luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Nov 8, 2023 19:43:08 GMT -5
I recently started to consider the possibility that Condon may have been the brains behind the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 9, 2023 2:09:09 GMT -5
As someone who thinks Lindbergh likely went through Carrell (or another third party) to hire a gang to execute the "kidnap," I do think Condon was exactly what he was intended to be - an intermediary, except that he was essentially "hired" by the kidnappers to shield them from the police while they extorted Lindbergh for money. Only once he found out the child was dead did he have second thoughts.
There's literally no other way to explain his lying and obfuscating.
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Nov 9, 2023 12:15:03 GMT -5
As someone who thinks Lindbergh likely went through Carrell (or another third party) to hire a gang to execute the "kidnap," I do think Condon was exactly what he was intended to be - an intermediary, except that he was essentially "hired" by the kidnappers to shield them from the police while they extorted Lindbergh for money. Only once he found out the child was dead did he have second thoughts. There's literally no other way to explain his lying and obfuscating. The hiring of Condon was intentional because Condon was formerly involved in sports and politics which have ties to the mob and these things are intertwined with each other
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Nov 10, 2023 9:22:08 GMT -5
1. Condon's open letter was published in the Bronx Home News--not the Times or Daily News or American. The "kidnapper" Hauptmann lived in the Bronx. Boy, that was lucky! 2. Condon managed a lot of real estate on City Island, crammed with yacht clubs and summer homes of the rich. Red Johnson was a sailor on a yacht owned by Thomas LaMont, partner of Dwight Morrow. John Hughes Curtis owned a small shipyard/drydock. Evangeline's uncle was a senior executive at Dwight Lumber Company, who built yachts and speedboats. 3. Condon coached fencing. Lindbergh's friend, partner, and attorney Henry Skillman Breckinridge won a bronze medal in fencing at the 1928 Olympics. The "kidnapper" wrote directly to Breckinridge BEFORE "he" wrote to Condon. 4. Condon's real estate clients needed a lot of money laundered. Condon's address and phone number were written on a closet in the house Bruno and Anna RENTED, along with the serial numbers of several large bills that were NOT ransom money. Hauptmann was CLEARLY laundering money for speakeasies and others. "My friend wishes to purchase some stocks. He doesn't want his wife/in-laws/mistress/Uncle Sucker to find out about it. You understand. Here's a list of the stocks he wants, and this wad of bills should cover it. Keep the change." 5. "This kidnapping case was planned for over a year." Over a year before the phony kidnapping, Bruno and Anna had a couple of lodgers living with them. One of them was a steamfitter. In summer 1930, steamfitters worked on a BIG project to building a steam heat system for the entire Skillman Village (3 miles due east from Highfields) complex with one central boiler. Soon after, the same company installed steam heat in Highfields. A steamfitter from that Connecticut company lodged with a local carpenter who had been hired by the builder as a night watchman for the Highfields site. The Colonel had him fired. "We don't need a night watchman. People will think I'm afraid of prowlers and kidnappers." How stupid can a smart guy get? How lucky can a "kidnapper" get? Said kidnapper himself said he routinely walked through the woods along the path where Little Lindy's body was found. So, what? Remember, before Hauptmann started buying bubble gum with $10 gold notes, the "profile" of the "kidnapper" was a left-handed carpenter who used recycled scrap lumber from the Village to build "his" phony "ladder?" Remember that? 6. Not only did the "kidnapper" juuuuuuuust happen to read the Bronx Home News, he agreed to Condon as go-between IMMEDIATELY. Literally, the FIRST person to volunteer. So, what? Well, what "kidnapper" waits until AFTER he's snatched the victim to put his crew together? 7. Hollyweird actress Rosalind Russell claimed that Jafsie had previously "tutored" Dwight Morrow's illegitimate son. That's hilariously suspicious, until you find out WHO tried to extort $50,000 dollars from Constance Morrow's parents in 1929. Oh, don't worry. He wasn't arrested. He promised not to do it again. So, they gave him his old job back. You'll NEVER guess what that was. 8. Jafsie was the least reliable "witness" in the whole phony caper. 9. All those Romanian Jews tangled up with Schippel and his rent-a-shack? Sophie Cerardi and her "husband" and her "nurse" etc? Sophie's son was a NYC "marshal." In NYC, they do evictions and other property seizures. (He later became an IRS auditor.) As a landlord evicting tenants left and right in the bottom of the Great Depression, Jafsie would have been on a first name basis with the NYC marshals. Duane Bacon aka Duane Baker, one-time "superintendent" of the Plymouth Apartments where "JJ Faulkner" claimed to live, got evicted every other month during those years. Including from the Plymouth. He also would have been on a first name basis with the city marshals. He only ever paid his rent once--right after the "ransom" money disappeared. He paid in gold coins. Which, at that particular time, you could only obtain by two methods--dig up your old Aunt Alice's rose garden, or buy with gold certificates. 10. Ever LOOK at the "ransom notes?" 10--and only 10--sheets of paper have the "authentic" rubber stamp/three nail hole signature. The rest don't. Most conspicuously, A. the note Jafsie supposably found under the rock at the frankfurter stand does NOT have the "signature" on it. Did Jafsie pocket the REAL note, and substitute one of his own? He had time to study the handwriting on the note that was mailed directly to him. That note directed Jafsie to the Woodlawn Cemetery Futz Around. The next note to arrive in the mail said, "Our man fail to collect money." Like, he was surprised. Like, he wasn't actually at the WCFA. Supposably, Jafsie received the next note by taxi--this one had the "signature" and instructions to go to the Bergen Greenhouse to find ANOTHER note under a rock. This one directed him to St Raymond's Cemetery, where he traded a cigar box full of gold certificates for the B. "Boad Nelly" note. You remember. That note didn't have the "signature," either. Again, he could have easily swapped notes AGAIN.
