Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 26, 2023 17:36:33 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. Condon often confused the names of people as he did at the trial, when he referred to Betty Gow's boyfriend, Red Johnson, as Arthur Johnson, who was a detective that had searched for clues about the accused in Hauptmann's home town of Kamenz. He also referred to Peremi the cabinetmaker as "old man Peretty," himself a long time friend and associate of Condon. Certainly not a surprise based on both his age and the many thousands of people he had met and befriended over the course of his Bronx existence.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 26, 2023 18:57:56 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. Truth often seems stranger than fiction in true crime.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 26, 2023 19:14:55 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 You’re only speculating here that Condon knew Charlie was dead when CJ raised his “Vould I burn..?” enquiry, whatever the true intent of those words might have been, but which you seem intent on transforming into some form of fait accomplis. There are a few potential interpretations as to what CJ was actually trying to impress here and I wonder if you've considered them. Condon may have entertained private thoughts about Charlie’s wellbeing during the ransom negotiations and after CJ failed to deliver at St. Raymond’s. As long as Lindbergh and Breckinridge believed there was a possibility of Charlie being returned though, Condon never publicly expressed a loss of hope here.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 26, 2023 21:08:23 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. Truth often seems stranger than fiction in true crime. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 26, 2023 21:37:54 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. While its something that should be considered, there is too much evidence that he was doing it on purpose. Of course there were things he was forgetting because when someone lies, they do tend to forget some of the things they made up causing certain things to be replaced with new lies. Plus, Condon's technique was similar to what I consider a "good" liar does. That is, they mix lies with certain truths. A perfect example was when Condon lied about what CJ was telling him as it concerned Curtis. He was recounting a conversation that took place on March 12 about a man who did not enter the situation until March 22. But because this lie first occurred on May 14, Condon was thinking in the present when making up that conversation. What this proves is we have no idea what CJ and Condon said to each other because we can readily see that Condon had no problem making it up. Take the Silken confrontation. Condon was lying about the female passenger, Silken called him out, Condon backtracked, agreed Silken was correct, then scolded him for revealing confidential information. Or when he said Hauptmann was not CJ then took off to Florida hoping to frame Garelick. These aren't the actions of someone who has no malicious intent. Look at the Needle Salesman example I've written about in V2... He claimed he was home, gave a description, and even said he looked like the Look-Out at Woodlawn. But later, after his daughter injected herself into the scenario, Condon told a different Agent he didn't know what the guy looked like because he was not there. Breckinridge said he was there. So who was lying? Breckinridge and Condon #1 - or Myra and Condon #2? What happened was that Condon changed his story to line up with Myra's and shows he knew exactly what he was doing.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jul 27, 2023 6:43:29 GMT -5
I too believe Condon’s obfuscation on so many occasions to be deliberate and not age-related mental degeneration. There is no evidence of him getting lost, forgetting where he lived etc. Quite the contrary: he goes swanning off alone to Canada, Florida etc.
The ransom money box is a good example. Condon arranged its construction in his neighbourhood but he varies in his account of who made it, says it was made from special identifiable wood, says it was made from common wood, then says it wasn’t constructed at all but was a family heirloom. If this was due to mental degeneration there would be clear evidence of it in other aspects of Condon’s life. It is the deliberate sowing of confusion.
So anything Condon says has to be examined closely. Joe is quite right; Condon could not know for sure that the child was dead based only on CJ’s remark. But in any other kidnap context it would have been a deal-breaker. You get the cash only in return for the child alive and well. No more nonsense about sleeping suits, assurances that the child is thriving, or the boad Nellie. From now on its Cash on Delivery. This assertiveness on Lindbergh’s side is totally absent. Why? The bad guys call the shots from start to finish.
It is one of the many strange aspects of this case that in spite of CJ’s hint, Lindbergh continued dealing with these people with no concrete proof that Charlie was still alive and a strong hint that he wasn’t. A desperate grieving father going out of his mind with stress and worry? Willing to grasp at straws? Lindbergh’s behaviour doesn’t support this version at all.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Jul 27, 2023 20:06:12 GMT -5
There is no need to instruct me on where to look for attempts to align him with criminal and questionable intent only. (Joe)
Tsk, Tsk, Joe. I know it is upsetting for you to be directed to read things about John F. Condon that you do not like. It is necessary, though, in order to have a more balanced look at the man and his actions. No need for you to post any statements or reports for me. I have a large stack of them on my desk. If you are using those two documents to base your understanding of John F. Condon on, you have a lot more reading to do. Michael's books are very helpful in this regard.
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. (Joe)
He did do that. You know what else he did while doing this; he would occasionally pick out photos that he thought looked like CJ. The police followed up on them but they were all dead-ends. The real kicker is that NONE of those pictures even resembled Hauptmann; not even a little bit. He wasn't being helpful. It was more like misleading. I have seen a number of these photos, Joe and I sat there wondering why Condon would have identified any of these men.
