Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 28, 2023 17:55:00 GMT -5
For the record Michael, my understanding is, and has always been, that Condon related contradictory accounts about the needle salesman visit, and other events as well. Here are my current questions around this event and best attempts to answer them from the known information.
Did Condon give contradictory accounts of the needle salesman visit? Yes, his statements if taken accurately, bear this out. Does that make him a liar? In my books, yes if he did so with intent to deceive. Did he intend to deceive? Yes, that appears most likely. Was anyone else involved in this same deception? Yes, Condon’s daughter, Myra Hacker, and quite possibly through some association, Henry Breckinridge.
Does this out of necessity, make Condon, or anyone else involved here, a confederate of the kidnapping interests and a criminal? No, of course not.
For what reason(s) would Condon’s original story be changed by him and then essentially affirmed by his daughter, Myra Hacker? From my own information, including that presented in DCII, I’d like to throw this explanation into the ring for further discussion. I believe it represents a reasonable and logical explanation for Condon’s contradictory accounts regarding the needle salesman’s visit and in a larger sense, his overall involvement in the case. Condon’s daughter, Myra Hacker, through her own initiative, or as agreed upon with her father and possibly Henry Breckinridge, placed herself in Condon’s original role with Henry Breckinridge. She did this to relieve him of some of the exposure and stress he would have been enduring based on his intimate involvement within the case, most notably the failed return of Charles Lindbergh Jr. and the lack of success towards the apprehension of Cemetery John. This was also an opportunity for her to ‘put her foot down’ and be in a position to keep her father from talking too much about the case in general, given that his role of Jafise was now a matter of public record. She would have believed all of the unwelcome notoriety was having a detrimental effect, not only towards its solution and success in result, but also on her own family. This appears to be borne out by her alleged statement, “My father will think as I think and say as I say.”
The relative alignment between Condon’s and Breckinridge’s original statements and the significant disparities within them and Myra Hacker’s statement, strongly suggests here that while responsibility of Condon’s role was strategically shifted onto Myra, she was not given all of the correct details to successfully effect this ruse, or was not able to accurately recall some of them, when interviewed.
Unless something more nefarious can be conclusively proven from the accepted facts, I would tend to write off this Condon conundrum as a relatively benign measure taken to extract him somewhat from the publicity he had attracted as a result of his ongoing involvement in the case and the unwelcome publicity it had garnered for his family.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 28, 2023 18:23:58 GMT -5
Explain "no way around this one," as you seem to be so certain of your convictions. Which statement is correct or contains elements of truth and why were they changed? Frankly, at times I just don't think your able to process these kinds of contradictions and would rather just throw up your hands so you can shout, "LIAR!" (caps required) and then just walk away. Everything in this case carries with it the potential for being fully explained in the light of truth if you'd stop derailing efforts by morphing into Grandpa Simpson on demand every time you can't seem to handle it. It is self explanatory. He told two completely different stories about the EXACT same event ... FOUR WEEKS APART. I feel like I'm in the Looney Bin trying to reason with a patient. Breckinridge said Condon was there. Condon's first version claimed he was there. During this version he gave a DETAILED description and even claimed the man might have been the Lookout at Woodlawn. Only four weeks later, he claimed he knew nothing about the man because he wasn't there. Next thing you know, Myra claimed to have been there replacing her father as the witness. This is tiresome. Either you want to accept the facts or you do not. Playing stupid isn't a good debate strategy and one I don't have time for. I feel for you, Michael and believe this is just frustration on your part as a result of your ongoing attempts to rationalize your personal misgivings, many of which you’ve committed to print, essentially trying to maintain the fit of puzzle pieces that never did fit and cannot be forced. In this specific case, Condon's contradictions of the needle salesman event.
Routinely denying these misgivings and hurling them outwards as you do, only further denies yourself the opportunity to take personal accountability for and deal with them. Anyone will do as the target, but what better one than the person who regularly and directly challenges you with sound and logical questions, observations and insights. This is the type of enquiry that might well give you the opportunity to get off your merry-go-round role of ‘playground bully’ towards a major case player (not the only one) who you’ve had in your sights for many of the wrong or highly debatable reasons, over the past two decades.
Speaking of tiresome..
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2023 20:21:43 GMT -5
I feel for you, Michael and believe this is just frustration on your part as a result of your ongoing attempts to rationalize your personal misgivings, many of which you’ve committed to print, essentially trying to maintain the fit of puzzle pieces that never did fit and cannot be forced. In this specific case, Condon's contradictions of the needle salesman event. Routinely denying these misgivings and hurling them outwards as you do, only further denies yourself the opportunity to take personal accountability for and deal with them. Anyone will do as the target, but what better one than the person who regularly and directly challenges you with sound and logical questions, observations and insights. This is the type of enquiry that might well give you the opportunity to get off your merry-go-round role of ‘playground bully’ towards a major case player (not the only one) who you’ve had in your sights for many of the wrong or highly debatable reasons, over the past two decades. Speaking of tiresome.. I was never a playground bully Joe. In fact, I was that kid who punched he Bully in the face. Otherwise, I have no idea what the hell you are going on about.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2023 21:07:39 GMT -5
For the record Michael, my understanding is, and has always been, that Condon related contradictory accounts about the needle salesman visit, and other events as well. Here are my current questions around this event and best attempts to answer them from the known information. Did Condon give contradictory accounts of the needle salesman visit? Yes, his statements if taken accurately, bear this out. Does that make him a liar? In my books, yes if he did so with intent to deceive. Did he intend to deceive? Yes, that appears most likely. Was anyone else involved in this same deception? Yes, Condon’s daughter, Myra Hacker, and quite possibly through some association, Henry Breckinridge.
