|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 13, 2023 15:00:25 GMT -5
We have only Condon's word that his first contact with Lindbergh was following his receipt of the note from the kidnappers on March 9. I think this is true but he may have contacted CAL earlier, following the woman's visit, to get the "go ahead" for "his" plan to put his offer as mediator in the BHN. Condon and CAL would want to keep quiet about this earlier contact to avoid accusations of conspiring with the criminals behind the backs of law enforcement . Much better if the offer was seen as Condon's spontaneous unselfish gesture.
I have always thought that Condon putting this offer in the newspaper without consultation with Lindbergh was a reckless and dangerous thing to do. For all he knew, a week after the kidnapping, Lindbergh may have already reached an agreement with the criminals who proposed their go-between which CAL had accepted. Condon, by putting his note in the paper without consultation, would be muddying the waters at a very sensitive time.
Whether there was this earlier contact with Lindbergh or not does not change the central thesis that the visit of the distressed woman to Condon's home prompted him to put his offer in the BHN where he knew the criminals would, by arrangement, see it and respond. I do believe he sincerely wanted to ensure the child's safe return; the publicity and accolades would be a welcome bonus given his character. Even after CJ's remark that the child might be dead he ploughed on, whatever his private doubts may have been, following Lindbergh's instructions to pay the ransom.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Aug 13, 2023 15:47:56 GMT -5
We have only Condon's word that his first contact with Lindbergh was following his receipt of the note from the kidnappers on March 9. I think this is true but he may have contacted CAL earlier, following the woman's visit, to get the "go ahead" for "his" plan to put his offer as mediator in the BHN. Condon and CAL would want to keep quiet about this earlier contact to avoid accusations of conspiring with the criminals behind the backs of law enforcement . Much better if the offer was seen as Condon's spontaneous unselfish gesture. I appreciate your thoughts here but previous contact with Lindbergh after the woman's visit but before the evening of March 9 is not likely. When Condon contacted the Lindbergh home the evening of March 9, Condon's call was listened to but was going nowhere until Condon mentioned the symbol. That qualified him and they wanted to see him right away.I have always thought that Condon putting this offer in the newspaper without consultation with Lindbergh was a reckless and dangerous thing to do. For all he knew, a week after the kidnapping, Lindbergh may have already reached an agreement with the criminals who proposed their go-between which CAL had accepted. Condon, by putting his note in the paper without consultation, would be muddying the waters at a very sensitive time. It does seem reckless that Condon didn't approach Lindbergh to offer him his services. He didn't though. He appealed to the kidnappers instead. Whether there was this earlier contact with Lindbergh or not does not change the central thesis that the visit of the distressed woman to Condon's home prompted him to put his offer in the BHN where he knew the criminals would, by arrangement, see it and respond. I do believe he sincerely wanted to ensure the child's safe return; the publicity and accolades would be a welcome bonus given his character. Even after CJ's remark that the child might be dead he ploughed on, whatever his private doubts may have been, following Lindbergh's instructions to pay the ransom. That woman's visit starts the ball rolling for sure! Exploring Condon's personal motivations will make an interesting conversation.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Aug 13, 2023 16:00:38 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? I don't have to do that. Condon does it for you. According to Arthur O'Sullivan's affidavit Condon talked about this woman's visit and told O'Sullivan that this woman's visit was precisely the thing that precipitated his entry into the Lindbergh kidnapping. Condon would not only shield her name, he would take it to the grave. Question for you, Joe. Do you believe what Condon said or is he lying?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 13, 2023 16:22:55 GMT -5
I agree that the earlier contact with Lindbergh is unlikely. And it would be consistent with Condon's overwhelming self-importance for him to go ahead with his BHN offer just based on his conversation with this woman.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 13, 2023 17:01:39 GMT -5
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? I don't have to do that. Condon does it for you. According to Arthur O'Sullivan's affidavit Condon talked about this woman's visit and told O'Sullivan that this woman's visit was precisely the thing that precipitated his entry into the Lindbergh kidnapping. Condon would not only shield her name, he would take it to the grave. Question for you, Joe. Do you believe what Condon said or is he lying? Just a minute here please, before you move ahead on something entirely questionable. Under what basis do you believe Arthur O'Sullivan was telling the truth as you've presented it? Michael has quite a bit to say about him in Dark Corners V2 and I certainly wouldn't want to implicitly trust what this reporter had to say on any given day. As you're constantly knocking Condon for his changing stories, under what circumstances do you now appear to be holding O'Sullivan as some paragon of honesty and virtue within his visiting woman story? Provide good reason for me to believe this affidavit of his was worth the paper it was typed on. Further, even if Condon did claim the woman's visit influenced his decision to inject himself into the case, this doesn't out of necessity prove he was conspiring with kidnapper(s).
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 13, 2023 17:23:17 GMT -5
We have only Condon's word that his first contact with Lindbergh was following his receipt of the note from the kidnappers on March 9. I think this is true but he may have contacted CAL earlier, following the woman's visit, to get the "go ahead" for "his" plan to put his offer as mediator in the BHN. Condon and CAL would want to keep quiet about this earlier contact to avoid accusations of conspiring with the criminals behind the backs of law enforcement . Much better if the offer was seen as Condon's spontaneous unselfish gesture. I appreciate your thoughts here but previous contact with Lindbergh after the woman's visit but before the evening of March 9 is not likely. When Condon contacted the Lindbergh home the evening of March 9, Condon's call was listened to but was going nowhere until Condon mentioned the symbol. That qualified him and they wanted to see him right away. (Guest) Personally, I don't believe this woman's visit had anything to do with Condon's participation in the case, other than to perhaps help to reinforce something within his own mind about doing what he considered to be his civic duty. And it appears to have been Bitz and Spitale's unexpected entrance into the case that pushed him over the edge he was already teetering on. (Joe) I have always thought that Condon putting this offer in the newspaper without consultation with Lindbergh was a reckless and dangerous thing to do. For all he knew, a week after the kidnapping, Lindbergh may have already reached an agreement with the criminals who proposed their go-between which CAL had accepted. Condon, by putting his note in the paper without consultation, would be muddying the waters at a very sensitive time. It does seem reckless that Condon didn't approach Lindbergh to offer him his services. He didn't though. He appealed to the kidnappers instead. (Guest)Condon would only have been one of thousands of relatively nameless individuals who probably thought they would be able to assist Lindbergh in some way, even if within their own mind only. Condon had no credentials to contact Lindbergh himself, and probably would not have considered wasting his time trying to contact him before March 9. As it turned out, no one in Hopewell even knew about the BHN story. Condon's letter to the BRH was his way of not only venting his displeasure at what had taken place in his beloved America, but an opportunity to demonstrate his altruistic nature and admiration for Charles Lindbergh, not to mention blowing his own horn of course. The unexpected response Condon received with its immediately identifiable symbol, set against the backdrop of his actual intentions and actions, provided the key to his involvement. (Joe)
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Aug 13, 2023 20:38:47 GMT -5
I don't have to do that. Condon does it for you. According to Arthur O'Sullivan's affidavit Condon talked about this woman's visit and told O'Sullivan that this woman's visit was precisely the thing that precipitated his entry into the Lindbergh kidnapping. Condon would not only shield her name, he would take it to the grave. Question for you, Joe. Do you believe what Condon said or is he lying? Just a minute here please, before you move ahead on something entirely questionable. Under what basis do you believe Arthur O'Sullivan was telling the truth as you've presented it? There is nothing questionable here, Joe. O'Sullivan has no need to lie in his affidavit. O'Sullivan was a reporter who Condon shared things with.