You're seriously underestimating Hauptmann's iron will here and ability to conceal his hand, prior to his capture...(Joe)
Perhaps you are overestimating Hauptmann's iron will. At Woodlawn Cemetary the evening of March 12, 1932, CJ was keeping his coat collar turned up to conceal his face from Condon. According to Condon, he told CJ to "take down that coat" and CJ very obediently did!! So much for that iron will. So much for keeping yourself concealed!!
This is also Condon's flowery prose at work here...(Joe)
All the quotes are Condon's words. That "flowery prose" does not change what those sentences convey about him. The kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby was the biggest story in the world in 1932. Returning the little Eaglet would make him a world hero, just like his idol, Lindbergh. Possibly even bigger (for a little while) than his own hero, in my opinion. Condon wanted this chance to be a player on the world stage. This is clear from the beginning. When Condon was brought home by Col. Breckinridge on March 10, 1932 from the Hopewell house, Gregory Colman of the Bronx Home News was waiting for them in Condon's house. Coleman would be there to document Condon's hero role in this case and be the first paper to have this spectacular story on its front page.
Condon made the choice, when presented with the opportunity, to hook his wagon to the perpetrators of this crime.
How did that work out for him?
NO BABY NO MONEY ($20,000) NO HERO
When you dance with the Devil, you will get burned!!
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jul 28, 2023 3:36:08 GMT -5
Hauptmann’s secretive nature The division of roles in German families, especially in that era. was almost complete. It was the husband who went to work to support his family. It was the wife who ran the home by cooking, cleaning, raising the children etc. etc. Even in a national crisis e.g WW2, there was no equivalent of Rosie the Riveter in German society. The women stayed at home. Even today the participation of women at high levels in German industry and commerce is woefully low. Angela Merkel as Chancellor was the exception that proves the rule.
Mrs Hauptmann didn’t know her husband’s given name was Bruno which implies she had never even read their wedding certificate. Hauptmann would see this as paperwork alongside paying the rent, insurance, union membership etc. His concern and not his wife’s. This isn’t secretive behaviour; it is a cultural feature of German society.
Of course Lindbergh, admirer of all things German, took this to extremes by visiting his American and German families occasionally.
An exception to this concerns the ransom money. Here, I do believe Hauptmann kept it secret because he knew it was “hot” and may have known why it was “hot.” I am sceptical too of Hauptmann the innocent dupe in partnership with Fisch the fraudster. But possible pre-1932 criminality aside, and there’s no evidence of BRH’s involvement, I don’t think Hauptmann was any more secretive than any typical German husband.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 28, 2023 9:52:34 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.
Ultimately, and I know that it comes from time, information and personal preception of everything, following the relevant bouncing balls of evidence without putting any spin on them, will also get us to the logical conclusions and even the solution, we all apparently seek. A-hem indeed!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 28, 2023 10:05:10 GMT -5
Hauptmann’s secretive nature The division of roles in German families, especially in that era. was almost complete. It was the husband who went to work to support his family. It was the wife who ran the home by cooking, cleaning, raising the children etc. etc. Even in a national crisis e.g WW2, there was no equivalent of Rosie the Riveter in German society. The women stayed at home. Even today the participation of women at high levels in German industry and commerce is woefully low. Angela Merkel as Chancellor was the exception that proves the rule. Mrs Hauptmann didn’t know her husband’s given name was Bruno which implies she had never even read their wedding certificate. Hauptmann would see this as paperwork alongside paying the rent, insurance, union membership etc. His concern and not his wife’s. This isn’t secretive behaviour; it is a cultural feature of German society. Of course Lindbergh, admirer of all things German, took this to extremes by visiting his American and German families occasionally. An exception to this concerns the ransom money. Here, I do believe Hauptmann kept it secret because he knew it was “hot” and may have known why it was “hot.” I am sceptical too of Hauptmann the innocent dupe in partnership with Fisch the fraudster. But possible pre-1932 criminality aside, and there’s no evidence of BRH’s involvement, I don’t think Hauptmann was any more secretive than any typical German husband. So then, would Hauptmann reasonably have had difficulty putting "two and two" together here, within the possible nattering self-concern that he just might be holding hot Lindbergh ransom money, and then continue to lackadaisically pass it in public?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 28, 2023 10:27:40 GMT -5
There is no need to instruct me on where to look for attempts to align him with criminal and questionable intent only. (Joe) Tsk, Tsk, Joe. I know it is upsetting for you to be directed to read things about John F. Condon that you do not like. It is necessary, though, in order to have a more balanced look at the man and his actions. No need for you to post any statements or reports for me. I have a large stack of them on my desk. If you are using those two documents to base your understanding of John F. Condon on, you have a lot more reading to do. Michael's books are very helpful in this regard. Yes, Michael's books are very helpful. At the same time they are also why it's an excellent idea to consider them as just one piece of the puzzle.
