Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 3, 2021 7:48:41 GMT -5
It's almost impossible to get through this article without seeing who had the real king-sized ego. Nice though that Hoage, probably earned a good paycheque for this surrealistic hatchet job. What is meant by Condon not being on the "up and up?" In what way does he act, which goes against the grain of his originally-expressed desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them? Please clarify.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 3, 2021 11:02:37 GMT -5
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. So Breckinridge outted him, and yet you believe a possible answer is that Breckinridge later told him to lie? Just look at what you are doing here, and how you are approaching a common sense situation. You are surrounding yourself with high odds explanations while ignoring the obvious. Just look at what you " highly doubt." Who are you trying to convince if not yourself? So instead of drawing a straight line first, as a possible way to decipher, you elect to take various shots in the dark. Anywhere and everywhere except the most logical choice in most every other situation that's been known to mankind. And so "of course" you can't bring yourself to believe the old man was lying unless there's a far-fetched reason you can dream up. Any will do concerning HIM. Funny part is that you revert back to a normal way of thinking if similar situations apply to Hauptmann or someone who holds a position you do not like. What gives? Exactly why do you give Condon an exception for each of his hundred or so lies, obstruction, and deceptive behavior? .... Well you answer that above don't you? It's more of a psychological response due to theories you believe I hold. So you cannot allow yourself to merely judge the situations on their own merits because if Condon "falls" then I "win." Take me out of the equation and what do you have? I submit a sincere assessment. But you just can't get past it because the truth of the matter, for you, leads to a place that's completely unacceptable. 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.. Need I say more? For you, its not about Condon - not really. It's the bigger picture you are worried about. So what you are doing is disingenuous. 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? Exactly my point. He got them the money. But he was supposedly "betrayed" wasn't he? At that point all bets should have been off. But they weren't. Condon continued on with the exact same conduct and behavior. Once looking at it through this lens, one has to rethink his motives priorthere to. For example, if one was so gullible as to think his removing the 20K was actually to save Lindbergh money before the child turned up dead, there's no way possible not to suspect a nefarious motive after he does AND with Condon all the while continuing to lie and misdirect police. Lies, tampering, and misdirection both before AND after the money was turned over. Both before AND after the child was found dead. You cannot have your cake and eat it to. That's simply not real life Joe. 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. He lied. He pulled a "bait & switch." He handed off the money in a different place, stashed the box in that bush, then lied to everyone who you say he was "helping." Do I want to discuss alternative explanations? Isn't that what the Board is for? And yet, if its more of the same, or something like Uebel was "drinking," or Condon "fell down and hit his head" or Lindbergh "told him to do it" then no, I'll sit that one out.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Apr 3, 2021 18:54:45 GMT -5
As Sue observed, Horseneck Beach is in Massachusetts, as is Taunton. Horseneck Beach can be found on Martha's Vineyard, not that far from the place the Lindbergh baby was claimed to be on the boat named Nelly.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Apr 3, 2021 19:35:50 GMT -5
Sorry, I should have written Elizabeth Islands, not Martha's Vineyard.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 4, 2021 11:09:36 GMT -5
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. So Breckinridge outted him, and yet you believe a possible answer is that Breckinridge later told him to lie? Just look at what you are doing here, and how you are approaching a common sense situation. You are surrounding yourself with high odds explanations while ignoring the obvious. Just look at what you " highly doubt." Who are you trying to convince if not yourself? So instead of drawing a straight line first, as a possible way to decipher, you elect to take various shots in the dark. Anywhere and everywhere except the most logical choice in most every other situation that's been known to mankind. And so "of course" you can't bring yourself to believe the old man was lying unless there's a far-fetched reason you can dream up. Any will do concerning HIM. Funny part is that you revert back to a normal way of thinking if similar situations apply to Hauptmann or someone who holds a position you do not like. What gives? Exactly why do you give Condon an exception for each of his hundred or so lies, obstruction, and deceptive behavior? .... Well you answer that above don't you? It's more of a psychological response due to theories you believe I hold. So you cannot allow yourself to merely judge the situations on their own merits because if Condon "falls" then I "win." Take me out of the equation and what do you have? I submit a sincere assessment. But you just can't get past it because the truth of the matter, for you, leads to a place that's completely unacceptable. 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.. Need I say more? For you, its not about Condon - not really. It's the bigger picture you are worried about. So what you are doing is disingenuous. 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? Exactly my point. He got them the money. But he was supposedly "betrayed" wasn't he? At that point all bets should have been off. But they weren't. Condon continued on with the exact same conduct and behavior. Once looking at it through this lens, one has to rethink his motives priorthere to. For example, if one was so gullible as to think his removing the 20K was actually to save Lindbergh money before the child turned up dead, there's no way possible not to suspect a nefarious motive after he does AND with Condon all the while continuing to lie and misdirect police. Lies, tampering, and misdirection both before AND after the money was turned over. Both before AND after the child was found dead. You cannot have your cake and eat it to. That's simply not real life Joe. 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. He lied. He pulled a "bait & switch." He handed off the money in a different place, stashed the box in that bush, then lied to everyone who you say he was "helping." Do I want to discuss alternative explanations? Isn't that what the Board is for? And yet, if its more of the same, or something like Uebel was "drinking," or Condon "fell down and hit his head" or Lindbergh "told him to do it" then no, I'll sit that one out. 1. Breckinridge outed Condon? In what capacity was Condon outed by Breckinridge? Condon entered the case and was accepted by both Breckinridge and Lindbergh on the evening of March 9, 1932. He maintained a very close and active involvement, especially with Breckinridge, up to and including the ransom payment and well beyond. No doubt, there were times when Condon’s mannerisms, words, actions and his insatiable thirst for publicity, would have given both Breckinridge and Lindbergh pause, but to carte blanche state he was outed, or that Lindbergh didn’t trust him because of the one example you pull out in Dark Corners, is simply misleading.
