Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jun 25, 2021 17:06:51 GMT -5
How many other boats have you confirmed were in the area? And do you believe "Nellie" would have been unusual enough a name for a boat, in this case a fishing boat or of a similar commercial type, for this not to have been a totally coincidental event? Only one named "Nellie" in the place where the note said it would have been around the time it was probably written. Whoever wrote the note was familiar with the area and knew a boat by that name was going to be there. Of course we could go with the theory that whoever wrote it threw a dart at a map and that a boat by that name accidentally happened to be there at the time too. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact Condon was quite familiar with the area either. What did Attorney Noah Browning write? Oh, that's right, " not one in ten thousand" just to have the knowledge of that area. Never mind that a boat was there by that name. But carry on Joe! Avoid the obvious at all cost. After all, since Condon was one of those persons with said knowledge I'd expect nothing less that you'd do your best to sweep it under the rug. I wouldn't preclude the possibility of Hauptmann having picked up the kind of information that was conveyed in the Boad Nelly note or even that he somehow knew a boat by that name was in the area. After all, he certainly seems to have done his "homework" from the beginning.. the make-believe nautical theme, gang of kidnappers and most notably the health and wellbeing of the child. Hans Mueller could easily have supplied the nautical information. Is he quite possibly your "one in ten thousand" here? Michael, you know as well as I do that investigators essentially stopped looking for Hauptmann's accomplices once he decided to shut up like a clam. In any case, the boat name angle seems much ado about very little to me and obviously investigators put little weight into this discovery. After all, providing the name of a boat you claim the child is on when you know damn well the child dead, is not only a cruel hoax, it serves no purpose and never really existed to begin with. You actually believe Condon had some affiliation with the Horseneck Beach, Gay Head and Elizabeth Islands reference, as related in the Boad Nelly note? I can't help but think you would have made a star reporter for one of the Depression-era New York papers. Perhaps your past-life association with this case?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 25, 2021 19:50:49 GMT -5
I wouldn't preclude the possibility of Hauptmann having picked up the kind of information that was conveyed in the Boad Nelly note or even that he somehow knew a boat by that name was in the area. After all, he certainly seems to have done his "homework" from the beginning.. the make-believe nautical theme, gang of kidnappers and most notably the health and wellbeing of the child. Hans Mueller could easily have supplied the nautical information. Is he quite possibly your "one in ten thousand" here? Michael, you know as well as I do that investigators essentially stopped looking for Hauptmann's accomplices once he decided shut up like a clam. In any case, the boat name angle seems much ado about very little to me and obviously investigators put little weight into this discovery. After all, providing the name of a boat you claim the child is on when you know damn well the child dead, is not only a cruel hoax, it serves no purpose and never existed to begin with. You actually believe Condon had some affiliation with the Horseneck Beach, Gay Head and Elizabeth Islands reference, as related in the Boad Nelly note? I can't help but think you would have made a star reporter for one of the Depression-era New York papers. Perhaps your past-life association with this case? Again, that's an awful lot of work for a simple misdirection. Especially considering that it really doesn't benefit the people directly receiving the money. That note does however benefit Condon because it proves he was in contact and makes him look like he was duped too. However, people thinking they know how cops think usually do not. This is what usually tips them off instead. So it seems to be the actual contents are of Condon's making. I know you don't like that but one has to divorce themselves from emotion and consider the real possibilities here. It seems to me that it was coming from someone already in possession of this information. We both know that Hauptmann wasn't the only person involved. It's one of the few things we agree on. Next, it's not "my" number. I quoted it from the letter Browning wrote and the jist of it makes sense. The "crazy" part is that we definitely know Condon was familiar with this area from the information in V2. It's coming from research Joe. It's