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. (Joe)He did do that. You know what else he did while doing this; he would occasionally pick out photos that he thought looked like CJ. The police followed up on them but they were all dead-ends. The real kicker is that NONE of those pictures even resembled Hauptmann; not even a little bit. He wasn't being helpful. It was more like misleading. I have seen a number of these photos, Joe and I sat there wondering why Condon would have identified any of these men.
Do you not think in all of the thousands of mug shots that Condon viewed, it is reasonable for him to have recognized some of the specific features of John which he had carefully noted? Naturally, all but one photo, had it existed, would have led authorities nowhere, but how diligent of them would it have been to ignore the possibility that some of those features may have changed even slightly from the time the photo was taken? I do not believe Condon would have had any motive to mislead authorities here, unless he believed it would help the private negotiations that were taking place with the extortionist, prior to direct police involvement after discovery of the corpse. I'm not doubting what you're saying here, but I would also be very interested in seeing those actual photos which Condon conclusively said just might be CJ.
You're seriously underestimating Hauptmann's iron will here and ability to conceal his hand, prior to his capture...(Joe)Perhaps you are overestimating Hauptmann's iron will. At Woodlawn Cemetary the evening of March 12, 1932, CJ was keeping his coat collar turned up to conceal his face from Condon. According to Condon, he told CJ to "take down that coat" and CJ very obediently did!! So much for that iron will. So much for keeping yourself concealed!!
Where CJ was concerned, iron will and stupidity were not mutually exclusive.This is also Condon's flowery prose at work here...(Joe)All the quotes are Condon's words. That "flowery prose" does not change what those sentences convey about him. The kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby was the biggest story in the world in 1932. Returning the little Eaglet would make him a world hero, just like his idol, Lindbergh. Possibly even bigger (for a little while) than his own hero, in my opinion. Condon wanted this chance to be a player on the world stage. This is clear from the beginning. When Condon was brought home by Col. Breckinridge on March 10, 1932 from the Hopewell house, Gregory Colman of the Bronx Home News was waiting for them in Condon's house. Coleman would be there to document Condon's hero role in this case and be the first paper to have this spectacular story on its front page.
Condon made the choice, when presented with the opportunity, to hook his wagon to the perpetrators of this crime.
How did that work out for him?
NO BABY NO MONEY ($20,000) NO HERO
When you dance with the Devil, you will get burned!!
"It is necessary, though, in order to have a more balanced look at the man and his actions." Your own words, above, which appear to be at odds with just about everything else you're implying here.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Jul 28, 2023 14:29:46 GMT -5
There is no need to instruct me on where to look for attempts to align him with criminal and questionable intent only. (Joe) Tsk, Tsk, Joe. I know it is upsetting for you to be directed to read things about John F. Condon that you do not like. It is necessary, though, in order to have a more balanced look at the man and his actions. No need for you to post any statements or reports for me. I have a large stack of them on my desk. If you are using those two documents to base your understanding of John F. Condon on, you have a lot more reading to do. Michael's books are very helpful in this regard.Yes, Michael's books are very helpful. At the same time they are also why it's an excellent idea to consider them as just one piece of the puzzle.The information in his books is backed by years of research and documented by facts. Much more than just a puzzle piece, in my opinion.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. (Joe)He did do that. You know what else he did while doing this; he would occasionally pick out photos that he thought looked like CJ. The police followed up on them but they were all dead-ends. The real kicker is that NONE of those pictures even resembled Hauptmann; not even a little bit. He wasn't being helpful. It was more like misleading. I have seen a number of these photos, Joe and I sat there wondering why Condon would have identified any of these men.
Do you not think in all of the thousands of mug shots that Condon viewed, it is reasonable for him to have recognized some of the specific features of John which he had carefully noted? Naturally, all but one photo would have led authorities nowhere, but how diligent of them would it have been to ignore the possibility that some of those features may have changed even slightly from the time the photo was taken? I do not believe Condon would have had any motive to mislead authorities here, unless he believed it would help the private negotiations that were taking place with the extortionist. I would also be interested in seeing those actual photos which Condon conclusively said might be CJ.I need to make clear that the pictures were not mug shots. Some of the names were researched and had viewable pictures of the persons mentioned in the reports. This is private research based on archive reports. Sorry I cannot share with you.You're seriously underestimating Hauptmann's iron will here and ability to conceal his hand, prior to his capture...(Joe)Perhaps you are overestimating Hauptmann's iron will. At Woodlawn Cemetary the evening of March 12, 1932, CJ was keeping his coat collar turned up to conceal his face from Condon. According to Condon, he told CJ to "take down that coat" and CJ very obediently did!! So much for that iron will. So much for keeping yourself concealed!!
Where CJ was concerned, iron will and stupidity were not mutually exclusive.
