely sure, knowing his eyewitness testimony was by far the most potentially-damning of all. Here many will dump all over Hochmuth, Whited, Perrone, Alexander and Barr for identifying Hauptmann on the spot in a media blitz gong show as the person they saw in case-relevant circumstances over two and a half years previously, but I’ve never heard anyone bent on vilifying Condon for something he wasn’t, rightfully commend him here for not rushing to judgment in the very same circus-like environment, and not immediately identifying the person he was in the company of for over an hour. 5. Condon believed the extortionists were not only unfairly gouging Lindbergh for an extra $20K, but always believed they should have produced the live child before the ransom was paid. The fact that the $20K ended up being a separate package from the $50K in the ransom box may have been a contributing factor here, as if everything had fit in the box, it may well have been more of a challenge for Condon to have talked Lindbergh into leaving it behind. For anyone actually believing the notion that the extra $20K was intended for Condon’s participation as a confederate, I think they should then consider why would Condon not have pocketed this extra payment when he had the perfect opportunity to do so.
Your “Fun” List
1. This event happened in only one way and I wouldn’t want to unequivocally conclude how it became one of three possibilities. Fact is that Condon went to Tuckahoe with his daughter–in-law because he needed someone to drive him there. No one showed up. It also happened during a time when Condon, Lindbergh, Breckinridge, Reich and others were not being held accountable for providing accurate and timely details of the ransom negotiations to law enforcement. I also know the press was all over this, and wouldn’t preclude the possibility they had much to do with the scope of fabrications involved. 2. Condon, as a potentially-fallible eyewitness to an event, still managed to provide an extraordinary amount of recall and detail relative to the conversation he had with CJ over the course of an hour and fifteen minutes at Woodlawn Cemetery. He also provided a description of CJ that essentially fits that of Hauptmann, despite any minor irregularities that can be associated with later eyewitness recall. I’ve asked Michael this same question.. who do you think CJ?
3. From this occurrence, Condon certainly came to believe an Italian was involved, just the way he felt the man who called him was actually speaking to an accomplice, when he spoke away from the phone, ”He says he sometimes writes articles for the newspaper.” Think about it. The phone caller basically repeats the question he asked of Condon but only as an affirmative statement when Condon replies yes. Why wouldn’t the caller have just nodded his head or said “yes” to the supposed accomplice nearby who would have heard the question in the first place? I believe this was a deliberate ruse and Hauptmann alone. The ”Statti cito” voice could well have been that of someone in the establishment admonishing those nearby the person using the payphone to quiet down so he could hear the person on the other end of the line. All is pretty much speculation here and not conclusive proof of anything and the above examples you've given do not mean Condon was correct on either of his accountings of them.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 27, 2021 13:39:44 GMT -5
All of your Top 5 examples and their associated inferences are essentially opinion to support any number of alternative conspiracies in this case, and not conclusive proof. The fact that Condon has never been conclusively proven to have consorted with the kidnappers or extortionists for his personal gains demonstrates how one can multiply disparate half-baked examples of purported wrongdoing on his part and get something that doesn't even come close to critical temperature. Of course, my points below are also personal opinion, but I’d venture they represent what’s also required here to formulate a truly balanced, consistent and unbiased viewpoint that addresses some of the biggest red herrings this case continues to generate ninety years on. 1. Was he actually a taxi driver, or could he have been someone who approached the house on foot? I’d agree that a lighted taxi vehicle would have attracted more attention for anyone whose job it was to be watching the house, (and assuming they were actually watching the entire time) but does this same degree of visibility apply for a pedestrian in the dark? I believe Condon, in one of his accounts actually identifies a vehicle having been there, but I wouldn’t want to state unequivocally if this was just later assumption on his part, based on the appearance of the driver, another unrelated vehicle or false memory by the time he began talking to investigators weeks later. 2. I believe from all of the evidence available, Condon was not intentionally lying or trying to deceive investigators about the ransom box at all. Condon’s first choice for having the box built was Frank Peremi Sr., and his original plan, as related to Henry Breckinridge, was to have it constructed out of multiple types of relatively-exotic woods which would distinguish it if it was eventually recovered. Believing Peremi’s quote was too high even with a more simplified list of required wood types, Condon then went to Abraham Samuelsohn, who took the job. By the time Condon was asked to identify the ransom box builder, he was clearly confused and the trail led from Peremi’s son (Condon by this time only remembered the elder as “old man Peretty) to Samuelsohn, who then recalled having built the box. What distinguished it though was the lock’s key which Condon retained, which perhaps was one of the reasons a more elaborate box construction wasn't required anyway. What here would have been the point for this to have been some kind of deliberate deception? 