pretty simple if you think about it. Next, was Mueller familiar with these points? That's a possibility too. I personally believe Mueller assisted with the laundering but I also believe, beyond ALL doubt at this point, that Condon was in league with the Extortionists. One might argue he was being blackmailed or feared for his life - both are debatable positions. Or it could have been exactly as it appears. That means he was not on the level. Absolutely not. My apologies to his family members but I'm not going to lie about what's in front of me. Call me every name in the book if you like its not going to upset me or change what the man said or how he acted. There's simply no way to spin his behavior into something honest. He lied so many times he lost track, which by the way, it yet another indicator of involvement. So the "excuse" is that he was forgetful. And yet, during other conversations he's remembering other things perfectfully. Also, sorry to say, when he told the FBI he was there for the Needle Salesman, gave a detailed description even offering up that he might have been the Lookout at Woodlawn, only to say a short time later that he wasn't even there when the man came to the house. Forgive me but one has to be blind not to see what was going on here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jun 26, 2021 9:09:25 GMT -5
I wouldn't preclude the possibility of Hauptmann having picked up the kind of information that was conveyed in the Boad Nelly note or even that he somehow knew a boat by that name was in the area. After all, he certainly seems to have done his "homework" from the beginning.. the make-believe nautical theme, gang of kidnappers and most notably the health and wellbeing of the child. Hans Mueller could easily have supplied the nautical information. Is he quite possibly your "one in ten thousand" here? Michael, you know as well as I do that investigators essentially stopped looking for Hauptmann's accomplices once he decided shut up like a clam. In any case, the boat name angle seems much ado about very little to me and obviously investigators put little weight into this discovery. After all, providing the name of a boat you claim the child is on when you know damn well the child dead, is not only a cruel hoax, it serves no purpose and never existed to begin with. You actually believe Condon had some affiliation with the Horseneck Beach, Gay Head and Elizabeth Islands reference, as related in the Boad Nelly note? I can't help but think you would have made a star reporter for one of the Depression-era New York papers. Perhaps your past-life association with this case? Again, that's an awful lot of work for a simple misdirection. Especially considering that it really doesn't benefit the people directly receiving the money. That note does however benefit Condon because it proves he was in contact and makes him look like he was duped too. However, people thinking they know how cops think usually do not. This is what usually tips them off instead. So it seems to be the actual contents are of Condon's making. I know you don't like that but one has to divorce themselves from emotion and consider the real possibilities here. It seems to me that it was coming from someone already in possession of this information. We both know that Hauptmann wasn't the only person involved. It's one of the few things we agree on. Next, it's not "my" number. I quoted it from the letter Browning wrote and the jist of it makes sense. The "crazy" part is that we definitely know Condon was familiar with this area from the information in V2. It's coming from research Joe. It's pretty simple if you think about it. Next, was Mueller familiar with these points? That's a possibility too. I personally believe Mueller assisted with the laundering but I also believe, beyond ALL doubt at this point, that Condon was in league with the Extortionists. One might argue he was being blackmailed or feared for his life - both are debatable positions. Or it could have been exactly as it appears. That means he was not on the level. Absolutely not. My apologies to his family members but I'm not going to lie about what's in front of me. Call me every name in the book if you like its not going to upset me or change what the man said or how he acted. There's simply no way to spin his behavior into something honest. He lied so many times he lost track, which by the way, it yet another indicator of involvement. So the "excuse" is that he was forgetful. And yet, during other conversations he's remembering other things perfectfully. Also, sorry to say, when he told the FBI he was there for the Needle Salesman, gave a detailed description even offering up that he might have been the Lookout at Woodlawn, only to say a short time later that he wasn't even there when the man came to the