So maybe CJ wasn't Hauptmann.This is also Condon's flowery prose at work here...(Joe)All the quotes are Condon's words. That "flowery prose" does not change what those sentences convey about him. The kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby was the biggest story in the world in 1932. Returning the little Eaglet would make him a world hero, just like his idol, Lindbergh. Possibly even bigger (for a little while) than his own hero, in my opinion. Condon wanted this chance to be a player on the world stage. This is clear from the beginning. When Condon was brought home by Col. Breckinridge on March 10, 1932 from the Hopewell house, Gregory Colman of the Bronx Home News was waiting for them in Condon's house. Coleman would be there to document Condon's hero role in this case and be the first paper to have this spectacular story on its front page.
Condon made the choice, when presented with the opportunity, to hook his wagon to the perpetrators of this crime.
How did that work out for him?
NO BABY NO MONEY ($20,000) NO HERO
When you dance with the Devil, you will get burned!!
"It is necessary, though, in order to have a more balanced look at the man and his actions." Your own words, above.
My words for sure but they fit you much better than me.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jul 28, 2023 15:14:05 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Hauptmann's carefree spending of ransom notes in his local area, even offering the gratuitous comment that he had 100 more gold notes at home, suggests he did not know the origin of the cash. I think this is unlikely. Anyone finding $320,000 (current value) in cash in any circumstances would be suspicious as to it's origin. Anyone involved in extortion certainly knew. I strongly suspect Hauptmann knew it was Lindbergh ransom money.
As spendable cash it was losing value due to the withdrawal of gold notes from circulation. It was now two and a half years since the kidnap and the case was dropping out of the headlines. Law enforcement was criticised for failing to find the culprits. It was fast becoming a cold case. Soon the haul would be waste paper - without value.
At this point I believe Hauptmann decided to "test the waters" by spending small denomination notes in local stores etc. We don't of course know how much cash he may have successfully passed already without detection. It remains a mystery as to why there wasn't a plan to launder the cash immediately on receipt. Maybe ransom payment in regular non-gold notes was anticipated. Either way, the plan of recording serial numbers, so strongly opposed by Lindbergh, worked. Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jul 30, 2023 15:23:10 GMT -5
Hauptmann at the time of his arrest had been in the USA for ~11 years, his command of the English language improving all the time. He supplemented his income as a carpenter by playing the stock market and had a brokerage account keeping meticulous records of his transactions. He had a business partnership with Isidor Fisch. He was savvy enough to realise that gold certificates were a hedge against inflation and claimed this as the reason he kept them.
“Money,” out of necessity, is one of the first words you learn when starting a foreign language in your adopted country. It is a short word spelled phonetically i.e. exactly as it is pronounced orally.
How is it possible, with his background, that Hauptmann spelled the word “money” incorrectly as “mony” in the ransom notes?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 7, 2023 7:41:25 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. I agree that there was an element of planning. As I’ve previously ventured, these three relationships and seven offspring might well have included a basic biology experiment designed to satisfy Lindbergh’s eternal scientific curiosity; more specifically, how his own genes would impact the outcome of a mating with partners of varied backgrounds, ie. sisters and a non-relation.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 7, 2023 7:58:45 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. While its something that should be considered, there is too much evidence that he was doing it on purpose. Of course there were things he was forgetting because when someone lies, they do tend to forget some of the things they made up causing certain things to be replaced with new lies. Plus, Condon's technique was similar to what I consider a "good" liar does. That is, they mix lies with certain truths. A perfect example was when Condon lied about what CJ was telling him as it concerned Curtis. He was recounting a conversation that took place on March 12 about a man who did not enter the situation until March 22. But because this lie first occurred on May 14, Condon was thinking in the present when making up that conversation. What this proves is we have no idea what CJ and Condon said to each other because we can readily see that Condon had no problem making it up. Take the Silken confrontation. Condon was lying about the female passenger, Silken called him out, Condon backtracked, agreed Silken was correct, then scolded him for revealing confidential information. Or when he said Hauptmann was not CJ then took off to Florida hoping to frame Garelick. These aren't the actions of someone who has no malicious intent. Look at the Needle Salesman example I've written about in V2... He claimed he was home, gave a description, and even said he looked like the Look-Out at Woodlawn. But later, after his daughter injected herself into the scenario, Condon told a different Agent he didn't know what the guy looked like because he was not there. Breckinridge said he was there. So who was lying? Breckinridge and Condon #1 - or Myra and Condon #2? What happened was that Condon changed his story to line up with Myra's and shows he knew exactly what he was doing. Condon never wavered within his originally expressed desire to be of service to the Lindberghs. Not once. I appreciate all of the Condon-based “‘concerns” you’ve registered over the years. At some point though, each and every one of them has to be drilled down into and conclusively brought to ground in isolation, or left hanging as inconclusive. Just like the Springfield photo put to rest any notion that Rail 16 was a later plant. Otherwise, you end up with one feel-good, but diminishing return supporter’s rally after another, leaving nothing more than further speculation and questions. Look, I get it entirely. How will we know for sure, unless examples like the above are brought to light? I believe this is where one's individual knowledge, discernment and experience have to continually weigh and assess what is know conclusively, against such examples, of which due to the sheer magnitude of this case and the time in America that it occurred, there is a disproportionately large number. I’d venture of these, there are a disproportionately few which actually hold some degree of relevance to the solution to this case.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 7, 2023 8:44:27 GMT -5
