|
Post by Sue on Dec 30, 2019 16:02:31 GMT -5
The father of 17-year-old Siegrid Bjurberg wanted to pursue charges against Condon in 1904.
In his 1962 interview, Ed DeLong said the newspapers had reported something or other about Condon.
DeLong was right.
The Syracuse newspaper, The Telegram, reported the following on July 7, 1904:
PRINCIPAL CONDON CARESSED THIS PRETTY BLOND GIRL PUPIL
New York. July 7. -- Public school No. 12 in Westchester is all excitement over the news that John F. Condon, the principal, one of the best known educators in the city schools, has been before the Board of Education on the charge made by Siegrid Bjurberg, one of his girl pupils, that he repeatedly kissed her.
The Board of Education, after listening to the report of Dr. O'Brien, an associate superintendent, exonerated the school principal.
Miss Bjurberg is 17 years old, and a very pretty blonde. She says that the principal has shown affection for her since early last October and that she has been called to his office several times each week, when he caressed her.
The girl, according to her own statement, saw no harm in the caresses, and her secret slipped out when she was talking of the principal to her parents. They demanded the full story, and as the result of her tale her father communicated with Superintendent Maxwell, who ordered the investigation.
The school principal, who is married and has three children, angrily denounced the story as a tissue of lies. The girl's story was retold, but she could bring no one to prove her statements.
"I will not let the matter drop until the Board of Education has given it the fullest inspection," said Mr. Bjurberg, the father, at his home, Westchester and Green avenues, the Bronx, last night. "I do not believe it has done so yet. I believe my daughter's story, and I will not desist in my prosecution of that man until he as been transferred to another school."
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Dec 30, 2019 18:48:43 GMT -5
This is an incredible find, Sue! Thank you for posting it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2019 19:33:05 GMT -5
A great find Sue! So glad you posted it on the board.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 31, 2019 14:02:48 GMT -5
Sue,
I'm with IloveDFW, Mbg, and amy35 on this -- amazing find! Thanks for posting.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but before this posting we only knew about Siegrid Bjurberg because of her older sister's account.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 31, 2019 14:56:33 GMT -5
Thank you to all who thanked me for the Syracuse newspaper article from 1904!
Of course, I didn't write it but I was shocked to find it!
Wayne -- I know you were the one who helped bring Siegrid's sister's letter to Marion Sayle Taylor to the forefront.
I wonder if Taylor's "Voice of Experience" radio show ever addressed that letter?
Thank you! Was the sister's letter forwarded to Governor Hoffman? And did Taylor write a separate personal letter to Hoffman?
Siegrid's sister was very brave to come forward for her sister.
I wonder if anything else (more than we now know) surfaced after the New York City Board of Education exonerated Condon?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2019 18:31:15 GMT -5
Thank you to all who thanked me for the Syracuse newspaper article from 1904! This find is great in more ways than one. First is that I've been searching for a newspaper article about this for a very long time and obviously never found one. Also consider the thousands upon thousands of correspondence sent to NJ and Federal officials many with all kinds of newspaper articles attached. I can say with 100% certainty that NONE on this matter were ever attached to any that are at the NJSP archives. Seems odd considering we now know at least one existed. I got to the point, despite indications they were written, that perhaps none actually were. Great to see the father was involved too. I wonder what his occupation was? I often wondered about that and assumed maybe he wasn't in the picture. Can't understand how Condon was able to walk after the father found out about what happened. For me, I've often wondered how Condon got involved with these men during the extortion. I still feel there's something to the "story" he told O'Sullivan. Well, the more information the better - right? And now we have more to consider thanks to Sue's discovery.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Dec 31, 2019 18:57:28 GMT -5
Thank you to all who thanked me for the Syracuse newspaper article from 1904! This find is great in more ways than one. First is that I've been searching for a newspaper article about this for a very long time. Also consider the thousands upon thousands of correspondence sent to NJ and Federal officials many with all kinds of newspaper articles attached. I can say with 100% certainty that NONE on this matter were ever attached to any that are at the NJSP archives. Seems odd considering we now know at least one existed. I got to the point, despite indications they were written, that perhaps none actually were. Great to see the father was involved too. I wonder what his occupation was? I often wondered about that and assumed maybe he wasn't in the picture. Can't understand how Condon was able to walk after the father found out about what happened. For me, I've often wondered how Condon got involved with these men during the extortion. I still feel there's something to the "story" he told O'Sullivan. Well, the more information the better - right? And now we have more to consider thanks to Sue's discovery. I'm not saying some form of impropriety didn't occur here, but let's remember this is a news article and not a conviction from a court of law. I'm actually surprised to see this account made the newspapers based on the fact that Condon seemed to have been exonerated here. Does anyone know if this is the account in which Condon's cousin, Dennis Doyle related that a girl was looking to make trouble for Condon?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 31, 2019 19:24:05 GMT -5