Michael has quite a bit to say about him in Dark Corners V2 and I certainly wouldn't want to implicitly trust what this reporter had to say on any given day. Yes Michael does talk about him in V2. So glad to know that you do read his books!! So you wouldn't trust what O'Sullivan had to say on any given day? Condon told O'Sullivan the Throggs Neck story where Condon claimed he was taken onto a boat where he came face to face with the kidnap gang that had Charlie. Was Condon lying to O'Sullivan or was he telling him the truth?
As you're constantly knocking Condon for his changing stories, under what circumstances do you now appear to be holding O'Sullivan as some paragon of honesty and virtue within his visiting woman story? I don't knock Condon. It is not my fault that he changes his stories. That is Condon. It is what he does. You are totally out of line saying that I hold O'Sullivan as some paragon of honesty and virtue. He is a reporter and Condon gave O'Sullivan stories. The woman who visited Condon on March 7 was one of the stories Condon told O'Sullivan. I will ask you again, was Condon telling O'Sullivan the truth or was he lying? Provide good reason for me to believe this affidavit of his was worth the paper it was typed on. Condon told this story to O'Sullivan. It comes down to whether you believe what Condon told him or not. Further, even if Condon did claim the woman's visit influenced his decision to inject himself into the case, this doesn't out of necessity prove he was conspiring with kidnapper(s). Condon's choice to help this woman caused him to reach out to the perpetrators by putting the letter in the Bronx Home News. It's as simple as that whether you like it or not.
For future reference, don't keep demanding answers to your questions unless you start answering my questions to you.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Aug 13, 2023 21:07:58 GMT -5
A few more questions for you, Joe.
Concerning the visit of this woman to Condon's home on March 7, 1932, I thought I would share with you and the board some explanations Condon gave to the authorities about this woman's visit. Keep in mind we are talking about only one woman and only one visit.
Explanation #1 - Condon said this woman had applied to him for a position in his home as a housekeeper, although he did not advertise for any housekeeper, he could not understand why this woman, whom he does not know, visited him inquiring for that position. Is Condon telling the truth or is he lying? Please qualify your answer.
Explanation #2 - Condon said he did not know her name but she visited him for the purpose of having him get some children that she could keep at a summer camp she was starting at the Atlantic Highlands. Is Condon telling the truth or is he lying? Please qualify your answer.
Explanation #3 - Condon said this woman did call at his home, that she requested a recommendation from him to teach the kindergarten at the Gould Estate. Condon stated that he was formerly in charge of same and that it was necessary for her to get a letter of recommendation from him before she could obtain the position. Condon stated that he did not know the woman. He would not recommend her. Is Condon telling the truth or is he lying? Please qualify your answer.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 14, 2023 5:11:14 GMT -5
We can add that all these alternative explanations are "respectable": housekeeper, starting a summer camp, job recommendation. None of them relate to the woman's remark that she was associated with "bad people" (the kidnappers?) which might be Explanation No 4 if we knew more about it. This obfuscation over an essentially simple event -the woman's visit - is quite deliberate and not due to forgetfulness, confusion, or age-related deterioration.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 15, 2023 10:53:43 GMT -5
Just a minute here please, before you move ahead on something entirely questionable. Under what basis do you believe Arthur O'Sullivan was telling the truth as you've presented it? There is nothing questionable here, Joe. O'Sullivan has no need to lie in his affidavit. O'Sullivan was a reporter who Condon shared things with. (Guest)I'm struggling to see your point in all of this. Are you suggesting or even concluding that the visiting woman was a direct emissary of the kidnapper(s) and/or extortionist(s) and therefore the primary reason for Condon's sudden entrance into the case? (Joe)Michael has quite a bit to say about him in Dark Corners V2 and I certainly wouldn't want to implicitly trust what this reporter had to say on any given day. Yes Michael does talk about him in V2. So glad to know that you do read his books!! So you wouldn't trust what O'Sullivan had to say on any given day? Condon told O'Sullivan the Throggs Neck story where Condon claimed he was taken onto a boat where he came face to face with the kidnap gang that had Charlie. Was Condon lying to O'Sullivan or was he telling him the truth? (Guest) I don't really know. I've never been able to satisfactorily bring the Throgg's Neck story to ground in my own mind. It's eerily reminiscent of the account of another case character, I believe Dobson-Peacock, and his claim he was buttonholed by unsavory characters over his involvement within the case, where he gave the impression he was not afraid and that he had been responsible for some good "detective work." It’s been a while since I read of that account, and the details are a bit vague. Knowing Condon's penchant for storytelling, which I know is difficult to decipher at times from the truth, I wouldn't at all be surprised if he fabricated this account to bolster his own image, although I’m not certain which account came first.
You appear to have embraced this Condon account, amongst a great many others, which you summarily dispel as being lies and obfuscations. Why do you seem to be trusting him here so implicitly?