I too believe Condon’s obfuscation on so many occasions to be deliberate and not age-related mental degeneration. There is no evidence of him getting lost, forgetting where he lived etc. Quite the contrary: he goes swanning off alone to Canada, Florida etc. Why would someone who you have suggested is deliberately and criminally misleading investigators, travel to these places, on his own dime no less, unless he somehow believe his efforts were assisting in his originally expressed mission to be of service to the Lindberghs? And yes, I understand Condon was a hound for publicity, which also would have played into his decisions. The ransom money box is a good example. Condon arranged its construction in his neighbourhood but he varies in his account of who made it, says it was made from special identifiable wood, says it was made from common wood, then says it wasn’t constructed at all but was a family heirloom. If this was due to mental degeneration there would be clear evidence of it in other aspects of Condon’s life. It is the deliberate sowing of confusion. Condon clearly became confused about the ransom box in later recollections. Initially, he told Breckinridge it would be designed based roughly on an old family heirloom 1820’s ballot box, using five separate species of wood and a lock with key. His stated reasoning here was that it would be readily identifiable and that the key would fit the lock, should it ever show up again. A little overkill here perhaps, but this is Condon’s extravagance at work. Judging the $3.50 estimate by Peremi and Son as being too steep, he reset his sights and eventually opted for a simplified version from the cabinetmaker Samuelsohn. When pressed to recall the maker of the box, he told investigators it was “old man Peretty” (Peretty was the name of a family friend) in reference to Permei, whose son had actually fabricated the box. Condon simply forgot that he had first rejected Peremi’s estimate and then gone on to Samuelsohn. He eventually cleared up the misunderstanding when pressed to recall who had ultimately built the box. No conspiracy or deliberate obfuscation here, just an honest mistake. But alas, how it’s found its way on to the large laundry list things Condon apparently did with devious intent. Oh the humanity.. So anything Condon says has to be examined closely. Joe is quite right; Condon could not know for sure that the child was dead based only on CJ’s remark. But in any other kidnap context it would have been a deal-breaker. You get the cash only in return for the child alive and well. No more nonsense about sleeping suits, assurances that the child is thriving, or the boad Nellie. From now on its Cash on Delivery. This assertiveness on Lindbergh’s side is totally absent. Why? The bad guys call the shots from start to finish. It is one of the many strange aspects of this case that in spite of CJ’s hint, Lindbergh continued dealing with these people with no concrete proof that Charlie was still alive and a strong hint that he wasn’t. A desperate grieving father going out of his mind with stress and worry? Willing to grasp at straws? Lindbergh’s behaviour doesn’t support this version at all. Lindbergh, very naively believed that if he played fair with the kidnapper(s), he would be rewarded with his son’s return, ie an ‘honour’ amongst criminals, especially as it related to the magnitude of this crime and who the perpetrator(s) had targeted. He simply believed money was the objective, and gave little thought to the psychological intent and underpinnings of the crime, or even what CJ related to Condon in their cemetery encounters. He clearly demonstrates his cooperation with the extortionist(s) whom he knows has the upper hand, and prefers to do nothing to upset him and therefore endanger his son. By April 2, 1932, Lindbergh was also being advised that the ransom money should be paid for directions to where his son apparently was being held, due to the belief that the longer ransom negotiations dragged, the less likelihood of their success.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 7, 2023 9:12:15 GMT -5
Yes, Michael's books are very helpful. At the same time they are also why it's an excellent idea to consider them as just one piece of the puzzle. (Joe)
The information in his books is backed by years of research and documented by facts. Much more than just a puzzle piece, in my opinion. (Guest)
I wasn’t attempting to belittle Michael’s contributions in any way. On the contrary, I’ve always supported his efforts and applauded his dedication. Clearly, his books represent a new watermark in the depth and thoroughness of research within this case. Why I consider them one piece of the puzzle though, directly relates to how the facts are presented and in many cases, personally interpreted. This approach can be as individual as any out there, including a long list of books that clearly employ high degrees of speculation, and therefore, it's one piece of the puzzle. (Joe)
___________________________
Do you not think in all of the thousands of mug shots that Condon viewed, it is reasonable for him to have recognized some of the specific features of John which he had carefully noted? Naturally, all but one photo would have led authorities nowhere, but how diligent of them would it have been to ignore the possibility that some of those features may have changed even slightly from the time the photo was taken? I do not believe Condon would have had any motive to mislead authorities here, unless he believed it would help the private negotiations that were taking place with the extortionist. I would also be interested in seeing those actual photos which Condon conclusively said might be CJ. (Joe)
I need to make clear that the pictures were not mug shots. Some of the names were researched and had viewable pictures of the persons mentioned in the reports. This is private research based on archive reports. Sorry I cannot share with you. (Guest)
No worries. I’m curious as to why you think Condon was intentionally misleading investigators. Can you share your opinion here? (Joe)
___________________________
Where CJ was concerned, iron will and stupidity were not mutually exclusive. (Joe)
So maybe CJ wasn't Hauptmann. (Guest)
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence linking Hauptmann not only with being CJ, but with the perpetrator of Charlie’s kidnapping. And it’s the kind of evidence that essentially negates the significance of countless, tertiary clues and events many degrees removed, that seems to make up such a large percentage of this case’s general discussion. No one other than Hauptmann has ever come close to directly demonstrating his systemic involvement in the LKC over the past 90 plus years, in spite of the prosecution’s apparent dedication in painting him as a lone wolf. This is discussion worthy of a discussion board in itself.
