|
Post by Sherlock on Jul 13, 2023 3:05:42 GMT -5
Hi stella 7, I agree. After completing our education most of us enter the world of work in a junior position and as the years roll by we are given more responsibility and maybe authority over subordinates. But certain careers confer authority over others from day one: policemen, doctors, and teachers are examples. Condon as a young man was attracted by a teaching career. By the time he retired there were thousands of youngsters who had (in theory) taken note of his every word. This would have fed into- and boosted his self importance enormously. Most doctors, policemen, and teachers handle the automatic authority of their positions without lasting effect but Condon emerged as a self-important, attention-seeking narcissistic windbag who craved audience approval. I agree with Joe that he sincerely wanted to achieve, through his efforts, the safe return of the Lindbergh child. Success would mean inevitable publicity, accolades, and the gratitude of the Lindberghs. Even failure did not stop him from appearing in theatres and store windows to highlight his role in the affair. When all the dust has settled in 1938 he was still sharing a stage with Lindbergh at an "America First" rally. He was a text book narcissist.
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 13, 2023 9:18:45 GMT -5
Steve, does the Huddleson report say anything about tattoos? Sue, I checked out Huddleson's physical examination and the only mention of anything were the " four vaccination makes in parallel on left shoulder." I could be missing it or perhaps he made no mention of the tattoos in the report. Hopefully Steve reads the post and jumps in with any information he might have to help us out. I agree with Joe that he sincerely wanted to achieve, through his efforts, the safe return of the Lindbergh child. Success would mean inevitable publicity, accolades, and the gratitude of the Lindberghs. Even failure did not stop him from appearing in theatres and store windows to highlight his role in the affair. When all the dust has settled in 1938 he was still sharing a stage with Lindbergh at an "America First" rally. He was a text book narcissist. I'm interested to hear what leads you to believe Condon was sincere Sherlock. I can't get past the myriad of evidence that shows repeated lies, misdirection, and obstruction. Those, to me, rule out sincerity. Of course, what he told Turrou .... that "they" were going to "kill" him could very well be a motive for these things but it still doesn't make him sincere. So I've considered they may have threatened him if they didn't get their money or if he ratted them out, but lying about the Needle Vendor, for example, by claiming he looked like the "Look-Out" he saw at Woodlawn, but then later telling a different Agent he wasn't there when the Needle Salesman was, cannot by any stretch be deemed "sincere." Or lying about the box. About who built it and the fact he never did turn it over to Cemetery John - both for different reasons. Keeping cops away from Samuelsohn seems to be motivated by the fact he lied about the types of wood the box was made out of - a HUGE lie. The other is self explanatory and extremely damning. All this, and its just the tip of the iceberg.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 13, 2023 14:26:55 GMT -5
I agree with Joe that he sincerely wanted to achieve, through his efforts, the safe return of the Lindbergh child. Success would mean inevitable publicity, accolades, and the gratitude of the Lindberghs. Even failure did not stop him from appearing in theatres and store windows to highlight his role in the affair. When all the dust has settled in 1938 he was still sharing a stage with Lindbergh at an "America First" rally. He was a text book narcissist. Michael proving Condon lied about the turnover of the ransom box, likely paying the extortionists down the street and then going down Whittemore just to hide the box, only to have it picked up later, should be enough to totally discredit Condon as a genuine figure in this operation. Plus him lying at every single turn, from who made the random box itself, to various descriptors of CJ, to the second taxi driver. It's all preposterous.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jul 13, 2023 15:16:06 GMT -5
Hi Michael, A good question which I agree deserves some clarification. I do think that by publishing his letter in the Bronx Home News and meeting Lindbergh, Condon sincerely believed that as intermediary he (and only he) could secure the safe return of the child. Knowing his character, the fame and adulation which would attend his success were for me his primary motivations. In other words he sincerely wanted fame and he saw the Lindbergh kidnap as a means to this end. It was all about him.
There is no doubt that Condon was devious, dishonest, and obstructive. His initial hopes of achieving fame via Charlie's safe return were most likely dashed by CJ's remark about the child being dead. Condon knew it was true. An honest man may have withdrawn at this point but Condon was not about to return to relative obscurity in the Bronx; he continued his involvement because he enjoyed being the centre of attention. As you have shown Michael, a litany of lies, misdirection and obfuscation characterised his further "contribution" to the investigation.