Thank you to all who thanked me for the Syracuse newspaper article from 1904! Of course, I didn't write it but I was shocked to find it! Wayne -- I know you were the one who helped bring Siegrid's sister's letter to Marion Sayle Taylor to the forefront. I wonder if Taylor's "Voice of Experience" radio show ever addressed that letter? Thank you! Was the sister's letter forwarded to Governor Hoffman? And did Taylor write a separate personal letter to Hoffman? Siegrid's sister was very brave to come forward for her sister. I wonder if anything else (more than we now know) surfaced after the New York City Board of Education exonerated Condon? Sue, Full credit to Siegrid's sister's letter-find should go to Mark Falzini and Mbg. They gratefully shared the info with me. I'll have to check my Siegrid file to see if there are any answers to your questions. In the meantime, I've posted this here before, but I'm not sure if you've seen it. Kinda of an amusing way to close out 2019 -- www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5bDLxxH6Ic
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 1, 2020 7:59:56 GMT -5
I'm not saying some form of impropriety didn't occur here, but let's remember this is a news article and not a conviction from a court of law. I'm actually surprised to see this account made the newspapers based on the fact that Condon seemed to have been exonerated here. Does anyone know if this is the account in which Condon's cousin, Dennis Doyle related that a girl was looking to make trouble for Condon? But Joe - its not "just" a newspaper article. It is yet another piece of the puzzle as it relates to this particular issue. I wrote about it in V2, among the multitude of others, from pages 335 to 344. We still must consider everything what's written on these pages - now in addition to what Sue discovered. That's how its supposed to work and its what motivates me to write about what I've found. Sue kept looking, and by doing so it gives us another source of information to consider and add to the rest. Considering what we already know, what does this tell us? So let's look at the incident itself. In 2019, its a very hard thing for a young girl to come forward with an accusation like this. But consider we are talking 1904. How do you think it was like back then? How is something like this "investigated" by the School Board? It turns into what two different people are saying - and one's a child. What "proof" would this girl have except what she was saying? So in 1904, who's side would the Board of Education fall on do you think? Next, we must look at what Condon said. First and foremost we know the guy was a monumental liar. That doesn't mean this occurred but what it does mean is we cannot trust his explanation. In fact in 1932, he told Inspector Walsh that he was "exonerated" because the girl " made it up" and that her older sister came to him and said " she was sorry." But the letter to VOE was written in 1936 by her older sister. And she is saying something so much different. In fact, it says there were more victims, something which we'd expect if he was doing this. Consider this letter basically comes out of nowhere and dredges up terrible memories that were all resurrected due to Condon's involvement in this case and testimony in court. There is no other motivating factors as far as I can tell. Can you? Were there newspaper accounts about it in 1936? I was beginning to doubt there were any in 1904 until Sue's discovery. So I'd say "no" and this letter oozes pain and suffering. So to answer your question - I don't know if Doyle was referring to this incident since apparently there were more. But if this was the only one to hit the paper then its probably a safe bet. Remember when this was discussed so many years ago? Those who did not "like" it scoffed and said it was a "rumor." Imagine if those of us who were just starting to research the case actually believed them? My guess its those very same people who are now "upset" about this information finding daylight.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jan 2, 2020 13:33:39 GMT -5
I believe in 100% innocent til proven guilty, but there were other allegations of impropriety besides the one coming from Siegrid Bjurberg.
In trial testimony, Reilly asked Condon if it were true, that Condon had left PS 32 because of an incident with a woman teacher.
Condon replied that he left on his own.
(Newspapers from January 10, 1935 seems to be the date where you can read about the exchange between Reilly and Condon.)
The following is from the New York Post for the above date:
"Reilly turned on Condon.
"Isn't it true that you were transferred after being principal for three years because of conduct unbecoming a teacher and a gentleman?" began Reilly.
Wilentz shouted, "I will not permit the witness's "character to be assassinated."
Reilly was permitted to ask only if Condon had been transferred in 1902?
"Yes."
Reilly then shouted over Wilentz's objections:
"Weren't you transferred by the Board of Education because of improper conduct with a woman teacher?"
"No, sir," said Condon, huskily.
Wilentz became furious and demanded that this passage be expunged from the record.
Reilly demanded that Wilentz's remarks be stricken from the record. Judge Trenchard let both stand, and called the luncheon recess at 12:32 P. M.
Court reconvened at 1 P.M."
The following is from the Buffalo Evening News for January 10, 1935, page 8.
HAD REILLY GROGGY, HIT LOW, SAYS JAFSIE
FLEMINGTON, N. J., Jan. 10
(U.P.).—Toward the end of the morning session of Bruno Richard Hauptmann's murder trial today Edward J. Reilly, chief defense counsel, asked Dr. John F. Condon:
"Were you ever dismissed from Public School No. 32 in New York for conduct with a woman teacher that was unbecoming a gentleman?"
"No," Jafsie bellowed.
At the noon recess a woman said:
"Dr. Condon, that was a terrible question for Mr. Reilly to ask you."
"Yes it was," Jafsie replied.