2. Ultimately I only addressed this theme to try and be helpful. Your “straight line” approach to personal conclusions that you then later underline as factual, despite their inherent pitfalls, may not be as obvious to you, as it is to others.
3. Condon was betrayed by CJ when he didn’t deliver the child, as were Lindbergh and Breckinridge. And as much as you may not want to believe it, yes Condon was legitimately trying to save Lindbergh 20K, primarily for the reason that 50K was the original amount and Condon felt it was unfair of the extortionist(s) to demand any more. Witness Condon’s sincere disappointment when Irey told him he had potentially jeopardized the tracing of the $50 bills. That factor was simply not on Condon’s or Lindbergh’s radar at that critical time when the return of the child was first and foremost. It’s your “straight line” thinking, only without pitfalls, that works best here, not topsy-turvy logic.
4. I don’t discount the possibility that Condon did what you are claiming, ie. having made the ransom payment down E. Tremont and out of sight of Lindbergh, and not by the Whittemore Ave. Hedgerow, as history has officially recorded. Am I correct then in believing your contention is that Lindbergh would have been no part of this re-direct plan, or was not being intentionally shielded by Condon and possibly others in Lindbergh’s camp, by this unanticipated action?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Apr 4, 2021 21:37:41 GMT -5
It's almost impossible to get through this article without seeing who had the real king-sized ego. Nice though that Hoage, probably earned a good paycheque for this surrealistic hatchet job. What is meant by Condon not being on the "up and up?" In what way does he act, which goes against the grain of his originally-expressed desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them? Please clarify. Condon lied at every single turn, as a way to clearly hinder investigators. Examples include the woman at Tuckahoe, the second cab driver, the physical characteristics and nationality of CJ, stating Hauptmann was not CJ and lying about where/how the ransom was paid. While the writing is grandiose in The Egoist, it does a good job of breaking down many of Condon's lies. If you can't finish it, then I think there is a bias there preventing you from seeing how truly dishonest and deep in this Condon was.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 5, 2021 6:55:00 GMT -5
It's almost impossible to get through this article without seeing who had the real king-sized ego. Nice though that Hoage, probably earned a good paycheque for this surrealistic hatchet job. What is meant by Condon not being on the "up and up?" In what way does he act, which goes against the grain of his originally-expressed desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them? Please clarify. Condon lied at every single turn, as a way to clearly hinder investigators. Examples include the woman at Tuckahoe, the second cab driver, the physical characteristics and nationality of CJ, stating Hauptmann was not CJ and lying about where/how the ransom was paid. While the writing is grandiose in The Egoist, it does a good job of breaking down many of Condon's lies. If you can't finish it, then I think there is a bias there preventing you from seeing how truly dishonest and deep in this Condon was. I believe the deeper bias that exists here is the one in which the individual has an almost impossible time considering any other possibility, than that Condon through his words and actions, was criminally involved within the kidnapping and/or extortion. It's an easy train to jump aboard because of his countless contradictions and double speak, but it's much tougher to keep it on the rails or even the right track without all of the inherent pitfalls. And ignoring these pitfalls while simply regurgitating the same information en masse, only keeps this case stuck in neutral, a place it's been for many years now. Show me one indisputable example where Condon's direct words or actions clearly went against the grain of his originally-expressed desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them. JUST ONE.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 5, 2021 12:34:12 GMT -5
1. Breckinridge outed Condon? In what capacity was Condon outed by Breckinridge? Condon entered the case and was accepted by both Breckinridge and Lindbergh on the evening of March 9, 1932. He maintained a very close and active involvement, especially with Breckinridge, up to and including the ransom payment and well beyond. No doubt, there were times when Condon’s mannerisms, words, actions and his insatiable thirst for publicity, would have given both Breckinridge and Lindbergh pause, but to carte blanche state he was outed, or that Lindbergh didn’t trust him because of the one example you pull out in Dark Corners, is simply misleading. Breckinridge told police Condon was there when the Needle Vendor came to the house and interacted with both of them. So yes, he "outed" Condon concerning this event. Now to your other point... Ever hear of the expression "actions speak louder than words?" Breckinridge didn't trust him. It's why he invited himself into his home after his trip to Hopewell. It's why he created fake notes to see how Condon reacted to them. Lindbergh didn't trust him either. He told Special Agent Larimer that in 1933. Prior to that, its why he replaced Reich for the ransom drop. Lanphier didn't trust him as well. He secretly went to the FBI and begged them to investigate Condon. Lamb didn't trust him. Keaten didn't trust him. Sisk didn't trust him. Manning didn't trust him. Walsh didn't trust him. Saying there's "one" example is just plain silly.
2. Ultimately I only addressed this theme to try and be helpful. Your “straight line” approach to personal conclusions that you then later underline as factual, despite their inherent pitfalls, may not be as obvious to you, as it is to others. If that is your rabbit you might want to put in back in the hat.
