Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 19, 2021 9:07:22 GMT -5
This recent article, written by William Hanna, describes a visit made by John Condon and son-in-law Ralph Hacker to the village of Taunton, New York less than a week before Condon's trial testimony at Flemington. In my opinion, it's one of the most accurate and "cold grey light of morning" depictions of Condon's character, motivations and ultimately his true involvement within the case. Condon as a willing confederate of the kidnappers / extortionists and someone who colluded to gain financially at the expense of his hero Charles Lindbergh, directly or indirectly? Not a prayer. ochm.medium.com/jafsie-at-the-belmore-4a343948e119
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 23, 2021 9:30:41 GMT -5
He lied to Police Joe. Not just once but everywhere he needed to.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 25, 2021 9:00:58 GMT -5
He lied to Police Joe. Not just once but everywhere he needed to. Simply stating that Condon lied to police whenever he needed to, is a superficial read that can be taken many ways, and which can open up to an almost infinite range of possible intentions on his part. I believe the most important question here is, what were Condon’s true intentions when he entered the case, and then as a result of his growing participation within it, when he proceeded to provide information to law enforcement, or anyone else for that matter? Was he lying or misleading to protect whatever plans Lindbergh and/or Breckinridge had at any given time within the first 72 days of the kidnapping, at a time when law enforcement had agreed to back off, allowing for a direct conduit between Lindbergh and company, and the kidnappers/extortionists? Did he lie because felt he was at any given time, involved on the wrong side of the law? Did he lie or mislead to cover the fact his memory failed him at times and he legitimately could not remember what he had previously said, so he just tried to make the best of things? Did he unintentionally mislead because he was genuinely confused by case specifics and detail, not being privy to everything also know by Lindbergh, Breckinridge and law enforcement? Were his actions or statements ever taken out of context or misinterpreted and then put into print through law enforcement reports, which are now deemed to be accurate depictions? No question or argument here that Condon represented the most confusing and thought-provoking entry into this case for his actions, statements and print. Circling back to the nature of his true motives though, in twenty years of studying this case, I’ve seen countless insinuations, unproven connections, leading assertions and simple misunderstandings from fellow case students when it comes to assessing the man. What I’ve yet to see in that same timeframe and despite all of his grandiose, loquacious and contradictory mannerisms, is one conclusive example of Condon ever having acted in a way that even slightly went against the grain of his original desire to best serve the Lindberghs and see CALjr safely returned to them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2021 10:06:08 GMT -5
Simply stating that Condon lied to police whenever he needed to, is a superficial read that can be taken many ways, and which can open up to an almost infinite range of possible intentions on his part. I believe the most important question here is, what were Condon’s true intentions when he entered the case, and then as a result of his growing participation within it, when he proceeded to provide information to law enforcement, or anyone else for that matter? I wouldn't call it "superficial," but I do agree there could be a range of possible explanations so one has a choice to make. In the end, reading V2 would assist by allowing it to be an informed decision.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 25, 2021 10:25:51 GMT -5
Simply stating that Condon lied to police whenever he needed to, is a superficial read that can be taken many ways, and which can open up to an almost infinite range of possible intentions on his part. I believe the most important question here is, what were Condon’s true intentions when he entered the case, and then as a result of his growing participation within it, when he proceeded to provide information to law enforcement, or anyone else for that matter? I wouldn't call it "superficial," but I do agree there could be a range of possible explanations so one has a choice to make. In the end, reading V2 would assist by allowing it to be an informed decision. It's been a while since I read V2, but I don't recall much in the way of specific references to what would certainly be termed Condon's positive attributes relating to a lifetime of community service and public recognition leading up to his self-insertion into the LKC, in order for the reader to come to an informed (and balanced) decision.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2021 10:44:55 GMT -5
[It's been a while since I read V2, but I don't recall much in the way of specific references to what would certainly be termed Condon's positive attributes relating to a lifetime of community service and public recognition leading up to his self-insertion into the LKC, in order for the reader to come to an informed (and balanced) decision. Kind of like the character witnesses at sentencing we often see. You know, the woman who gave a lifetime of service to her church only to find out she was embezzling their money. The Minister or Priest are usually front and center to ask for mercy. Or the guy who robbed the bank, but before that was thought to be a really nice guy by family, friends, and neighbors - and so they all show up to give him support. Or the Cop Killer who later became a poet in prison. Thousands of people rally to insist he's "innocent." Or the relative who was molesting little children. Before that, people had every reason to trust him. A Psychologist will show up to testify that he was mentally damaged due to the exact same thing happening to him when he was a child.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 25, 2021 11:54:56 GMT -5