"I had him hanging on the ropes and he resorted to fouling."
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 2, 2020 15:29:14 GMT -5
Wilentz shouted, "I will not permit the witness's "character to be assassinated." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Jan 4, 2020 2:26:17 GMT -5
When we were discussing this in June and July 2018 (partly with respect to TDC 2 and partly in reply to a Mr Condon who was upset that his relative was being disparaged), Steve said he and Sue had gone to NYC to locate the Board of Education records and that Sue found it. The file probably can provide information in addition to the article.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Jan 4, 2020 3:31:39 GMT -5
There was an article in 1932 which briefly mentioned the 1904 allegation.
Sigrid’s father Karl was a woodcarver at a piano factory.
My guess is that Doyle’s story is based on this event. Also that the allegation at trial was a distortion of this. Condon wasn’t transferred in 1902 because of any allegation regarding a teacher. Instead it was stated that he transferred at his own request because he would be closer to his home.
However Condon’s statement to the police that the story was about a previous principal is nonsense - that never happened.
We should keep in mind that the problem so far as the school board saw it was not her age, but the fact she was a student. This is the era of Peaches and Daddy....
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jan 4, 2020 12:44:09 GMT -5
According to a newspaper called The Radii, from upstate New York, under the column "Week's Record," is a public proclamation that John Condon was exonerated.
The announcement reads this:
John F. Condon, Principal of Public School No. 12, in Westchester, has been exonerated of a charge of repeatedly kissing a pretty 17-year-old girl.
The Canajoharie Radii Canajoharie, New York July 14, 1904
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 6, 2020 10:21:24 GMT -5
we didn't go yet to the city on bucket list
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 6, 2020 12:05:27 GMT -5
For me, even if this was the only thing we had to consider about Condon its a major cause for suspicion. And yet, its relatively minor in the face of everything else. So in this particular case I just don't find him credible no matter what his explanation would be. This position is only further shored up by the obvious fact that he lied to Inspector Walsh about it during his interrogation. Not to influence anyone else, but there's no doubt in my mind that he's in the extortion up to his neck. Just hiding the box proves it to me, and again, that's just one piece - there's so many examples I feel bad for the guy almost. I am comfortable saying his role seems to indicate that he get "them" their money and protect them from arrest. The motives for which are up for debate. Could something like the charge above be related? If so - a small role or a much larger one? Or could it just be the guy was bad or an opportunist? For me, these are the real questions about him. The countless excuses for his lies, while simultaneously embracing the things he said one happens to "like" isn't a acceptable position for me to take. If he's "old" in one place (excusing his lies) then he's old everywhere else. Using known facts to embellish or bolster lies is not an indication of a "confused" individual either. With this in mind, I realize there is so much that sometimes it can cause one's eyes to glaze over. Don't let this happen. Study everything, and do not let one iota slip past. For example, I still say it is majorly significant that Gaglio blurted out that question to Perrone asking "where" he received that note. Feathers gave some backround into Gaglio ( lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/1042/milton-gaglio), and it was in that post that he commented that he did not believe he was involved. For me the word "involvement" is just too general when looking at this case. As I wrote in V2 (p35), this is something I believe came from Condon which he made the mistake of repeating. If I am right, and I think I am, this clearly indicates prior contact with the "extortionists." So Gaglio isn't representing them or he wouldn't be stupid enough to be at Condon's house. But what he does next shows that he's actually "working" for Condon's interest. First and foremost he lies to police about what he said. HUGE red flag. Next, he visits Perrone in an attempt to tamper with him by showing him unrelated pictures. This, I believe, was a way to get him to identify someone other than the actual man he saw. Furthermore, he's telling him to get out of town to avoid the police. Ask yourself who benefits if Perrone could be influenced in this way? The "Extortionists." And yet, I agree with Feathers that Gaglio isn't involved with them. Instead - he's involved with Condon. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/admin/settings/attachment/100
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jan 7, 2020 20:02:25 GMT -5
According to Ed DeLong, Jacob Jackowitz was the educational editor of The New York Sun.
The Sun had a newspaper column that answered queries from the public about public education.
The following are questions from someone inquiring about standards of conduct for teachers.
The questions are answered on page 47 of the November 16, 1931 edition of The New York Sun:
1) Are there any by-laws governing a teacher's moral character?
If so, what are they?
2 Can a teacher be dismissed from service because of acts outside of school, such as intoxication, disorderly conduct, etc.?
3) What steps would be taken if a person were to send in a complaint by letter about a teacher? Would the teacher and the complainant be allowed to meet face to face? How could a teacher justify himself? How can the board prove that some false friend is not putting over an act of treachery?
Answer (1-2): Teachers may be dismissed from the service for immoral conduct or "for conduct unbecoming a teacher."
(3): No teacher can be dismissed before being given a trial. Anonymous and unsubstantiated complaints would never be used as the basis for a teacher's dismissal.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jan 2, 2022 17:24:03 GMT -5
|
|