|
Post by A Guest on Nov 29, 2023 11:28:55 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. It makes me wonder also why Joe can't just come out and admit that Condon can and did lie while involved with this kidnapping case. The best place to learn about how Condon lied about the making of the ransom box can be found in Michael's Dark Corners, Volume 2, Chapter 4, starting on page 284. As you say, Condon did outright lie about who made the box. Here is a report of him lying: imgur.com/PnE8T37Joe mentions the name "Perretty". That name did not originate with Condon. As Michael's quote on page 286 from Agent J.J. Manning's September 15, 1933 report explains, "Condon pointed out a vacant store on Webster Ave. to Agent Manning, telling him the man who made the box used to have his business there. Condon called out to a man on the street then inquired about that business. When the man replied that it was "Perretty", Condon remarked that old man Perretty is the man who made the box and that it cost $3.25." This mistake/mispronunciation of Peremi started that way. Condon went along with it. A follow up investigation was made by NJSP based on Agent J.J. Manning's interview with Dr. Condon. Here is that report: imgur.com/0Av4Fhg
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 29, 2023 13:55:57 GMT -5
It'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. The problem is that Condon just didn't outright lie about who made the box. He lied about everything, from the second taxi driver to the fact he kept the ransom box stashed in a bush. He wouldn't even identify Hauptmann until threatening with arrest. By that point he forgot about the hacking cough or any of the other attributes he'd given to the police.
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Dec 1, 2023 13:04:58 GMT -5
Think about this: As you have seen by now, there were exactly 10 sheets of paper prepared in advance as "official" stationery. The note to Breckinridge asking him to pass a ransom letter along to The Colonel is on NON "official" paper. In handwriting that is sort of similar to, but not quite the same as, the ransom note. Later, another note on official paper instructs him to look for another note under a rock at Ye Olde Frankfurter Stande. Jafsie reaches under the rock, and there is a note. But, the one he shows police is NOT on official paper. And the handwriting on it is identical the handwriting on the OTHER note on non official paper, but NOT identical to the other "ransom" notes.
This fishy note instructs Condon to proceed to the Woodlawn Cemetery Futz-around. Excuses are made. By Condon. The next official note seems to be written by someone who is confused about the WLC Futz-around. "Our man did not collect the money." Like, he was never at WLC.
THEN, Condon CLAIMS that yet another taxi driver delivered yet another note--THIS one on official paper. THIS note instructs Jafsie to proceed to the Bergen Greenhouse, where he will find a note directing him to the St Raymond Cemetery hoax, where he "receives" ANOTHER note on NON official paper directing The Colonel to proceed to the Boad Nelly Futz Around. That note is written in handwriting identical to to the other two un official notes, but not that identical to the ransom notes. Condon spends the rest of the 20th Century telling a Christmas list of lies about the WHOLE THING.
See? In other words, Condon pocketed the note at the frankfurter stand, the one directing him to the Bergen Greenhouse, and gave the fake Woodlawn Cemetery not to the "investigators." Then, LATER, when he knew his accomplice (matching the description of the cabinetmaker and BFF of Bruno, Hans Kloppenburg) from The WLCFA would be safely waiting at the StRCFA at the prearranged time, Jafsie reached into his pocket and pulled out the original, official note about the Bergen Greehnouse he actually found at the frankfurter stand. See? I mean, I'm a genius, yes, but nothing could be simpler, or plainer.
Condon's contact info, along with serial numbers of some laundered money NOT part of the "ransom," written on Hauptmann's close wall, clearly indicates that Hauptmann was laundering money for Condon APART from the ransom money he was trying to launder. That's a criminal association all on its own. You don't need ANY other conspirators for the Great Lindbergh Ransom Rip-Off. Just Jafsie, Hauptmann, Kloppenburg, and probably Fisch (to help Bruno lay off part of the Payoff. See? In fact, it's possible that Bruno and Isidor weren't even contacted about THIS particular box of crackerjacks until a year or more later. In fact, Condon may have gone to Isidor Fisch first, and Fisch enlisted Bruno to help, without even knowing that Bruno and Condon already knew each other. The underworld is a small world. It's like when Mitchell hired Sturges and Hunt to go after Ellsberg. Mitchell didn't know Sturges and Hunt already knew Nixon, because Nixon told him "don't tell me who you hire." Or, maybe Condon recommended Hauptmann.
And, again, it's not just that Bruno was blatantly framed. It's that, they rubbed it in everybody's faces. So they could blame "the Jews" for framing Hauptmann. Kill two scapegoats with one stone dead baby. See?
Someone please point to the "mystery." I can't see one.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Dec 2, 2023 11:58:16 GMT -5
The written record has Condon “bang to rights” lying and obfuscating about the origin of the ransom box. This is undeniable so the only way Joe can minimise the damage is to dismiss the whole business as both a “saga” and “a mountain made from a molehill.”
Of course in the larger scheme of things it doesn’t matter of the box was made by Tom, Dick, or Harry. What does matter is that a key figure in the Lindbergh case is shown to be a liar. And Michael has given numerous examples of Condon being economical with the truth on other occasions.
This isn’t manipulating the facts to fit a pre-conceived agenda; the facts speak for themselves and they have to be accepted instead of being swept under the carpet and dismissed as irrelevant.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 3, 2023 9:11:34 GMT -5
It'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. It makes me wonder also why Joe can't just come out and admit that Condon can and did lie while involved with this kidnapping case. I have never stated that Condon did not lie while involved with the kidnapping case. I also didn’t say that, at times, he wasn’t genuinely confused about what actually took place, or that he wasn’t misquoted, or that his words were not transcribed accurately, or that he simply didn’t forget what he had previously said or done. What I have stated on many occasions, is that during the highly stressful and sensitive ransom negotiations, Condon was essentially acting in accordance with the requests and wishes of Charles Lindbergh and Henry Breckinridge. At this time, none of these main players, particularly Lindbergh and Breckinridge, was being held accountable to law enforcement other than for the purposes of providing updates to and receiving direction and advice from Colonel Schwarzkopf, Elmer Irey and others towards the completion of what were hoped by all, to be successful negotiations.