So in summary, Condon was sincere is his quest for fame and reknown. He was insincere and dishonest in the ways he tried to achieve it.
Best regards and "bon courage" in your work on the final volume of "Dark Corners."
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 14, 2023 20:45:24 GMT -5
So in summary, Condon was sincere is his quest for fame and reknown. He was insincere and dishonest in the ways he tried to achieve it. Thanks for the response. Okay, so I see what you are saying and I've given this some thought. What comes to mind is kinda like a mental Ponzi scheme of sorts. This is something he cannot win. Upon finding out the child could not be returned, he had to know his goal of fame was dashed - at least not the positive kind. I believe devious or not, wouldn't someone look for an off ramp? There are several times where he gets very negative press, his son is enraged by his conduct, and ultimately his daughter injects herself into the situation to try to save him from himself. And finally, Hauptmann is arrested and here comes his chance for all that he wanted: To be the Hero. Cops come to him all smiles, pat him on the back, and tell him they got the guy. All they need now is for him to identify. But no. Nope, instead he goes to Florida to try to implicate someone else. He looks bad in the press, again, and the police start to threaten him. He did everything he could to help Hauptmann until it boiled down to a "him or me" situation. Anyway, not trying to change your mind but just letting you know where my head is at. Best regards and "bon courage" in your work on the final volume of "Dark Corners." Thanks! There's new material already that I believe you will definitely be interested in.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 15, 2023 9:21:05 GMT -5
Perhaps a little reality check here.. While I don't believe this FBI summary of the LKC is entirely accurate, it's a whole lot closer than some of the overwrought and overthought speculation the LKC has attracted for over ninety years and continues to on this discussion board. And I can totally appreciate how this has happened. It's really little surprise given the veritable mountain of evidence, valid or otherwise this case produced because of whose child it was , that so many different and even off-the-wall theories exist. Boiled down to its true substance though, it's a surprisingly simple and straightforward exercise. Basic greed and a superiority complex overcoming essential and commonly accepted human values and decency, as historically demonstrated by one extraordinarily-secretive and mentally ill German carpenter from the Bronx. Very few people, if any at all in the Flemington courthouse were witness to signs of anything else, as exhibited there by Hauptmann. fbiography.com/the-crime-of-the-century-the-lindbergh-kidnapping/
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 15, 2023 12:12:26 GMT -5
Perhaps a little reality check here.. While I don't believe this FBI summary of the LKC is entirely accurate, it's a whole lot closer than some of the overwrought and overthought speculation the LKC has attracted for over ninety years and continues to on this discussion board. And I can totally appreciate how this has happened. It's really little surprise that with the virtual mountain of evidence, valid or otherwise this case produced , so many different and even off-the-wall theories exist. Boiled down to its true substance though, it's a surprisingly simple and straightforward exercise. Basic greed and a superiority complex overcoming essential and commonly accepted human values and decency, as historically demonstrated by one extraordinarily-secretive and mentally ill German carpenter from the Bronx. Very few people in the Flemington courthouse were witness to signs of anything else, as exhibited there by Hauptmann.
The problem I have with this post is how its framed. This idea that speculating over FACTS is somehow a bad thing makes little sense. After all, that's why we are here. If there was no speculation there'd be nothing to discuss. We also must be flexible enough to amend positions once facts become known that dispute a previous one. Take the FBI Summary as an example. I've always said that some of it relies on 3rd party sources, many of whom were incorrect. But I've also said that if it relies on their investigations/interactions then its a reliable source. So once the FBI Whateley interview came to light, for me, that caused me to adjust my previous position that what they wrote about him was "incorrect." I can no longer say that because it came from Whateley himself. So now speculation must occur as to why it differs with the other things said from solid sources which are also considered facts. I think the bigger problem is when some (a-hem) do not adjust for the new material and the facts which they reveal. While it can be easier just to shrug it off or merely say "speculation" as a rebuttal, it doesn't really help get us to the logical conclusions we all seek.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jul 16, 2023 2:17:48 GMT -5
trojanusc: I agree completely that Condon was a devious liar. I used "sincere" to indicate his genuine belief at the outset that he could return the living child to his parents. This hope was dashed by CJ's hint that the child was dead. He most certainly was not sincere in his obfuscation of events which only he experienced. Whether it was CJ's cough, the box, the Tuckahoe lady etc. etc. Condon has a different version for each day of the week.