house. Forgive me but one has to be blind not to see what was going on here. Condon was duped, Michael but he should be at least credited for insisting with both Lindbergh and Breckinridge that arrangements be made for a return of the child at the time of the ransom payment. Lindbergh and Breckinridge were also duped. As was everyone else who actually believed the child would be returned for the ransom payment and worked tirelessly to make that happen, up to and including the office of the president of the United States. Harry Walsh and other investigators who employed his style of shoot-from-the-hip, ego-driven process were barking up the wrong tree when it came to Condon, sapping much needed energy and resources from a truer and more effective straight line of investigation that could have identified Hauptmann much earlier. Walsh should have learned or been removed from the case, at the very least severely reprimanded following the Violet Sharp situation. He planted potentially-incriminating evidence in her room and maintained his posture that she was complicit to save face and ultimately, his own ass. “It is no fault of ours..” Even Schwarzkopf had the sense to have him shipped back to Jersey City. Little wonder we see the kind of incessant bickering between agencies, inspired primarily by the NJSP's general arrogance and home-turf intractability. You've latched onto the same kinds of half-baked ideas and suppositions they espoused as conclusive signs of Condon’s complicity. I say Rubbish with a capital R here. Of course, disproving this type of negative conjecture will always be a difficult task no matter how versed one might be in this case. Jim Fisher was right on the money when he wrote that. This has nothing to do with emotion or liking a certain character, and it's not all about following the money and exposing a person’s skeletons. The simple truth is that Condon while he served as go-between, never wavered in his desire to serve the Lindberghs and safely return Charlie to them, and afterwards to pursue the perpetrators following the discovery of the body. He eagerly agreed to work closely and personally with Breckinridge and Lindbergh at all times, gently but clearly insisted with both men for a C.O.D arrangement of the child, willingly viewed thousands of mug shots, calmly stood up to Walsh as a confidently-innocent man would do at Alpine and on the Jersey Palisades, travelled extensively on his own dime and never accepted one offered him for his services while spending thousands of dollars of his own, with good intentions sought to reduce the ransom amount, was personally thanked for his contribution by his hero Charles Lindbergh, and even put out a book chronicling his involvement in the case while Hauptmann’s execution and the case were still fresh in the minds of everyone. Sorry my friend, you're choosing to look away from the above actions which are not those of the deceitful extortionist confederate you’ve concluded Condon was.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jun 26, 2021 14:53:02 GMT -5
Condon testified for the prosecution at the trial of B. Richard Hauptmann. During the cross-examination by Edward Reilly, lawyer for the defense, Condon was asked if he had checked out any books from the New York Public Library. His response was NO. Reilly then produced evidence that Condon had taken out a book from that library two weeks before the kidnapping, which would have occurred about Feb.15 of 1932. The book was Rudolf Koch's "Book of Signs." Nearly 500 signs are illustrated in this collection, some Christian, some astrological, some stonemason's signs, and many others. Condon's signature appears on the borrowing slip. For what purpose would Condon wish to view the illustrations of symbols in this collection, and why would he deny taking out the book? This question-and-answer session appears on the trial transcript for those members of the board who wish to check this. The strong possibility is that Condon was recruited before the kidnapping actually occurred by a representative from the kidnapping gang (though he may not have been aware that the child was not yet taken), and he would have been shown a copy of the "signature" that was to be used on the ransom notes so that he could identify the authenticity of the notes that would be sent to him. He would then have thought to review Koch's collection in a futile attempt to find its source, and of course he would not want to admit any of this at the time of the trial.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jun 26, 2021 17:32:45 GMT -5