3. There is no conclusive evidence that the event Bernard Uebel claims to have witnessed was someone from ‘Team Lindbergh’, ie. possibly Al Reich, in concert with Gregory Coleman, removing the original ransom box from the boxwood bush a week after the ransom payment. I believe that if Condon had surreptitiously and without Lindbergh’s knowledge, placed what was an empty original ransom box in the bushes after giving CJ the $50,000 further down E. Tremont and a considerable head-start towards his retreat from the cemetery, he would have been going against every grain and fibre of his consistently-demonstrated desire to serve the Lindberghs and safely return their child to them. IF Condon actually did do this, then Lindbergh would have previously consented to such a plan, feeling it would provide an extra margin of safety towards ensuring the kidnapper(s) / extortionist(s) remained unmolested by any investigators who might have ventured onto the scene. Again, there would have been consistency here. But.. the fact that Lindbergh actually revealed to investigators, Condon’s action of walking down E. Tremont out of sight before returning, tells me Lindbergh was not aware of any such plan and that Condon’s actions and differing accounts of this, were nothing more than genuine concern for his personal safety while in the process of carrying a very large sum of money into a darkened cemetery. I consider that any of his multiple explanations for having done this could well have been part and parcel of his true reasoning. 4. I believe that Condon, rightfully so, felt he had been mistreated by a specific element of investigators, the primary offender having been Harry Walsh of the NJSP specifically following the embarrassing debacle at Alpine, where if Walsh had been more astute and less ego-fueled, should have clearly understood that Condon had nothing to do as a confederate within the kidnapping or extortion. Despite the fact that Condon refused to identify Walsh as the bully he was, capable of having done the same to Violet Sharp during the visit to Condon by the British consulate, these feelings were nevertheless in part responsible for Condon’s refusal to declare an immediate identification at Greenwich Station. Condon, although he believed Hauptmann suited the description of the man he had negotiated with at Woodlawn and St. Raymond’s, nevertheless felt Hauptmann needed every protection accorded him under the American justice system and truly believed in siding with the underdog, a sentiment he consistently displayed. He was also genuinely concerned for his and his family’s safety as he believed there were still accomplices at large, as he told Agent Turrou. Two-and-a-half years had also passed from the time of his cemetery meetings with CJ, and Condon wanted to be absolutely sure, knowing his eyewitness testimony was by far the most potentially-damning of all. Here many will dump all over Hochmuth, Whited, Perrone, Alexander and Barr for identifying Hauptmann on the spot in a media blitz gong show as the person they saw in case-relevant circumstances over two and a half years previously, but I’ve never heard anyone bent on vilifying Condon for something he wasn’t, rightfully commend him here for not rushing to judgment in the very same circus-like environment, and not immediately identifying the person he was in the company of for over an hour. 5. Condon believed the extortionists were not only unfairly gouging Lindbergh for an extra $20K, but always believed they should have produced the live child before the ransom was paid. The fact that the $20K ended up being a separate package from the $50K in the ransom box may have been a contributing factor here, as if everything had fit in the box, it may well have been more of a challenge for Condon to have talked Lindbergh into leaving it behind. For anyone actually believing the notion that the extra $20K was intended for Condon’s participation as a confederate, I think they should then consider why would Condon not have pocketed this extra payment when he had the perfect opportunity to do so. Your “Fun” List 1. This event happened in only one way and I wouldn’t want to unequivocally conclude how it became one of three possibilities. Fact is that Condon went to Tuckahoe with his daughter–in-law because he needed someone to drive him there. No one showed up. It also happened during a time when Condon, Lindbergh, Breckinridge, Reich and others were not being held accountable for providing accurate and timely details of the ransom negotiations to law enforcement. I also know the press was all over this, and wouldn’t preclude the possibility they had much to do with the scope of fabrications involved. 