[It's been a while since I read V2, but I don't recall much in the way of specific references to what would certainly be termed Condon's positive attributes relating to a lifetime of community service and public recognition leading up to his self-insertion into the LKC, in order for the reader to come to an informed (and balanced) decision. Kind of like the character witnesses at sentencing we often see. You know, the woman who gave a lifetime of service to her church only to find out she was embezzling their money. The Minister or Priest are usually front and center to ask for mercy. Or the guy who robbed the bank, but before that was thought to be a really nice guy by family, friends, and neighbors - and so they all show up to give him support. Or the Cop Killer who later became a poet in prison. Thousands of people rally to insist he's "innocent." Or the relative who was molesting little children. Before that, people had every reason to trust him. A Psychologist will show up to testify that he was mentally damaged due to the exact same thing happening to him when he was a child. You're deflecting from the issue here Michael. We all know there are people out there who appear to everyone else as lily white despite their conclusively proven guilt within some crime. In the case of Condon though, are you aware of any conclusive proof that he had anything but the best of intentions in desiring to serve the Lindberghs and safely return CALjr to them? I don't.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2021 12:54:49 GMT -5
You're deflecting from the issue here Michael. We all know there are people out there who appear to everyone else as lily white despite their conclusively proven guilt within some crime. In the case of Condon though, are you aware of any conclusive proof that he had anything but the best of intentions in desiring to serve the Lindberghs and safely return CALjr to them? I don't. Is this a joke?
|
|
|
Post by trojan on Mar 26, 2021 2:07:41 GMT -5
Kind of like the character witnesses at sentencing we often see. You know, the woman who gave a lifetime of service to her church only to find out she was embezzling their money. The Minister or Priest are usually front and center to ask for mercy. Or the guy who robbed the bank, but before that was thought to be a really nice guy by family, friends, and neighbors - and so they all show up to give him support. Or the Cop Killer who later became a poet in prison. Thousands of people rally to insist he's "innocent." Or the relative who was molesting little children. Before that, people had every reason to trust him. A Psychologist will show up to testify that he was mentally damaged due to the exact same thing happening to him when he was a child. You're deflecting from the issue here Michael. We all know there are people out there who appear to everyone else as lily white despite their conclusively proven guilt within some crime. In the case of Condon though, are you aware of any conclusive proof that he had anything but the best of intentions in desiring to serve the Lindberghs and safely return CALjr to them? I don't. The man lied at every turn, from constantly evolving "conversations," inventing new physical traits of CJ, the morgue photo he kept on hand to, as Michael so brilliantly lays out in his book, how and where the ransom was handed off, including stashing the box so it could be retrieved later.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 26, 2021 7:03:03 GMT -5
You're deflecting from the issue here Michael. We all know there are people out there who appear to everyone else as lily white despite their conclusively proven guilt within some crime. In the case of Condon though, are you aware of any conclusive proof that he had anything but the best of intentions in desiring to serve the Lindberghs and safely return CALjr to them? I don't. Is this a joke? Assume correctly here for a minute, that it's not a joke. The floor is yours unless you have nothing further to say.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 26, 2021 7:56:49 GMT -5
You're deflecting from the issue here Michael. We all know there are people out there who appear to everyone else as lily white despite their conclusively proven guilt within some crime. In the case of Condon though, are you aware of any conclusive proof that he had anything but the best of intentions in desiring to serve the Lindberghs and safely return CALjr to them? I don't. The man lied at every turn, from constantly evolving "conversations," inventing new physical traits of CJ, the morgue photo he kept on hand to, as Michael so brilliantly lays out in his book, how and where the ransom was handed off, including stashing the box so it could be retrieved later. I agree with you 100% that Condon was indeed a walking and talking conundrum, but you’re both just yelling at clouds here again. What clearly-objective evidence and conclusive proof do you have to substantiate that Condon ever deviated within his sincere desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them, or are you simply going to continue to espouse half-baked personal theories now in publication so they can be conveniently pointed to anytime as fact? My apologies for continuing to sound like a broken record here, but you’re also just deflecting from the issue. What some here consider to be conclusive proof of nefarious goings-on, ie. the ransom box stashing.. the never-ending thumb issue.. boardwalk trapeze artists.. Skean having gone MIA.. brown hats and chewing gum.. 20K for accomplice Condon.. the "breadcrumb trail".. the deathbed confession.. these are all nice, unsubstantiated theories at best. Unfortunately and within each, are very real possibilities and probable explanations that must be buried in the interests of maintaining a very grand house of cards. It’s little wonder this case, despite all of its acquired pomp and colour, has really progressed very little over the past twenty years.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 26, 2021 8:32:03 GMT -5