Condon testified for the prosecution at the trial of B. Richard Hauptmann. During the cross-examination by Edward Reilly, lawyer for the defense, Condon was asked if he had checked out any books from the New York Public Library. His response was NO. Reilly then produced evidence that Condon had taken out a book from that library two weeks before the kidnapping, which would have occurred about Feb.15 of 1932. The book was Rudolf Koch's "Book of Signs." Nearly 500 signs are illustrated in this collection, some Christian, some astrological, some stonemason's signs, and many others. Condon's signature appears on the borrowing slip. For what purpose would Condon wish to view the illustrations of symbols in this collection, and why would he deny taking out the book? This question-and-answer session appears on the trial transcript for those members of the board who wish to check this. The strong possibility is that Condon was recruited before the kidnapping actually occurred by a representative from the kidnapping gang (though he may not have been aware that the child was not yet taken), and he would have been shown a copy of the "signature" that was to be used on the ransom notes so that he could identify the authenticity of the notes that would be sent to him. He would then have thought to review Koch's collection in a futile attempt to find its source, and of course he would not want to admit any of this at the time of the trial. Reilly's probing was a staged event and he knew Condon was not the John Condax who had actually borrowed the book. This was nothing more a deliberate but failed attempt on the part of a desperate defense attorney to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of the jury.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 26, 2021 19:03:51 GMT -5
Reilly's probing was a staged event and he knew Condon was not the John Condax who had actually borrowed the book. This was nothing more a deliberate but failed attempt on the part of a desperate defense attorney to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of the jury. Hey Joe, would you mind sharing the source that shows Reilly actually “knew” this? I’m not saying he didn’t but I don’t recall seeing anything like it so I’d like to look it up.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 26, 2021 19:23:07 GMT -5
The simple truth is that Condon while he served as go-between, never wavered in his desire to serve the Lindberghs and safely return Charlie to them, and afterwards to pursue the perpetrators following the discovery of the body. As a reminder, I literally wrote a book at least 1/2 of which demonstrate the lies this man told. But I’m going to only focus on one, just one, because that’s all that’s really needed. Once considering them all is gets a little ridiculous but I guess that’s where you’re at. Breckinridge told police he believed the Needle Salesman was involved. In checking this out they got the story and description from him. Next, they go to Condon. Now mind you, if this man was involved whatever Condon tells them is pretty damn important. Condon gives the details, a description, and throws in that this man might have been the “lookout” he saw at Woodlawn. Once again, important right? Then comes a month later when a different investigator asks about the Needle Salesman and Condon says he wasn’t there when the man came to his house. Now Joe, how I the HELL is lying about this potentially important account assisting Lindbergh? Why is he obstructing the investigation into this man? Please answer the question and don’t give me some Cock ‘n Bull story about how Condon “felt.”
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jun 26, 2021 20:12:27 GMT -5
Reilly's probing was a staged event and he knew Condon was not the John Condax who had actually borrowed the book. This was nothing more a deliberate but failed attempt on the part of a desperate defense attorney to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of the jury. Hey Joe, would you mind sharing the source that shows Reilly actually “knew” this? I’m not saying he didn’t but I don’t recall seeing anything like it so I’d like to look it up. Reilly, on his own accord, chose to include this claim at the trial. It was nonsense from the beginning, and based primarily on rumour and Walter Winchell. I believe he even got the name of the purported book wrong, let alone the name of it’s borrower. Wasn’t it in fact a book by Diego Rivera on Italian Renaissance Frescoes, and not Koch’s Book of Symbols, something that Condax was poised and ready to testify to? Was Reilly really that hard up for legitimate evidence that you’re suggesting he wouldn’t have reasonably pursued the source vigorously enough to understand it was first and foremost, patently false? Yes, I know Reilly was the kind of guy that could fabricate a silk purse out of a sow’s ear flying by the seat of his pants in his early days, but you’re questioning whether or not he knew this kind of claim was sketchy enough not to ensure he had his facts straight?