So, was Jafsie the "mastermind?" Far from it. The Colonel was the mastermind. Jafsie was supposed to hand the money right back to The Colonel. But, against The Colonel's stubborn protests, the Feds INSISTED that JP Morgan write down the serial numbers of the notes. That put a wrench in the monkey, for sure. Sooooooo...Bruno was handed the marked money, and The Colonel was handed half of Evalyn Walsh McLean's $106,000 that he split with Gaston Bullock Means. The expert forger. The expert framer. The expert extortionist and con artist.
I know what you're thinking--why would Evalyn Walsh McLean turn around and hand Means $106,000 when he just got through publishing a book framing her BFF Flo Harding for assassinating her (Flo's. Not Evalyn's) president hubby? Well, you saw what happened to Means, right? You saw what happened to Hauptmann, right? You saw what happened to the money, right?
"I need to make a toddler, a money launderer, a con artist, and $156,000 disappear..."
PS You know ransom money is tax deductible, right?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 10, 2023 11:21:18 GMT -5
It's a novel what do you expect
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 10, 2023 11:21:40 GMT -5
Your nuts
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Nov 10, 2023 11:31:24 GMT -5
Maybe. Maybe Batman is also Superman. Who knows? But, the facts are the facts. And the facts clearly show this whole caper was a massive hoax. Masterminded by The Colonel.
You--or Jafsie, or Bruno, or Wolfie Schickelgruber--could never make ANY of this horsehockey happen without the full cooperation and dictatorial leadership of The Colonel. None of it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 10, 2023 12:56:54 GMT -5
As someone who thinks Lindbergh likely went through Carrell (or another third party) to hire a gang to execute the "kidnap," I do think Condon was exactly what he was intended to be - an intermediary, except that he was essentially "hired" by the kidnappers to shield them from the police while they extorted Lindbergh for money. Only once he found out the child was dead did he have second thoughts. There's literally no other way to explain his lying and obfuscating. Agreed. The only thing I'm still wavering about is whether or not he knew the child was dead when he agreed to take up his role. There's days when I don't think he knew then I'll read something to make me change my mind. I am back and forth on this point all the time.
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Nov 11, 2023 10:53:50 GMT -5
There was a swastika painted on the inside of the nose cone of The Spirit of St Louis. The group of St Louis "business" men who backed this incredibly lucky venture (you HAVE noticed just how incredibly lucky Lindy really was. Haven't you? I mean, he only had this ONE piece of bad "luck" his whole life) included like-minded people. And by like minded, I mean, "Major" Lambert's brother Jordan was an enthusiastic occultist and spiritualist who committed suicide over some mysterioso (mysteriosa?) broad named Nelly. Etc etc etc. Not to mention the white supremacy, blah, blah, blah. Anyhoo, Lucky Lindy himself claimed to have been visited by spirits on his incredibly lucky trip across the Big Pond. Birds of a feather, as it were.
So, what? Well, on Thursday, Feb 25, 1932, Wolfie Shickelgruber obtained a civil service job in Brunswick, making him a de jure citizen of the Second Reich. On Tuesday March 1, 1932, Wolfie filed the paperwork to toss his hat into the 1932 Reichpresident election. Did Lucky Lindy sacrifice his first-born son to ensure an auspicious inauguration of this enterprise? The Nazis, of course, worshipped the stereotype of the Spartans, who, according to legend, publicly euthanized their own deformed babies by tossing them over a cliff and bashing their skulls on the rocks of Mt Taygetus. Little Lindy had his skull bashed in on March 1, 1932 by having been dropped out a second-story window on Mt Lindbergh by a "home intruder" who magically levitated...well, you know that horsehockey, already.
Lindy certainly believed in "racial hygiene" and "race suicide." He was eager to cozy up to Shickelgruber's "movement" and promoted it in the US. How could he kiss up to T-4 racial hygienists like Hermann Goering whilst simultaneously introducing them to his birth-defected son and namesake? "Well, we only believe in euthanizing OTHER people's defective babies. Not our own. Oh, here. We brought you some crucial rocket technology from Goddard's Roswell lab."