3. Condon was betrayed by CJ when he didn’t deliver the child, as were Lindbergh and Breckinridge. And as much as you may not want to believe it, yes Condon was legitimately trying to save Lindbergh 20K, primarily for the reason that 50K was the original amount and Condon felt it was unfair of the extortionist(s) to demand any more. Witness Condon’s sincere disappointment when Irey told him he had potentially jeopardized the tracing of the $50 bills. That factor was simply not on Condon’s or Lindbergh’s radar at that critical time when the return of the child was first and foremost. It’s your “straight line” thinking, only without pitfalls, that works best here, not topsy-turvy logic. Legitimately trying to save him 20K! LOL. You've got a big heart Joe. Please don't change. However, I recommend that you should stay away from the poker table and never buy a used car in the States.
4. I don’t discount the possibility that Condon did what you are claiming, ie. having made the ransom payment down E. Tremont and out of sight of Lindbergh, and not by the Whittemore Ave. Hedgerow, as history has officially recorded. Am I correct then in believing your contention is that Lindbergh would have been no part of this re-direct plan, or was not being intentionally shielded by Condon and possibly others in Lindbergh’s camp, by this unanticipated action? Why must you decide how you gauge or decide anything upon my theories? Look at the evidence, think about it, then come to a conclusion. Forget about Lindbergh for a minute. Condon pulled a bait and switch. Lindbergh was the one who pointed out his actions that night, and Uebel revealed something else. I put two and two together and came up with what really happened. Next step is to ask several "why" questions. Why did he do that? Why did he lie about it? How does just this deception exemplify his "assistance" to Lindbergh? Show me one indisputable example where Condon's direct words or actions clearly went against the grain of his originally-expressed desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them. JUST ONE. Again, actions speak louder than words. How did Condon "act?" Every lie. Every deceptive act. It ALL amounts to obstruction. There's so many examples where does one start? Just look at that ransom box. Where is it? Condon hid it in the bush then lied about it. Where did it go? It was evidence and its gone. Condon lied about where it went. He lied about exactly what it was made of. He lied about who built it. He committed perjury in Flemington when testifying about it. To you this doesn't amount to "one" example? He prevented to "Extortionists" from being apprehended all the while ensuring they would get their money. After they got their money, he did everything he could to continue to keep them from being apprehended. How does this equate to assisting Lindbergh in ANY way?
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Apr 5, 2021 13:28:57 GMT -5
In the latter half of the twentieth century the narcissistic personality was identified and defined for professionals dealing with mental disorders. In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5) we can find a description and identification of the symptoms of the narcissistic mental disorder: "A preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success. A belief that he or she is special and unique and can only be understood by, or associate with, other special high status people or institutions. A need for excessive admiration, a sense of entitlement." Also, "a grandiose sense of self importance." In addition, the narcissist expects to be recognized as superior, even without achievements that warrant it. The narcissist exaggerates his/her achievements and talents, monopolizes conversations, and behaves in an arrogant or haughty manner. Also the individual is described as "conceited, boastful, and pretentious. He or she may be oblivious to the needs of others. This description appears to fit the character and actions of John F. Condon.
When Breckinridge met with Peter and Mary, the spiritualists who ran the Temple of Divine Power, he was informed that he would receive a note from the kidnappers in two days. This happened. At the same time Peter and Mary told him that the initials of the intermediary would be JFC. Condon's letter to the Bronx News did not appear until March 8 so we can infer that the kidnappers had already contact Condon and related this news to the medium before the fact. Breckinridge was told to be in his office to receive the important note; he also needed to be aware that JFC was to be regarded as authentic when he became aware of the individual. Condon's letter was part of the staging. He did not offer to be an intermediary but was asked to take that role by the kidnappers. This had already been arranged, but the letter in the paper would be made public in order for the choice to appear quite in order.
A member of the kidnapping gang, or a representative chosen by the gang, met with Condon soon after the kidnapping. It has been pointed out that a member of the gang knew Condon, and very likely knew his personality and his weaknesses. He would be asked to help send the child back to his mother's arms. Condon had made a scrapbook noting all his achievements, including his numerous rescues of little boys about to drown. If he could place the kidnapped baby in the mother's arms, this would be the crowning glory. He would expect all manner of admiration. He may have met only the representative, with whom he could have conducted a previous meeting. He may not have known members of the gang although he would meet the man called John later though he would not have had the need to meet him previously.
Condon told a number of stories, often embellishing them to make himself look good. He may have believed the embellished stories once he told them, unable to distinguish fact from fancy. He may have forgotten what he said earlier, in part because of advancing age. He may have been delusional. He may not have recognized that he had been manipulated by the kidnapping gang which had assessed him well.When he became aware of the death of the baby, this was a serious blow to his gratification, but he made the most of the attention he received through the writing of books, making speeches, and letting everyone know who he was and what he had done. "I am Jafsie. Stop the bus."
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 6, 2021 12:04:15 GMT -5
1. Breckinridge outed Condon? In what capacity was Condon outed by Breckinridge? Condon entered the case and was accepted by both Breckinridge and Lindbergh on the evening of March 9, 1932. He maintained a very close and active involvement, especially with Breckinridge, up to and including the ransom payment and well beyond. No doubt, there were times when Condon’s mannerisms, words, actions and his insatiable thirst for publicity, would have given both Breckinridge and Lindbergh pause, but to carte blanche state he was outed, or that Lindbergh didn’t trust him because of the one example you pull out in Dark Corners, is simply misleading. Breckinridge told police Condon was there when the Needle Vendor came to the house and interacted with both of them. So yes, he "outed" Condon concerning this event. Now to your other point... Ever hear of the expression "actions speak louder than words?" Breckinridge didn't trust him. It's why he invited himself into his home after his trip to Hopewell. It's why he created fake notes to see how Condon reacted to them. Lindbergh didn't trust him either. He told Special Agent Larimer that in 1933. Prior to that, its why he replaced Reich for the ransom drop. Lanphier didn't trust him as well. He secretly went to the FBI and begged them to investigate Condon. Lamb didn't trust him. Keaten didn't trust him. Sisk didn't trust him. Manning didn't trust him. Walsh didn't trust him. Saying there's "one" example is just plain silly.