You're deflecting from the issue here Michael. We all know there are people out there who appear to everyone else as lily white despite their conclusively proven guilt within some crime. In the case of Condon though, are you aware of any conclusive proof that he had anything but the best of intentions in desiring to serve the Lindberghs and safely return CALjr to them? I don't. The man lied at every turn, from constantly evolving "conversations," inventing new physical traits of CJ, the morgue photo he kept on hand to, as Michael so brilliantly lays out in his book, how and where the ransom was handed off, including stashing the box so it could be retrieved later. Hey Trojan, I'm not doubting your conclusions, but please show one one blatant, provable lie that Condon told in Jafsie Tells All.Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2021 9:20:04 GMT -5
Assume correctly here for a minute, that it's not a joke. The floor is yours unless you have nothing further to say. Joe, your position is completely destroyed easily by all of the examples surrounding Condon's conduct. You asked if there was evidence to conclude that " Condon ever having acted in a way that even slightly went against the grain of his original desire to best serve the Lindberghs and see CALjr safely returned to them." Again - are you kidding me? There's two parts to looking at this thing. First, get the child back to his parents. The second would be to catch the murderers. Condon assumed the role of BOTH and was in a position to do so. However, his tactics never change. He's lying and obstructing both before and after the child was found dead. So assigning him innocent motives for his illegal conduct before the dead child was found does not work. He did everything imaginable keep the police chasing their own tails. He did everything he could NOT to identify Hauptmann, having twice claimed he was NOT Cemetery John. Even took off for Florida to find a Scapegoat. And so one has to ignore a whole helluva lot to accept your position. Once one steps back and looks at everything in its totality, it is quite clear to me that Condon's "job" was to get these people their money AND protect them from arrest. He did both up and until the bitter end. Even beyond that truth be told. Police and Prosecution gave him an ultimatum, and as I wrote in V3, even they weren't completely sure what he was going to say once he graced the stand. Bottom line - it was either him or Hauptmann - and he ultimately chose himself.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 26, 2021 10:13:29 GMT -5
Assume correctly here for a minute, that it's not a joke. The floor is yours unless you have nothing further to say. Joe, your position is completely destroyed easily by all of the examples surrounding Condon's conduct. You asked if there was evidence to conclude that " Condon ever having acted in a way that even slightly went against the grain of his original desire to best serve the Lindberghs and see CALjr safely returned to them." Again - are you kidding me? There's two parts to looking at this thing. First, get the child back to his parents. The second would be to catch the murderers. Condon assumed the role of BOTH and was in a position to do so. However, his tactics never change. He's lying and obstructing both before and after the child was found dead. So assigning him innocent motives for his illegal conduct before the dead child was found does not work. He did everything imaginable keep the police chasing their own tails. He did everything he could NOT to identify Hauptmann, having twice claimed he was NOT Cemetery John. Even took off for Florida to find a Scapegoat. And so one has to ignore a whole helluva lot to accept your position. Once one steps back and looks at everything in its totality, it is quite clear to me that Condon's "job" was to get these people their money AND protect them from arrest. He did both up and until the bitter end. Even beyond that truth be told. Police and Prosecution gave him an ultimatum, and as I wrote in V3, even they weren't completely sure what he was going to say once he graced the stand. Bottom line - it was either him or Hauptmann - and he ultimately chose himself. I was curious as to what conclusive proof you had to demonstrate that Condon had anything but the best of intentions to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them, and you’re claiming he lied and obstructed before the child was found dead, to prove your point. Okay, now what specifically did he do in your mind, that in his mind, would have been intentionally detrimental towards not being able to do what he clearly professed to want to do from the very beginning? Firing a birdshot volley of insinuations and resultant what-ifs and again asking me if I’m kidding, simply has little substance and doesn’t work. And you can’t seem to help yourself but water down your argument further by extending it into events which occurred after the child’s body was found. Again, please explain how Condon just once went against the grain of his sincere desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them, ie. before May 12, 1932?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2021 11:06:46 GMT -5