Michael: Once his chance of returning the child alive was dashed Condon was not about to leave the scene. He may have been under pressure from the kidnappers (blackmail/ coercion) to remain but his narcissism was the driving force. Here he was hobnobbing with the likes of Lindbergh, Schartzkopf etc ; he wasn't going to return to obscurity. Yes, sometimes he attracted negative press coverage but like a true narcissist this bounced off him like water on a duck's back. Evan his ever-changing versions of key events was a way of keeping himself in the limelight. And as I mentioned, several years after the trial/execution he was still hamming it up at an "America First" rally with CAL by his side. The guy just would not stop.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 16, 2023 20:36:44 GMT -5
trojanusc: I agree completely that Condon was a devious liar. I used "sincere" to indicate his genuine belief at the outset that he could return the living child to his parents. This hope was dashed by CJ's hint that the child was dead. He most certainly was not sincere in his obfuscation of events which only he experienced. Whether it was CJ's cough, the box, the Tuckahoe lady etc. etc. Condon has a different version for each day of the week. Michael: Once his chance of returning the child alive was dashed Condon was not about to leave the scene. He may have been under pressure from the kidnappers (blackmail/ coercion) to remain but his narcissism was the driving force. Here he was hobnobbing with the likes of Lindbergh, Schartzkopf etc ; he wasn't going to return to obscurity. Yes, sometimes he attracted negative press coverage but like a true narcissist this bounced off him like water on a duck's back. Evan his ever-changing versions of key events was a way of keeping himself in the limelight. And as I mentioned, several years after the trial/execution he was still hamming it up at an "America First" rally with CAL by his side. The guy just would not stop. Don't you think even the way he entered into this case is suspect? The BHN letter as his official entrance into the world of the kidnappers seems highly suspect to me, at best.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jul 17, 2023 2:06:12 GMT -5
Hi trojanusc, Yes, the very slim chance that the kidnappers/extortionists were regular readers of the Bronx Home News is hard to believe. I think they chose him as intermediary (whether he knew it or not at that stage) well before the kidnap. Maybe they phoned him and he agreed to be interlocutor but wanted the public to believe it was his idea - The Grand Gesture from John F Condon - so his offer went in the BHN and his involvement began.
I think the reason he accepted so readily was his belief he could get the child back and the praise and accolades for him which would follow. But you're right: right from the beginning Condon was controlling the narrative with his deception.
Regards.
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 18, 2023 21:31:56 GMT -5
I think that Condon was brought into this as well, it's too much of a coincidence for me that his advertisement was seen in his local newspaper but I can see your point Joe and Sherlock, that his intent was indeed genuine.
Can anyone point to any other kidnappings during the 1920's/30's where a special signature was used? Was this common?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jul 19, 2023 6:51:44 GMT -5
Hi Stella7, "The Kidnap Years" by David Stout gives comprehensive coverage of the kidnapping "epidemic" in the early 1930's. One of the many unusual features of the Lindbergh case is the ransom note and the many that followed it. Usually the kidnappers contacted the family on the phone giving details of the kidnappee which only they would know as bona fides. Leaving behind a note was seen as too risky (potential sourcing of the paper, fingerprints, handwriting analysis etc.). In the few cases where a note was left it was short, sharp and to the point. Very unlike the Lindbergh notes which are long-winded, numerous, and with the intriguing signature sure to occupy many hours of police time.... Sherlock
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 19, 2023 13:07:53 GMT -5
Hi Stella7, "The Kidnap Years" by David Stout gives comprehensive coverage of the kidnapping "epidemic" in the early 1930's. One of the many unusual features of the Lindbergh case is the ransom note and the many that followed it. Usually the kidnappers contacted the family on the phone giving details of the kidnappee which only they would know as bona fides. Leaving behind a note was seen as too risky (potential sourcing of the paper, fingerprints, handwriting analysis etc.). In the few cases where a note was left it was short, sharp and to the point. Very unlike the Lindbergh notes which are long-winded, numerous, and with the intriguing signature sure to occupy many hours of police time.... Sherlock I do not believe that Hauptmann the kidnapper and extortionist, would have even considered your implied factor of obfuscation, with regards to the effect his handwritten ransom notes might have had on the police investigation. The ransom notes were strident, heavy-handed and overly prolific communications of a highly personal nature from someone who was so far off the radar but did not think of himself that way, aimed directly mano-a-American hero, Charles Lindbergh. What kind of individual is capable of such a a bizarre plan and directive? That, in itself, reveals much about the mind of Richard Hauptmann. I do agree with you that the signature was intriguing and he had a very good reason for making it that way.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 19, 2023 13:47:59 GMT -5