Yes, I've read every page of Michael's books, but to be very honest, within their collective two thousand or so pages, I can forget some of the detail, so you'll have to bear with me and perhaps provide a little more detail at times for my and everyone else's benefit. Lack of an index will do that when the author requires you to read what he has to say according to how he presents it. Obviously, this doesn't help when you want to return to a source, but can't place it. So I've gotten around that little problem, no doubt in the same way you have, where I can now reference almost anything immediately. (Joe)As you're constantly knocking Condon for his changing stories, under what circumstances do you now appear to be holding O'Sullivan as some paragon of honesty and virtue within his visiting woman story? I don't knock Condon. It is not my fault that he changes his stories. That is Condon. It is what he does. You are totally out of line saying that I hold O'Sullivan as some paragon of honesty and virtue. He is a reporter and Condon gave O'Sullivan stories. The woman who visited Condon on March 7 was one of the stories Condon told O'Sullivan. I will ask you again, was Condon telling O'Sullivan the truth or was he lying? (Guest)I'd ask that you kindly put a lid on the incessant black-or-white line of questioning tactic you're employing here, ie. continually demanding whether I believe Condon is lying or telling the truth. It's going nowhere. It’s clear to me that he did both primarily within the span of time that began with his involvement in the case and preceded the discovery of Charlie’s corpse, but it’s also clear to me that he never once violated his oath to serve and assist the Lindberghs in their distress at any time, period. I can almost guarantee you there are reasonable and non-conspiratorial explanations to any of his actions, which better help to understand not only him but both the generalities and specifics of the case. Consider taking a deep breath, posting the affidavit in question for all to see, and I'll give you my impressions. Maybe others will as well. Not a difficult process, really. (Joe)Provide good reason for me to believe this affidavit of his was worth the paper it was typed on. Condon told this story to O'Sullivan. It comes down to whether you believe what Condon told him or not. (Guest) Perhaps so, as you see things at least, ie. Condon’s purported words being the only consideration here. (Joe)Further, even if Condon did claim the woman's visit influenced his decision to inject himself into the case, this doesn't out of necessity prove he was conspiring with kidnapper(s). Condon's choice to help this woman caused him to reach out to the perpetrators by putting the letter in the Bronx Home News. It's as simple as that whether you like it or not.
For future reference, don't keep demanding answers to your questions unless you start answering my questions to you. (Guest)
I'm not demanding anything of you. The shaky ground you are standing on here within your personal read of the woman’s visit, which happened to take place on the same day that Condon learned that Bitz and Spitale had been approved by Lindbergh to assist in the case, is generating this kind of drill sergeant response on your part. Look, I’ll answer your questions, but please make them relevant to the advancement of this discussion, and not just a platform for strident speculation.
And for heavens' sake, please use another colour of font that provides a reasonable degree of contrast for your additive responses. Believe me, I'm not the only one here struggling with this handicap. Try the same colour, only "blackened" a bit within the custom colour palette. Play around with it, use even yellow or lime green, but please do something. It can be the little, but very important things that help move this case forward! (Joe)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 15, 2023 10:55:52 GMT -5
We can add that all these alternative explanations are "respectable": housekeeper, starting a summer camp, job recommendation. None of them relate to the woman's remark that she was associated with "bad people" (the kidnappers?) which might be Explanation No 4 if we knew more about it. This obfuscation over an essentially simple event -the woman's visit - is quite deliberate and not due to forgetfulness, confusion, or age-related deterioration. Let's see all the source documentation here in order to make better informed decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 15, 2023 13:42:58 GMT -5
Just my two-cents which includes a little story from my work experiences... From all the years I worked, I'd say I got along with 95% of those I worked with and there has only been a handful, if not less, of those staff I believe didn't do their job. As we all know, personality conflicts have nothing to do with whether or not somebody worked hard. I had a famous conflict with someone once but I'd never say they didn't work hard - quite the contrary. With that said, one of those people who actually did not, I rely on now to provide this story...
I worked with an Officer once upon a time who was on loan and it was my job to train him. He did a great job and when they were ready to fill the position permanently, everyone believed he was a shoe in. As it turned out, to everyone's dismay, he did not get it. And so, he came to work on the last day of his loan and asked my supervisor why he did not get the job. She put on a sympathetic face and responded: "I have no idea, it was a big surprise to me too." He countered: "Well that's funny, I was talking to the Captain and he told me I didn't get it because you didn't want me." The Supervisor looked stunned, stammered a little, then yelled out: "The Captain had no right to share that discussion with you!" as she retreated to her office and slammed the door shut.
Although not a carbon copy event, this experience above often reminds me of Condon's reaction to Silken calling him out for lying to the cops. (See V2 pages 403-4)
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Aug 15, 2023 17:14:06 GMT -5
It is my belief that this woman was attached in some way to the perpetrators. This is based on two things, 1 - what Condon told O'Sullivan about this woman being precisely the thing that precipitated his entry into the Lindbergh kidnapping; 2 - Condon creating numerous lies that he told to authorities to conceal this woman's identity and the reason for her visit. You must have read this affidavit, Joe. Michael has the entire affidavit in Volume 2, Chapter 5 of his book on pages 400-401. Surely you have read it. Why are you asking me for it? You have it and can certainly share it on the board too. Please do so. See? That wasn't so hard to answer my question. I am also impressed that you admit that Condon could be fabricating something. This is major and makes me hopeful that you can be objective about Condon...maybe?? What??? I did not say I embraced Condon's Throgg Neck account. I asked you for your take on it. So what is wrong with being direct? I want to know if you think Condon is lying or not and what your reasoning is. If it's going nowhere, it's because you aren't answering me. Go back and answer! I am not on shaky ground. You are. You are wrong. The woman's visit took place the morning of March 7, 1932. That very evening (March 7) Condon sat down and wrote that Bronx Home News letter. Lindbergh's appeal to Bitz and Spitale happened March 6. It was front page on March 6, 1932 newspapers when Condon would have seen it. Not the same day at all. imgur.com/dJgvOCnMy questions are very relevant and do advance the discussion. Please go answer the 3 questions in my August 13, 2023 post (you know which one it is) to help advance this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Aug 15, 2023 18:32:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Aug 15, 2023 20:53:13 GMT -5