I was curious as to what conclusive proof you had to demonstrate that Condon had anything but the best of intentions to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them, and you’re claiming he lied and obstructed before the child was found dead, to prove your point. Okay, now what specifically did he do in your mind, that in his mind, would have been intentionally detrimental towards not being able to do what he clearly professed to want to do from the very beginning? Firing a birdshot volley of insinuations and resultant what-ifs and again asking me if I’m kidding, simply has little substance and doesn’t work. And you can’t seem to help yourself but water down your argument further by extending it into events which occurred after the child’s body was found. Again, please explain how Condon just once went against the grain of his sincere desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them, ie. before May 12, 1932? Joe, I wrote damn near an entire book that lays it all out for you. Asking and re-asking doesn't change that. It's all right there. The " best intention" argument doesn't work because he continues to follow the same pattern of lies and deception even AFTER the child turns up dead. So this idea that the lies and deception were utilized and meant to secure a living child died once that corpse was discovered. One might argue that he himself was afraid of death. Well, okay, but that also ruins this idea he was being sincere doesn't it? You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Exactly why I have no idea. That my friend is for you to figure out.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 26, 2021 11:31:44 GMT -5
I was curious as to what conclusive proof you had to demonstrate that Condon had anything but the best of intentions to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them, and you’re claiming he lied and obstructed before the child was found dead, to prove your point. Okay, now what specifically did he do in your mind, that in his mind, would have been intentionally detrimental towards not being able to do what he clearly professed to want to do from the very beginning? Firing a birdshot volley of insinuations and resultant what-ifs and again asking me if I’m kidding, simply has little substance and doesn’t work. And you can’t seem to help yourself but water down your argument further by extending it into events which occurred after the child’s body was found. Again, please explain how Condon just once went against the grain of his sincere desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them, ie. before May 12, 1932? Joe, I wrote damn near an entire book that lays it all out for you. Asking and re-asking doesn't change that. It's all right there. The " best intention" argument doesn't work because he continues to follow the same pattern of lies and deception even AFTER the child turns up dead. So this idea that the lies and deception were utilized and meant to secure a living child died with him. One might argue that he himself was afraid of death. Well, okay, but that also ruins this idea he was being sincere doesn't it? You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Exactly why I have no idea. That my friend is for you to figure out. Michael, as it pertains to Condon, you wrote a book that includes a lot of case and non-case related information, much of it not widely known previously. From that information, you've apparently concluded it goes hand-in-hand with the same basic theory you've been subtly implying for over 15 years, only to having recently ratcheted things up over the past couple of volumes to the point you're now expressing more strongly, an apparently dyed-in-the-wool theory that Condon was an accomplice within the kidnapping of CALjr and/or the extortion. That’s your prerogative of course and I’m not debating your right to express your opinion. But I've asked you a very simple question to substantiate this and instead of providing one conclusive example of one instance where Condon intentionally went against the grain of his sincere desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them, you resort to waving your arms in the air in feigned exasperation, claiming you've already done it all. Well my friend, the way I see it anyway, you haven’t done that at all. You may have noticed by now I’ve been repeating myself ad nauseum about the question of Condon’s true intentions, but I don’t know how else to keep things on track here given the noise and resistance I’m getting to a very reasonable request.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2021 15:53:45 GMT -5
Haven’t you read my posts? I went back and reread them and there it was: It’s all in the books - which is why I wrote them. I even specifically mentioned Condon refusing to identify Hauptmann then going to Florida looking for a scapegoat as a replacement for him. And here you are continuing to claim I’ve given no examples and insist this guy was sincere?
Next, don’t worry about any theory you believe I hold. It’s getting in the way of your observations and clouding your judgement. Condon was clearly an accessory to the extortion. Once it was completed, he continued to obstruct police. He lied so many times about so many things it’s impossible to determine if he ever told the truth at all. Did a woman come to the bazzar? Who brought him to Tuckahoe - Reich or Kay? Did he see a woman there or didn’t he? Was he there when the Needle Salesman came to his house or wasn’t he? Why did he make up the 2nd taxi driver? They all cannot be true. You see it yourself which is why you are trying to “justify” it by saying his motives were sincere. Why not simply draw the straight line instead of playing the lottery? Demanding I rewrite my book here doesn’t assist and represents more of a stall tactic.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 26, 2021 19:03:28 GMT -5
You got the geography wrong, Joe. This Taunton, where Condon stayed overnight, was in Massachusetts, not New York. BTW, what is the distance between Taunton, MA and the Massachusetts hunting camp which Hauptmann was known to have visited during the period between the purported kidnapping and Hauptmann's arrest?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 27, 2021 7:32:32 GMT -5
You got the geography wrong, Joe. This Taunton, where Condon stayed overnight, was in Massachusetts, not New York. BTW, what is the distance between Taunton, MA and the Massachusetts hunting camp which Hauptmann was known to have visited during the period between the purported kidnapping and Hauptmann's arrest? Good catch Hurtelable, and right you are. Regarding your question, I really have no idea, but have a feeling you're about to tell me. What do you feel is/might be, the relationship between Condon having stayed in Taunton, MA four days before his Flemington testimony and Hauptmann having visited a Massachusetts hunting camp, courtesy of Lindbergh's money? Here's a present day picture of the Hotel Belmore, home now to The Ugly Duckling Restaurant and a pawn shop.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Mar 27, 2021 7:49:55 GMT -5