For me, Condon went into this with a genuine intent to help return CAL Jr. to his parents--and an equally genuine desire for fame and accolades once he did so. When the kidnappers approached him to act as intermediary, at that point, I don't think Condon had any idea that the child was dead; if he did know, why get involved at all? No, I think it was presented to him like, "We just want to return the child and get the money. Can you help us? You get fame and attention, and we'll even throw in $20K for you..." Condon thinks, "Why not? I'll be a national hero--on par with Lindbergh himself maybe--and get some money in the bargain. My dealings with these people aren't quite what I'll make them out to be, but if I help them cover their tracks and get away, and the child's returned alive and well, who will know or care about that?" They decide to "establish" communication through the BHN, and once Condon was in possession of a response from the kidnappers that had a signature symbol matching the one in the nursery ransom note, and was therefore clearly in touch with the right parties, he was over a barrel--though he didn't know it until it was sprung on him, probably at the first cemetery meeting, that the child was dead. At that point, with a dead child in the mix, he was in way over his head and it was then imperative that Condon obfuscate left and right, sending law enforcement chasing their tails, so the kidnappers would never be found and reveal his true involvement with them (that of a co-conspirator after the fact). This is exactly what Condon did, which is why the kidnappers approached him in the first place, to create a layer of insulation to their extortion scheme against Lindbergh. Since, anything else aside, it's a stretch that the kidnappers saw Condon's BHN offer as quickly as they did and would even pursue the offer without all that being part of a pre-laid plan, I think this is how it more or less went down with Condon. He was duped and used as a pawn by the kidnappers and once he phoned Hopewell saying he had a note with that symbol, I don't think he had an off-ramp.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jul 19, 2023 17:14:01 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
This is a reply to your July 13 post:
Yes, I saw the comment about vaccination marks in Huddleson's report. Thank you.
The pictures of Hauptmann at the beach -- I suppose it might be best to look at the actual photographs to see if he had tattoos.
There is a picture of Hauptmann holding his son near his canoe at the beach. There seems to be marks on his left arm (deltoid muscle area).
Other doctors may have noted that he had tattoos?
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Jul 20, 2023 4:38:01 GMT -5
Wayne is going through boxes of documents from Yale and a lot of them are love letters from CAL to the German women.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 20, 2023 11:05:48 GMT -5
For me, Condon went into this with a genuine intent to help return CAL Jr. to his parents--and an equally genuine desire for fame and accolades once he did so. When the kidnappers approached him to act as intermediary, at that point, I don't think Condon had any idea that the child was dead; if he did know, why get involved at all? No, I think it was presented to him like, "We just want to return the child and get the money. Can you help us? You get fame and attention, and we'll even throw in $20K for you..." Condon thinks, "Why not? I'll be a national hero--on par with Lindbergh himself maybe--and get some money in the bargain. My dealings with these people aren't quite what I'll make them out to be, but if I help them cover their tracks and get away, and the child's returned alive and well, who will know or care about that?" They decide to "establish" communication through the BHN, and once Condon was in possession of a response from the kidnappers that had a signature symbol matching the one in the nursery ransom note, and was therefore clearly in touch with the right parties, he was over a barrel--though he didn't know it until it was sprung on him, probably at the first cemetery meeting, that the child was dead. At that point, with a dead child in the mix, he was in way over his head and it was then imperative that Condon obfuscate left and right, sending law enforcement chasing their tails, so the kidnappers would never be found and reveal his true involvement with them (that of a co-conspirator after the fact). This is exactly what Condon did, which is why the kidnappers approached him in the first place, to create a layer of insulation to their extortion scheme against Lindbergh. Since, anything else aside, it's a stretch that the kidnappers saw Condon's BHN offer as quickly as they did and would even pursue the offer without all that being part of a pre-laid plan, I think this is how it more or less went down with Condon. He was duped and used as a pawn by the kidnappers and once he phoned Hopewell saying he had a note with that symbol, I don't think he had an off-ramp. With all the seeming concern on this discussion forum that it was a bit too coincidental for Condon to have