This granted secrecy ended on May 12, 1932 with the discovery of the body, and I believe that any number of accounts which personally involved this essentially honest, but eccentric 72-year-old intermediary, and which were related over the previous 72 days, were now quite intertwined among truths, half-truths, outright fabrications and forgotten words and actions, and that this overall effect only continued forward with the passage of time until Hauptmann’s arrest and beyond.
I’m not making excuses for the man, but this notion Condon ‘lied all the time’ that so commonly appears to go hand-in-hand here with this kind of ‘wink-wink’ implication he was therefore a confederate of the kidnapper, bears not a shred of conclusive proof.
If you feel that behind just one of the 'liar accounts' you routinely embrace, including the above ransom box, there is some criminal intent on the part of Condon, Lindbergh or Breckinridge which represented an even remotely intentional counter plan against the safe return of the child, then please let me know your thoughts, as I’d really like to hear them. I'm challenging you on this point. Certainly after all of this energy expended on Condon's words and actions, translates to something conclusive in your mind as it pertains to his truthful role within the ransom negotiations.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 3, 2023 9:32:16 GMT -5
It'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. The best place to learn about how Condon lied about the making of the ransom box can be found in Michael's Dark Corners, Volume 2, Chapter 4, starting on page 284. As you say, Condon did outright lie about who made the box. Here is a report of him lying: imgur.com/PnE8T37Joe mentions the name "Perretty". That name did not originate with Condon. As Michael's quote on page 286 from Agent J.J. Manning's September 15, 1933 report explains, "Condon pointed out a vacant store on Webster Ave. to Agent Manning, telling him the man who made the box used to have his business there. Condon called out to a man on the street then inquired about that business. When the man replied that it was "Perretty", Condon remarked that old man Perretty is the man who made the box and that it cost $3.25." This mistake/mispronunciation of Peremi started that way. Condon went along with it. A follow up investigation was made by NJSP based on Agent J.J. Manning's interview with Dr. Condon. Here is that report: imgur.com/0Av4FhgI agree that Condon did not originate the name “Peretty” in this instance. But the name itself, shouted on the street, perhaps provides a clue as to how it may have triggered his flawed memory when pressed for the name of the cabinetmaker.
At some prior to or after the case, a “Peretti” married into the Don Hacker family. Don was the brother of Ralph Hacker, John Condon’s son-in-law. It was Don Hacker’s grandson, Michael Peretti who appeared in the news a number of years ago, showing some of the letters penned by Jafsie Condon to the editor of a Dayton newspaper, as well as the ‘belly pistol’ purported to have been worn by Condon at St. Raymond’s Cemetery on the night of the ransom payment. These were gifted to Don Hacker by John Condon and later passed down to Michael Peretti. I suspect that Peretti might well have been as familiar a name on Webster Ave., as the name Peremi, and that Condon simply confused one name with the other.
Do you believe Condon was intentionally trying to deceive investigators when he appeared to have forgotten the name of the cabinetmaker Samuelsohn, who ultimately fabricated the ransom money box? Again, I’m very interested in your views here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 3, 2023 10:05:27 GMT -5
The written record has Condon “bang to rights” lying and obfuscating about the origin of the ransom box. This is undeniable so the only way Joe can minimise the damage is to dismiss the whole business as both a “saga” and “a mountain made from a molehill.” Of course in the larger scheme of things it doesn’t matter of the box was made by Tom, Dick, or Harry. What does matter is that a key figure in the Lindbergh case is shown to be a liar. And Michael has given numerous examples of Condon being economical with the truth on other occasions. This isn’t manipulating the facts to fit a pre-conceived agenda; the facts speak for themselves and they have to be accepted instead of being swept under the carpet and dismissed as irrelevant. What conceivable reason of ill intent would Condon have had, to, as you say, obfuscate the origin of the ransom box fabrication? I believe the facts, which are all laid out nicely by Michael within DCII, demonstrate quite clearly that Condon, by the time he was requested to identify the identity of the cabinetmaker to investigators a year-and-a-half and two years later, had genuinely become confused by the process he had undertaken in March of 1932.
If you think there’s something nefarious going on here which appears to be the case, then please stop being so cagey and judgmental about what I’ve stated. Try getting off the ‘bandwagon’ here and just spell it out.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 3, 2023 10:34:44 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? Needle Salesman
Man complained of hard times. Was he a real vendor or perhaps unemployed and hired by reporters to assume the role of needle salesman, which would have gained him a buck or two? Had only one pack of needles available, and appeared to not know what to do when asked for change.
Very nervous, appeared furtive and looked around a lot. Abnormal behaviour for a door-to-door salesman, who’s main intent is to be friendly, remain focused on and develop empathy with his potential customer. Was nervousness due to his role as suspected accomplice in the kidnapping or being put up to posing as a salesman for the purpose of acquiring information for reporters or newsmen? Would the kidnappers actually risk sending someone to Condon’s door in broad daylight? That seems so unlikely to me as to be almost non-existent.
Man did not stop at any other houses and left the neighbourhood immediately. Breckinridge was suspicious of the man’s motives and associated him with the description of the potential lookout at Woodlawn Cemetery.
Condon’s recollection and statement to Agent Seykora, comes two years after the event took place, Breck’s statement a year-and-a-half afterwards. Plenty of time for inconsistency in recollection especially when statements were not taken at the time of the events.
Condon states the man was about 27 as opposed to Breck’s estimate of early 40’s. I can buy this difference due to the reddish, ruddy and veiny complexion which may have disguised his true age. Believed he may have been the same man as the WC lookout.
Condon and his wife both told Sisk and O’Leary that he was not home at the time of the needle salesman visit, and that Myra answered the door, with Breck not being part of the interaction. Myra’s statement says she answered the door and enlisted Breck to appraise the situation. She claims Breck suggested she ask the man for change with a larger amount given.
Myra’s claim the man was well dressed is at odds with the original accounts by Condon and Breck. Suggests they missed that detail in any attempt to shift responsibility of who was actually there for whatever reason. Also, she claims he didn’t look like a normal peddler, was not Italian but Austrian or German and had no accent. Said he was about fifty years of age and one arm was pressed against his side as if a wooden arm. Could she had confused him with some other man who came to the door around this same time for another reason?
Was ownership of the event essentially shifted from Condon to Myra at some point? And for what reason?
Just one pack of needles suggests it was his last one or that’s all he was given to effect his ruse as a needle salesman.