Taunton, MA is about a 1/2 hour away from Horseneck Beach.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 27, 2021 8:41:39 GMT -5
Here's yet another gentleman who claimed Jafsie told him CJ wasn't Hauptmann. imgur.com/COIlZFP
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 28, 2021 15:07:04 GMT -5
Haven’t you read my posts? I went back and reread them and there it was: It’s all in the books - which is why I wrote them. I even specifically mentioned Condon refusing to identify Hauptmann then going to Florida looking for a scapegoat as a replacement for him. And here you are continuing to claim I’ve given no examples and insist this guy was sincere? Next, don’t worry about any theory you believe I hold. It’s getting in the way of your observations and clouding your judgement. Condon was clearly an accessory to the extortion. Once it was completed, he continued to obstruct police. He lied so many times about so many things it’s impossible to determine if he ever told the truth at all. Did a woman come to the bazzar? Who brought him to Tuckahoe - Reich or Kay? Did he see a woman there or didn’t he? Was he there when the Needle Salesman came to his house or wasn’t he? Why did he make up the 2nd taxi driver? They all cannot be true. You see it yourself which is why you are trying to “justify” it by saying his motives were sincere. Why not simply draw the straight line instead of playing the lottery? Demanding I rewrite my book here doesn’t assist and represents more of a stall tactic. Demanding you rewrite your book? I didn't say that. I may not always agree with you but I respect your right to an opinion.. in your own book for heaven's sake! I believe what may be clouding your own judgment here Michael, when trying to assess Condon’s true intent behind his original offer to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them, is a lack of consideration of all possibilities within his words and actions, and not seeing each of these possibilities independently of each other. As I’ve stated many times, I consider your research to be outstanding and understand it has assisted countless case researchers, as well as myself. In the conclusions department however, I believe time and time again, you make too many assumptions. And I also believe these assumptions which then only seem to multiply upon themselves through repetition are in large part, influenced by your base suspicion of Condon’s character and motives, gleaned from similar assumptions. I can't help but think of Inspector Harry Walsh here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 28, 2021 18:33:47 GMT -5
I believe what may be clouding your own judgment here Michael, when trying to assess Condon’s true intent behind his original offer to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them, is a lack of consideration of all possibilities within his words and actions, and not seeing each of these possibilities independently of each other. As I’ve stated many times, I consider your research to be outstanding and understand it has assisted countless case researchers, as well as myself. In the conclusions department however, I believe time and time again, you make too many assumptions. And I also believe these assumptions which then only seem to multiply upon themselves through repetition are in large part, influenced by your base suspicion of Condon’s character and motives, gleaned from similar assumptions. I can't help but think of Inspector Harry Walsh here. Okay so there's about 50 or so instances that once considered in their totality are both staggering and overwhelming proof that Condon's character and motives are not legitimate. However, because I like you, I will spoon feed you just one. Just one. And this alone, in my opinion, is more than enough. Lets look at the "Needle Salesman" shall we? The account originates from Breckinridge who claimed both he and Condon interacted with this guy. Breckinridge claimed the man was suspicious and that he believed was connected to the crime in some way. So the "FBI" decided to eventually follow this up well AFTER the child was already discovered dead. Let me say that again: The child was DEAD. Special Agent Seykora interviewed Condon about this man. Condon remembered the encounter and approximately when it occurred (" on or about March 15th, 1932"), and went into great detail describing this man. His height. His build. His hair. His eyes. His age. His clothes. He even went so far as to suggest he may have been the "Lookout" he saw at Woodlawn Cemetery! So yes, it appears he is doing everything he can to assist with the investigation. AND YET - less than a month later Special Agent Sisk approached Condon about this very same subject but on this occasion Condon told him he was NOT home when this man came to the house!!!! Now let's assume Lindbergh is an innocent victim in all of this. His son was kidnapped and murdered. Plus he paid 50K and the culprits were still at large. Now how in the HELL is Condon assisting or acting in good faith by engaging in the behavior above? Am I really "assuming" when I assert the man was either home or he wasn't? So we have options to consider. He's lying in one place - or even possibly BOTH. It's obstruction no matter how one spins it. Now, do you really expect me to believe you see this as an example of good faith? And remember, this is just one example of MANY.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 2, 2021 10:04:26 GMT -5
Let me see if I understand your argument correctly here, “staggering and overwhelming proof” as it appears to you in “just one” example, that Condon acted the above way and knowingly went against what he professed from the beginning, ie. a sincere desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them.