Just my two-cents which includes a little story from my work experiences... From all the years I worked, I'd say I got along with 95% of those I worked with and there has only been a handful, if not less, of those staff I believe didn't do their job. As we all know, personality conflicts have nothing to do with whether or not somebody worked hard. I had a famous conflict with someone once but I'd never say they didn't work hard - quite the contrary. With that said, one of those people who actually did not, I rely on now to provide this story... I worked with an Officer once upon a time who was on loan and it was my job to train him. He did a great job and when they were ready to fill the position permanently, everyone believed he was a shoe in. As it turned out, to everyone's dismay, he did not get it. And so, he came to work on the last day of his loan and asked my supervisor why he did not get the job. She put on a sympathetic face and responded: " I have no idea, it was a big surprise to me too." He countered: " Well that's funny, I was talking to the Captain and he told me I didn't get it because you didn't want me." The Supervisor looked stunned, stammered a little, then yelled out: " The Captain had no right to share that discussion with you!" as she retreated to her office and slammed the door shut. Although not a carbon copy event, this experience above often reminds me of Condon's reaction to Silken calling him out for lying to the cops. (See V2 pages 403-4) Thank you for sharing this example and for sharing where to find the Silken information in your V2 book. Your books are amazing and so helpful to me and many others, I am sure, who have read them. They are the closest way to visiting the NJ State Police archives if you aren't able to get there to do research.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 19, 2023 9:11:37 GMT -5
I'm struggling to see your point in all of this. Are you suggesting or even concluding that the visiting woman was a direct emissary of the kidnapper(s) and/or extortionist(s) and therefore the primary reason for Condon's sudden entrance into the case? (Joe)
It is my belief that this woman was attached in some way to the perpetrators. This is based on two things, 1 - what Condon told O'Sullivan about this woman being precisely the thing that precipitated his entry into the Lindbergh kidnapping; 2 - Condon creating numerous lies that he told to authorities to conceal this woman's identity and the reason for her visit. (Guest)
Here is O’Sullivan’s affidavit, which I would have posted earlier but had no access to during my week away from home. I trust Michael is cool with me doing this. “Arthur J. O’Sullivan says that on or about May 15th, 1932, he was employed as a reporter for THE NEWS and that on the above date and the day before, May 14th, 1932, his particular assignment was to interview Dr. John F. Condon, in connection with the Lindbergh Kidnaping [sic] case. He says that he had read the articles printed in THE NEWS on those dates and that the portions quoting the said Dr. Condon are true entirely.”
He further says that said Dr. Condon talked freely with him on divers occasions and that on May 14th, 1932, he did say the following, in the parlor of his Decatur Ave., Bronx, home, to this reporter, to wit: “Supposing there were a family in which most of the members were bad but one of them was very good and, suppose that the good one came to you and went down on her knees, asking your protection. Wouldn’t you do everything to shield her name?”
He says that in this interview the said Dr. Condon informed him that this was precisely the thing that precipitated his entry into the Lindbergh kidnaping [sic]. When the reporter asked the said Dr. Condon if he would ever, under any circumstances, reveal the name of the woman who had come to him (at his home, he said) the said Dr. Condon replied in substance, “No, I’ll carry her name a secret to the day I die.”
He states that he makes this statement without ill feeling or prejudice against the Bronx educator and says that he has only made this statement believing same will be placed before the Governor of New Jersey, with a view of clearing up undisclosed angles in the Lindbergh kidnaping [sic] and ransom.”1179 1179 O’Sullivan, Arthur J. Affidavit. April 8, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.
It’s my belief this woman had nothing whatsoever to do with the kidnappers, and unwittingly injected herself as a potential person of interest within the timeline relating to John Condon’s interest in the case, which began on March 1, 1932 and within his growing desire to do something about it, essentially culminating into action, with news that Bitz and Spitale had been endorsed by Lindbergh to assist. As we are all well aware, Condon had an extremely fertile imagination set amidst his eternal ‘do-good’ personality. Considering all, the scenario which currently fits most aptly as I see it, is that Condon considered the woman’s sudden but entirely coincidental appearance on the scene to be a synchronistic event, which he, in a preferred way within that same fertile imagination, connected into the overall story of the kidnapping and current ransom negotiations, details of which were appearing in the press and were being absorbed by Condon. Ultimately, I see some similarities here within the ‘Our Lady of Tucahoe’ story which again seems to underscore the undesirable fallout from the the unilateral and confidential approach which Lindbergh, Breckinridge and in that case, Condon took, both within and outside the scope of the official law enforcement investigation. I also think it’s important to consider this very important factor here within the overall discussion, and which no one has yet mentioned.. Ultimately, if this visiting woman had had even the remotest of connections to the kidnapper(s) and/or extortionist(s) of Charles Lindbergh’s child, Heaven and Earth would have been moved to discover her name, and further, the family members who were supposedly “bad” and by said inference, were involved in the kidnapping. They would have been run down and grilled mercilessly, in spite of all of John Condon’s maudlin sentiments to take her name to his grave. Look what happened to Red Johnson, clearly an innocent. Given the gravity of this case and the no holds barred methods used to investigate even phantoms and shadows by an unprecedented task force, this factor should by no means, be understated. (Joe) ___________________________________
I don't really know. I've never been able to satisfactorily bring the Throgg's Neck story to ground in my own mind. It's eerily reminiscent of the account of another case character, I believe Dobson-Peacock, and his claim he was buttonholed by unsavory characters over his involvement within the case, where he gave the impression he was not afraid and that he had been responsible for some good "detective work." It’s been a while since I read of that account, and the details are a bit vague. Knowing Condon's penchant for storytelling, which I know is difficult to decipher at times from the truth, I wouldn't at all be surprised if he fabricated this account to bolster his own image, although I’m not certain which account came first. (Joe) See? That wasn't so hard to answer my question. I am also impressed that you admit that Condon could be fabricating something. This is major and makes me hopeful that you can be objective about Condon...maybe?? (Guest)