lived in such close proximity to the ransom note writer / reader of the Bronx Home News, would this then have advisable and planned move on the part of the kidnappers / extortionists to reach out to an intermediary like Condon, knowing the so-called "go between" CJ lived in the same area? That Condon and Hauptmann lived near each other is no more coincidental than the many other associations of a similar nature that pervade this case. The stimuli for Condon's entry into the case were clearly stated by him and independently observed by family and friends who were well aware of his general disgust and personal desire to help out in what he considered a national disgrace. This, not only for the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh Jr., but that Lindbergh felt he had to resort to services offered by the criminal underworld to get his child back, the latter being the event that triggered Condon to finally take action.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jul 20, 2023 11:13:44 GMT -5
I will love all of you forever, Careu Kent
------------------------------------------------------------Tear off here--------------------------------------------------------------------------To whom it may concern,
I have to spend over 90% of my time away from you and the children so I cannot watch them grow or advise them as a normal father would. However, be assured that but you have my undying love for ever. Monthly cheque enclosed. Maintain secrecy at all costs. I will love all of you forever, Careu Kent
-----------------------------------------------------------Tear off here-------------------------------------------------------------------------- To whom it may concern, I have to spend over 90% of my time away from you and the children so I cannot watch them grow or advise them as a normal father would.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 20, 2023 11:27:20 GMT -5
I will love all of you forever, Careu Kent ------------------------------------------------------------Tear off here--------------------------------------------------------------------------To whom it may concern, I have to spend over 90% of my time away from you and the children so I cannot watch them grow or advise them as a normal father would. However, be assured that but you have my undying love for ever. Monthly cheque enclosed. Maintain secrecy at all costs. I will love all of you forever, Careu Kent -----------------------------------------------------------Tear off here-------------------------------------------------------------------------- To whom it may concern, I have to spend over 90% of my time away from you and the children so I cannot watch them grow or advise them as a normal father would. Would the three women partners of Lindbergh not have had any responsibility and accountability within mutually intimate relationships that involved them having to raise a total of 7 children, knowing this would be an exercise to be undertaken primarily on their own? Your funny, but one-dimensional commentary, would appear to imply they had no minds of their owns or the ability to make personal decisions.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 20, 2023 16:28:10 GMT -5
I think the kidnappers were Bronx-based, living and operating near Condon. They knew something about him and knew he'd be useful. But if Condon was on the up-and-up--if, as he said, he just placed an open letter in his local paper on his own--I'm not seeing why the kidnappers would've taken Condon up on his offer or accepted him as an intermediary based on that letter alone: "What can he really do for us? There must be hundreds of people who want in on this. Do we need an extra person? What is he going to want for his trouble? Can we trust him? Etc..." The speed of the kidnappers' response to his BHN letter coupled with their immediate acceptance of him, someone they ostensibly had no prior connection with, is what's suspect to me. There are always alternative explanations or excuses, but that's just odd.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jul 21, 2023 2:13:28 GMT -5
Hi Joe. These women, as you say, bore the heavy end of the arrangement having to raise the children alone and deal with the stigma and awkward questions which a single mother must endure. Fully aware of this they went ahead with the production of Lindbergh's children. I can understand a passionate extra-marital affair where a child is born. Divorce and marriage to the new mother follow. These things do happen even if they shouldn't and if the first marriage is dead it can be beneficial to all parties. And maybe there were strong feelings, I hesitate to use "love", in the first relationship. But any tolerance I might have for a single relationship/birth runs dry at the sheer scale of this operation: SEVEN children with THREE women!! There's something clinical about it. Deliberate. Planned. We can speculate as to why it happened invoking gene-spreading on Lindbergh's side and financial security for the unmarried ladies. The whole thing is a sideshow having nothing to do with March 1932 except that it adds to our understanding of Lindbergh's character which is not improved by this episode.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jul 21, 2023 5:45:12 GMT -5