There is simply no way to look at the evidence in this "case" and see Lucky Lindy as any kind of "innocent victim." There is no way to look at the simple chronological events in this "case" and see Lucky Lindy somehow "not knowing" what all this incredibly ludicrous horsehockey was all about from long before the get-go. NONE of this nonsense was the slightest bit possible without The Colonel. None of it.
I wonder just how much money The Colonel lost in the Crash? I wonder how much money Dwight Morrow left to Little Lindy? I wonder what happened to that money when Little Lindy died...
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Nov 11, 2023 12:40:38 GMT -5
As someone who thinks Lindbergh likely went through Carrell (or another third party) to hire a gang to execute the "kidnap," I do think Condon was exactly what he was intended to be - an intermediary, except that he was essentially "hired" by the kidnappers to shield them from the police while they extorted Lindbergh for money. Only once he found out the child was dead did he have second thoughts. There's literally no other way to explain his lying and obfuscating. Agreed. The only thing I'm still wavering about is whether or not he knew the child was dead when he agreed to take up his role. There's days when I don't think he knew then I'll read something to make me change my mind. I am back and forth on this point all the time. Agreed on all this. My own thought is that Condon didn't know CAL Jr. was dead when the kidnappers approached him to act as an intermediary. He would've wanted to succeed in returning the child to the Lindberghs and being a national hero. I also think it would've been too dangerous to get involved if he knew from the outset CAL Jr. was dead. He returned the $20K, after all, which was, I think, his payment for his role as intermediary. If that's the case, why did he return it? To me, it looks like after he was approached to be an intermediary and then got new information which would make that $20K blood money and therefore impossible for him to accept.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 11, 2023 13:42:06 GMT -5
Agreed. The only thing I'm still wavering about is whether or not he knew the child was dead when he agreed to take up his role. There's days when I don't think he knew then I'll read something to make me change my mind. I am back and forth on this point all the time. Agreed on all this. My own thought is that Condon didn't know CAL Jr. was dead when the kidnappers approached him to act as an intermediary. He would've wanted to succeed in returning the child to the Lindberghs and being a national hero. I also think it would've been too dangerous to get involved if he knew from the outset CAL Jr. was dead. He returned the $20K, after all, which was, I think, his payment for his role as intermediary. If that's the case, why did he return it? To me, it looks like after he was approached to be an intermediary and then got new information which would make that $20K blood money and therefore impossible for him to accept. This entire unlikely and imaginative hypothetical avenue relies on the belief that John Condon would knowingly consort and plan with criminals before he had a chance to ensure the national hero he idolized was informed of this contact. To even entertain that this lifelong resident and educator of the Bronx who spent so much of his time in community service and charity work, would have blithely jumped into bed with persons who claimed to have stolen Charlie, is a stretch well beyond remote. Condon would have done only one thing in this case. Reported it to investigators or Lindbergh himself for the opportunity to not only try and assist his hero, but also to be able to meet him in person.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Nov 11, 2023 14:18:44 GMT -5
Well, he lied, obfuscated, and contradicted himself all over the place, so he was clearly hiding something. Even Lindbergh apparently said Condon knew more than he was telling, and his explanation as to why he returned the $20K is really what’s “a stretch beyond remote” here. That being said, I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, to the extent that Condon got into this with basically good, if also self-serving, intentions: “I just wanted to get the baby back, be a hero, and make some money! I couldn’t tell the colonel about what was going on because then I wouldn’t have gotten the money! Besides, who knows what these people would’ve done to me or my family if I talked! And I didn’t know the child was dead till it was too late to back out! Anyway, I gave the money back once I knew!” It’s not much, but it’s something, lol…
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 11, 2023 20:26:28 GMT -5
This entire unlikely and imaginative hypothetical avenue relies on the belief that John Condon would knowingly consort and plan with criminals before he had a chance to ensure the national hero he idolized was informed of this contact. To even entertain that this lifelong resident and educator of the Bronx who spent so much of his time in community service and charity work, would have blithely jumped into bed with persons who claimed to have stolen Charlie, is a stretch well beyond remote. Condon would have done only one thing in this case. Reported it to investigators or Lindbergh himself for the opportunity to not only try and assist his hero, but also to be able to meet him in person. A child molester might assist. Or someone who stole and deceived aboard the S.S. California. Or someone threatened to be exposed for some other illegal conduct. Idolizing Lindbergh not withstanding. I'd say 99% of the country probably idolized him at that time and there was still crime going on. You think the people sending him letters trying to swindle money didn't idolize the guy? I read somewhere that John List considered Lindbergh a "Hero." Maybe they should reopen his case? Well, he lied, obfuscated, and contradicted himself all over the place, so he was clearly hiding something. Even Lindbergh apparently said Condon knew more than he was telling, and his explanation as to why he returned the $20K is really what’s “a stretch beyond remote” here. That being