I didn’t answer your question, but gave you my opinion. I believe I have a very good understanding of the man John Condon was, specifically relative to what inspired him to want to assist the Lindberghs, and which is roundly supported by all of his actions throughout. Here on this discussion board, his name, words and actions for the most part, seems to elicit little more than successive rounds of eye-rolling, unless his words can be used to conclude some potential, personal criminal involvement in the kidnapping and/or extortion. In short, he's typically perceived as some kind of conniving and deceitful clown, seeking only to further his own villainous intentions, ala The Joker. Sorry, viewed against the backdrop of this case in its entirety and his resume, that’s not objectivity. Not even close. As you’ve been avoiding my own question to you, I’ll pose it again, as it may help to avoid some unnecessary ones. Can you demonstrate one occasion where Condon clearly violated his personal oath to serve the Lindberghs within the ransom negotiations and beyond that, with the discovery of Charlie’s body? (Joe) ___________________________________
The shaky ground you are standing on here within your personal read of the woman’s visit, which happened to take place on the same day that Condon learned that Bitz and Spitale had been approved by Lindbergh to assist in the case, is generating this kind of drill sergeant response on your part. Look, I’ll answer your questions, but please make them relevant to the advancement of this discussion, and not just a platform for strident speculation. (Joe)
I am not on shaky ground. You are. You are wrong. The woman's visit took place the morning of March 7, 1932. That very evening (March 7) Condon sat down and wrote that Bronx Home News letter. Lindbergh's appeal to Bitz and Spitale happened March 6. It was front page on March 6, 1932 newspapers when Condon would have seen it. Not the same day at all. (Guest)
My mistake here, and I should have confirmed the timing of both accounts, when I could. The entrance of Bitz and Spitale into the case might well have helped to reinforce in Condon’s mind, the increased likelihood of the presence of unsavory “gang” members, thus giving additional credence to the woman's sudden visit and her having had “bad” family members. Thank you for the clarification and indirectly pointing this out. (Joe)
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Aug 20, 2023 20:38:12 GMT -5
Here is O’Sullivan’s affidavit, which I would have posted earlier but had no access to during my week away from home. I trust Michael is cool with me doing this. “Arthur J. O’Sullivan says that on or about May 15th, 1932, he was employed as a reporter for THE NEWS and that on the above date and the day before, May 14th, 1932, his particular assignment was to interview Dr. John F. Condon, in connection with the Lindbergh Kidnaping [sic] case. He says that he had read the articles printed in THE NEWS on those dates and that the portions quoting the said Dr. Condon are true entirely.”
He further says that said Dr. Condon talked freely with him on divers occasions and that on May 14th, 1932, he did say the following, in the parlor of his Decatur Ave., Bronx, home, to this reporter, to wit: “Supposing there were a family in which most of the members were bad but one of them was very good and, suppose that the good one came to you and went down on her knees, asking your protection. Wouldn’t you do everything to shield her name?”
He says that in this interview the said Dr. Condon informed him that this was precisely the thing that precipitated his entry into the Lindbergh kidnaping [sic]. When the reporter asked the said Dr. Condon if he would ever, under any circumstances, reveal the name of the woman who had come to him (at his home, he said) the said Dr. Condon replied in substance, “No, I’ll carry her name a secret to the day I die.”
He states that he makes this statement without ill feeling or prejudice against the Bronx educator and says that he has only made this statement believing same will be placed before the Governor of New Jersey, with a view of clearing up undisclosed angles in the Lindbergh kidnaping [sic] and ransom.”1179 1179 O’Sullivan, Arthur J. Affidavit. April 8, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.
Thank you very much for posting this, Joe.It’s my belief this woman had nothing whatsoever to do with the kidnappers, and unwittingly injected herself as a potential person of interest (Joe)
You are in direct opposition to what Condon said about her and how his need to help and protect this woman propelled him to get involved. There is nothing about Bitz and Spitale being the reason Condon injected himself into the case. That said, you are certainly entitled to your opinion about this as I am entitled to mine. As we are all well aware, Condon had an extremely fertile imagination...(Joe)Oh my goodness! This is the most outrageous and misleading way to describe and dismiss lying behavior that I have ever encountered on this board.
...set amidst his eternal 'do-good' personality.(Joe)Eternal?! Another preposterous statement by you. Ultimately, if this visiting woman had had even the remotest of connections to the kidnapper(s) and/or extortionist(s) of Charles Lindbergh’s child, Heaven and Earth would have been moved to discover her name, and further, the family members who were supposedly “bad”... (Joe)FYI Joe. Once Maurice Silken brought this woman to the attention of law enforcement they did try to find out who she was. They considered this very important to do. They did their best to track her down with next to nothing to go on. It's in the LE reports. The problem investigators had was with Condon. He admitted to investigators this woman visited him when confronted by cab driver Maurice Silken who had brought the woman to Condon's house. Condon was absolutely NO HELP to them. Condon lied repeatedly when questioned about her. Remember these explanations Condon gave about this woman and her one visit on March 7, 1932: Explanation #1 - Condon said this woman had applied to him for a position in his home as a housekeeper, although he did not advertise for any housekeeper, he could not understand why this woman, whom he does not know, visited him inquiring for that position.
Explanation #2 - Condon said he did not know her name but she visited him for the purpose of having him get some children that she could keep at a summer camp she was starting at the Atlantic Highlands.
Explanation #3 - Condon said this woman did call at his home, that she requested a recommendation from him to teach the kindergarten at the Gould Estate. Condon stated that he was formerly in charge of same and that it was necessary for her to get a letter of recommendation from him before she could obtain the position. Condon stated that he did not know the woman. He would not recommend her.
One woman, one visit, three lies told. This is Condon shielding and protecting this woman who visited him on March 7. This is the woman whose name he said he would keep secret "to the day I die."
Please explain to me how the above lies reflect Condon's do-good personality.
I didn’t answer your question, but gave you my opinion. (Joe)I beg to differ with you here. You did answer my Throggs Neck question which was:
Was Condon lying to O'Sullivan or was he telling him the truth?
You answered, "I don't really know." You then went on to qualify that answer with your opinion. Thank you for your answer to my question.
I believe I have a very good understanding of the man John Condon was, specifically relative to what inspired him to want to assist the Lindberghs, and which is roundly supported by all of his actions throughout.(Joe)Your inability to look at Condon objectively clouds your understanding of his actions - good or bad - in this case. That is how I see it. As you’ve been avoiding my own question to you, I’ll pose it again. Can you demonstrate one occasion where Condon clearly violated his personal oath to serve the Lindberghs within the ransom negotiations and beyond that, with the discovery of Charlie’s body? (Joe)
This is not exactly the same question you asked me in your post of August 13, 2023. You have rephrased the question by adding the addition of a time frame that was not part of your original question. I will, however, do my best to address it.