2. Condon, as a potentially-fallible eyewitness to an event, still managed to provide an extraordinary amount of recall and detail relative to the conversation he had with CJ over the course of an hour and fifteen minutes at Woodlawn Cemetery. He also provided a description of CJ that essentially fits that of Hauptmann, despite any minor irregularities that can be associated with later eyewitness recall. I’ve asked Michael this same question.. who do you think CJ? 3. From this occurrence, Condon certainly came to believe an Italian was involved, just the way he felt the man who called him was actually speaking to an accomplice, when he spoke away from the phone, ”He says he sometimes writes articles for the newspaper.” Think about it. The phone caller basically repeats the question he asked of Condon but only as an affirmative statement when Condon replies yes. Why wouldn’t the caller have just nodded his head or said “yes” to the supposed accomplice nearby who would have heard the question in the first place? I believe this was a deliberate ruse and Hauptmann alone. The ”Statti cito” voice could well have been that of someone in the establishment admonishing those nearby the person using the payphone to quiet down so he could hear the person on the other end of the line. All is pretty much speculation here and not conclusive proof of anything and the above examples you've given do not mean Condon was correct on either of his accountings of them. With all due respect, I've never seen somebody just outright excuse deceitful behavior in spite of a mountain of evidence. My brief responses: 1. By car or by foot, someone would have seen the person going up to Condon's front door which was clearly visible. The house itself had lights, so it was not totally dark. 2. Sorry but you can't excuse away his lying about who built the box - especially when moments later you praise his great skill at recalling details. He also lied about the materials with which it was built to, likely so if it was ever found it wouldn't "match" hid description. 3. Uebel gave his statements without full knowledge of what it meant. He had clear memory of the various visits and clearly saw what he did. How you want to just wash this away is beyond me. Condon wanted to make money and be a hero. He was in over his head. 4. There's no excuse here. Was he an honest fellow who just wanted to do the right thing for his hero Lindbergh or someone who would lie? According to you he's both. He deliberately held off identifying Hauptmann until his own freedom was threatened. Hochmuth, Whited, Perrone, Alexander and Barr saw the individual for mere seconds, thereby making their witness ID far sketchier than Condon who, by his own admission, spent much time discussing a ridiculous amount of things with Cemetery John. Not to mention Whited and Hochmuth changed their stories quite a bit, with Whited originally claiming to see Lindbergh's car far earlier than he claimed to have been home. 5. I think this is ridiculous. His job was not to bargain with them. He clearly almost certainly found out the baby was dead, realized how deep he was in and returned his portion of the money to Lindbergh directly (the ransom was likely raised by $20K when Condon came onto his). "Fun" 1. He changed his story on Tuckahoe so many times and again you're excusing it. 2. His recall would be amazing if it wasn't ridiculous dialogue that was eye-roll inducing and constantly shifting with the wind. 3. He clearly claimed to hear a gang full of people until he didn't. There was also a lookout, until there wasn't. There was also multiple sets of footprints, until there wasn't.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 28, 2021 9:34:48 GMT -5
I can't say your point of view is not a popular one these days given the mass appeal of conspiracy theories. Based upon the many avenues available that lead to a veritable mountain of potential information to work with in this case, is it really that difficult to extract whatever threads one needs to work with for the purpose of formulating any one of dozens of customized pet theories? I believe all of the examples you've provided have a very well-founded and logical reasonable explanation but you’ve probably chosen at some premature point along the way to stop searching for the truth. Just so we don't spend too much time beating around the bush here and given your list of “concerns,” can you tell me where you're going with this, perhaps expand a bit on your own theory, one that apparently flies in the face of Condon’s originally-expressed desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return their child to them, and then afterwards to pursue those responsible for the death of the child?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 28, 2021 11:58:30 GMT -5
I can't say your point of view is not a popular one these days given the mass appeal of conspiracy theories. Based upon the many avenues available that lead to a veritable mountain of potential information to work with in this case, is it really that difficult to extract whatever threads one needs to work with for the purpose of formulating any one of dozens of customized pet theories? I believe all of the examples you've provided have a very well-founded and logical reasonable explanation but you’ve probably chosen at some premature point along the way to stop searching for the truth. Just so we don't spend too much time beating around the bush here and given your list of “concerns,” can you tell me where you're going with this, perhaps expand a bit on your own theory, one that apparently flies in the face of Condon’s originally-expressed desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return their child to them, and then afterwards to pursue those responsible for the death of the child? Forgive me for jumping in, but that's a very lazy tactic you've employed here Joe. You are avoiding how comical your excuses for Jafsie's lies & deception were and now resort to the weak but always effective strategy of labeling anything and anyone who disagrees as (a) "conspiracy theories(ist). Of course there was a conspiracy. You yourself have admitted in the belief that more than one person was involved. So - NEWSFLASH - that makes you one too!