Guest, I look at it this way. There were some very important clues discovered within days of the kidnapping itself, including Ben Lupica’s eyewitness account, readership of the Bronx Home News and specific content of the ransom notes. Had investigators truly worked together in trying to solve this case and had Dudley Schoenfeld been taken seriously sooner than later, the LKC would not have become the unwieldy and still-growing octopus it did, and continues to be today. (Joe)
___________________________
"It is necessary, though, in order to have a more balanced look at the man and his actions." Your own words, above. (Joe)
My words for sure but they fit you much better than me. (Guest)
Condon hooked his wagon to the perpetrators of this crime? Do you mean for his ill-gotten gain, himself realizing that his actions were criminal, aiding and abetting the kidnapper(s) / extortionist(s), hindering or even harming the efforts of his national hero, Charles Lindbergh / tracking down the perpetrators, and therefore risking national disgrace and being punished by law? If so, in my opinion, this is the ripest of speculation, not based on a sum total consideration and interpretation of the facts. Please explain yourself here against the known backdrop of Condon’s overall career profile and reputation in the Bronx, derived from a lifetime of community service, volunteerism and helping others. How do these considerations weigh in your mind? (Joe)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 7, 2023 9:38:28 GMT -5
Hauptmann at the time of his arrest had been in the USA for ~11 years, his command of the English language improving all the time. He supplemented his income as a carpenter by playing the stock market and had a brokerage account keeping meticulous records of his transactions. He had a business partnership with Isidor Fisch. He was savvy enough to realise that gold certificates were a hedge against inflation and claimed this as the reason he kept them. “Money,” out of necessity, is one of the first words you learn when starting a foreign language in your adopted country. It is a short word spelled phonetically i.e. exactly as it is pronounced orally. How is it possible, with his background, that Hauptmann spelled the word “money” incorrectly as “mony” in the ransom notes? Following his arrest and within the verbally-dictated request writings, Hauptmann spelled "money" as "money" and "mony." The writer of the ransom notes spelled it both "money" and "mony." As logical as your reasoning relative to what you believe Hauptmann should or should not have done, the above demonstrates what is actually know as fact.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Aug 11, 2023 16:04:43 GMT -5
What I said in my July 23, 2023 post that you are responding to above was:
"He wasn't be helpful. It was more like misleading."
I qualified that by saying he had been selecting pictures that really didn't look like Hauptmann. Why pick out any pictures at all if they don't resemble CJ? To me, that appears to be misleading for the authorities. They believe Condon knows what CJ looks like. Condon said he saw his face. If he is picking out pictures that don't look a lot like CJ, then what is he really doing here?
In Dark Corner V2, Chapter 4, page 297, Michael discusses one of these people Condon selected as possibly being CJ. This person's name is Vaclav Simek. Somewhere on this board, in the past, Michael posted a couple of the picture selections Condon made. Maybe Simek is one of them since it comes up in his book. Perhaps you could do a search and see what you come up with.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Aug 12, 2023 13:11:32 GMT -5
He did do that when the opportunity came knocking on his door. Here is how I see it happening:
March 7, 1932 in the morning - On this Monday morning, a cab driver, Maurice Silken, drops off a woman at Condon's home. This woman was nervous and very much in need of help. As she would reveal to Condon, she was attached to some bad people. She begged Condon to help and Condon felt he needed to act and would shield this woman.
March 7, 1932 in the evening - Condon retires to his study and composes the letter to be published in the Bronx Home News.
March 8, 1932-Tuesday - The Bronx Home News publishes this letter. In the section of this letter that Condon addresses directly to the kidnappers, he states he is willing to meet them anywhere offering his "promise never to utter his or her name to anyone." Condon promises to shield the perpetrators just as he promised to shield the woman who came to him for help on March 7.