You’re stating here that because he apparently contradicted himself entirely in the case of the Needle Salesman’s visit, that his intent and motives are therefore clearly counter to any such desire. In other words, he is now part and parcel, a willing participant or accessory within the criminal death of the son of his hero, Charles Lindbergh, a willing confederate of the individual(s) who extorted $50,000 from Lindbergh for a corpse, and further, he has now put himself in line to receive punishment, up to and including the death penalty for this participation?
Am I understanding your spoon fed information correctly here?
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Apr 2, 2021 10:55:48 GMT -5
I am not trying here to interject an opinion into the current conversation though it does seem to be true that Condon did not always tell a story in the same way twice. Here is one story that Condon told that may or may not have been true, but if true, it has some interesting implications. Condon said that a distraught woman visited him to give him some information and ask his help. He would not ever reveal her name but said that she was a good woman from a bad family. It occurred to me that this woman may have been Sophie Rosenthal Cerardi, Enrico Cerardi's wife. When Breckinridge met with Peter Birritella and Mary Cerrito, the "spirits" told him through Mary that the initials JFC were important to the case. At that time Condon had not yet entered the case or written his famous letter to the Bronx paper. The marriage license issued to Sophie and Enrico was issued on January 21, 1929 in Manhattan. Under the name of Carmela Cararudo, Enrico lived in Westchester, NY according to the 1930 Census. According to one source, Cerardi admitted having conversation with Peter Birritella. Sophie may have been sent to Condon with some information concerning the kidnapping and obtain some agreement for his assistance prior to the Bainbridge/Birritella meeting. Sophie could not have been comfortable with the situation, but she may not have had any choice. According to her sister, Sophie had been kept a virtual prisoner for two years (statement made in 1934). The inference made was that Enrico and Charles Maran, Sophie's son, kept her locked up and deprived her of food because they wanted to collect on her $10,000 insurance policy; however, according to her sister, Sophie had been healthy up to 1931. It's possible that she was kept locked up to prevent her from telling what she knew. If Condon had been approached prior to the kidnapping, then he may well have had more information about the case than he was willing to disclose, perhaps because of his promises to the unidentified woman.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 2, 2021 12:48:07 GMT -5
Let me see if I understand your argument correctly here, “staggering and overwhelming proof” as it appears to you in “just one” example, that Condon acted the above way and knowingly went against what he professed from the beginning, ie. a sincere desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them. You’re stating here that because he apparently contradicted himself entirely in the case of the Needle Salesman’s visit, that his intent and motives are therefore clearly counter to any such desire. In other words, he is now part and parcel, a willing participant or accessory within the criminal death of the son of his hero, Charles Lindbergh, a willing confederate of the individual(s) who extorted $50,000 from Lindbergh for a corpse, and further, he has now put himself in line to receive punishment, up to and including the death penalty for this participation? Am I understanding your spoon fed information correctly here? “Apparently?” What do you consider a lie if it’s not giving one super specific account including a detailed description of a person claimed to have been encountered and interacted with, then another claiming there was no encounter because he wasn’t even home at the time? This, you allege, is supposed to be Condon being “helpful” in his desire to help Lindbergh? Give me a break! If you’re ever a witness to a car accident and try pulling this you’re gonna be in big trouble my friend. Then to try explaining it was all part of some grand scheme to “assist” will get you thrown into a mental institution. It’s one example of MANY. He obstructed police, lied, and otherwise assisted with giving the Extortionists the ransom. At the very least he’s an accessory to that crime. Now, if one considers the Extortionists were connected to the kidnapping then do the math. I’m not saying he was in it from the beginning, but it’s probably more like a friend helping to get rid of a body after a buddy calls him for help because he just killed his wife.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 2, 2021 18:33:30 GMT -5
Let me see if I understand your argument correctly here, “staggering and overwhelming proof” as it appears to you in “just one” example, that Condon acted the above way and knowingly went against what he professed from the beginning, ie. a sincere desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them. You’re stating here that because he apparently contradicted himself entirely in the case of the Needle Salesman’s visit, that his intent and motives are therefore clearly counter to any such desire. In other words, he is now part and parcel, a willing participant or accessory within the criminal death of the son of his hero, Charles Lindbergh, a willing confederate of the individual(s) who extorted $50,000 from Lindbergh for a corpse, and further, he has now put himself in line to receive punishment, up to and including the death penalty for this participation? Am I understanding your spoon fed information correctly here? “Apparently?” What do you consider a lie if it’s not giving one super