said, I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, to the extent that Condon got into this with basically good, if also self-serving, intentions: “I just wanted to get the baby back, be a hero, and make some money! I couldn’t tell the colonel about what was going on because then I wouldn’t have gotten the money! Besides, who knows what these people would’ve done to me or my family if I talked! And I didn’t know the child was dead till it was too late to back out! Anyway, I gave money back once I knew!” It’s not much, but it’s something, lol… It all depends on the reason for his entry into the crime. Condon gave several and I've always felt like he revealed a little bit about this thru the conversations with Cemetery John he invented. I also believe there is a little bit of truth concerning the yarn he gave to O'Sullivan. But you are definitely right .... it could go either way. But those lies were tremendous. The 2nd Taxi Driver lie is HUGE. That means he had the note on him the whole time. The bait and switch with the ransom delivery. Trying to lie about who built the ransom box to cover for his lie about the types of wood it was made out of. His motive for lying about the types of wood in it. The lie about not being familiar with Saint Raymond's Cemetery. The lie about the Needle Salesman. The lie about the Lookout. The lie about the woman at Tuckahoe. Did she exist or didn't she? Depends which of his stories you believe. Did Reich bring him to the rendezvous or did Kay? Just the tip of the iceberg unfortunately. And so, anyone serious about the question of whether he knew or not must consider not just his actual conduct, but the methods & possible motives behind it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 18, 2023 9:30:16 GMT -5
This entire unlikely and imaginative hypothetical avenue relies on the belief that John Condon would knowingly consort and plan with criminals before he had a chance to ensure the national hero he idolized was informed of this contact. To even entertain that this lifelong resident and educator of the Bronx who spent so much of his time in community service and charity work, would have blithely jumped into bed with persons who claimed to have stolen Charlie, is a stretch well beyond remote. Condon would have done only one thing in this case. Reported it to investigators or Lindbergh himself for the opportunity to not only try and assist his hero, but also to be able to meet him in person. A child molester might assist. Or someone who stole and deceived aboard the S.S. California. Or someone threatened to be exposed for some other illegal conduct. Idolizing Lindbergh not withstanding. I'd say 99% of the country probably idolized him at that time and there was still crime going on. You think the people sending him letters trying to swindle money didn't idolize the guy? I read somewhere that John List considered Lindbergh a "Hero." Maybe they should reopen his case? The account of Condon having been accused of inappropriately touching a young woman was published in the newspapers, and he was subsequently cleared of any suspected wrongdoing. You imply Condon was a ‘child molester,’ but in your book, offer no conclusive proof that he was. If there had been any truth at all within the allegation, would it not have likely prompted a virtual flood of similar claims, especially when Condon’s role in the case was being scrutinized at large not only by investigators, but by the incredulous segment of a public so seemingly willing to cast aspersions on him, with investigators and in newspaper print? Child molesters at large, by well known examples, do not stop at one victim.
Regardless, people were fully aware of what was reported. How would you venture such an event, or non-event, came into being between someone looking to coerce Condon into joining a purely criminal enterprise? How would such a connection manifest itself? Or are you perhaps suggesting that a child molester, whom you’ve apparently cast Condon as, would want to by nature, get involved in this case? Please fully explain yourself here, by going above and beyond your stated footnote references within DC V2.
I feel we’re getting into yet another laundry list of half-baked ideas here, now with your reference to the SS California. Again, there is no conclusive proof that Condon did anything wrong here.
Finally, are you suggesting that Condon inserted himself in the case so that he could consort and cooperate with criminals, in other words, to behave at direct odds to his originally expressed intentions of being able to help return the Lindbergh child to his parents, which aligned most accurately with a lifetime of community service and goodwill and charity to others leading up that point?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 18, 2023 10:30:18 GMT -5
The account of Condon having been accused of inappropriately touching a young woman was published in the newspapers, and he was subsequently cleared of any suspected wrongdoing. You imply Condon was a ‘child molester,’ but in your book, offer no conclusive proof that he was. If there had been any truth at all within the allegation, would it not have likely prompted a virtual flood of similar claims, especially when Condon’s role in the case was being scrutinized at large not only by investigators, but by the incredulous segment of a public so seemingly willing to cast aspersions on him, to investigators and in newspaper print? Child molesters at large, by well known examples, do not stop at one victim.
Regardless, people were fully aware of what was reported. How would you venture such an event, or non-event, came into being between someone looking to coerce Condon into joining a purely criminal enterprise? How would such a connection manifest itself? Or are you perhaps suggesting that a child molester, whom you’ve apparently cast Condon as, would want to get involved in this case? Please fully explain yourself here, by going above and beyond your stated footnote references within DC V2.
I feel we’re getting into yet another laundry list of half-baked ideas here, now with your reference to the SS California. Again, there is no conclusive proof that Condon did anything wrong here.