March 9, 1932-Wednesday - The very next day brings a very prompt response to Condon's published letter. In that day's mail, Condon receives a letter about being the go-between for them and they also enclose a letter for Condon to give to Lindbergh identifying Condon as the person to give the $70,000 dollars to.
The Hook-Up is complete!
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 13, 2023 7:33:44 GMT -5
Hi A Guest, Correct me if I'm wrong but there's an implied direct connection - a cause and effect - between the distressed woman's visit to Condon and his composing his BHN letter later that day. Was she sent by the "bad people" - the kidnapper(s) - to suggest that Condon put his offer of mediation in the BHN? This way it appears that the initiative for the letter came from Condon whereas in reality it came from the kidnapper(s). Its a neat explanation of how the kidnapper(s) just happened to see Condon's offer in the paper - they didn't. They knew it would be there in advance. I agree that Condon hooked his waggon to the perpetrators in this way and much of his subsequent obfuscation was designed, by sowing confusion, to protect them. Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Aug 13, 2023 7:47:18 GMT -5
I agree that Condon was lured into a scheme by appealing to his sense of chivalry and the opportunity to become a hero. The whole scenario is just too convenient to be happenstance.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 13, 2023 7:58:35 GMT -5
He did do that when the opportunity came knocking on his door. Here is how I see it happening: March 7, 1932 in the morning - On this Monday morning, a cab driver, Maurice Silken, drops off a woman at Condon's home. This woman was nervous and very much in need of help. As she would reveal to Condon, she was attached to some bad people. She begged Condon to help and Condon felt he needed to act and would shield this woman. March 7, 1932 in the evening - Condon retires to his study and composes the letter to be published in the Bronx Home News. March 8, 1932-Tuesday - The Bronx Home News publishes this letter. In the section of this letter that Condon addresses directly to the kidnappers, he states he is willing to meet them anywhere offering his "promise never to utter his or her name to anyone." Condon promises to shield the perpetrators just as he promised to shield the woman who came to him for help on March 7. March 9, 1932-Wednesday - The very next day brings a very prompt response to Condon's published letter. In that day's mail, Condon receives a letter about being the go-between for them and they also enclose a letter for Condon to give to Lindbergh identifying Condon as the person to give the $70,000 dollars to. The Hook-Up is complete! You've left out the considerations of relevance in my questions. Here is what I said, additionally: "Do you mean for his (Condon's) ill-gotten gain, himself realizing that his actions were criminal, aiding and abetting the kidnapper(s) / extortionist(s), hindering or even harming the efforts of his national hero, Charles Lindbergh / tracking down the perpetrators, and therefore risking national disgrace and being punished by law? If so, in my opinion, this is the ripest of speculation, not based on a sum total consideration and interpretation of the facts. Please explain yourself here against the known backdrop of Condon’s overall career profile and reputation in the Bronx, derived from a lifetime of community service, volunteerism and helping others. How do these considerations weigh in your mind? (Joe)"What you've presented above is entirely suggestive and opportunistic, within a very simple cause and effect framework. It's a bit like inferring that someone knew ahead of time the front doorbell was going to ring because they were just passing the front door at the time. Once you've done that, it's easy to then draw in other "connecting" events, such as, if that person who had come down the stairs had remained on the upper level for a minute longer, brushing his teeth, then he probably would have answered the front door in what would then be deemed a statistically normal amount of of time. Hence, based on this line of thought, no suspicion vs. suspicion.. I only give this example because it's fresh in my mind as having occurred to me last evening. I know very well that you're suggesting Condon was criminally involved with at least the extortionist(s). Sorry, you need much more than the kind of leaning, wide-eyed speculation you've presented above. You may even have a half dozen more such examples which you then feel actually add up to yield something significant, but I'd also remind you that zeroes added or multiplied by themselves, still yield zero. Believe me, I've considered all of them many times times and each one given the entire scope of evidence, suggests to me nothing more each of the dozens of such coinciding events we experience in our lives every day. I prefer hard, cold grey light of morning evidence, the same kind that conclusively demonstrated Richard Hauptmann's systemic involvement in the kidnapping and extortion, the litany of lies put forth by John Hughes Curtis and Gaston Means, and even though it has no conclusive bearing on the case, Charles Lindbergh having had three extra-marital relationships and families. Getting back to the gist of my original questions, can you demonstrate to me just one occasion where Condon conclusively violated his personal oath to serve the Lindberghs? At what point within the twilight years of a life very well lived, would this goodwill ambassador of the Bronx, have decided to pack in all of these good intentions by hooking up and working intimately with the same seamy individual(s) who abducted the son of his declared national hero?