specific account including a detailed description of a person claimed to have been encountered and interacted with, then another claiming there was no encounter because he wasn’t even home at the time? This, you allege, is supposed to be Condon being “helpful” in his desire to help Lindbergh? Give me a break! If you’re ever a witness to a car accident and try pulling this you’re gonna be in big trouble my friend. Then to try explaining it was all part of some grand scheme to “assist” will get you thrown into a mental institution. It’s one example of MANY. He obstructed police, lied, and otherwise assisted with giving the Extortionists the ransom. At the very least he’s an accessory to that crime. Now, if one considers the Extortionists were connected to the kidnapping then do the math. I’m not saying he was in it from the beginning, but it’s probably more like a friend helping to get rid of a body after a buddy calls him for help because he just killed his wife. Michael, I don’t know exactly why Condon denied being at home when the Needle Salesman called, after claiming he was and had previously provided a full description. It would also be a great idea here for you to stop pretending you fully understand why, and by extension, that his actions prove conclusively he had suddenly decided to conspire against Lindbergh. Flailing one's arms in the air doesn't mean anything.. or work here. Next, and without skipping a beat you then imply, well okaaay.. then maybe Condon came into the case with the best of intentions to serve the Lindberghs, but soon realized his hero had previously decided to get rid of his son, and so now he now had to play ball.. or else. I mean after all, this is Big Bad Lindbergh we’re talking about. So what does Condon do in response? According to you, he falls in to the grand plan lockstep and as a result, decides to forsake each and personal, community-minded and universal value he has so demonstrably espoused in print and speech over the years, so he can be a willing participant in a murder. I think it’s time to give your head a good shake before you wander out any further on that limb.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 2, 2021 20:03:46 GMT -5
“Apparently?” What do you consider a lie if it’s not giving one super specific account including a detailed description of a person claimed to have been encountered and interacted with, then another claiming there was no encounter because he wasn’t even home at the time? This, you allege, is supposed to be Condon being “helpful” in his desire to help Lindbergh? Give me a break! If you’re ever a witness to a car accident and try pulling this you’re gonna be in big trouble my friend. Then to try explaining it was all part of some grand scheme to “assist” will get you thrown into a mental institution. It’s one example of MANY. He obstructed police, lied, and otherwise assisted with giving the Extortionists the ransom. At the very least he’s an accessory to that crime. Now, if one considers the Extortionists were connected to the kidnapping then do the math. I’m not saying he was in it from the beginning, but it’s probably more like a friend helping to get rid of a body after a buddy calls him for help because he just killed his wife. Michael, I don’t know exactly why Condon denied being at home when the Needle Salesman called, after claiming he was and had previously provided a full description. It would also be a great idea here for you to stop pretending you fully understand why, and by extension, that his actions prove conclusively he had suddenly decided to conspire against Lindbergh. Flailing one's arms in the air doesn't mean anything.. or work here. Next, and without skipping a beat you then imply, well okaaay.. then maybe Condon came into the case with the best of intentions to serve the Lindberghs, but soon realized his hero had previously decided to get rid of his son, and so now he now had to play ball.. or else. I mean after all, this is Big Bad Lindbergh we’re talking about. So what does Condon do in response? According to you, he falls in to the grand plan lockstep and as a result, decides to forsake each and personal, community-minded and universal value he has so demonstrably espoused in print and speech over the years, so he can be a willing participant in a murder. I think it’s time to give your head a good shake before you wander out any further on that limb. You are moving the goalposts Joe. You are also all over the place. And finally, you are so worried about my position that you will accept anything to the contrary no matter how absurd as some sort of rebuttal. Again - this is merely one example. And one you can’t even explain it to your own satisfaction. Think of all the others if you have the time. And I mean that because there are so many it could take a while. Examples: He hid the ransom box and lied about it. He lied about who made that box. He lied about what it was made out of. He told conflicting stories about the woman at the bazar. He told cops Reich drove him to Tuckahoe then later said Kay drove him. He said he met a woman, then denied he did, then said he did again. He told multiple stories about the woman Silken drove, lied, and Silken threw him under the bus. Remember his reaction? I certainly do, reacting in a way only a guilty person who’s caught lying reacts... Need more? It’s just the tip of the iceberg. The bigger question is why you shrug off, avoid, evade, or pretend they did not occur. After all, it’s YOUR position the guy was both honest and helpful!!! So Joe - “no” these lies weren’t consistent with assisting anyone but the Extortionists. There’s nothing “positive” or “helpful” to authorities because all it did was mislead them causing them to completely waste their time chasing their tails. And that was no accident and absolutely by design.