Scissors Grinder
Same day visit by the scissors grinder seems highly coincidental for both events not to have been an organized plan to scout out the house.
As with the needle salesman, he left the block after leaving the Condon house without stopping at another house.
Breck’s description of the man indicates a different person from the needle salesman. No previous such peddler visits before or after. Inferred they were ‘send-in’s’ to check things out. Reasonable suspicion, but was he only thinking of the kidnappers/extortionists as being those who sent them in?
Discussion
In the heightened and focused awareness during the very stressful and sensitive ransom negotiations period, could reporters or other newsmen have been the true source of these two events?
This is what I tend believe to be the most likely explanation at present. Further, I would not at all preclude the possibility these same newsmen arranged to have person(s) secretly tail Condon, whom they believed to be 'Jafsie,' to both the Woodlawn and St. Raymond’s Cemetery locations for the purpose of planting fake ‘lookouts' to uncover any valuable news information and thereby potentially generating the story of a lifetime. So why wouldn’t it then have become the story of a lifetime? I don’t know and that’s where I’m at now. Perhaps, as in the case of Captain Oliver, the risk was ultimately deemed to outweigh any conceivable reward and no one was willing to take responsibility.
As always, I’m open to further discussion.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Dec 3, 2023 15:29:19 GMT -5
The written record has Condon “bang to rights” lying and obfuscating about the origin of the ransom box. This is undeniable so the only way Joe can minimise the damage is to dismiss the whole business as both a “saga” and “a mountain made from a molehill.” Of course in the larger scheme of things it doesn’t matter of the box was made by Tom, Dick, or Harry. What does matter is that a key figure in the Lindbergh case is shown to be a liar. And Michael has given numerous examples of Condon being economical with the truth on other occasions. This isn’t manipulating the facts to fit a pre-conceived agenda; the facts speak for themselves and they have to be accepted instead of being swept under the carpet and dismissed as irrelevant. Agree! The facts do speak for themselves. A lie is a lie no matter who is telling it!
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Dec 3, 2023 15:35:26 GMT -5
It makes me wonder also why Joe can't just come out and admit that Condon can and did lie while involved with this kidnapping case. I have never stated that Condon did not lie while involved with the kidnapping case.That's great. So please give an example of Condon lying during his involvement with this case. Then we will have a reason to have a discussion together. I stand on the factual reports made by the investigators that I have posted. All the word salad posts you make don't change a single fact that those reports show Condon was lying about Peremi, Jr. making the box.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Dec 4, 2023 3:54:59 GMT -5
I agree with Joe that it is hard to see, in many cases, what Condon gained by his obfuscation and lying. The explanation may not be sinister but related to Condon’s personality. Most would agree that this guy is a text book narcissist. He’s in love with himself and cares very much what others think of him. He has to be noticed. So what better way to have people hanging on your every word than to give fuzzy details, sometimes contradictory versions of events. Just look how he prevaricated on his identification of Hauptmann as CJ. “Will he? Won’t he?” Watch this space folks! I suspect this was a life-long habit of Condon’s to draw attention to himself and feed his narcissism.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 4, 2023 3:58:46 GMT -5
I agree with Joe that it is hard to see, in many cases, what Condon gained by his obfuscation and lying. The explanation may not be sinister but related to Condon’s personality. Most would agree that this guy is a text book narcissist. He’s in love with himself and cares very much what others think of him. He has to be noticed. So what better way to have people hanging on your every word than to give fuzzy details, sometimes contradictory versions of events. Just look how he prevaricated on his identification of Hauptmann as CJ. “Will he? Won’t he?” Watch this space folks! I suspect this was a life-long habit of Condon’s to draw attention to himself and feed his narcissism. I don't think it's that hard. The second taxi driver was obviously a lie because he already had the note from other means. Lying about the ransom payment location was a way to show that he gave the extortionists a head start. Lying about the box maker was a way that if the box was ever found it couldn't be identified.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 4, 2023 12:49:10 GMT -5
I agree with Joe that it is hard to see, in many cases, what Condon gained by his obfuscation and lying. The explanation may not be sinister but related to Condon’s personality. Most would agree that this guy is a text book narcissist. He’s in love with himself and cares very much what others think of him. He has to be noticed. So what better way to have people hanging on your every word than to give fuzzy details, sometimes contradictory versions of events. Just look how he prevaricated on his identification of Hauptmann as CJ. “Will he? Won’t he?” Watch this space folks! I suspect this was a life-long habit of Condon’s to draw attention to himself and feed his narcissism. That's the problem actually... He's not "fuzzy" at all. What he's doing, and I used to see it everyday at work, is adjusting his story based on other factors. It is the actions of a criminal. He's not confused and the only thing he sometimes misremembers are his previous lies. His failure to identify Hauptmann is important. Just look at his interactions with Agent Turrou. He says HIS life isn't worth anything based upon the possible identification. There is it right there. Later he's using a previous explanation, that it is NOT Hauptmann but, in essence, someone who looks like him. This is a borrowed concept from when both Simek and Barry were suspects. Again, this is a tactic I know all too well and something Condon repeatedly utilized. Next thing you know, he's off to Florida to try to find a replacement for Hauptmann. Sure, he's doing his usual grandstanding along the way, but that was incidental to his real reason for the trip.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 5, 2023 8:12:33 GMT -5
The written record has Condon “bang to rights” lying and obfuscating about the origin of the ransom box. This is undeniable so the only way Joe can minimise the damage is to dismiss the whole business as both a “saga” and “a mountain made from a molehill.” Of course in the larger scheme of things it doesn’t matter of the box was made by Tom, Dick, or Harry. What does matter is that a key figure in the Lindbergh case is shown to be a liar. And Michael has given numerous examples of Condon being economical with the truth on other occasions. This isn’t manipulating the facts to fit a pre-conceived agenda; the facts speak for themselves and they have to be accepted instead of being swept under the carpet and dismissed as irrelevant. Agree! The facts do speak for themselves. A lie is a lie no matter who is telling it! Your statement, "A lie is a lie no matter who is telling it" has absolute merit in a world where truth and good will remain hard to come by. Not many people would disagree with such a universal statement. And Charles Lindbergh would agree with you wholeheartedly. He tried to play things by the book fair and square, with a heartless criminal and look where it got him. Sad really.