Finally, are you suggesting that Condon inserted himself in the case so that he could consort and cooperate with criminals, in other words, to behave at direct odds to his originally expressed intentions of being able to help return the Lindbergh child to his parents, which aligned most accurately with a lifetime of community service and goodwill and charity to others leading up that point?
Your defense of this criminal boggles the mind. Condon's victim here was incredibly brave and obviously suffered even more for coming forward. What I was able to prove beyond all doubt was that Condon lied, repeatedly, in order to assist the Extortionists and to protect himself. There's so many lies its hard to keep up which was why I did my best to prove the most egregious of them. Did I prove the allegations concerning that little girl? No, but given the fact this man was a complete liar and untrustworthy about everything, its impossible for any normal person to side with him on this issue. The letter from that girl's sister damn near makes what happened a "given" but I guess those who want Condon to be what he wasn't can claim they were all lying about it. You know, back then when making such an allegation was damn near impossible because of the shaming, stigma, and retaliation which followed. So of course the school board protected Condon, what other outcome would you expect? Heck, back when I was in school the teachers who were so engaged were protected by the school, and that was in the 80s. Now it is a little different because the cell phone and the internet data makes it impossible to deny. And no, they don't usually stop at one victim. My guess is the exposure caused him to cool his jets, but prior there can be no doubt. It's only "half-baked" because you do not "like" it. Anything that harms your position is subject to such a label. It is your only recourse. Apply the facts instead of dodging them. The man constantly and continually lied. He obstructed justice and committed other felonies during the course of this case. You want to pretend as though someone doing this is acting in good faith but its laughable.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 19, 2023 7:39:52 GMT -5
Well, he lied, obfuscated, and contradicted himself all over the place, so he was clearly hiding something. Even Lindbergh apparently said Condon knew more than he was telling, and his explanation as to why he returned the $20K is really what’s “a stretch beyond remote” here. That being said, I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, to the extent that Condon got into this with basically good, if also self-serving, intentions: “I just wanted to get the baby back, be a hero, and make some money! I couldn’t tell the colonel about what was going on because then I wouldn’t have gotten the money! Besides, who knows what these people would’ve done to me or my family if I talked! And I didn’t know the child was dead till it was too late to back out! Anyway, I gave money back once I knew!” It’s not much, but it’s something, lol… It all depends on the reason for his entry into the crime. Condon gave several and I've always felt like he revealed a little bit about this thru the conversations with Cemetery John he invented. I also believe there is a little bit of truth concerning the yarn he gave to O'Sullivan. But you are definitely right .... it could go either way. But those lies were tremendous. The 2nd Taxi Driver lie is HUGE. That means he had the note on him the whole time. The bait and switch with the ransom delivery. Trying to lie about who built the ransom box to cover for his lie about the types of wood it was made out of. His motive for lying about the types of wood in it. The lie about not being familiar with Saint Raymond's Cemetery. The lie about the Needle Salesman. The lie about the Lookout. The lie about the woman at Tuckahoe. Did she exist or didn't she? Depends which of his stories you believe. Did Reich bring him to the rendezvous or did Kay? Just the tip of the iceberg unfortunately. And so, anyone serious about the question of whether he knew or not must consider not just his actual conduct, but the methods & possible motives behind it. All of your above points from the larger list you routinely use to imply John Condon was a confederate of the kidnapper(s), are purely debatable against the realm of his true intent within each individual event. That some of them are so dramatically stated here, I think is a good indication they’re being presented that way for effect, or, you’re entirely overlooking by design or otherwise, the other possibilities where truth may actually exist. I’d venture there’s a bit of both going on here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 19, 2023 7:41:48 GMT -5
It all depends on the reason for his entry into the crime. Condon gave several and I've always felt like he revealed a little bit about this thru the conversations with Cemetery John he invented. I also believe there is a little bit of truth concerning the yarn he gave to O'Sullivan. But you are definitely right .... it could go either way. But those lies were tremendous. The 2nd Taxi Driver lie is HUGE. That means he had the note on him the whole time. The bait and switch with the ransom delivery. Trying to lie about who built the ransom box to cover for his lie about the types of wood it was made out of. His motive for lying about the types of wood in it. The lie about not being familiar with Saint Raymond's Cemetery. The lie about the Needle Salesman. The lie about the Lookout. The lie about the woman at Tuckahoe. Did she exist or didn't she? Depends which of his stories you believe. Did Reich bring him to the rendezvous or did Kay? Just the tip of the iceberg unfortunately. And so, anyone serious about the question of whether he knew or not must consider not just his actual conduct, but the methods & possible motives behind it. All of your above points from the larger list you routinely use to imply John Condon was a confederate of the kidnapper(s), are purely debatable against the realm of his true intent within each individual event. That some of them are so dramatically stated here, I think is a good indication they’re being presented that way for effect, or, you’re entirely overlooking by design or otherwise, the other possibilities where truth may actually exist. I’d venture there’s a bit of both going on here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 19, 2023 9:25:47 GMT -5
The account of Condon having been accused of inappropriately touching a young woman was published in the newspapers, and he was subsequently cleared of any suspected wrongdoing. You imply Condon was a ‘child molester,’ but in your book, offer no conclusive proof that he was. If there had been any truth at all within the allegation, would it not have likely prompted a virtual flood of similar claims, especially when Condon’s role in the case was being scrutinized at large not only by investigators, but by the incredulous segment of a public so seemingly willing to cast aspersions on him, to investigators and in newspaper print? Child molesters at large, by well known examples, do not stop at one victim.