Hi lightningjew, I agree with the points raised in your postings. In the third ransom note the kidnappers/extortionists made it clear that (1) they would not accept a Lindbergh-appointed go-betweeen and (2) they would arrange something from their side. So this is a clear statement that the kidnappers will take the initiative in appointing an intermediary which fits very well with their selection of Condon even before his letter appeared in the Bronx Home News. I too cannot see them accepting Condon just on the strength of his BHN letter. He could be anybody. Maybe a crank. They chose him because of his experience with children, and his apparent respectability as a well-known local figure. They were street-smart and saw he could be manipulated to their advantage. Right off the bat Condon made it clear that the return of the child was more important than catching the criminals. Condon's proposal to Lindbergh that he act as interlocutor was a Condon/criminals agreement well before his 'official' acceptance as intermediary by them. Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Jul 21, 2023 8:05:12 GMT -5
I think Sherlock's assessment of Lindbergh's extra-marital affairs is very accurate. Please check out the video I am posting below about Lindbergh and his affairs. It was about having more children. Not romantic love. You can begin listening about the German families at time mark 30:50. youtu.be/FquvfNcIML4
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jul 22, 2023 8:07:29 GMT -5
Hi A Guest, Thanks. A great documentary with several perceptive comments on Lindbergh's character. I will not be the only one to examine the handwriting on those "love letters" very closely. Regards, Sherlock
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 25, 2023 6:02:58 GMT -5
Joe, at the very least Condon was desperate to stay relevant to the investigation, even after the baby's body was found. I'm certainly no psychologist but his behavior seems narcissistic to me. Norma, I don't question at all Condon's propensity for narcissism, given his obviously garrulous and bumptious personality, however there is much more going on here than someone intent only on seeing his name in lights. He genuinely cared about people, as evidenced by his lifelong dedication towards education, community service and volunteerism, long before and after the kidnapping case. And as he resolutely maintained after first hearing of the abduction, and then that Lindbergh felt compelled to having to deal with the underworld to get his son back, he wanted nothing more than to fulfill his personal vow of being able to safely return Charlie to his mother. As corny as that might sound to some, I do believe that desire was truly heartfelt and came first and foremost in his mind.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 26, 2023 9:36:10 GMT -5
I suggested that after service as a teenage gunner, head trauma, and the loss of two brothers in WW1 Hauptmann would be a candidate for a diagnosis of PTSD. I cannot prove that he had this condition by ticking any of the symptoms in your list Joe but I still maintain that this remains a possibility. The available information on Hauptmann’s life from 1919 to 1932 indicates that there were no lasting effects which might have influenced his behaviour in 1932. Hauptmann “having no time or bother to consider….PTSD,” does not change the possibility of him suffering from it. In those days it was known as “shell shock” and was often seen by ignorant people as evidence of cowardice in combat. As such it was often hidden. I agree with your assessment here of Hauptmann and the possibility of PTSD. His military experience very much impacted his life after returning home to Kamenz. The loss of his two brothers did way into Hauptmann's thinking about himself. Hauptmann said that after his arrest for the string of crimes he committed with his friend Fritz Petzold, he found himself "For the first time in my life I cursed the day I was born. Now I asked myself why my two brothers had to die and I remain." These are his words. His life was spiraling out of control and his time in the military was definitely having a negative impact on his future. There are examples of behavior, psychologoical and mood problems that today, in our time, may have pointed to a possible PTSD diagnosis. To be clear, this is not a diagnosis that he had it. From the time Hauptmann arrived in America, he appeared to have exhibited none of the signs and symptoms generally accepted to be associated with PTSD, at least outwardly and which I listed previously:
Detachment from others Flashbacks Nightmares Avoiding reminders Insomnia Lack of motivation Anger Memory loss Feeling jumpy Turning to drugs and alcohol
Within the Huddleson Report, his mini-autobiography to lawyer James Fawcett and in pre-trial questioning, Hauptmann relates his wartime experiences in a rather stoic, matter of fact manner, at times with wry humour and even wistfully. Many of his countrymen would also have lost kin during the war and been exposed to conditions far more horrific than those experienced by Hauptmann. Of the 17 months that he was enlisted, Hauptmann actually spent less than two months on the front. His boyhood friend Frank Tolksdorf stated that he came back from the war a changed person, however this change appears to have centred more around a desire to ensure his material needs were met, even if that meant getting them by resorting to criminal means. These post-war crimes earned him the title, “Bad Boy of Kamenz,” and someone of "the worst possible reputation."