Oxford Dictionary says, "A lie is a statement not in accordance with the mind of the speaker, made with the intention of deceiving." But who is being deceived and for what reason? Is the deception intentional and if so, for what reason? Condon lied when he told CJ that Lindbergh wasn't armed at St. Raymond's Cemetery. Can you blame him?
Applying a rigid fundamentalist approach with little berth beyond straight line cause and effect logic and without a full appreciation of the individual case player roles, their personalities, predispositions and motivations as well as its myriad turns and dynamics, doesn't take one very far into this very involved crime case.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 5, 2023 8:39:10 GMT -5
That's great. So please give an example of Condon lying during his involvement with this case. Then we will have a reason to have a discussion together. I stand on the factual reports made by the investigators that I have posted. All the word salad posts you make don't change a single fact that those reports show Condon was lying about Peremi, Jr. making the box. As in my previous post, Condon lied to CJ when he told him that Lindbergh wasn't armed. Again, can you blame him?
If my thoughts on this subject are word salad, then consider the possibility that yours are currently providing little more than raw research data interspersed with your personal brand of Black-and-white analytics, which you're then attempting to apply towards a very living and breathing, human case.
Sure, let's discuss what happened from the time Condon was requested to have the ransom money box fabricated to when he picked it up from Abe Samuelsohn, as well as what he told investigators when pressed to recount his recollections up to two years later, concerning what took place in those critical, intervening days.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 5, 2023 10:15:56 GMT -5
I agree with Joe that it is hard to see, in many cases, what Condon gained by his obfuscation and lying. The explanation may not be sinister but related to Condon’s personality. Most would agree that this guy is a text book narcissist. He’s in love with himself and cares very much what others think of him. He has to be noticed. So what better way to have people hanging on your every word than to give fuzzy details, sometimes contradictory versions of events. Just look how he prevaricated on his identification of Hauptmann as CJ. “Will he? Won’t he?” Watch this space folks! I suspect this was a life-long habit of Condon’s to draw attention to himself and feed his narcissism. You're right when you suggest that Condon's overt narcissistic personality contributed towards his tendency to contradict himself. I also believe his delay in identifying Hauptmann was based partly upon his penchant for personal dramatics, but that there is more to this. By the time Hauptmann was caught, and as he freely admitted to Agent Leon Turrou, Condon was genuinely fearful about retribution from a gang he still believed was out there, if he thumbed Hauptmann right away. He had not yet bought into the accused having been the main player all along. I believe Condon also wanted to try and extract a confession from Hauptmann, essentially succeeding where the police and some of his long time antagonists might not have, and of course, never did. He also felt the 'circus scene' at the Greenwich Police Station was not only counter-productive to his idea of the way justice should operate given the seriousness of the event, but extremely unfair to the accused and himself. He had a very good point.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Dec 5, 2023 10:25:06 GMT -5
That's great. So please give an example of Condon lying during his involvement with this case. Then we will have a reason to have a discussion together. I stand on the factual reports made by the investigators that I have posted. All the word salad posts you make don't change a single fact that those reports show Condon was lying about Peremi, Jr. making the box. As in my previous post, Condon lied to CJ when he told him that Lindbergh wasn't armed. Again, can you blame him?This is your example of Condon lying during his involvement with this case?? This is just Condon, alone, claiming he said such a thing to CJ. Where is the proof that he ever said this lie to CJ? You want me to treat this unsubstantiated claim as true?! Absolutely not!If my thoughts on this subject are word salad, then consider the possibility that yours are currently providing little more than raw research data interspersed with your personal brand of Black-and-white analytics, which you're then attempting to apply towards a very living and breathing, human case.I gave police reports to show that Condon was lying to the investigative authorities about Peremi Jr making the ransom box. They are not my personal brand of black and white analytics. I did not write those reports. They stand solidly on their own. They are the hard work of investigating agencies trying to get to the truth about that box without any reliable help from Condon. Condon's untruthfulness stands solidly on its own because of those reports. If you choose not to believe all this hard work and what those findings reveal, that is on you. I am not interested in your personal, speculative, analytics on this topic.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 5, 2023 10:28:33 GMT -5
I agree with Joe that it is hard to see, in many cases, what Condon gained by his obfuscation and lying. The explanation may not be sinister but related to Condon’s personality. Most would agree that this guy is a text book narcissist. He’s in love with himself and cares very much what others think of him. He has to be noticed. So what better way to have people hanging on your every word than to give fuzzy details, sometimes contradictory versions of events. Just look how he prevaricated on his identification of Hauptmann as CJ. “Will he? Won’t he?” Watch this space folks! I suspect this was a life-long habit of Condon’s to draw attention to himself and feed his narcissism. I don't think it's that hard. The second taxi driver was obviously a lie because he already had the note from other means. Lying about the ransom payment location was a way to show that he gave the extortionists a head start. Lying about the box maker was a way that if the box was ever found it couldn't be identified. All three of the above flawed conclusions that suggest something nefarious within a criminal conspiracy on the part of John Condon, gain strength only from one another. The very stuff that your personal house of cards is made from.