One of the major lies Jafsie told, and I believe USC happened not to mention it (understandable because there were so many), was the Needle Salesman. Once again, he told Agent Seykora all about this man who visited sometime after Woodlawn but before the receipt of the sleeping suit. Very detailed description given. This interview occurred about two years after it happened, and Breckenridge had also said Jafsie was present for this visit. So the result here is twofold: Jafsie wasn't so "forgetful" after all. In fact, he even told Seykora that the man might have been the lookout he saw at Woodlawn. And so, if he's not being truthful to the Agent, then he's doing much more than merely lying to him. Taking him at his word led to LE wasting time investigating a GHOST. Look at all the examples where police focused on certain aspects based on the lies this man told. AND, lo and behold, about only a month later Jafsie tells Special Agent Sisk that he wasn't home when the Needle Salesman arrived!!!
Do the math. It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist. But go ahead and put me down as the "nut" who believes this is just one (of MANY) clear example that this man was a liar.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 28, 2021 14:47:57 GMT -5
I can't say your point of view is not a popular one these days given the mass appeal of conspiracy theories. Based upon the many avenues available that lead to a veritable mountain of potential information to work with in this case, is it really that difficult to extract whatever threads one needs to work with for the purpose of formulating any one of dozens of customized pet theories? I believe all of the examples you've provided have a very well-founded and logical reasonable explanation but you’ve probably chosen at some premature point along the way to stop searching for the truth. Just so we don't spend too much time beating around the bush here and given your list of “concerns,” can you tell me where you're going with this, perhaps expand a bit on your own theory, one that apparently flies in the face of Condon’s originally-expressed desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return their child to them, and then afterwards to pursue those responsible for the death of the child? I think it's pretty clear based upon the totality of the evidence (or even part of it) that Condon was brought on by the kidnappers to act as an intermediary. It was a win/win for him, he could make some money and be seen as a hero when he returns the baby. Whether or not he was forced into the scheme (blackmail, etc) is still debatable. This explains why the kidnappers asked for an extra $20K because they had to take on another person (aka Condon). I believe his job was to render aid by keeping them insulated and preventing their capture, which is why he stymied police at every turn (providing false/ever changing descriptions, seeing "CJ" in places where he didn't, dumping the ransom farther down Tremont to allow them more escape time, etc). While he was partially motivated by the financial aspect of this, I do think he genuinely wanted to be a hero and return the baby. Once he realized the baby was dead and this was nothing more than a pure extortion attempt on Lindbergh, he returned the $20,000.00 he was entitled to, wanting to wash his hands of this. He was, however, in too deep to come clean so he simply kept the charade of obfuscating and lying. This also explains why the kidnappers would even notice a small piece in a tiny newspaper (Bronx Home News) and trust that individual to be the go between - it was a ruse, he was already selected.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 28, 2021 17:12:59 GMT -5
Absolutely. If you consider the possibility that the kidnappers brought Condon into this, then his BHN letter would’ve been pre-arranged—a way for him and the kidnappers to “innocently” establish contact, when, really, they’d been in touch prior to that, when the kidnappers approached and duped or blackmailed Condon into acting as a go-between. As you say, this explains why the kidnappers saw the offer as quickly they did and responded at all.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 28, 2021 17:59:51 GMT -5
I can't say your point of view is not a popular one these days given the mass appeal of conspiracy theories. Based upon the many avenues available that lead to a veritable mountain of potential information to work with in this case, is it really that difficult to extract whatever threads one needs to work with for the purpose of formulating any one of dozens of customized pet theories? I believe all of the examples you've provided have a very well-founded and logical reasonable explanation but you’ve probably chosen at some premature point along the way to stop searching for the truth. Just so we don't spend too much time beating around the bush here and given your list of “concerns,” can you tell me where you're going with this, perhaps expand a bit on your own theory, one that apparently flies in the face of Condon’s originally-expressed desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return their child to them, and then afterwards to pursue those responsible for the death of the child? I think it's pretty clear based upon the totality of the evidence (or even part of it) that Condon was brought on by the kidnappers to act as an intermediary. It was a win/win for him, he could make some money