2. Ultimately I only addressed this theme to try and be helpful. Your “straight line” approach to personal conclusions that you then later underline as factual, despite their inherent pitfalls, may not be as obvious to you, as it is to others. If that is your rabbit you might want to put in back in the hat.
3. Condon was betrayed by CJ when he didn’t deliver the child, as were Lindbergh and Breckinridge. And as much as you may not want to believe it, yes Condon was legitimately trying to save Lindbergh 20K, primarily for the reason that 50K was the original amount and Condon felt it was unfair of the extortionist(s) to demand any more. Witness Condon’s sincere disappointment when Irey told him he had potentially jeopardized the tracing of the $50 bills. That factor was simply not on Condon’s or Lindbergh’s radar at that critical time when the return of the child was first and foremost. It’s your “straight line” thinking, only without pitfalls, that works best here, not topsy-turvy logic. Legitimately trying to save him 20K! LOL. You've got a big heart Joe. Please don't change. However, I recommend that you should stay away from the poker table and never buy a used car in the States.
4. I don’t discount the possibility that Condon did what you are claiming, ie. having made the ransom payment down E. Tremont and out of sight of Lindbergh, and not by the Whittemore Ave. Hedgerow, as history has officially recorded. Am I correct then in believing your contention is that Lindbergh would have been no part of this re-direct plan, or was not being intentionally shielded by Condon and possibly others in Lindbergh’s camp, by this unanticipated action? Why must you decide how you gauge or decide anything upon my theories? Look at the evidence, think about it, then come to a conclusion. Forget about Lindbergh for a minute. Condon pulled a bait and switch. Lindbergh was the one who pointed out his actions that night, and Uebel revealed something else. I put two and two together and came up with what really happened. Next step is to ask several "why" questions. Why did he do that? Why did he lie about it? How does just this deception exemplify his "assistance" to Lindbergh? Show me one indisputable example where Condon's direct words or actions clearly went against the grain of his originally-expressed desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return CALjr to them. JUST ONE. Again, actions speak louder than words. How did Condon "act?" Every lie. Every deceptive act. It ALL amounts to obstruction. There's so many examples where does one start? Just look at that ransom box. Where is it? Condon hid it in the bush then lied about it. Where did it go? It was evidence and its gone. Condon lied about where it went. He lied about exactly what it was made of. He lied about who built it. He committed perjury in Flemington when testifying about it. To you this doesn't amount to "one" example? He prevented to "Extortionists" from being apprehended all the while ensuring they would get their money. After they got their money, he did everything he could to continue to keep them from being apprehended. How does this equate to assisting Lindbergh in ANY way? 1. Check out the meaning of the word “outed.” One of its definitions, essentially is to expel, reject or dismiss. Condon might have been upbraided by Breckinridge over this incident as well as other testy situations, but he was not expelled, rejected or dismissed from the Inner Circle. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have been kept on as intermediary up to and included the ransom payment, and well beyond as a key case participant. Breckinridge and Lindbergh decided to accept Condon as intermediary based on his interaction with them on their first night together in Hopewell. Breckinridge’s ongoing presence in Condon’s residence had as much to do with him being readily available for any action required while the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s) dealt with Condon, as it did with the opportunity for both Breckinridge and Lindbergh, who didn’t even know Condon before March 8, 1932, to develop their trust in him through time and experience. To repeat myself, Condon was not known to any of the above investigators either, before he basically injected himself into the case. Naturally, each and every one of them would not be doing their jobs unless they maintained a professional discipline and questioning attitude within their actions and statements to fully determine Condon’s motivation, means and actions. Today, we have the 20/20 hindsight benefit of fully understanding the mainframe and nuances of Condon’s personality and character. It is little wonder investigators at the time would have entertained all kinds of doubt and suspicion along the way. In the endgame, I don’t believe any of them but for a handful of the ego-driven NJSP investigators like Lamb, Walsh and Keaten, as you routinely note and who could well have been suffering from fatigue and case overload, actually believed Condon was a willing confederate of the kidnapper(s) and/or extortionist(s) and one who ever acted with criminal intent against Lindbergh. Even Schwarzkopf was able to see the light when he sent Walsh packing and back to Jersey City. 2. That’s no rabbit Michael, and I don’t wear hats. There is far more satisfaction to be had within this case, than feeling you must prove to the world you’re right. And you seem hell-bent on doing the latter in spite of the chains dragged behind some of your own conclusions. 3. Thanks for the suggestions Michael, but I’m not a gambler so that one doesn’t really help. As for used cars, I’ve bought a number of them in Canada and have had great success with each and every one of them. Are you saying used cars are that much crappier in the US? Condon, in his inimitable way, actually boasted to Irey and company after the ransom payment that he had saved Lindbergh 20K. He didn’t just do this on his own accord; Lindbergh went along with this action at St. Raymond’s. Irey actually had to explain with some exasperation that Condon may have well cost investigators the opportunity to more easily identify those ransom bills in circulation, but he also understood Condon’s actions were intended to assist Lindbergh, and added that it was unlikely the extortionist(s) would risk spending these before the smaller denominations anyway. Remember as well, it was the ransom note writer that requested the $50 denomination of bills make up the additional 20K. While Irey’s comments deflated Condon, who hadn’t seen them coming, the latter insisted later he would have done the same again. To him, a deal was a deal, even if he was dealing with a kidnapper/extortionist. My apologies if this sounds too simple and big-hearted for your palette, but sometimes it doesn’t hurt to get back to case basics. 