|
|
|
Post by trojan on Apr 3, 2021 1:54:28 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 3, 2021 7:12:02 GMT -5
Michael, I don’t know exactly why Condon denied being at home when the Needle Salesman called, after claiming he was and had previously provided a full description. It would also be a great idea here for you to stop pretending you fully understand why, and by extension, that his actions prove conclusively he had suddenly decided to conspire against Lindbergh. Flailing one's arms in the air doesn't mean anything.. or work here. Next, and without skipping a beat you then imply, well okaaay.. then maybe Condon came into the case with the best of intentions to serve the Lindberghs, but soon realized his hero had previously decided to get rid of his son, and so now he now had to play ball.. or else. I mean after all, this is Big Bad Lindbergh we’re talking about. So what does Condon do in response? According to you, he falls in to the grand plan lockstep and as a result, decides to forsake each and personal, community-minded and universal value he has so demonstrably espoused in print and speech over the years, so he can be a willing participant in a murder. I think it’s time to give your head a good shake before you wander out any further on that limb. You are moving the goalposts Joe. You are also all over the place. And finally, you are so worried about my position that you will accept anything to the contrary no matter how absurd as some sort of rebuttal. Again - this is merely one example. And one you can’t even explain it to your own satisfaction. Think of all the others if you have the time. And I mean that because there are so many it could take a while. Examples: He hid the ransom box and lied about it. He lied about who made that box. He lied about what it was made out of. He told conflicting stories about the woman at the bazar. He told cops Reich drove him to Tuckahoe then later said Kay drove him. He said he met a woman, then denied he did, then said he did again. He told multiple stories about the woman Silken drove, lied, and Silken threw him under the bus. Remember his reaction? I certainly do, reacting in a way only a guilty person who’s caught lying reacts... Need more? It’s just the tip of the iceberg. The bigger question is why you shrug off, avoid, evade, or pretend they did not occur. After all, it’s YOUR position the guy was both honest and helpful!!! So Joe - “no” these lies weren’t consistent with assisting anyone but the Extortionists. There’s nothing “positive” or “helpful” to authorities because all it did was mislead them causing them to completely waste their time chasing their tails. And that was no accident and absolutely by design. You're right Michael, when you say I can’t satisfactorily conclude why Condon would deny being at home after providing a full eye-witness description of the Needle Salesman. I can offer a number of suggestions which might begin to shed some light and therefore advance the case, including the possibility he was instructed by Breckinridge or Lindbergh, but I highly doubt he did this solely on his own accord, unless it was by way of a legitimate mental lapse or confusion. Bottom line here is that it does not prove he was a confederate of the extortionists or that he was shafting Lindbergh. Toting such a Reilly-esque conclusion that he was as basis for complicity, would get you tossed out of court so quickly, your head would spin for days. Here’s where we differ when it comes to actually turning the gears and processing factually-proven information, mein freund. You believe you know the answer to this conundrum, as well as all of your other examples, when the truth of the matter is you do not. Period. Your time-worn tactic when it comes to the actions or words of Condon, (or Lindbergh for that matter) assuming the jigsaw pieces don’t fit neatly into place to form a clear picture that even a LKC novice could not possibly miss, is to simply default to a position which concludes unequivocally that this is yet another example of Condon working counter to his originally expressed desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely CALjr to them. Doesn't help the case.. Of course he wanted to ensure the extortionists got their money. Why do you think he went to St. Raymond’s with Lindbergh carrying the ransom payment, even though Lindbergh would not have blamed him if he wanted to opt out? And didn’t Condon even go the extra mile through his request for some kind of receipt from CJ, with instructions where to find the child? Do you conclude, again unequivocally from this as well as his gesture of wanting to save Lindbergh 20K, he was ultimately working against the grain of sincerely desiring to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them? Along the above theme, I’ll tell you something else about this “yet another example”, where you conclude again unequivocally, through the St. Raymond’s ransom payment process that Condon’s actions were counter to the interests of his hero Charles Lindbergh. It’s simply fraught with pitfalls. And if you’d like to discuss and perhaps re-define this event in a forum that sets aside all pre-conceived notions and explores only the factually-proven information, I’m all in.
|
|