Condon's personal oath to the Lindberghs? Can you please show me where he makes a solemn promise to the Lindberghs? Condon did make such a promise to the kidnappers. He promised them he would never reveal their identity to anyone. He kept that promise from March 7 straight through all the negotiations, the paying of the ransom money, the discovery of the body of Charles, Jr. and through the entire investigation. This would violate any promise he made to the Lindberghs, if he ever really did.
Lastly, but most importantly, I refer you to Michael's V2, Chapter 4, page 201 concerning Dan B. Cowie, as a reference point, and what Cowie shared about Lindbergh concerning Condon.
In an old post on this board, Michael posted a section of this document concerning what Lindbergh thought of John F. Condon and his role in this case. Here is an excerpt from that document section:
"The Colonel told me further, that he had absolutely no confidence in Dr. Condon and that he had misled him very much to his sorrow; that if the party to whom the ransom money was paid was ever arrested, Dr. Condon would never identify him. He said without equivocation, that Dr. Condon had aided and abetted those collecting the ransom."
That basically sums up this whole conversation we have been having.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 20, 2023 22:21:03 GMT -5
I'll never understand how people like Joe can continue to defend Condon. He lied about everything, all the time. His biggest success was in obfuscating the actual extortionists from being caught. Nothing for me proved Condon's dishonest more than Michael proving pretty conclusively that he lied about the ransom box being turned over to the kidnappers, when he just stashed it in a bush the whole time.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 21, 2023 10:21:57 GMT -5
I'll never understand how people like Joe can continue to defend Condon. He lied about everything, all the time. His biggest success was in obfuscating the actual extortionists from being caught. Nothing for me proved Condon's dishonest more than Michael proving pretty conclusively that he lied about the ransom box being turned over to the kidnappers, when he just stashed it in a bush the whole time. My position has never been one in which I 'defend' John Condon, or any other specific participant in the LKC. I believe what you’re personally experiencing here is simply a kind of distortion created by difference of opinion and your refusal to answer the truly tough questions. As I’ve said many times before, I’ll gladly debate any overall topic down to its singular points with anyone here. In fact, I encourage doing this as a means of avoiding the kind of 'company line' generalities and distractions that only undermine positive and meaningful conversation. If you choose to believe and are fully satisfied with the 'boxwood bush' interpretation you're referring to, by all means do so. I don’t.. not by a longshot. I’d also venture that by avoiding this account’s weak foundations, you’re no closer to dismantling the overall ‘house of cards’ you appear to openly support here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 21, 2023 21:44:23 GMT -5
If you choose to believe and are fully satisfied with the 'boxwood bush' interpretation you're referring to, by all means do so. I don’t.. not by a longshot. I’d also venture that by avoiding this account’s weak foundations, you’re no closer to dismantling the overall ‘house of cards’ you appear to openly support here. There's nothing weak about it. Condon gave what, THREE different versions for "why" he walked down E. Tremont? There's your "weakness" Joe. The man lied ... constantly, No, it's not everyone else who is wrong. He was a liar. He gave a description of the Needle Salesman to a Special Agent, even saying he looked like the Lookout at Woodlawn, then during a later interview with a different Agent said He WAS NOT home when the Needle Salesman called!!! Just one example of this is enough but there are COUNTLESS examples. These cannot be explained away with anything innocent. The man was lying.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2023 8:12:06 GMT -5
It’s my belief this woman had nothing whatsoever to do with the kidnappers, and unwittingly injected herself as a potential person of interest (Joe)
You are in direct opposition to what Condon said about her and how his need to help and protect this woman propelled him to get involved. There is nothing about Bitz and Spitale being the reason Condon injected himself into the case. That said, you are certainly entitled to your opinion about this as I am entitled to mine. (Guest)
Do you believe that the visiting woman was in fact, Condon’s main reason for injecting himself into the case? If so, why do you choose to believe this specific statement version, when you also claim he lied all the time?
In his book, Jafsie Tells All, he refers to the entry of Bitz and Spitale into the case, as well as a newspaper editorial lamenting the fact that no resolution to the kidnapping had been forthcoming to that point, immediately prior to the penning of his letter to the Bronx Home News. His general disgust, over the previous week of newspaper headlines that something like this could happen in his beloved America, would have been the decided undercurrent here. (Joe) _____________________________________________________
As we are all well aware, Condon had an extremely fertile imagination... (Joe)
Oh my goodness! This is the most outrageous and misleading way to describe and dismiss lying behavior that I have ever encountered on this board. (Guest)
Condon’s differing stories are not out of necessity, an indictment of him having been an accomplice within the extortion and/or kidnapping. He clearly believed he was in a privileged position and had good reason to mislead, be cagey, untruthful at times and even forgetful, with anyone outside the inner circle he held with Lindbergh and Breckinridge during the highly confidential ransom negotiations.
As for your criticism, it’s a little outrageous in itself. I’ve certainly seen many misleading ways to describe events and circumstances within this case by you, including the above one we’re currently discussing. Read on in my next posts.. (Joe) ______________________________________________________
...set amidst his eternal 'do-good' personality. (Joe)
Eternal?! Another preposterous statement by you. (Guest)
How so? Did Condon generally, or specifically, stop being his beneficent and magnanimous self at some point you can describe? Perhaps you did not read that report from FBI Agent Sisk concerning Condon’s life and experiences within the Bronx, which includes much detail on how he continually 'played it forward' and gave back to his Bronx community. Would you like a copy? If you have read it, why would you call my above statement, preposterous? Do the above factors play some part at all, within your estimation of his overall qualities as a human being and how they affected his role in the LKC? (Joe)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2023 8:27:15 GMT -5
Ultimately, if this visiting woman had had even the remotest of connections to the kidnapper(s) and/or extortionist(s) of Charles Lindbergh’s child, Heaven and Earth would have been moved to discover her name, and further, the family members who were supposedly “bad”... (Joe)
FYI Joe. Once Maurice Silken brought this woman to the attention of law enforcement they did try to find out who she was. They considered this very important to do. They did their best to track her down with next to nothing to go on. It's in the LE reports. The problem investigators had was with Condon. He admitted to investigators this woman visited him when confronted by cab driver Maurice Silken who had brought the woman to Condon's house. Condon was absolutely NO HELP to them. Condon lied repeatedly when questioned about her. Remember these explanations Condon gave about this woman and her one visit on March 7, 1932:
Explanation #1 - Condon said this woman had applied to him for a position in his home as a housekeeper, although he did not advertise for any housekeeper, he could not understand why this woman, whom he does not know, visited him inquiring for that position.