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Dec 5, 2023 10:45:22 GMT -5
"I agree with Joe that it is hard to see, in many cases, what Condon gained by his obfuscation and lying." No, it isn't. It's super duper easy to see. $50,000 in cold hard cash. And we're talking 1932 dollars. That's what, almost 2500 ounces of gold? In today's "money," that's, what, almost 5 MILLION? If he sells it at a deep discount to a money launderer like Fisch-Hauptmann, that's still over 2 million in today's "money." Hell, let's call it 1 million and change. THAT is a motive for criminal deception. You don't need another one. It's right there, in that wooden box that Kloppenburg made. I mean, that's supposably the motive for the kidnapping to begin with, right? The money? Have you LOOKED at the ORIGINAL sketch of "Cemetery John?" Not the one retouched to look like Hauptmann. The original sketch by Berryman. It looks EXACTLY like Kloppenburg. Kloppenburg the expert joiner (cabinet maker, etc.) There's no "mystery" to it. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/john.htmlLOOK at the ransom notes in chronological order. www.historictrialtranscripts.com/lindbergh-kidnapping-ransom-notes The one telling Jafsie to go to Woodlawn cemetery is an obvious forgery. It's not even on the "official" stationery. It's as plain as the glaze over Biden's eyes that Jafsie found the REAL note under the rock at the hot dog stand, and put it in his pocket. The next ransom note tells you that. "Our man fail to collect the money." Yeah. Because "our man" was waiting at St Raymond's Cemetery that night. That's where the REAL note told Condon where to go (well, first to the Bergen Greenhouse, where the next REAL note said to go to St Raymond's.) Jafsie's ACCOMPLICE showed up at Woodlawn, where the obviously FAKE note Jafise substituted for real note said to go. Then, when Jafsie came up with the REAL note that was actually left at the hot dog stand, he claimed, "it was delivered by taxi." Right. Santa Claus's taxi, which had been jacked by the Easter Bunny. Um, you DID notice than NONE of those notes are dated in any way, right? So, when Jafsie finally shows up at St Raymond's, several nights late, no one is there but his ACCOMPLICE. The one who handed over the--LOOK AT IT--laughably phony "Boad Nelly" note. No mystery. There is no mystery about why Jafsie lied. There is no mystery as to how Bruno ended up with part of the ransom money in his garage. There is no mystery anywhere, at all. Just people writing detective novels in their heads about imaginary mysteries, instead of just following the evidence where it leads. For example: Jafise's address and phone number, scrawled on the wall of a closet in the house where Bruno and Anna moved when they got back from their 3-month vacation. How long was it there? No one knows. Jafsie managed a lot of rental properties in the Bronx, as well as City Island. Did he ever manage that property? Did HE leave that information there, in case a handyman ever needed it? I saw that a lot in older rental houses. If the tenant calls you to fix something, you look in the utility closet, and bang-o, there's the property manager's contact info. Unless, of course, Bruno was laundering OTHER money for Jafsie. Either way, there is simply no "mystery" about it. Bruno was laundering money OTHER THAN "just" the ransom money, for Jafsie. No mystery, at all. Jafsie did a LOT of business on City Island. Bruno and pals spent a lot of time on the beaches of City Island. Anna's nephew Hans Mueller spent a lot of time swabbing the decks and painting the hull of the luxury yacht Marquita on City Island, in George Barton's boat yard. Jafsie's secretary/administrative assistant was Barton's daughter. Betty Gow's accomplice Red Johnson spent a lot of time swabbing the decks and painting the hull of Thomas LaMont's luxury yacht on city Island. Mueller lived in the Bronx, around the corner from Jafsie. No mystery, at all. Jafsie and his City Island yacht club and vacation home clients--including JP Morgan himself, his partners Thomas LaMont and Dwight Morrow--needed money laundered. "My friend wishes to purchase some stocks. He doesn't want his wife to know about it. You understand. Here's a box full of money..." Bruno started laundering money in 1930ish. That note scrawled in "his" closet? Included the serial numbers of large bills NOT in the ransom money. Multiple stock trading accounts. Multiple bank accounts. Hilariously obvious deposits of big sacks of slot machine and pinball machine nickels from speakeasies, like the Black Sea Hotel. Photos of the Hauptmanns partying and picnicking with known rumrunners and blind pigs (and most likely, German Intelligence.) And just by the luckiest of all possible coincidences, the "kidnapper" just happened to live in the Bronx and read the Bronx Home News. No mystery at all. None. At. All. This may come as a shock to some of you, maybe to all of you--but in spite of the garbage you see in movies, there is NO HONOR among thieves. None. They spend more time double crossing each other than they spend breaking the law. Jafsie didn't double cross The Colonel. He double crossed Bruno. Stop using your imaginations, and start using your brains.
|
|
|
Post by trojan on Dec 5, 2023 11:57:23 GMT -5
"I agree with Joe that it is hard to see, in many cases, what Condon gained by his obfuscation and lying." No, it isn't. It's super duper easy to see. $50,000 in cold hard cash. And we're talking 1932 dollars. That's what, almost 2500 ounces of gold? In today's "money," that's, what, almost 5 MILLION? If he sells it at a deep discount to a money launderer like Fisch-Hauptmann, that's still over 2 million in today's "money." Hell, let's call it 1 million and change. THAT is a motive for criminal deception. You don't need another one. It's right there, in that wooden box that Kloppenburg made. I mean, that's supposably the motive for the kidnapping to begin with, right? The money? Have you LOOKED at the ORIGINAL sketch of "Cemetery John?" Not the one retouched to look like Hauptmann. The original sketch by Berryman. It looks EXACTLY like Kloppenburg. Kloppenburg the expert joiner (cabinet maker, etc.) There's no "mystery" to it. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/john.htmlLOOK at the ransom notes in chronological order. www.historictrialtranscripts.com/lindbergh-kidnapping-ransom-notes The one telling Jafsie to go to Woodlawn cemetery is an obvious forgery. It's not even on the "official" stationery. It's as plain as the glaze over Biden's eyes that Jafsie found the REAL note under the rock at the hot dog stand, and put it in his pocket. The next ransom note tells you that. "Our man fail to collect the money." Yeah. Because "our man" was waiting at St Raymond's Cemetery that night. That's where the REAL note told Condon where to go (well, first to the Bergen Greenhouse, where the next REAL note said to go to St Raymond's.) Jafsie's ACCOMPLICE showed up at Woodlawn, where the obviously FAKE note Jafise substituted for real note said to go. Then, when Jafsie came up with the REAL note that was actually left at the hot dog stand, he claimed, "it was delivered by taxi." Right. Santa Claus's taxi, which had been jacked by the Easter Bunny. Um, you DID notice than NONE of those notes are dated in any way, right? So, when Jafsie finally shows up at St Raymond's, several nights late, no one is there but his ACCOMPLICE. The one who handed over the--LOOK AT IT--laughably phony "Boad Nelly" note. No mystery. There is no mystery about why Jafsie lied. There is no mystery as to how Bruno ended up with part of the ransom money in his garage. There is no mystery anywhere, at all. Just people writing detective novels in their heads about imaginary mysteries, instead of just following the evidence where it leads. For example: Jafise's address and phone number, scrawled on the wall of a closet in the house where Bruno and Anna moved when they got back from their 3-month vacation. How long was it there? No one knows. Jafsie managed a lot of rental properties in the Bronx, as well as City Island. Did he ever manage that property? Did HE leave that information there, in case a handyman ever needed it? I saw that a lot in older rental houses. If the tenant calls you to fix something, you look in the utility closet, and bang-o, there's the property manager's contact info. Unless, of course, Bruno was laundering OTHER money for Jafsie. Either way, there is simply no "mystery" about it. Bruno was laundering money OTHER THAN "just" the ransom money, for Jafsie. No mystery, at all. Jafsie did a LOT of business on City Island. Bruno and pals spent a lot of time on the beaches of City Island. Anna's nephew Hans Mueller spent a lot of time swabbing the decks and painting the hull of the luxury yacht Marquita on City Island, in George Barton's boat yard. Jafsie's secretary/administrative assistant was Barton's daughter. Betty Gow's accomplice Red Johnson spent a lot of time swabbing the decks and painting the hull of Thomas LaMont's luxury yacht on city Island. Mueller lived in the Bronx, around the corner from Jafsie. No mystery, at all. Jafsie and his City Island yacht club and vacation home clients--including JP Morgan himself, his partners Thomas LaMont and Dwight Morrow--needed money laundered. "My friend wishes to purchase some stocks. He doesn't want his wife to know about it. You understand. Here's a box full of money..." Bruno started laundering money in 1930ish. That note scrawled in "his" closet? Included the serial numbers of large bills NOT in the ransom money. Multiple stock trading accounts. Multiple bank accounts. Hilariously obvious deposits of big sacks of slot machine and pinball machine nickels from speakeasies, like the Black Sea Hotel. Photos of the Hauptmanns partying and picnicking with known rumrunners and blind pigs (and most likely, German Intelligence.) And just by the luckiest of all possible coincidences, the "kidnapper" just happened to live in the Bronx and read the Bronx Home News. No mystery at all. None. At. All. This may come as a shock to some of you, maybe to all of you--but in spite of the garbage you see in movies, there is NO HONOR among thieves. None. They spend more time double crossing each other than they spend breaking the law. Jafsie didn't double cross The Colonel. He double crossed Bruno. Stop using your imaginations, and start using your brains. You lost me with this rant from the beginning. Kloppenberg did NOT make the box. It's well documented who did - Samuelsohn.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 5, 2023 12:08:30 GMT -5
I don't think it's that hard. The second taxi driver was obviously a lie because he already had the note from other means. Lying about the ransom payment location was a way to show that he gave the extortionists a head start. Lying about the box maker was a way that if the box was ever found it couldn't be identified. All three of the above flawed conclusions that suggest something nefarious within a criminal conspiracy on the part of John Condon, gain strength only from one another. The very stuff that your personal house of cards is made from.They are not flawed conclusions. We KNOW there was no second taxi driver - the house was watched. Condon lied about it multiple times, as to who answered the door, etc. Without any knowledge of the ransom payment, the cemetery guard saw the box being retrieved by Condon's confidants in Coleman's car. Condon lied about who built the box and what it was made out of, so that if it was ever found it could be disregarded as evidence.
All of these are too deceptive to be chalked up to forgetfulness. "Oh sorry I know I said I handed the ransom box over by the grave on Whittemore and the kidnappers made off with it - so I have no idea why Reich and Coleman would show up to retrieve the box from a bush where it had been stashed!" The only reason he'd lie about this is that he lied about where the ransom was paid, so the kidnappers could get a head start with the money.
One can only imagine if Hauptmann had lies as copious and well documented as Condon's you'd be going on and on and on about them.
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Dec 5, 2023 13:03:02 GMT -5
"You lost me with this rant from the beginning. Kloppenberg did NOT make the box. It's well documented who did - Samuelsohn." Says who? Says Jafsie. AFTER he first LIED about it. See the problem?
And eeeeeeven if Samuelson made the box--in other words, if Jafsie's accomplice didn't ALSO lie about it--it still doesn't change Kloppenburg's face. LOOK at it. LOOK at "Cemetery John." That's not Samuelson. That's Kloppenburg. Who, BTW, was founder and president of his local Wolfie Schickelgruber Admiration Society. The friendly folks running around screaming that Hauptmann was being framed by "the Jews" (like Wilentz.) You can't be the president of a club claiming (as Kloppenburg did to his dying day) that Bruno was framed by the Jews, without having a Bruno for the Jews to be framed for framing. Can you?
How does Samuelson know Bruno? He doesn't. He knows Jafsie. Sooooo...how is Samuelson going to finger Bruno for the frame-up? He can't. It has to be someone who knows Bruno. Someone involved in money laundering. Money laundering on behalf of Non-Government Organizations like the Clinton Foundation and the Wolfie Shickelgruber Admiration and Propaganda Society. The one Kloppenburg presided over. Those scurrilous leaflets don't grow on trees, you know. They have to be paid for. Kloppenburg had a reason to know a local illegal immigrant fugitive from justice German apprentice money launderer like Bruno Hauptmann. Samuelson couldn't be the connection to Bruno. Kloppenburg is. And you don't need Samuelson to build the Magic Box, either. All you need is Kloppenburg. Unless you want to claim that Samuelson ALSO did that fancy joinery in Hauptmann's garage. No? Well, then, you just need to give Jafsie time to get hold of Samuelson and bribe him to corroborate Jafsie's lie that HE (Samuelson) made the Magic Box. WAS there enough time for that? Let's check the facts...