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 26, 2023 10:03:08 GMT -5
John Condon never wavered from his originally-expressed desire to serve the Lindberghs and return their child to them, and failing that to ensure the perpetrator(s) were brought to justice. (Joe) You need to seriously review Michael's chapters on Condon in his Volume 2 of The Dark Corners book series. The answers you need are in there. (Guest)Condon never wavered from his personal vow and true intent of being of service to the Lindberghs following the kidnapping of Charlie. Because of his garrulous and bumptious personality and the relative “do or die” position he chose to insert himself into at a time prior to there having been full police involvement in the case, he’s of course an easy target for one-sided portrayals and even character hatchet jobs. Just look at what Edward Reilly attempted to do to him in Flemington, by portraying him as an accomplice to the kidnapping without a shred of conclusive proof.
There’s no need to instruct me on where to look for attempts to align him with criminal and questionable intent only, as if to somehow imply this was the basis of his overall nature and set of values. Condon devoted his life to public and community service and the education system, where he personally oversaw the development of over 50,000 children and young adults. He was considered by most who actually knew him as an altruistic and honourable educator, despite his well known eccentricities and breadth of thought, word and actions. Certainly there were some who simply regarded him as a nitwit or nut. What does that mean though, unless it’s possible to comment intelligently on the character and motivations of those who were of that opinion?
Regarding Condon’s overall profile, as well as his intentions, motives and actions, have you seriously reviewed Condon’s interview with Inspector Harry Walsh, dated May 13, 1932, and Agent Thomas Sisk’s overall report on John Condon, dated October 27, 1934? If not, I can post them for you. (Joe)
Of course he was a harmless ham, windbag and publicity seeker to go along with those sincere desires, but I fail to see how he wanted to be a bigger hero than his hero CAL. (Joe) I don't expect you would see this. Thats ok. However, your description of Condon in the above sentence falls short of being complete, especially his conduct during the investigation. He was also a liar and he did absolutely nothing that aided the authorities in finding any perpetrators. You state that Condon did nothing absolutely nothing towards aiding the authorities in finding any perpetrators? Following the discovery of Charlie’s corpse and without objection, the man essentially placed himself on call on an almost daily basis to personally and ultimately review tens of thousands of police mug shots of known criminals in an attempt to discover CJ’s identity. Unfortunately, Hauptmann didn’t have one. New Jersey Detectives Coar and Leon who were assigned to work with Condon after payment of the ransom, were essentially his sidekicks for many months, to the point they played pranks on each other. Condon also spent thousands of dollars of his own money in his search for “John” traveling to Montreal, Miami and places in between, including shipyards and rum runner locations. When buttonholed by Inspector Harry Walsh at Alpine, he maintained his cooperative attitude, composure and innocence in the face of Walsh’s ego-stoked attempts to unjustly implicate and intimidate him. If Condon had had any reservations about aiding in the search for CJ during a time when he still believed gang of kidnappers / extortionists was involved, because as you imply, he was criminally connected to them, would he have been so cooperative with the police, even spending his own money searching for CJ? (Joe) I believe you're projected something far beyond its real value here, at the expense of considering the one man conclusively proven to have been deeply involved in, and enriched by this crime. (Joe) I wasn't considering Hauptmann's guilt or innocence when I disagreed with the psychological assessment you were putting forward of BRH. It just doesn't fit him. I would like to refer you back to Sherlock's post of July 3, 2023. He gives a good picture of why it does not fit Hauptmann. I am going to quote him here: (Guest)Dr Schoenfeld’s profile of the kidnapper was most definitely not affirmed after Hauptmann’s arrest. There is no evidence that Hauptmann exhibited any more interest in Lindbergh than the average newspaper reader. He did not collect pictures of him, didn’t attempt to contact him, didn’t stalk him, or tell anyone about their “special relationship.” Such fantasists do not keep their beliefs to themselves. Quite the reverse; they tell all and sundry about how chummy they are with the famous person. (Sherlock) You’re seriously underestimating Hauptmann’s iron will here and ability to conceal his hand, prior to his capture, as did even Dudley Schoenfeld. Look at Hauptmann’s performance at Flemington. He was in the witness chair for over 17 hours, much of it under the cross-examination of David Wilentz. Is it even possible to think of anyone more adept at sidestepping so much potential damage, and even giving it back to his interrogator? Your unequivocal statement that has anyone with such secrets as did Hauptmann, out of necessity divulging them far and wide, does not even begin to consider this individual, who essentially stands alone in that regard amongst his criminal peers. “A man so chronically secretive, his own wife did not know his first name was Bruno, until the tabloids smeared it across their front pages.