4. Believe me, I do look at the evidence, contemplate it ad nauseum from every known conceivable angle before drawing my own conclusions, but while always remaining open to new ideas that make sense. Putting two and two together doesn’t always give you the correct answer. The St. Raymond’s ransom note payment scenario is one where it’s clear to me you have not considered every conceivable angle before pronouncing in print that Condon knowingly betrayed Lindbergh. My personal understanding, supported by my known totality of evidence, is that Condon did one of two things at St. Raymond's. A) He made the ransom payment at the cemetery hedgerow off Whittemore Ave., as he claimed and as history has recorded, or B) He made the ransom payment down E. Tremont Ave. out of sight of Lindbergh, but with Lindbergh’s full knowledge, or in a way that he may have been at the time, knowingly shielding Lindbergh from any action which might later have been construed as aiding and abetting the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s). Given the later sighting of key participants and Lindbergh supporters such as Breckinridge, Coleman, and possibly Reich at St. Raymonds at the alleged ransom payment location, how do you explain what Uebel witnessed, other than by way of the above, or that he was witnessing a re-enactment of the ransom payment? 5. All of your examples bear a higher probability of being more satisfactorily and truthfully explained if you’re willing to disengage your thinking process from the paradigm it’s solidly entrenched in. I’d be happy to focus on any of these and rationally bring them to ground, as opposed to standing here with you simply yelling at clouds.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 6, 2021 18:14:35 GMT -5
1. Check out the meaning of the word “outed.” One of its definitions, essentially is to expel, reject or dismiss.
Are you seriously telling me you had to look the word up in the dictionary? What are you from the French section of Canada or something? While I do not dispute the secondary meaning you’ve cited above, to those of us who speak everyday English it means to reveal something previously unknown about an someone. Sorry for the confusion ... I guess? Most everything else is already in my books. For the life of me I don’t know why I bothered to write them if this information is going to be ignored or so quickly forgotten. In the summer of ‘34 Sisk wrote that most every Trooper believed Condon was involved. So basically, you are going to have to dislike the entire force as well as the FBI Agents who worked the case since they held similar views.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 8, 2021 9:17:00 GMT -5
1. Check out the meaning of the word “outed.” One of its definitions, essentially is to expel, reject or dismiss.
Are you seriously telling me you had to look the word up in the dictionary? What are you from the French section of Canada or something? While I do not dispute the secondary meaning you’ve cited above, to those of us who speak everyday English it means to reveal something previously unknown about an someone. Sorry for the confusion ... I guess? Most everything else is already in my books. For the life of me I don’t know why I bothered to write them if this information is going to be ignored or so quickly forgotten. In the summer of ‘34 Sisk wrote that most every Trooper believed Condon was involved. So basically, you are going to have to dislike the entire force as well as the FBI Agents who worked the case since they held similar views. 1. Okay, I didn’t realize you had basically invented your own meaning for the expression, as it referred to the interaction between Breckinridge and Condon. When you wrote “outed” I just assumed you weren’t implying Breckinridge had revealed Condon was gay, so I went to the alternate, perhaps a bit more time-worn and universal definition. And I don't think his dressing in drag to elude reporters qualifies here. Just so I’m somewhat aligned with your own preferred terminology, what is it that Breckinridge had revealed about Condon that was previously unknown? I can just hear Condon himself lecturing you, “Michael.. your English!” 2. It’s in the books.. that explains it all really. Is this one of the perqs of being a LKC author, ie. the self-perceived sense of entitlement to simply point at what one has put into publication, as a means of supporting your position? And I believe you just reminded me in one of your previous posts that this was a forum for debate.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 8, 2021 14:42:47 GMT -5
Okay, at the risk of being called a minion or some other cliquey schoolyard name, I gotta jump in here because this is getting ridiculous. As anyone who takes a millisecond to consider the context can tell, "outed" simply means "exposed in some form". Either way, quibbling over these kinds of BS semantics is a waste of time, since it's invariably just a lame attempt at distraction from the basic validity of an overall point. Here, that point is that Condon never told the same story in the same way twice. Some choose to see nothing suspicious at all in that--that it was the harmless mis-rememberings of a doddering old grandpa--while others take an opposing, more realistic and common-sense stance. Does this consist of Condon being some mustache-twirling criminal mastermind? No, but, just as an illustration, what's more likely? A) That someone puts an open letter in their relatively small neighborhood paper asking to be brought into one of the biggest criminal cases of the century and, against all odds, the perpetrators see this ad and think this guy is worth bringing in or even responding to, or B) that the perpetrators already knew this guy somehow and knew he could be useful, so they baited him, lied to him, and once the guy realized this and it was too late to back out, he started lying to send law enforcement chasing their tails to cover the perpetrators’ tracks so they wouldn't be caught and reveal his true involvement with them? I, for one, favor 'B'. There's nothing remotely "nutty" or "out there" about it, and it doesn't necessarily make Condon some horrible person. Vain and naive maybe, but not bad or evil. In fact, I tend to think that, initially, he really was more or less sincere in his desire to help: "I get to play a pivotal role in returning the Lindbergh Baby. True, my dealings with these guys aren't quite what I've made them out to be, but as long as the baby is restored alive and well, what's the difference? If I get some fame and money in the bargain, so much the better. Either way, once the baby is returned, no one will care about the 'how' or about anything else." And Michael referencing his books is not entitlement. All the backed-up information he points to and uses is in those books, so to make the same points again here would be to just repeat himself, which gets tiresome.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 8, 2021 14:53:53 GMT -5