Explanation #2 - Condon said he did not know her name but she visited him for the purpose of having him get some children that she could keep at a summer camp she was starting at the Atlantic Highlands.
Explanation #3 - Condon said this woman did call at his home, that she requested a recommendation from him to teach the kindergarten at the Gould Estate. Condon stated that he was formerly in charge of same and that it was necessary for her to get a letter of recommendation from him before she could obtain the position. Condon stated that he did not know the woman. He would not recommend her.
One woman, one visit, three lies told. This is Condon shielding and protecting this woman who visited him on March 7. This is the woman whose name he said he would keep secret "to the day I die."
Please explain to me how the above lies reflect Condon's do-good personality. (Guest)
I know full well what Condon told police, but none of his reported statements confirms with any degree of certainty, that the woman was a direct emissary of the kidnapper(s) and/or extortionist(s). If you truly believe that authorities essentially ‘retired’ from pressing Condon on the significance of the visiting woman, having been unable to extract anything further from her, I would then ask you this question.
Given the fact that Condon would essentially have had a bullseye painted on his chest by investigators by this time, have you at all, considered this possibility? Could these same investigators, by dint of their professional skills and abilities, investigative intuition and all of the evidence and information gathered, have come to understand that the woman in question had nothing to do with the kidnapping and/or extortion, and simply happened to be ‘in the wrong place at the wrong time?’ (Joe)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2023 8:42:21 GMT -5
Can you demonstrate one occasion where Condon clearly violated his personal oath to serve the Lindberghs within the ransom negotiations and beyond that, with the discovery of Charlie’s body? (Joe)
This is not exactly the same question you asked me in your post of August 13, 2023. You have rephrased the question by adding the addition of a time frame that was not part of your original question. I will, however, do my best to address it.
Condon's personal oath to the Lindberghs? Can you please show me where he makes a solemn promise to the Lindberghs? (Guest)
On two occasions, as revealed by Condon in his book, Jafsie Tells All. Once while he knelt beside Charlie’s crib in Hopewell in the early morning hours of March 10, 1932, and vowed to help return the child to his parents. (Pages 34-35) Secondly, at the grave site where Charlie’s remains had been discovered, where, having failing to help deliver the child safely, he vowed to assist in tracking down the perpetrator(s) of the crime. (Pages 184-185) I understand you may not have found any reference to these accounts in the NJSP Archives. Do I believe Condon’s words here, which he expressed in his widely circulated book? Yes. (Joe) __________________________________________________
Condon did make such a promise to the kidnappers. He promised them he would never reveal their identity to anyone. He kept that promise from March 7 straight through all the negotiations, the paying of the ransom money, the discovery of the body of Charles, Jr. and through the entire investigation. This would violate any promise he made to the Lindberghs, if he ever really did. (guest)
Your timeline is misleading, due to it being a mix of fact and personal speculation. Condon promised never to reveal the kidnapper(s) identity, if the child was returned safely to his parents. Your statement then assumes he knew the identity of the kidnapper(s) and/or extortionist(s) at some point in time prior to Hauptmann’s arrest, which is exactly where you've moved beyond fact into personal speculation, but apparently presented as fact.
Clearly, any desire on the part of Condon to protect the identities of those involved, vanished when the baby was discovered dead. At this time, Condon renewed his vow to again serve the Lindberghs, by doing whatever he could to assist in tracking down the killer(s) of their child. (Joe)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2023 9:27:01 GMT -5
Lastly, but most importantly, I refer you to Michael's V2, Chapter 4, page 201 concerning Dan B. Cowie, as a reference point, and what Cowie shared about Lindbergh concerning Condon.
In an old post on this board, Michael posted a section of this document concerning what Lindbergh thought of John F. Condon and his role in this case. Here is an excerpt from that document section:
"The Colonel told me further, that he had absolutely no confidence in Dr. Condon and that he had misled him very much to his sorrow; that if the party to whom the ransom money was paid was ever arrested, Dr. Condon would never identify him. He said without equivocation, that Dr. Condon had aided and abetted those collecting the ransom." (Guest)
I don’t disagree that Lindbergh, at times during the ransom negotiations, would have had reason to doubt Condon’s effectiveness as an intermediary, or even the veracity of his motives and actions. At the start, Lindbergh and Breckinridge put implicit faith in him following their first meeting in Hopewell. While determining that he was somewhat fatuous, they also considered him to be sincere and trustworthy. They also discovered very quickly, his general reputation in the Bronx, being that of an altruistic and honorable educator. As things began to develop within the ransom negotiations, I believe that any perceived ‘flies in the ointment' by Lindbergh and Breckinridge, would have arisen out of Condon’s love of publicity and his running mouth, set against the backdrop of confidentiality and the very private personal negotiations originally intended to be carried on with the kidnapper(s) by Lindbergh and company.
The subject letter from Dan Cowie to Governor Hoffman in the days immediately prior to Hauptmann’s execution, is a bit of a 'red herring' opposite everything else we know. It’s also one of a number of essentially futile attempts to shed additional light on the possibility of Hauptmann having had accomplices, while Hoffman also strove to bolster and even save his personal and politically-motivated mission, so this should also be considered.
Lindbergh’s concern here appears to be the possibility of Hauptmann accomplices, if any, who would still have been at large following his arrest. Just about everyone at the time of the kidnapping and leading up to Hauptmann’s arrest, with the exception of individuals like Dudley Schoenfeld, believed a gang was involved. Condon lamented to Agent Leon Turrou that his life “wasn’t worth five cents” after Hauptmann’s arrest, because “Hauptmann’s accomplices would kill” him. I believe this statement firmly underscores Condon’s genuine inner fear of retribution towards himself and/or his family if he promptly identified Hauptmann. Lindbergh, by his stoic nature, would have had no such fear or at the least, would never have expressed as much.
Condon tried on a number of occasions, to impress upon both Lindbergh and Breckinridge that the ransom money should not be paid until they had proof positive from the kidnapper(s), that Charlie was alive and well. In fact, it was Lindbergh, Breckinridge and many within law enforcement who ultimately believed time was of the essence and the ransom should be paid according to the kidnapper(s) demands.