Regardless, people were fully aware of what was reported. How would you venture such an event, or non-event, came into being between someone looking to coerce Condon into joining a purely criminal enterprise? How would such a connection manifest itself? Or are you perhaps suggesting that a child molester, whom you’ve apparently cast Condon as, would want to get involved in this case? Please fully explain yourself here, by going above and beyond your stated footnote references within DC V2.
I feel we’re getting into yet another laundry list of half-baked ideas here, now with your reference to the SS California. Again, there is no conclusive proof that Condon did anything wrong here.
Finally, are you suggesting that Condon inserted himself in the case so that he could consort and cooperate with criminals, in other words, to behave at direct odds to his originally expressed intentions of being able to help return the Lindbergh child to his parents, which aligned most accurately with a lifetime of community service and goodwill and charity to others leading up that point?
Your defense of this criminal boggles the mind. Condon's victim here was incredibly brave and obviously suffered even more for coming forward. How are you so certain that this girl truly was a victim? Or are you just accepting what you’ve read on the matter, by way of your personal opinion of how you believe Condon’s school board would have acted in order to protect him and itself, along with a list of your half-baked ideas to support this conclusion?
What I was able to prove beyond all doubt was that Condon lied, repeatedly, in order to assist the Extortionists and to protect himself. There's so many lies its hard to keep up which was why I did my best to prove the most egregious of them. Did I prove the allegations concerning that little girl? No, but given the fact this man was a complete liar and untrustworthy about everything, its impossible for any normal person to side with him on this issue. The letter from that girl's sister damn near makes what happened a "given" but I guess those who want Condon to be what he wasn't can claim they were all lying about it. You know, back then when making such an allegation was damn near impossible because of the shaming, stigma, and retaliation which followed. So of course the school board protected Condon, what other outcome would you expect? Heck, back when I was in school the teachers who were so engaged were protected by the school, and that was in the 80s. Now it is a little different because the cell phone and the internet data makes it impossible to deny. And no, they don't usually stop at one victim. My guess is the exposure caused him to cool his jets, but prior there can be no doubt. Both Lindbergh and Condon, along with Breckinridge and at times Schwarzkopf, attempted through their intent and actions, to allow the extortionist(s) to get their money, remain uninjured and in anonymity, while ransom negotiations were progressing towards what they believed would be the safe return of Charlie. Make no mistake, you have not proven “beyond all doubt” that Condon lied to assist the extortionist(s) and protect himself, at least within the realm of him having had any form of criminal intent to do so.
Regarding the girl, you just stated above that you were not able to prove her allegations were true. So how do you then reconcile this perceived shortcoming? By basically implying that anyone who doesn’t agree with your own conclusion on this subject, is not normal. I’m not surprised to see this kind of cult ‘fear’ tactic being used by you here, because there’s no shortage of such instances within your books. I’m not going to start looking for them now because I know they’re there, but let me know if you’d like me to post a few. And for God's sake, please tell me what this event, or non-event which I believe took place in the early 1910's or even earlier, has to do with the Lindbergh Kidnapping of 1932 and Condon's self-insertion into it?