1. Okay, I didn’t realize you had basically invented your own meaning for the expression, as it referred to the interaction between Breckinridge and Condon. When you wrote “outed” I just assumed you weren’t implying Breckinridge had revealed Condon was gay, so I went to the alternate, perhaps a bit more time-worn and universal definition. And I don't think his dressing in drag to elude reporters qualifies here. Just so I’m somewhat aligned with your own preferred terminology, what is it that Breckinridge had revealed about Condon that was previously unknown? I can just hear Condon himself lecturing you, “Michael.. your English!” 2. It’s in the books.. that explains it all really. Is this one of the perqs of being a LKC author, ie. the self-perceived sense of entitlement to simply point at what one has put into publication, as a means of supporting your position? And I believe you just reminded me in one of your previous posts that this was a forum for debate. 1. What? If this is supposed to be some sort of a joke I certainly dont get it. The term outed can be used wherever it applies. Again, Breckinridge was the one who first revealed that Condon was there when the Needle Salesman came to the house. This was how he outed Condon and caused him to be interviewed about the subject. 2. Regardless, what I wrote is absolutely true.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 8, 2021 20:11:10 GMT -5
Here, that point is that Condon never told the same story in the same way twice. Some choose to see nothing suspicious at all in that--that it was the harmless mis-rememberings of a doddering old grandpa--while others take an opposing, more realistic and common-sense stance. Does this consist of Condon being some mustache-twirling criminal mastermind? No, but, just as an illustration, what's more likely? A) That someone puts an open letter in their relatively small neighborhood paper asking to be brought into one of the biggest criminal cases of the century and, against all odds, the perpetrators see this ad and think this guy is worth bringing in or even responding to, or B) that the perpetrators already knew this guy somehow and knew he could be useful, so they baited him, lied to him, and once the guy realized this and it was too late to back out, he started lying to send law enforcement chasing their tails to cover the perpetrators tracks so they wouldn't be caught and reveal his true involvement with them? I, for one, favor 'B'. There's nothing remotely "nutty" or "out there" about it, and it doesn't necessarily make Condon some horrible person. Vain and naive maybe, but not bad or evil. In fact, I tend to think that, initially, he really was more or less sincere in his desire to help: "I get to play a pivotal role in returning the Lindbergh Baby. True, my dealings with these guys aren't quite what I've made them out to be, but as long as the baby is restored alive and well, what's the difference? If I get some fame and money in the bargain, so much the better. Either way, once the baby is returned, no one will care about the 'how' or about anything else." Good post that I didn’t see earlier... I’d go with option “C”: As I’ve made known, I believe Condon dropped clues, either consciously or unconsciously, through some of his made up stories and invented conversations. Examples would be when “John” told him they had something “on” him as the reason for his involvement. To me, he’s talking about himself. Also, the conversation with O’Sullivan seems significant as well. While it’s not quite the Zodiac ciphers, it is something I believe once decoded, will provide us the answers we seek. Another point is that I believe Myra knew the whole truth about her fathers involvement as well.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 8, 2021 21:39:24 GMT -5
It could be that the kidnappers/extortionists had something on Condon, yeah. And I agree that the O'Sullivan conversation is significant. I think what Condon described to O'Sullivan is probably more or less what happened--that Condon was approached by someone involved in the kidnapping who duped him by asking for his help in returning the baby to his parents. Really, they just wanted someone to act as a go-between, as someone who Lindbergh would have no choice but to give the ransom to, to then pass on to the kidnappers. They assured Condon that the baby was okay and he agreed to help out and do what he could to protect them as long as CAL Jr. was returned alive and well. He was brought in as unwitting leverage by having his vanity exploited and so he would, famous BS-er that he was, cover the kidnappers' tracks. Once Condon realized this--that the baby was dead and he was being used as a pawn to get the kidnappers money--it became imperative that he do just that. Especially given the evidence (as opposed to what people want to see or believe), I'm not sure what's so farfetched about any of this.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Apr 9, 2021 7:33:38 GMT -5
I am with you on option B, LJ. I think they appealed to his sense of vanity and may well have had something on him and it may have been a woman who originally approached him although I don't know who.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 9, 2021 7:56:01 GMT -5
1. Okay, I didn’t realize you had basically invented your own meaning for the expression, as it referred to the interaction between Breckinridge and Condon. When you wrote “outed” I just assumed you weren’t implying Breckinridge had revealed Condon was gay, so I went to the alternate, perhaps a bit more time-worn and universal definition. And I don't think his dressing in drag to elude reporters qualifies here. Just so I’m somewhat aligned with your own preferred terminology, what is it that Breckinridge had revealed about Condon that was previously unknown? I can just hear Condon himself lecturing you, “Michael.. your English!” 2. It’s in the books.. that explains it all really. Is this one of the perqs of being a LKC author, ie. the self-perceived sense of entitlement to simply point at what one has put into publication, as a means of supporting your position? And I believe you just reminded me in one of your previous posts that this was a forum for debate. 1. What? If this is supposed to be some sort of a joke I certainly dont get it. The term outed can be used wherever it applies. Again, Breckinridge was the one who first revealed that Condon was there when the Needle Salesman came to the house. This was how he outed Condon and caused him to be interviewed about the subject. 2. Regardless, what I wrote is absolutely true. Now that we’re aligned on definition and not to belabour this, but you appear to be claiming Condon said he was home and described the needle salesman, and then Condon said he wasn’t home at all. Breckinridge apparently “outs” him for saying he was home with him at the time, when Condon has already said he was home in his first account, but then recants this to say he wasn’t home. I don’t see how Breckinridge is “outing” him here, this just appears to be Condon giving two different versions of an event, for whatever reason. I’d really like to understand your position, and I'm not simply trying to undermine it