Condon received the following handwritten letter from Lindbergh who offered his gratitude for the role he had played in the unsuccessful efforts to bring his son back alive.
“My Dear Dr. Condon:
Mrs. Lindbergh and I want to thank you for the great assistance you have been to us. We fully realize that you have devoted the major portion of your time and energy to bring about the return of our son. We wish to express to you our sincere appreciation for your courage and co-operation. Sincerely, Charles A. Lindbergh”
Lindbergh also invited Condon (and daughter Myra) to spend a friendly evening with them at Englewood approximately one year after the kidnapping, again with the intention of offering his thanks and even some financial compensation for Condon’s efforts, which the latter declined.
I’m very interested in exploring more deeply the Dan Cowie letter to Governor Hoffman, based on it being such an outlier.
Here are some questions I have regarding the original meeting between Lindbergh and Cowie. Please add your current understanding with supporting documentation, if you can.
1. On what date did the meeting take place and what was it's original purpose?
2. Under what pretext(s) did Lindbergh purportedly state his thoughts and feelings about Condon’s role as his intermediary, when by all other accounts he appeared to have been very satisfied with same?
3. What evidence if any, does Lindbergh provide to support any contention that Condon was attempting at any time, to deceive him and work at cross purposes to his expressed desire to help return the child safely to his parents? (Joe)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2023 10:03:41 GMT -5
If you choose to believe and are fully satisfied with the 'boxwood bush' interpretation you're referring to, by all means do so. I don’t.. not by a longshot. I’d also venture that by avoiding this account’s weak foundations, you’re no closer to dismantling the overall ‘house of cards’ you appear to openly support here. There's nothing weak about it. Condon gave what, THREE different versions for "why" he walked down E. Tremont? There's your "weakness" Joe. The man lied ... constantly, No, it's not everyone else who is wrong. He was a liar. He gave a description of the Needle Salesman to a Special Agent, even saying he looked like the Lookout at Woodlawn, then during a later interview with a different Agent said He WAS NOT home when the Needle Salesman called!!! Just one example of this is enough but there are COUNTLESS examples. These cannot be explained away with anything innocent. The man was lying. There's nothing weak about it. Condon gave what, THREE different versions for "why" he walked down E. Tremont? There's your "weakness" Joe. The man lied ... constantly, No, it's not everyone else who is wrong. He was a liar. He gave a description of the Needle Salesman to a Special Agent, even saying he looked like the Lookout at Woodlawn, then during a later interview with a different Agent said He WAS NOT home when the Needle Salesman called!!! Just one example of this is enough but there are COUNTLESS examples. These cannot be explained away with anything innocent. The man was lying. I contend your theory has a very sizeable Achilles Heel, that appears to have become the 'elephant in the room' here, and I'd like to address it by posing a few observations and questions.
Firstly, none of the events you routinely refer to, out of necessity, makes Condon a criminal accomplice. I believe you simply connect the dots of your choice using your own brand of cause and effect logic. Unfortunately this process doesn’t hold up 100% here. You might think you’ve hit the lottery here, but that damn middle number is a ‘0’ and not a ‘9.’
Secondly, regarding the alleged ransom box in the boxwood bush, do you have an explanation for the seeming mini-convention of participants, including Condon, Henry Breckinridge, Gregory Coleman and possibly Al Reich, who you report were searching for something, that you further speculate was the original ransom box given to Cemetery John by Condon?
If Condon was guilty of some criminal deception in concert with the extortionists(s) here, doesn't he appear to have let the cat out of the bag here?
In your theory, would Lindbergh himself have been aware of all of this surreptitious foraging at St. Raymond’s after the night of the ransom payment, which allegedly took place over the next week or so?
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Sept 2, 2023 15:59:23 GMT -5
Just so you know, Joe, you are entitled to your "holier than thou" opinion of Condon. Condon was not the saint you try to portray him to be in this case. You believe what you want. I will not be joining you at your Condon altar of worship.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2023 17:53:38 GMT -5
Just so you know, Joe, you are entitled to your "holier than thou" opinion of Condon. Condon was not the saint you try to portray him to be in this case. You believe what you want. I will not be joining you at your Condon altar of worship. Guest, you have a very unusual understanding in general about how I see this case and then specifically, its many characters of interest. Condon, a very main player, is just one of them. To be entirely candid, I don't particularly care for his type and further, have no absolutely reason to defend the man in the way you appear to believe I do. I've expressed my feelings many times before and I can promise you that what you're implying would never align with my own curious and objective nature. Anyone can see that Condon was no saint. Further, if he and I had been in each other's sphere of influence, I would essentially have avoided the man.. far too garrulous and even irritatingly histrionic. I do know without question, he was entirely sincere in his desire to honestly serve the Lindberghs to the best of his ability from the time he pushed himself into the case, until he had done all he could. Your statement that I hold him upon high, is as ridiculous as the many ways you routinely use your single-faceted approach to solve complex case issues here. Nevertheless, I appreciate your uninspired response, as it at least demonstrates to me that you're not willing to answer the truly tough questions which I'll continue to ask and which so often call into doubt, some of the faulty case conclusions you openly support here. Oh Boy, talk about altar of worship..
|
|
|
Post by Donna on Dec 9, 2023 0:33:35 GMT -5
We know about the 3 German families because Lindbergh's daughter, Astrid, stepped forward 20 years ago to inform the public about the existence of personal letters that her mother kept. Lindbergh may have other children and grandchildren out there, but individuals may be remaining silent for any number of reasons. In Rudolf Schrock's book, there is a picture on page 287 of a young girl that Lindbergh is carrying. She looks bi-racial. Could this be another one of Lindbergh's daughters? He spent time in the Phillipines. (The same picture can be found in the photo section of the A. Scott Berg book after page 436.) I know of other pictures of Lindbergh in photos with a child that looks of mixed race that could pass for a child of his own. There does not have to be a complicated reason for a man wanting to have children all over the place. Look at Nick Cannon.
|
|
|
Post by Donna on Dec 9, 2023 0:36:28 GMT -5
That photo isn't a girl. It's a young boy from a Filipino tribe.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 10, 2023 8:49:34 GMT -5
That child looks like a girl to me.
Thanks for the correction, but I have to ask how you know that it is a boy?
Thank you.
|
|