There's no "rant." Just a Christmas list of proven facts that leave no room for fairy tales.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 5, 2023 17:31:13 GMT -5
"You lost me with this rant from the beginning. Kloppenberg did NOT make the box. It's well documented who did - Samuelsohn." Says who? Says Jafsie. AFTER he first LIED about it. See the problem? And eeeeeeven if Samuelson made the box--in other words, if Jafsie's accomplice didn't ALSO lie about it--it still doesn't change Kloppenburg's face. LOOK at it. LOOK at "Cemetery John." That's not Samuelson. That's Kloppenburg. Who, BTW, was founder and president of his local Wolfie Schickelgruber Admiration Society. The friendly folks running around screaming that Hauptmann was being framed by "the Jews" (like Wilentz.) You can't be the president of a club claiming (as Kloppenburg did to his dying day) that Bruno was framed by the Jews, without having a Bruno for the Jews to be framed for framing. Can you? How does Samuelson know Bruno? He doesn't. He knows Jafsie. Sooooo...how is Samuelson going to finger Bruno for the frame-up? He can't. It has to be someone who knows Bruno. Someone involved in money laundering. Money laundering on behalf of Non-Government Organizations like the Clinton Foundation and the Wolfie Shickelgruber Admiration and Propaganda Society. The one Kloppenburg presided over. Those scurrilous leaflets don't grow on trees, you know. They have to be paid for. Kloppenburg had a reason to know a local illegal immigrant fugitive from justice German apprentice money launderer like Bruno Hauptmann. Samuelson couldn't be the connection to Bruno. Kloppenburg is. And you don't need Samuelson to build the Magic Box, either. All you need is Kloppenburg. Unless you want to claim that Samuelson ALSO did that fancy joinery in Hauptmann's garage. No? Well, then, you just need to give Jafsie time to get hold of Samuelson and bribe him to corroborate Jafsie's lie that HE (Samuelson) made the Magic Box. WAS there enough time for that? Let's check the facts... There's no "rant." Just a Christmas list of proven facts that leave no room for fairy tales. You're really losing me with these rants. What does who made the box for Condon have anything to do with Hauptmann or Cemetery John? Nothing.
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Dec 7, 2023 14:57:19 GMT -5
Oh. I see. More than two words in one post is a "rant." Got it. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 8, 2023 12:20:44 GMT -5
All three of the above flawed conclusions that suggest something nefarious within a criminal conspiracy on the part of John Condon, gain strength only from one another. The very stuff that your personal house of cards is made from. There is no "house of cards" Joe. If one tries to pull any of those now watch how fast investigators react. Each and every point can stand alone. This idea that once added up they fall apart makes no sense. The man was acting deliberately. We have the St. Raymond's bait and switch with the ransom delivery. We know for an absolute fact he lied about the different types of wood the box was made up of. Next, similar to the assertions he made about Cemetery John, we see he claims the man who built that box turned out to be dead too. And so, once we discover who did build it, lo and behold, the box wasn't made uniquely at all. Surprised? He had to lie about who built the box to protect the other lie he told about it. There's nothing more indicative of the premeditation than the lump on the thumb "clue." Like I wrote in my book, this was similar to the secret symbol except it was to be used to exclude people instead. It's kind of brilliant and proves Condon knew exactly what he was doing.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 9, 2023 12:12:06 GMT -5
This is your example of Condon lying during his involvement with this case?? This is just Condon, alone, claiming he said such a thing to CJ. Where is the proof that he ever said this lie to CJ? You want me to treat this unsubstantiated claim as true?! Absolutely not!How pious. It wasn’t the point of my post some previous to provide examples of Condon lying, but I gave you one and you rejected it. So now it now appears you’re suggesting that Condon lied when he said he told a lie to CJ? Good heavens, if that’s what you are saying, do you have any conclusive proof to back up your view?
The example above aside, I understand you’re just doing what by now comes naturally, through your avoidance of the truly tough questions requiring answers. Why you’re doing this is pure speculation, but I’d venture it’s partially due to some misplaced allegiance towards the general conspiratorial undertone of this discussion board.
Using one of Michael’s expressions, you appear to ‘call it a day’ each time you point your finger at Condon, while shouting “Liar!” When the he turns to face you so to speak, you simply hide behind the investigative report(s) interpretation of your choice. Which of course, does very little towards truly getting to the bottom of some of Condon’s many known contradictions. Your seeming banal definition of what constitutes a ‘lie,’ when set among the tapestry of this case with its endless dynamics, intimacies and twists and turns as well as its always-welcoming opportunity to further decipher the true intent of each of its players, seems shallow at best. All of the half-baked examples you and others here have provided, of course have the potential of becoming fully baked with good faith discussion, but you appear time and time again, to avoid this process for fear they will then be less palatable to you. Let’s talk true intent here on the part of John Condon, as it pertain to his involvement within this case. You have yet to provide one conclusive example of Condon having broken his self-professed and very public vow of desiring to positively serve the Lindberghs, within his role as intermediary.
I gave police reports to show that Condon was lying to the investigative authorities about Peremi Jr making the ransom box. They are not my personal brand of black and white analytics. I did not write those reports. They stand solidly on their own. They are the hard work of investigating agencies trying to get to the truth about that box without any reliable help from Condon. Condon's untruthfulness stands solidly on its own because of those reports. If you choose not to believe all this hard work and what those findings reveal, that is on you. I am not interested in your personal, speculative, analytics on this topic. By the time Condon was questioned about the ransom box construction and who had ultimately built it, which occurred between a year-and-a-half and two years after the fact, the evidence demonstrates he could not remember and had become confused by the details and the process involved itself from start to finish. Breckinridge’s earlier statement at the Bronx Grand Jury were a matter of record in May of 1932, and he clearly describes the ultimate and downscaled construction of the box from its originally intended plans on the part of Condon.
There’s no grand secret or reason for Condon to intentionally lie here, thus seeking to divert attention away from what was the truth. These are conspiratorial mind games; it’s what stonesunturned does 24/7, without batting an eyelid. Condon simply forgot the fact he settled for the simpler construction for less of a price through the services of an alternate cabinetmaker. It never fails to amaze me how some are able to imagine something so seemingly nefarious out of a simple, benign and rather obvious misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Dec 9, 2023 15:39:21 GMT -5
This is your example of Condon lying during his involvement with this case?? This is just Condon, alone, claiming he said such a thing to CJ. Where is the proof that he ever said this lie to CJ? You want me to treat this unsubstantiated claim as true?! Absolutely not!(A Guest)
How pious. It wasn’t the point of my post some previous to provide examples of Condon lying, but I gave you one and you rejected it. So now it now appears you’re suggesting that Condon lied when he said he told a lie to CJ? Good heavens, if that’s what you are saying, do you have any conclusive proof to back up your view? (Joe)
I thought I was clear about my response to your example. It is your example and your claim that what Condon claims he said was actually truthful. It is your job to provide conclusive proof that Condon really did say this to CJ, not mine. Please post this conclusive proof.