and be seen as a hero when he returns the baby. Hey Tojanusc, Okay, I just want to get this clear. So BRH (or one of the kidnappers) walks up to Condon out of the blue and says, "We have the Lindbergh baby. We have selected you, a complete stranger, to be our go-between. Just write a letter to the BHN and offer to be our go-between. You'll be a hero." So Condon would say something like, "Absolutely! I want to be a hero. Just prove to me you have the baby." BRH (or one of the kidnappers) replies, "Well, we can't do that." Condon: "You can't show me one iota of proof that you have the Lindbergh baby?" BRH (or one of the kidnappers): "No, sir." Condon: "Well, all righty, that's good enough for me! I'm your man, I'll do it!" And then Condon writes a note to the BHN and he does not offer to be a go-between. Do I have this right?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 28, 2021 18:58:23 GMT -5
Okay, I just want to get this clear. So BRH (or one of the kidnappers) walks up to Condon out of the blue and says, "We have the Lindbergh baby. We have selected you, a complete stranger, to be our go-between. Just write a letter to the BHN and offer to be our go-between. You'll be a hero." So Condon would say something like, "Absolutely! I want to be a hero. Just prove to me you have the baby." BRH (or one of the kidnappers) replies, "Well, we can't do that." Condon: "You can't show me one iota of proof that you have the Lindbergh baby?" BRH (or one of the kidnappers): "No, sir." Condon: "Well, all righty, that's good enough for me! I'm your man, I'll do it!" And then Condon writes a note to the BHN and he does not offer to be a go-between. Do I have this right? I know this question isn't for me, but its hard not to jump in here.... Maybe "Coal Barge John" recruited Jafise? Or maybe it was one of the "Gang of Five?" LOL!!! Anyone who lied as much as he did and you doubt he'd be approachable? For those who ignore all the lies Jafsie told, I think its important to point out that he gave O'Sullivan a version about how he got into this thing. Of course, like everything else, he told other stories explaining his entrance too and it seems that anyone who likes him merely picks the version they find the most acceptable and sweep everything else under the rug. When people lie they lie for a reason. What could be the reasons for Jafsie's deception? That's the real question. Was it because he was "all in" due to the fact he was a legitimate member of the extortion? Or was it because "they had something on him?" Perhaps he was sacrificing himself to assist someone he knew who was in trouble? Lastly, maybe it was because he was in legitimate fear for his or his family's life. There's numerous options but this idea that he was "honest" ain't one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 28, 2021 20:04:16 GMT -5
Okay, I just want to get this clear. So BRH (or one of the kidnappers) walks up to Condon out of the blue and says, "We have the Lindbergh baby. We have selected you, a complete stranger, to be our go-between. Just write a letter to the BHN and offer to be our go-between. You'll be a hero." So Condon would say something like, "Absolutely! I want to be a hero. Just prove to me you have the baby." BRH (or one of the kidnappers) replies, "Well, we can't do that." Condon: "You can't show me one iota of proof that you have the Lindbergh baby?" BRH (or one of the kidnappers): "No, sir." Condon: "Well, all righty, that's good enough for me! I'm your man, I'll do it!" And then Condon writes a note to the BHN and he does not offer to be a go-between. Do I have this right? I know this question isn't for me, but its hard not to jump in here.... Maybe "Coal Barge John" recruited Jafise? Or maybe it was one of the "Gang of Five?" LOL!!! Anyone who lied as much as he did and you doubt he'd be approachable? For those who ignore all the lies Jafsie told, I think its important to point out that he gave O'Sullivan a version about how he got into this thing. Of course, like everything else, he told other stories explaining his entrance too and it seems that anyone who likes him merely picks the version they find the most acceptable and sweep everything else under the rug. When people lie they lie for a reason. What could be the reasons for Jafsie's deception? That's the real question. Was it because he was "all in" due to the fact he was a legitimate member of the extortion? Or was it because "they had something on him?" Perhaps he was sacrificing himself to assist someone he knew who was in trouble? Lastly, maybe it was because he was in legitimate fear for his or his family's life. There's numerous options but this idea that he was "honest" ain't one of them. I'm just trying to get on the same page as you guys. My major stumbling block is that Condon did NOT offer himself as a go-between when he wrote his letter to the BHN. Only that he would give the kidnappers $1000 if the kidnappers would turn the baby over to a "Catholic priest". So, is the BHN complicit in this plot with Condon?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 29, 2021 0:16:56 GMT -5