It's only "half-baked" because you do not "like" it. Anything that harms your position is subject to such a label. It is your only recourse. My 'recourse' includes, having come to recognize ‘half-baked’ ideas due to their penchant for showing significant cracks or even breaking down entirely under the kind of rigour and scrutiny that goes beyond the point where you essentially 'call it a day.'Apply the facts instead of dodging them. The man constantly and continually lied. He obstructed justice and committed other felonies during the course of this case. You want to pretend as though someone doing this is acting in good faith but its laughable. Instead of repeating this same kind of rhetoric, please demonstrate to me one instance in which Condon acted criminally against Lindbergh or anyone else, and at direct odds towards his originally expressed promise to help return the Lindbergh child to his parents, and failing that, to bring Charlie's killer to justice? One is enough and make it your best one.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 19, 2023 9:53:44 GMT -5
All of your above points from the larger list you routinely use to imply John Condon was a confederate of the kidnapper(s), are purely debatable against the realm of his true intent within each individual event. That some of them are so dramatically stated here, I think is a good indication they’re being presented that way for effect, or, you’re entirely overlooking by design or otherwise, the other possibilities where truth may actually exist. I’d venture there’s a bit of both going on here. First, its not my fault the list is large. That list by the way, coming directly from the source material and there's plenty more that I do not "routinely" cite. It's a seemingly unlimited amount that plummets anyone so interested into a Hellhole of deception and lies. And your response is they are ALL "debatable" as some sort of rebuttal to them? Okay, so let's debate.... 1. Did the Condon tell Agent Seykora that he was home when the Needle Salesman arrived? 2. Did Condon give Seykora a detailed description of this man? 3. Did Condon say the Needle Salesman may have been the Lookout at Woodlawn Cemetery? 4. Did Condon later tell Agent Sisk that he wasn't home when the Needle Salesman arrived, therefore, could not give him a description? Next subject... 1. Did Condon tell authorities that someone who was dead built the Ransom Box? 2. Did Condon tell police that Box was made out of different species of wood so that he could easily identify it? 4. Did Condon specifically say some of that wood was mahogany? 3. Did the dead man built that Box? 4. Was that Box made out of several species of wood? Shall I go on?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 19, 2023 15:39:58 GMT -5
All of your above points from the larger list you routinely use to imply John Condon was a confederate of the kidnapper(s), are purely debatable against the realm of his true intent within each individual event. That some of them are so dramatically stated here, I think is a good indication they’re being presented that way for effect, or, you’re entirely overlooking by design or otherwise, the other possibilities where truth may actually exist. I’d venture there’s a bit of both going on here. First, its not my fault the list is large. That list by the way, coming directly from the source material and there's plenty more that I do not "routinely" cite. It's a seemingly unlimited amount that plummets anyone so interested into a Hellhole of deception and lies. And your response is they are ALL "debatable" as some sort of rebuttal to them? Okay, so let's debate.... 1. Did the Condon tell Agent Seykora that he was home when the Needle Salesman arrived? 2. Did Condon give Seykora a detailed description of this man? 3. Did Condon say the Needle Salesman may have been the Lookout at Woodlawn Cemetery? 4. Did Condon later tell Agent Sisk that he wasn't home when the Needle Salesman arrived, therefore, could not give him a description? Next subject... 1. Did Condon tell authorities that someone who was dead built the Ransom Box? 2. Did Condon tell police that Box was made out of different species of wood so that he could easily identify it? 4. Did Condon specifically say some of that wood was mahogany? 3. Did the dead man built that Box? 4. Was that Box made out of several species of wood? Shall I go on? Thanks, there's some very good discussion possibilities here, as both accounts have a number of potential avenues. I'll reply as soon as I can.
|
|
|
Post by Anniversaries on Nov 19, 2023 17:52:54 GMT -5
Not to distract, but today is Anna Hauptmann's 125th birthday. I'm sure Manfred, who just days ago turned 90, thought of his mother today. She went through a lot but was also in denial of many things. What did her son know or suspect?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 23, 2023 10:24:40 GMT -5
All of your above points from the larger list you routinely use to imply John Condon was a confederate of the kidnapper(s), are purely debatable against the realm of his true intent within each individual event. That some of them are so dramatically stated here, I think is a good indication they’re being presented that way for effect, or, you’re entirely overlooking by design or otherwise, the other possibilities where truth may actually exist. I’d venture there’s a bit of both going on here. First, its not my fault the list is large. That list by the way, coming directly from the source material and there's plenty more that I do not "routinely" cite. It's a seemingly unlimited amount that plummets anyone so interested into a Hellhole of deception and lies. And your response is they are ALL "debatable" as some sort of rebuttal to them? Okay, so let's debate.... 1. Did the Condon tell Agent Seykora that he was home when the Needle Salesman arrived? 2. Did Condon give Seykora a detailed description of this man? 3. Did Condon say the Needle Salesman may have been the Lookout at Woodlawn Cemetery? 4. Did Condon later tell Agent Sisk that he wasn't home when the Needle Salesman arrived, therefore, could not give him a description? Next subject... 1. Did Condon tell authorities that someone who was dead built the Ransom Box? 2. Did Condon tell police that Box was made out of different species of wood so that he could easily identify it? 4. Did Condon specifically say some of that wood was mahogany? 3. Did the dead man built that Box? 4. Was that Box made out of several species of wood? Shall I go on? First up Michael, I have to give you much credit for both the enormous body of research work you’ve done over the years, and your ability to distill and detail the information in your books. You are an incomparable researcher. I also understand that within the two above events you’ve mentioned, the extreme importance of going well beyond a few select and leading questions in order to unravel their true nature most accurately. I’ve patiently unraveled many a bait casting reel that seemed hopelessly tangled in my time and given the almost limitless amount of information that was generated and can be harvested from this case, often times so at odds with other aspects in endless loops, I view the comparison an apt one. And I certainly appreciate the fact that you’ve already done a lot of the ‘untangling’ in your books to set the stage for more detailed and focused discussion and debate.