By the time Condon was questioned about the ransom box construction and who had ultimately built it, which occurred between a year-and-a-half and two years after the fact, the evidence demonstrates he could not remember and had become confused by the details and the process involved itself from start to finish. (Joe)
The evidence of those reports I posted does not support a memory issue with Condon. It shows he was lying. Please see Michael's post above yours. Michael explained Condon's lying behavior very well when he said, "He had to lie about who built the box to protect the other lie he told about it."
One lie will often beget the need for another lie. That is just a simple fact.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 10, 2023 9:38:01 GMT -5
All three of the above flawed conclusions that suggest something nefarious within a criminal conspiracy on the part of John Condon, gain strength only from one another. The very stuff that your personal house of cards is made from. There is no "house of cards" Joe. If one tries to pull any of those now watch how fast investigators react. Each and every point can stand alone. This idea that once added up they fall apart makes no sense. The man was acting deliberately. We have the St. Raymond's bait and switch with the ransom delivery. We know for an absolute fact he lied about the different types of wood the box was made up of. Next, similar to the assertions he made about Cemetery John, we see he claims the man who built that box turned out to be dead too. And so, once we discover who did build it, lo and behold, the box wasn't made uniquely at all. Surprised? He had to lie about who built the box to protect the other lie he told about it. There's nothing more indicative of the premeditation than the lump on the thumb "clue." Like I wrote in my book, this was similar to the secret symbol except it was to be used to exclude people instead. It's kind of brilliant and proves Condon knew exactly what he was doing. Michael, I was calling yours, a 'house of cards' long before your books came out. And I'm being very honest with you in stating that I've seen nothing within any one of them that would dissuade me from continuing to believe this. All of the the above examples you've given, essentially constitute your specific interpretation of what took place regarding a particular Condon or Lindbergh 'Event.' In them, we find the specific information that you've chosen to present. However, in most cases, you've also added your own editorial efforts, courtesy of the kind of leading questions and assertions, innuendo, overtones, insinuations and intimations, to ensure the reader gets your personal message: Condon was the kind of guy who would jump into bed with kidnappers and extortionists and Lindbergh was the kind of guy who would have had his son killed because he felt he didn't measure up to his personal standards. 'Leading the reader to water,' as you've told me a couple of times.
Look, I get it. Every other contemporary author these days, including Fisher, Scaduto, Kennedy, Ahlgren and Monier, Gardner, Cahill and Perlman (am I missing any?) to some extent, does the same thing in order to ultimately express their personal conclusions, which they feel for a number of reasons, the reader cannot do without. And yes, I get that a certain amount of spice is 'Marketing 101' and getting people to buy your book. You do the same theory 'salting' in spades however. Which is why I call your books, one piece of the puzzle. I read and enjoy your research because it is thorough, informative and excellent, and has saved me countless hours of attempting to accomplish the same thing on my own. But I've learned through experience and my own standards of what constitutes conclusive proof, to acknowledge your personal conclusions, as you've clearly stated above, with a grain of salt.
You state above that "Each and every point can stand alone." Okay, I've offered my points recently on the Needle Salesman and Scissors Grinder, in an attempt to shed further light on just one of the many Condon contradiction accounts. Having previously tried unsuccessfully to engage you and others here in discussion for the purpose of fully exploring just one Condon or Lindbergh 'Event' at a time, will I get an early Christmas present this year?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 10, 2023 9:53:24 GMT -5
All three of the above flawed conclusions that suggest something nefarious within a criminal conspiracy on the part of John Condon, gain strength only from one another. The very stuff that your personal house of cards is made from.They are not flawed conclusions. We KNOW there was no second taxi driver - the house was watched. Condon lied about it multiple times, as to who answered the door, etc. Without any knowledge of the ransom payment, the cemetery guard saw the box being retrieved by Condon's confidants in Coleman's car. Condon lied about who built the box and what it was made out of, so that if it was ever found it could be disregarded as evidence.
All of these are too deceptive to be chalked up to forgetfulness. "Oh sorry I know I said I handed the ransom box over by the grave on Whittemore and the kidnappers made off with it - so I have no idea why Reich and Coleman would show up to retrieve the box from a bush where it had been stashed!" The only reason he'd lie about this is that he lied about where the ransom was paid, so the kidnappers could get a head start with the money.
One can only imagine if Hauptmann had lies as copious and well documented as Condon's you'd be going on and on and on about them. Yes, everyone of them is flawed. You're just not seeing it.
Boring in on just one of these events in your personal laundry list, ie. the alleged recovery of the original ransom box. Why do you think Reich and Coleman would have been the ones to recover what you believe to have been the original ransom box, a full week plus later? If this was all part and parcel of Condon's 'brilliant plan' to aid and abet the extortionist(s), what on earth are those two men doing as St. Raymond's in apparent support of this plan? Does this now make them co-conspirators?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 10, 2023 10:05:00 GMT -5
I agree with Joe that it is hard to see, in many cases, what Condon gained by his obfuscation and lying. The explanation may not be sinister but related to Condon’s personality. Most would agree that this guy is a text book narcissist. He’s in love with himself and cares very much what others think of him. He has to be noticed. So what better way to have people hanging on your every word than to give fuzzy details, sometimes contradictory versions of events. Just look how he prevaricated on his identification of Hauptmann as CJ. “Will he? Won’t he?” Watch this space folks! I suspect this was a life-long habit of Condon’s to draw attention to himself and feed his narcissism. That's the problem actually... He's not "fuzzy" at all. What he's doing, and I used to see it everyday at work, is adjusting his story based on other factors. It is the actions of a criminal. He's not confused and the only thing he sometimes misremembers are his previous lies. His failure to identify Hauptmann is important. Just look at his interactions with Agent Turrou. He says HIS life isn't worth anything based upon the possible identification. There is it right there. Later he's using a previous explanation, that it is NOT Hauptmann but, in essence, someone who looks like him. This is a borrowed concept from when both Simek and Barry were suspects. Again, this is a tactic I know all too well and something Condon repeatedly utilized. Next thing you know, he's off to Florida to try to find a replacement for Hauptmann. Sure, he's doing his usual grandstanding along the way, but that was incidental to his real reason for the trip. Michael, for what primary, and tertiary reasons if they apply, do you believe Condon would have wanted to, or felt obliged to consort and conspire with the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s)? And at what point prior to or after the kidnapping, do you believe his involvement with them was initiated by whom?
|
|