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jun 27, 2021 3:33:55 GMT -5
At the trial of B. Richard Hauptmann Edward Reilly asked John Condon to write out his complete name "John Francis Condon" in order to compare it to the signature on the borrowing slip for the Koch Book of Signs taken from the New York Public Library. The original slip, according to Reilly, was in possession of the Attorney General. Was any attempt made to obtain the original signed slip from the Attorney General in order to make any comparison? In other words, was there any follow up? How do we know that a book, and not the Koch Book of Signs, was a different book and signed for by someone else? How could this substitute be traced? The New York Public Library may have possessed both books, but did they keep a record of the history of their checkouts? And were both books on the shelves at the time of the trial? One source indicates that the Koch Book was Signs was still in the possession of John Condon. This could have been disproven if the book still appeared on the library shelf.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jun 27, 2021 4:38:30 GMT -5
One source for the explanation of this apparent "confusion" is an article that appeared in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle on Jan 11 of 1935. A John Condax, photographer, stated that he had checked out a book by Diego Rivera on frescos from the New York Public Library on Feb. 24 of 1932, quite a different subject matter from that discussed in Koch's Book of Signs which was originally written in German. While this check-out could have been a ruse (and not a confusion obviously) on the part of Reilly, it still should have been checked out in the proper channels.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jun 27, 2021 6:16:39 GMT -5
The simple truth is that Condon while he served as go-between, never wavered in his desire to serve the Lindberghs and safely return Charlie to them, and afterwards to pursue the perpetrators following the discovery of the body. As a reminder, I literally wrote a book at least 1/2 of which demonstrate the lies this man told. But I’m going to only focus on one, just one, because that’s all that’s really needed. Once considering them all is gets a little ridiculous but I guess that’s where you’re at. Breckinridge told police he believed the Needle Salesman was involved. In checking this out they got the story and description from him. Next, they go to Condon. Now mind you, if this man was involved whatever Condon tells them is pretty damn important. Condon gives the details, a description, and throws in that this man might have been the “lookout” he saw at Woodlawn. Once again, important right? Then comes a month later when a different investigator asks about the Needle Salesman and Condon says he wasn’t there when the man came to his house. Now Joe, how I the HELL is lying about this potentially important account assisting Lindbergh? Why is he obstructing the investigation into this man? Please answer the question and don’t give me some Cock ‘n Bull story about how Condon “felt.” You need only the Needle Salesman account to demonstrate the entire scope of John Condon’s actions and words statements prove he was a confederate of the extortionists? Okay, let’s take a deep breath and look at this scenario from the beginning. You start out by saying Breckinridge believed the vendor was involved. Breckinridge was clearly on alert, as a result of this visit, but does his belief the man was involved in the kidnapping and/or extortion really mean he was? Like the Scissors Grinder who came along afterwards, basically stopping at Condon’s house only, before leaving the neighbourhood without visiting another house, this has all the markings of a targeted visit. As you seem to put much stock in these visits, are you then saying that the “gang” now consists of a Needle Salesman and possibly a Scissors Grinder, in addition to all of the others trotted out by CJ at Woodlawn Cemetery and afterwards? I don’t believe either of these two street vendors had a clue about the kidnapping and extortion, other than what they might have read. And I very much doubt that an emissary of the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s) would have even considered approaching the home of the man they knew they were dealing with in broad daylight, let alone conduct some kind of business they were obviously trade-familiar with, at such close quarters. I’d also put much more faith in this having been a fishing expedition by one of the daily papers to explore the possibility that Condon was involved in the case, and an attempt to prove his identity as the pseudonym, Jafsie. These two accounts have all the telltale signs of the strange, dissipated individual who visited Breckinridge’s office and explained that the needs of science must be upheld. I’d venture that was just another setup by some enterprising reporter or journalist who had actually entertained the notion that Lindbergh was responsible for the kidnapping because he considered his son to be too deformed and sickly to be of any human value, and therefore had to be “sacrificed.” An attempt to ply Breckinridge for information. Lise Pearlman seems to be all over that one, but you may have closed the book on her before you got to that part. To answer your question. I don’t know why Condon would have changed his story about being home during the Needle Salesman’s visit, but I don’t believe his reactions to this account are even relevant against the backdrop of his very clear cut primary mission, which was to selflessly serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 27, 2021 6:37:58 GMT -5
For Aaron:
Maybe your questions about Arthur Koch's Book of Signs can be answered by the person who found the book slip?
What clue would have led someone to specifically look in the New York Public Library for anything related to the ransom symbol?
I believe I read that a former Secret Service person, who was privately working on the case, found the slip for the Koch book.
Also, the peace symbol that American protesters have used for decades can be traced to Koch's book.