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 9, 2021 7:58:05 GMT -5
Okay, at the risk of being called a minion or some other cliquey schoolyard name, I gotta jump in here because this is getting ridiculous. As anyone who takes a millisecond to consider the context can tell, "outed" simply means "exposed in some form". Either way, quibbling over these kinds of BS semantics is a waste of time, since it's invariably just a lame attempt at distraction from the basic validity of an overall point. Here, that point is that Condon never told the same story in the same way twice. Some choose to see nothing suspicious at all in that--that it was the harmless mis-rememberings of a doddering old grandpa--while others take an opposing, more realistic and common-sense stance. Does this consist of Condon being some mustache-twirling criminal mastermind? No, but, just as an illustration, what's more likely? A) That someone puts an open letter in their relatively small neighborhood paper asking to be brought into one of the biggest criminal cases of the century and, against all odds, the perpetrators see this ad and think this guy is worth bringing in or even responding to, or B) that the perpetrators already knew this guy somehow and knew he could be useful, so they baited him, lied to him, and once the guy realized this and it was too late to back out, he started lying to send law enforcement chasing their tails to cover the perpetrators tracks so they wouldn't be caught and reveal his true involvement with them? I, for one, favor 'B'. There's nothing remotely "nutty" or "out there" about it, and it doesn't necessarily make Condon some horrible person. Vain and naive maybe, but not bad or evil. In fact, I tend to think that, initially, he really was more or less sincere in his desire to help: "I get to play a pivotal role in returning the Lindbergh Baby. True, my dealings with these guys aren't quite what I've made them out to be, but as long as the baby is restored alive and well, what's the difference? If I get some fame and money in the bargain, so much the better. Either way, once the baby is returned, no one will care about the 'how' or about anything else." And Michael referencing his books is not entitlement. All the backed-up information he points to and uses is in those books, so to make the same points again here would be to just repeat himself, which gets tiresome. I’d venture that Condon’s injection into the case had much more to do with the fact Hauptmann would have wanted nothing to do with gangsters Bitz and Spitale as intermediaries, and probably couldn’t believe his luck when he saw Condon’s letter in the Bronx Home News. Then again, Condon may never have written that letter if there was no Bitz and Spitale for him to have become incensed over. And much the lesser of two evils with Condon aboard. No question the stars were truly aligned, considering Hauptmann and Condon lived only three miles apart, but stranger things have happened in true crime cases, as well as this one. No one’s saying John Condon was a “doddering old grandpa” who didn’t know his ass from a tea kettle, but he was 72 years of age, and clearly in at least the early stages of dementia when he offered his services in the LKC, and it’s also clear he quickly got in over his head. You do offer a reasonable explanation about how his ego-driven personality would have made him potentially dupable along the way, but I see no conclusive proof he was “conscripted” ahead of his letter to the BHN. Only speculation that he was.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 9, 2021 8:40:04 GMT -5
You're right; especially after nearly 90 years, I can't offer conclusive, smoking-gun proof that Condon was brought into this in the way I describe. For me, the stars were just a little too aligned to take his word at face value, for things to have been completely innocent. The kidnappers seeing his BHN letter as quickly as they did, the O'Sullivan story, the Uebel account, the fact that he never told the same story in the same way--sure, coincidences, inconsistencies, and "alignments" happen, but taken altogether and looked at as a big picture...
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Apr 9, 2021 9:43:30 GMT -5
Peter and Mary of the Temple of Divine Power had Condon's initials days before he wrote to the Bronx newspaper. In the letter he did not offer to be the intermediary. The kidnapping gang saw the letter and then wrote to him asking him to be their "go-between." Since Peter and Mary had prior knowledge (and I do not happen to believe in spirits), the arrangements had to be made before the letter to the newspaper was written.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 9, 2021 9:56:09 GMT -5
You're right; especially after nearly 90 years, I can't offer conclusive, smoking-gun proof that Condon was brought into this in the way I describe. For me, the stars were just a little too aligned to take his word at face value, for things to have been completely innocent. The kidnappers seeing his BHN letter as quickly as they did, the O'Sullivan story, the Uebel account, the fact that he never told the same story in the same way--sure, coincidences, inconsistencies, and "alignments" happen, but taken altogether and looked at as a big picture... And exactly why it's critical to look at each and every alleged occurrence in complete isolation and based on its own merit. It's far too easy to start stacking chips together that have no reason to be stacked together, and I see this all too often in Dark Corners as well as this board at large, ie. one assumption or piece of speculation becoming necessarily amalgamative to others. It's a bit like Fisher in reverse at times. While he wasn't a subscriber, we know Hauptmann had the Bronx Home News delivered to his address and clearly he would have seen it coming in his front door before taking the stairs to his apartment. Of course he later denied being a regular reader. I think you also have to ask yourself, wouldn't it be just a bit dangerous to start contriving such a criminal endeavour so close to home between co-conspirators and with such rapidity, without immediately raising suspicion, if this really had been a setup?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 9, 2021 10:11:34 GMT -5