“ (Scott Berg, Lindbergh) (Joe) As for a strong inner belief in his own superiority verging on Narcissism, we have to avoid being influenced by the stereotypical image, especially in the 1930’s, of the German male: arrogant, loud, and affecting superiority. Hauptmann did not match this description. (Sherlock)Perhaps he didn’t demonstrate this set of traits to a great degree in social circumstances, but his trial performance certainly affirms much of it. It was here he couldn't help himself and Wilentz knew exactly what he was doing to graphically illustrate Schoenfeld's beliefs about the perpetrator. (Joe)It is suggested that the perpetrator must have been obsessed with Lindbergh and a narcissist with a superiority complex in order to have chosen Charlie as his victim. The evidence indicates that Hauptmann had none of these characteristics so can we rule him out? (Sherlock)A couple things that I find to be more suggestive of the type of personality profile you put forward Joe, are:1. "I idolized him as a national hero."2, "...following your darling from birth..." Referring to Charles Jr.The above are just two quotes from Condon. I am sure there are probably more that would fit if I had the time to find them. (Guest) The totality of circumstantial physical evidence clearly indicates Hauptmann was deeply involved in the kidnapping and ransom exchange and was at least the primary benefactor of the the ransom payment itself. Who else in the real world does that leave standing? (Joe)
Can you demonstrate valid proof to back up your belief about Condon wanting to be bigger than Lindbergh? (Joe)
There is no way to prove that belief because Condon did not get to return Charles, Jr. Condon certainly entered into this expecting to be the Hero in this situation. His motive as stated by him is clear:"My one desire, my only thought from the first has been to place that baby's arms again around its mother's neck."He saw himself as the only chance the Lindberghs had to get their son back. No one else, not even his hero CAL could do it:"I, it seemed was that chance, the only person in the world who was in actual contact with the man who stole their son."This was his golden opportunity to be a World Hero. His hero needed a Hero. Condon (not Lindbergh) would be the savior of the Little Eaglet!"Let me do this one great thing as the crowning act of my life."All the quotes above belong to John F. Condon. When you become your hero's Hero, at that moment you are on top. (Guest)This is also Condon’s flowery prose at work here, based on the self-inspired circumstances that allowed him to find himself in very intimate position with CJ during ransom negotiations. Projecting him as wanting to be greater than his own acknowledged world hero because of his desire to serve the Lindberghs, and therefore become a greater hero than Lindbergh himself, is your own conclusion. We are all on our separate paths towards spiritual enlightenment, but does that necessarily lead any one of us to desire to be greater than that which created us? (Joe)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 26, 2023 10:25:02 GMT -5
I agree with Joe that he sincerely wanted to achieve, through his efforts, the safe return of the Lindbergh child. Success would mean inevitable publicity, accolades, and the gratitude of the Lindberghs. Even failure did not stop him from appearing in theatres and store windows to highlight his role in the affair. When all the dust has settled in 1938 he was still sharing a stage with Lindbergh at an "America First" rally. He was a text book narcissist. Michael proving Condon lied about the turnover of the ransom box, likely paying the extortionists down the street and then going down Whittemore just to hide the box, only to have it picked up later, should be enough to totally discredit Condon as a genuine figure in this operation. Plus him lying at every single turn, from who made the random box itself, to various descriptors of CJ, to the second taxi driver. It's all preposterous. No, these things were not proven, as you state categorically. A set of circumstantial evidence was chosen to construct conclusions with enough holes to drain themselves, that you and some others have seemingly accepted as gospel. And can you demonstrate, without the standard hubris and exaggeration, how Condon lied at every single turn?
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Jul 26, 2023 16:16:57 GMT -5
Comment here on memory in older age. I had two parents, as is usual. My mother became forgetfull starting at about age 60 or so with problem increasing until her passing at age 90. My father, on the other hand, remembered things that never happened. These stories he believed himself though the versions varied until he passed at age 97. I had also known close friends who make up stories, some of which are quite fanciful, though the versions do vary. Problems with memory do occur in senility. I suggest that Condon made up or varied his stories, probably with no malicious intent, but by way of explanation that he thought might explain a situation. Unfortunately for us, he could not separate his embellishments from reality; hence it has become difficult to know what really happened when we try to study the evidence.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Jul 26, 2023 17:21:16 GMT -5
Te above post relates to John Condon and his memory problems Sorry I forgpt to make the connection.
|
|