The peace symbol, I have always heard, is anti-Christian.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jun 27, 2021 6:52:36 GMT -5
For Aaron: Maybe your questions about Arthur Koch's Book of Signs can be answered by the person who found the book slip? What clue would have led someone to specifically look in the New York Public Library for anything related to the ransom symbol? I believe I read that a former Secret Service person, who was privately working on the case, found the slip for the Koch book. Also, the peace symbol that American protesters have used for decades can be traced to Koch's book. The peace symbol, I have always heard, is anti-Christian. Sue, do you know which book it was that was signed out by John Condax? Koch or Rivera?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 27, 2021 7:59:22 GMT -5
John Condax of Philadelphia said he signed the Koch book out using his Philadelphia address.
He was an art teacher who said he signed for the book at the New York Public Library.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 27, 2021 11:00:00 GMT -5
Hey Joe, would you mind sharing the source that shows Reilly actually “knew” this? I’m not saying he didn’t but I don’t recall seeing anything like it so I’d like to look it up. Reilly, on his own accord, chose to include this claim at the trial. It was nonsense from the beginning, and based primarily on rumour and Walter Winchell. I believe he even got the name of the purported book wrong, let alone the name of it’s borrower. Wasn’t it in fact a book by Diego Rivera on Italian Renaissance Frescoes, and not Koch’s Book of Symbols, something that Condax was poised and ready to testify to? Was Reilly really that hard up for legitimate evidence that you’re suggesting he wouldn’t have reasonably pursued the source vigorously enough to understand it was first and foremost, patently false? Yes, I know Reilly was the kind of guy that could fabricate a silk purse out of a sow’s ear flying by the seat of his pants in his early days, but you’re questioning whether or not he knew this kind of claim was sketchy enough not to ensure he had his facts straight? So, what your rambling answer says to me, is that you do not have a source. Pretty much, you were simply "winging it" when you made the claim that Reilly "knew" something you couldn't possibly know yourself without a legitimate source. Fact is, even the Prosecution didn't know it wasn't legit until the same day this questioning occurred. They were investigating since Winchell's article. At one point they were of the opinion that Keyes penned out his own fraudulent slip. However, as they continued to investigate they eventually discovered he did not. Condax was picked up in Philadelphia by police there at 6PM on January 10 then driven to West Trenton to eventually be interviewed and look over the actual signature on the slip. Condon was off the stand by then. So - Wilentz didn't even know if this evidence was legit or not while Reilly was asking Condon about it on the stand. Had not Condax announce to the press what was going on two days later, Reilly would have never known in my opinion. Why? Because its my experience with the documentation that leads me to believe Wilentz would never have shared this instead using it to embarrass the Defense if they continued to pursue it. Do you see how I presented what I happened to think here? Now compare it with what I happen to know concerning what I written above this. You know a lot about this case Joe. But you have to be careful how you frame your points. As always, I've researched this ad nauseam.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jun 27, 2021 11:20:35 GMT -5
Reilly, on his own accord, chose to include this claim at the trial. It was nonsense from the beginning, and based primarily on rumour and Walter Winchell. I believe he even got the name of the purported book wrong, let alone the name of it’s borrower. Wasn’t it in fact a book by Diego Rivera on Italian Renaissance Frescoes, and not Koch’s Book of Symbols, something that Condax was poised and ready to testify to? Was Reilly really that hard up for legitimate evidence that you’re suggesting he wouldn’t have reasonably pursued the source vigorously enough to understand it was first and foremost, patently false? Yes, I know Reilly was the kind of guy that could fabricate a silk purse out of a sow’s ear flying by the seat of his pants in his early days, but you’re questioning whether or not he knew this kind of claim was sketchy enough not to ensure he had his facts straight? So, what your rambling answer says to me, is that you do not have a source. Pretty much, you were simply "winging it" when you made the claim that Reilly "knew" something you couldn't possibly know yourself without a legitimate source. Fact is, even the Prosecution didn't know it wasn't legit until the same day this questioning occurred. They were investigating since Winchell's article. At one point they were of the opinion that Keyes penned out his own fraudulent slip. However, as