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Aug 13, 2023 10:13:33 GMT -5
I am not leaving the rest of what you said out, Joe. I will be addressing it in additional posts. What I shared in that timeline is backed by archive documents, things said by Condon, and the order of the events is also supported by actions and ransom notes. Condon admitted to authorities this woman came there the morning of March 7, when he was confronted by the cab driver Silken who brought her there. What Condon also did was lie to the authorities about this woman and why she came to him. I am aware through investigative documents of at least three different lies he told authorities about this woman and why she came to him. Condon would finally admit in May of 1932 why she came to him and how on that morning in March he decided to shield/protect this woman and her identity, taking her name to the grave.
This is not made up stuff. Its all real. Condon did the things he did and he lied whenever he needed to.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Aug 13, 2023 10:24:35 GMT -5
Joe, I can see a scenario where Condon had the best of intentions to start but it all unravelled when he realized the baby was dead.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Aug 13, 2023 10:39:37 GMT -5
Hi A Guest, Correct me if I'm wrong but there's an implied direct connection - a cause and effect - between the distressed woman's visit to Condon and his composing his BHN letter later that day. Was she sent by the "bad people" - the kidnapper(s) - to suggest that Condon put his offer of mediation in the BHN? This way it appears that the initiative for the letter came from Condon whereas in reality it came from the kidnapper(s). Its a neat explanation of how the kidnapper(s) just happened to see Condon's offer in the paper - they didn't. They knew it would be there in advance. I agree that Condon hooked his waggon to the perpetrators in this way and much of his subsequent obfuscation was designed, by sowing confusion, to protect them. Sherlock You are not wrong. They are connected. The kidnappers needed help. It was abundantly clear that it would be impossible for the kidnappers to deal directly with Lindbergh. The March 4th ransom note, received at the Hopewell house on March 5 lays the foundation for bringing a go-between in who could deal with Lindbergh for them and get the ransom money to them. Lindbergh was told in the March 7 ransom note that they (the perpetrators) not Lindbergh would provide this go-between. They found their man in John F. Condon.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 13, 2023 11:49:45 GMT -5
I am not leaving the rest of what you said out, Joe. I will be addressing it in additional posts. What I shared in that timeline is backed by archive documents, things said by Condon, and the order of the events is also supported by actions and ransom notes. Condon admitted to authorities this woman came there the morning of March 7, when he was confronted by the cab driver Silken who brought her there. What Condon also did was lie to the authorities about this woman and why she came to him. I am aware through investigative documents of at least three different lies he told authorities about this woman and why she came to him. Condon would finally admit in May of 1932 why she came to him and how on that morning in March he decided to shield/protect this woman and her identity, taking her name to the grave. This is not made up stuff. Its all real. Condon did the things he did and he lied whenever he needed to. Can you demonstrate conclusively that this woman had anything at all to do with Condon's role as an intermediary in the kidnapping as you're inferring here? Condon came into contact with a lot of people, and hundreds of them were investigated. Are you suggesting that the entry of gangsters Bitz and Spitale into the case was not fundamentally connected to Condon's letter to the BRH and his overall disgust that such a thing could happen in America, all of which is well sourced through his family and friends? Of course Hauptmann would have jumped at the opportunity to deal with someone (Condon) he knew wouldn't want to blow his head off.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 13, 2023 12:02:09 GMT -5
Hi A Guest, Correct me if I'm wrong but there's an implied direct connection - a cause and effect - between the distressed woman's visit to Condon and his composing his BHN letter later that day. Was she sent by the "bad people" - the kidnapper(s) - to suggest that Condon put his offer of mediation in the BHN? This way it appears that the initiative for the letter came from Condon whereas in reality it came from the kidnapper(s). Its a neat explanation of how the kidnapper(s) just happened to see Condon's offer in the paper - they didn't. They knew it would be there in advance. I agree that Condon hooked his waggon to the perpetrators in this way and much of his subsequent obfuscation was designed, by sowing confusion, to protect them. Sherlock You are not wrong. They are connected. The kidnappers needed help. It was abundantly clear that it would be impossible for the kidnappers to deal directly with Lindbergh. The March 4th ransom note, received at the Hopewell house on March 5 lays the foundation for bringing a go-between in who could deal with Lindbergh for them and get the ransom money to them. Lindbergh was told in the March 7 ransom note that they (the perpetrators) not Lindbergh would provide this go-between. They found their man in John F. Condon. Guest, you believe John Condon would have jumped lock, stock and barrel into an intimate affiliation with the kidnapper(s), without him first notifying Lindbergh, or at the very least, the police? Knowing full well as you do, Condon's insatiable thirst for publicity and recognition, you believe he would have essentially snubbed his acclaimed national hero, in favour of the wishes of criminals he would have vehemently detested for their actions?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 13, 2023 12:06:52 GMT -5
Joe, I can see a scenario where Condon had the best of intentions to start but it all unravelled when he realized the baby was dead. Norma, Condon agreeing to be part of any plan devised by kidnapper(s) who abducted the son of his acclaimed national hero, without first notifying Lindbergh, or at least the police, I don't believe would ever have happened.
|
|