Well, it did raise immediate suspicion. But I think that Condon, knowing the editor of the BHN and having published pieces in that paper many times before, knew he could get something in there quickly, that there it would stand out, and as such, in a sense, would be less suspicious than someone "spotting" his ad out of all the ones in the big NY dailies. (He probably couldn't have published an open letter in one of those bigger papers, as he was able to in the BHN, anyway.) That being said, I see your point, and sure, individual incidents have to be taken on an individual basis, but they can also form a larger picture that I don't think should be shrugged off.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 9, 2021 10:13:44 GMT -5
Peter and Mary of the Temple of Divine Power had Condon's initials days before he wrote to the Bronx newspaper. In the letter he did not offer to be the intermediary. The kidnapping gang saw the letter and then wrote to him asking him to be their "go-between." Since Peter and Mary had prior knowledge (and I do not happen to believe in spirits), the arrangements had to be made before the letter to the newspaper was written. By whom, and where and when was it reported that Peter and Mary had Condon's initials before his letter appeared in the BHN?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Apr 9, 2021 13:20:21 GMT -5
Peter and Mary of the Temple of Divine Power had Condon's initials days before he wrote to the Bronx newspaper. In the letter he did not offer to be the intermediary. The kidnapping gang saw the letter and then wrote to him asking him to be their "go-between." Since Peter and Mary had prior knowledge (and I do not happen to believe in spirits), the arrangements had to be made before the letter to the newspaper was written. Aaron, I think you might have gotten this info from the April 4, 1936 Liberty article "Before the Body Was Found She Said the Lindbergh Baby was Murdered" by Frederick Collins. This interview of Mary Cerrita took place 4 years after the seance. Mary lied throughout the article. She was self-promoting lies. Take a look at Henry Breckinridge and Mickey Rosner's account of the seance (both men were there). Both accounts match and neither mentions Mary "seeing" the letters "JFC". Why? Because it didn't happen or they would have mentioned it. Especially Rosner.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 9, 2021 17:38:11 GMT -5
You're right; especially after nearly 90 years, I can't offer conclusive, smoking-gun proof that Condon was brought into this in the way I describe. For me, the stars were just a little too aligned to take his word at face value, for things to have been completely innocent. The kidnappers seeing his BHN letter as quickly as they did, the O'Sullivan story, the Uebel account, the fact that he never told the same story in the same way--sure, coincidences, inconsistencies, and "alignments" happen, but taken altogether and looked at as a big picture... Please refresh my memory as to the context of the specific O'Sullivan account you've mentioned, and why do you think it is relevant to your belief that Condon had advance communications with the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s) prior to March 8, 1932. As for the Uebel Account, if you'd like to delve a bit more into that one, I'm all in.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 9, 2021 20:30:55 GMT -5
Lloyd Gardner has a detailed outline of the O’Sullivan story in ‘The Case That Never Dies’, pg. 100 I believe. The Uebel account consists of Bernard Uebel, a St. Raymond’s Cemetery guard, seeing Condon walking around St. Raymond’s after the ransom drop, seemingly searching for something, and others retrieving the ransom box from a bush on Whittemore (as opposed to Tremont, where he said he handed it over to CJ). This is outlined in ‘Dark Corners’ (vol. 2, I think).
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Apr 9, 2021 22:43:57 GMT -5
Lloyd Gardner has a detailed outline of the O’Sullivan story in ‘The Case That Never Dies’, pg. 100 I believe. The Uebel account consists of Bernard Uebel, a St. Raymond’s Cemetery guard, seeing Condon walking around St. Raymond’s after the ransom drop, seemingly searching for something, and others retrieving the ransom box from a bush on Whittemore (as opposed to Tremont, where he said he handed it over to CJ). This is outlined in ‘Dark Corners’ (vol. 2, I think). I think it was the other way around, from what I remember. Please correct me if I'm wrong... Condon told everyone he paid the ransom on Whittemore. However, he first walked down Tremont for a reason which was never properly explained (Condon's story shifted several times). Michael's theory (if I'm right) is he gave the ransom to the kidnapper(s) on Tremont (out of Lindbergh's view), then walked back towards Lindbergh, and made a left down Whittemore. There he waited a bit, stashed the ransom box in a bush nearby and returned claiming he'd paid the ransom on Whittemore. The belief here being is he did this to give the kidnappers a head start on their getaway. Uebel, from what I remember, saw Condon around the cemetery several times before anybody in the public knew the ransom had been paid. So his statements hold some good weight. He saw people back looking around for something near where Condon said the box had been handed off. They eventually retrieved what was almost certainly the ransom box. The vehicle can be traced to Gregory Coleman, who he'd previously seen with Condon, and the passenger was Al Reich, Condon's confidant.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 10, 2021 1:22:48 GMT -5
No, you have it right. Condon walked out of view down Tremont, came back, took a left down Whittemore and then returned to the car.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 11, 2021 11:32:15 GMT -5
Lloyd Gardner has a detailed outline of the O’Sullivan story in ‘The Case That Never Dies’, pg. 100 I believe. The Uebel account consists of Bernard Uebel, a St. Raymond’s Cemetery guard, seeing Condon walking around St. Raymond’s after the ransom drop, seemingly searching for something, and others retrieving the ransom box from a bush on Whittemore (as opposed to Tremont, where he said he handed it over to CJ). This is outlined in ‘Dark Corners’ (vol. 2, I think). 1. Uebel begins in V2 at page 250 and should probably be read through to page 283. I write about him further in V3 starting on page 8 to page 12. 2. O'Sullivan is mentioned in V2 pages 390-3 concerning the "Gang of Five" story Condon told. On page 399 I take him up again, using it to introduce Silken's information which begins on page 402. All of this ties together which is why I've written it the way I have. Jumping around tends to devalue it although there's so much its hard to see how that's even possible.
|
|