they continued to investigate they eventually discovered he did not. Condax was picked up in Philadelphia by police there at 6PM on January 10 then driven to West Trenton to eventually be interviewed and look over the actual signature on the slip. Condon was off the stand by then. So - Wilentz didn't even know if this evidence was legit or not while Reilly was asking Condon about it on the stand. Had not Condax announce to the press what was going on two days later, Reilly would have never known in my opinion. Why? Because its my experience with the documentation that leads me to believe Wilentz would never have shared this instead using it to embarrass the Defense if they continued to pursue it. Do you see how I presented what I happened to think here? Now compare it with what I happen to know concerning what I written above this. You know a lot about this case Joe. But you have to be careful how you frame your points. As always, I've researched this ad nauseam. Thanks Michael, and you are absolutely correct on this account. I got a little ahead of myself here before revisiting the actual timeline of events. These kinds of accounts tend to pop up and down here on this board and my memory doesn't always serve me the way Condon was serving the Lindberghs. Sue also pointed out the newspaper accounts of this development indicate Reilly's attack on Condon in the courtroom came at a time when Condax was in fact an unknown name and person. Still, for Reilly to have actually used this type of hearsay in the courtroom during Condon's time on the witness stand, I think only underscores the kind of desperate hand he was dealt and felt he had to play.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 28, 2021 8:53:01 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, and you are absolutely correct on this account. I got a little ahead of myself here before revisiting the actual timeline of events. These kinds of accounts tend to pop up and down here on this board and my memory doesn't always serve me the way Condon was serving the Lindberghs. Sue also pointed out the newspaper accounts of this development indicate Reilly's attack on Condon in the courtroom came at a time when Condax was in fact an unknown name and person. Still, for Reilly to have actually used this type of hearsay in the courtroom during Condon's time on the witness stand, I think only underscores the kind of desperate hand he was dealt and felt he had to play. I don't want you to think that I am defending Reilly against your impression of him. Anyone can see from Chapter 6 in V3 that his conduct was outrages. This leads me to something important to note... The term " unscrupulous" has often been used to disparage certain people by everyone to include many authors. The problem I have with this is how can one use that word when it applies to so many? Frankly, Wilentz's conduct was what I consider the most unscrupulous. From stealing a Defense lawyer, to threatening and intimating witnesses. To sending a poser into Defense witness meetings to spy for him, and having NJSP Troopers eavesdrop on Hauptmann and his attorneys. From hiding exculpatory evidence, lying, and preventing the Defense from getting copies of the trial transcripts. Even pretending to have laryngitis to avoid honoring a defense request that he agreed to. It's never ending. So, for me anyway, we must keep all of this in mind in order to take a fair and balanced approach at criticism because no one cornered the market on certain bad behavior. Since I'm still working on V4, I am a little bit behind and already forgetting some of the conversation. I think someone asked to see the library slip signature, Aaron I think, so here it is below. Now as it relates to Keyes's discovery... He found this slip and believed it was associated with Koch's book (which I have by the way). After seeing this signature he saw what appeared to be "John Condon" signing it out and I don't think anyone can fault him after seeing it themselves. From there he studied the book. Now it has been said the actual symbol is not in this book. That is true, however, all of the signs and symbols within it are explained. What Keyes did was combine certain symbols to come up with what he thought how the symbol was created then used the various definitions to explain it. I see nothing wrong with his approach. The problem is that once the address associated with this name was investigated it lead to Condax. If it had been Condon then the actual book would be an issue but it doesn't have to go that far. It's a dead issue and one place where I do not believe anyone did anything wrong.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jun 28, 2021 10:45:49 GMT -5
Thanks much, Michael, for providing the signature slip. The address that John Condax gives is clearly Philadelphia so that should have been an indication that the signatory was not John Condon. Today most libraries protect their patrons and signatures are not required, but in this case the signature becomes important.
|
|