In the two ‘peddler’ events, I believe it’s very important to recognize they took place on the same day, shortly after Condon’s contact with CJ at Woodlawn Cemetery. At this time, reporters were well aware of Condon having offered the kidnapper(s) his service as a go-between. Not long after, with the appearance of the first ‘Jafsie’ advertisements, there would no doubt have been some suspicion towards Condon as their source, and we know reporters talked among themselves a lot. But if these same reporters suspected John Condon to be Jafsie, would they have risked exposing him, in light of Charles Lindbergh's fame and reputation, as well as the obvious sensitivity of the anticipated ransom negotiations for the most famous baby on the planet? Unlikely. And would they also have risked losing their ‘meal ticket’ to a good run of newspaper articles while they were ongoing? I also think not. At the same time, I have good reason to believe that the suspected 'lookout' both at Woodlawn and St. Raymond’s, may well share a common connection, not with the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s) but within the legion of reporters, journalists and photographers following the case.
Regarding the ransom money box that Condon had fabricated by a cabinetmaker, I believe there is a much more benign and reasonable explanation for his demonstrated and professed confusion around its detail and source, than has been commonly suggested at large on this discussion board. I've previously posted this and will do so again, with every attempt to make it as clear as possible.
I’m a bit short on LKC time lately, but my following post will detail my own 'untangling' of the two events you’ve chosen to discuss. Stay tuned..
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Nov 26, 2023 7:53:27 GMT -5
Regarding the ransom money box that Condon had fabricated by a cabinetmaker, Uh, wasn't Hans Kloppenburg a joiner ("cabinetmaker?")
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 26, 2023 12:29:33 GMT -5
Regarding the ransom money box that Condon had fabricated by a cabinetmaker, Uh, wasn't Hans Kloppenburg a joiner ("cabinetmaker?") Kloppenburg met Hauptmann at a cabinetmaking company called Langenbachers in the summer of 1930. After leaving the company, Hans and Richard worked together doing carpentry. What is the nature of your question? Are you implying Kloppenburg could have made the ransom money box?
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Nov 28, 2023 8:31:39 GMT -5
Noooo.. "I" am "implying" that Santa Claus "could" have made the box. The FACTS imply that Kloppenburg DID make the box. See the difference?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 28, 2023 14:05:08 GMT -5
Noooo.. "I" am "implying" that Santa Claus "could" have made the box. The FACTS imply that Kloppenburg DID make the box. See the difference? What facts?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 28, 2023 17:34:05 GMT -5
Noooo.. "I" am "implying" that Santa Claus "could" have made the box. The FACTS imply that Kloppenburg DID make the box. See the difference? what? Condon lied consistently about the maker of the box but it became clear Samuelsohn was the one who made it for Condon.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Nov 28, 2023 18:44:22 GMT -5
trojanusc is correct. The box was made by Abraham Samuelsohn as the attached police report reveals. Condon did indeed lie about who made it, claiming it was cabinetmaker Frank Peremi, Jr when it really was not. It sure as heck was not Hans Kloppenburg!! imgur.com/DRi2hAr
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 28, 2023 23:50:49 GMT -5
trojanusc is correct. The box was made by Abraham Samuelsohn as the attached police report reveals. Condon did indeed lie about who made it, claiming it was cabinetmaker Frank Peremi, Jr when it really was not. It sure as heck was not Hans Kloppenburg!! imgur.com/DRi2hArIt's stuff like this that makes me wonder why people like Joe continue to defend Condon's veracity. He outright lied about who built the box and what it was built out of, for no other reason than to misdirect.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 29, 2023 10:20:05 GMT -5
trojanusc is correct. The box was made by Abraham Samuelsohn as the attached police report reveals. Condon did indeed lie about who made it, claiming it was cabinetmaker Frank Peremi, Jr when it really was not. It sure as heck was not Hans Kloppenburg!! imgur.com/DRi2hArIt's stuff like this that makes me wonder why people like Joe continue to defend Condon's veracity. He outright lied about who built the box and what it was built out of, for no other reason than to misdirect. Of course we know that ultimately, it was Samuelsohn who built the box. As well, there is an intriguing 'trail of custody' from the time Condon first thought of his old friend Frank Peremi Sr., (confusing him with another old friend by the name of Peretty) to have fashion it out of exotic species of woods, to the time he decided a couple of different woods and a lock with a key for identification down the road, for a further savings of 50 cents less by Samuelsohn, would suffice. I'm not defending Condon's veracity here in the ransom box saga, as it's not required, but I do recognize this whole saga clearly as one of this case's most notable 'mountains-made-out-of-a-molehill.' You're confusing that recognition with some misplaced ideal of personal devotion towards a case player. It appears you also consider this account to be yet another example of the stuff that grand conspiracies are made of. Just look at how it's been suggestively presented for you to go running off in your chosen direction. Much ado about very little here.
|
|