Condon offered himself as an intermediary—“I stand ready in person at my own expense to go anywhere, alone on land or water to give the kidnapper the extra money”—and the kidnappers responded by accepting that offer: “Dear Sir: If you are willing to act as go-between in Lindbergh cace please follow stricly instruction.” Condon could’ve been threatened or blackmailed into participating, or he could’ve gotten into this to make some money and play the hero. Either, or; take your pick; don't know, don't care, since it really doesn't matter anyway. If he was enticed into participating, though, he could very well have had initial doubts about the kidnappers legitimacy, but if he wrote his BHN letter and nothing happened, he’d have known they were hoaxing him and he would’ve done nothing more than look altruistic by offering some of his own money for the Lindbergh Baby’s safe return. The proof that the kidnappers were in fact legit came when Condon received their response to his BHN letter, described it over the phone to Highfields, and was asked to head up there. I don’t know why the BHN would’ve been complicit in anything. Condon knew the publisher and editor, had published pieces in that paper before, so it was a natural means of communication for him to choose, especially if he wanted something seen quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 29, 2021 9:52:52 GMT -5
Condon offered himself as an intermediary—“I stand ready in person at my own expense to go anywhere, alone on land or water to give the kidnapper the extra money”—and the kidnappers responded by accepting that offer: “Dear Sir: If you are willing to act as go-between in Lindbergh cace please follow stricly instruction.” Condon could’ve been threatened or blackmailed into participating, or he could’ve gotten into this to make some money and play the hero. If so, he could very well have had initial doubts about the kidnappers legitimacy, but if he wrote his BHN letter and nothing happened, he’d have known they were hoaxing him and he would’ve done nothing more than look altruistic by offering some of his own money for the Lindbergh Baby’s safe return. The proof that the kidnappers were in fact legit came when Condon received their response to his BHN letter, described it over the phone to Highfields, and was asked to head up there. I don’t know why the BHN would’ve been complicit in anything. Condon knew the publisher and editor, had published pieces in that paper before, so it was a natural means of communication for him to choose, especially if he wanted something seen quickly. Hi Lightningjew, Is the offer to go anywhere to give a kidnapping gang $1000 of you own money really the same as offering to be the go-between negotiator between the kidnappers and the kidnapped family? It was the BHN that in reality offered Condon as a go-between not Condon. It's there in black and white. How would the kidnapping gang have threatened or blackmailed Condon when the entire resources of the NJSP, the NYPD, the BI, and others were unable to find a definite blemish on Condon's conduct? He was exonerated from the 1904 incident, so what could a ragtime kidnapping gang discover that the NJSP, the NYPD, the BI, and others never did?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 29, 2021 11:19:51 GMT -5
What's there in black and white is Condon making an offer to the kidnappers, injecting himself into the case, and the kidnappers accepting that offer and labeling Condon as a go-between--when there was no realistic way for the kidnappers to have randomly seen Condon's offer as quickly as they apparently did and no real reason for them to respond to it at all--not without all that being pre-arranged. Since Condon didn't specifically offer himself as go-between in those exact words, he could've been hedging his bets: "We've agreed that I'll put myself out there as an intermediary in the Lindbergh Kidnapping, and it's an intriguing proposition and potentially great opportunity, but I'm not sure if these guys are legit. So I'll just make a more general public appeal to them and see what happens. That way, if I'm being pranked, they won't be able to tell anyone that they made a fool of me and I'll have done nothing more than seem altruistic by offering some of my own money for the child's safe return." As to how the kidnappers would've been able to blackmail Condon into this, I'm not sure. The biggest thing against him was the 1904 molestation charge, for which, as you say, he was exonerated. Outside of that, there didn't seem to be much on him, which is why I don't necessarily think Condon was blackmailed into participation, but was instead enticed. I think the kidnappers were Bronx-based and knew (or knew of) Condon, a well-known local blowhard and community leader. They knew of his vanity, his penchant for the limelight, and his reputation as a consummate BS-er, so they knew he could help them blackmail Lindbergh: "We bring him in as an intermediary who Lindbergh will have no choice to accept and give the $50K to, to then pass on to us. We do this by going to him and saying 'We're the kidnappers of the Lindbergh Baby, and we need your help in giving him back to his parents. You're a great man, one who's devoted his life to helping others, so will you help us as an intermediary?' We sweeten the deal with $20K, then, once he's in--having received a letter with the unique symbol, proving our legitimacy and he therefore can't back out--we reveal to him the baby's dead. At that point, with a dead child in the mix, he'll have to cover our tracks and his own actual involvement--sending the police chasing their tails with his BS--making sure we get our money and disappear, so we never reveal how he really got involved." I think that's more or less what happened.
|
|