Does this out of necessity, make Condon, or anyone else involved here, a confederate of the kidnapping interests and a criminal? No, of course not.
For what reason(s) would Condon’s original story be changed by him and then essentially affirmed by his daughter, Myra Hacker? From my own information, including that presented in DCII, I’d like to throw this explanation into the ring for further discussion. I believe it represents a reasonable and logical explanation for Condon’s contradictory accounts regarding the needle salesman’s visit and in a larger sense, his overall involvement in the case. Condon’s daughter, Myra Hacker, through her own initiative, or as agreed upon with her father and possibly Henry Breckinridge, placed herself in Condon’s original role with Henry Breckinridge. She did this to relieve him of some of the exposure and stress he would have been enduring based on his intimate involvement within the case, most notably the failed return of Charles Lindbergh Jr. and the lack of success towards the apprehension of Cemetery John. This was also an opportunity for her to ‘put her foot down’ and be in a position to keep her father from talking too much about the case in general, given that his role of Jafise was now a matter of public record. She would have believed all of the unwelcome notoriety was having a detrimental effect, not only towards its solution and success in result, but also on her own family. This appears to be borne out by her alleged statement, “My father will think as I think and say as I say.”The relative alignment between Condon’s and Breckinridge’s original statements and the significant disparities within them and Myra Hacker’s statement, strongly suggests here that while responsibility of Condon’s role was strategically shifted onto Myra, she was not given all of the correct details to successfully effect this ruse, or was not able to accurately recall some of them, when interviewed.Unless something more nefarious can be conclusively proven from the accepted facts, I would tend to write off this Condon conundrum as a relatively benign measure taken to extract him somewhat from the publicity he had attracted as a result of his ongoing involvement in the case and the unwelcome publicity it had garnered for his family.A couple of things.... First, this is the most candid you've been in years. Of course, you attempt to neutralize the main issues we (now) obviously agree upon in order to upset what "you think I think." That's been your main theme as I've proven in the past. Since we now agree that Condon was lying and attempting to deceive, we must naturally ask "why" as well consider what resulted because of this deception. Next, there's no source that I've been able to find that indicates Breckinridge was involved in this conspiracy with Condon & Myra. Quite the contrary. The whole reason he moved into Condon's house was because he did not trust him. Keyes said Breck sent fake notes to test Condon as I documented in my book. Condon failed that test too. We must also remember that it was Breck who told the authorities he believed the Needle Salesman was involved in some way and also the fact the man was a Lawyer. Involving himself in these false statements and obstruction could have sent any of these people to jail and, as far as I can tell, it served no purpose for Breckinridge and defies the reasoning for his presence in the house in the first place. You seem to think lying to the authorities during a kidnapping and murder investigation is cool, just as long as you can whip up some sort of ridiculous excuse... like Condon was tired or stressed. Sorry, but this is neither "logical" nor "reasonable." In fact, its the damnedest thing I've ever read in my life and there's no way you can expect me to think you are being serious. Condon lied. We know Myra injected herself into two situations: The 2nd Taxi Driver lie and the Needle Salesman visit. Both times Condon obviously allowed her to do this. So now, not only is he lying, he's dragged his daughter into the mix and exposed her to potential criminal prosecution as well. Some father, huh? So why the necessity and desperation? Stress? That ship had sailed my friend. She was obviously trying to protect her father by stepping in and lying for him and it had to be for something a whole lot more than stress. In the case of the 2nd Taxi Driver, we know there was no Taxi Driver, and no car either, that pulled up to that house despite Condon insisting he a Taxi man AND saw his car running out front. So she magically appears in the front room to see the man who was never there in the first place despite the fact she had, according to federal investigators, already left before this note was supposed to have been delivered. That's not because of "stress" Joe. It's because he was lying about it so she needed to step in. It's like the suspect in just about every ID Discovery show that says he was home all night with his wife and the wife backs him up but we find out after they are divorced that she lied and the dude wasn't home. Finally, you have decided to "write off" these lies and deceptions given by the man who met face to face with Cemetery John twice, and pulled that ransom money ruse at St. Raymond's. You don't view the multiple felonies as "nefarious" and believe they were "benign." Again, Breckinridge believed the Needle Salesman was probably involved, and Condon indicated he may have been the Lookout at Woodlawn. So lying about this to authorities in ANY way obstructs, misdirects, wastes their valuable time while also exemplifying very bad faith. It is criminal behavior and represents a laundry list of prosecutable offenses. And last but not least, when it comes to Condon, you have no issue whatsoever with his identification of Hauptmann. This even after he refused to initially identify him and took off to Florida with the idea to identify Garelick instead. It's all textbook examples of nefarious behavior.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 30, 2023 10:15:36 GMT -5
I feel for you, Michael and believe this is just frustration on your part as a result of your ongoing attempts to rationalize your personal misgivings, many of which you’ve committed to print, essentially trying to maintain the fit of puzzle pieces that never did fit and cannot be forced. In this specific case, Condon's contradictions of the needle salesman event. Routinely denying these misgivings and hurling them outwards as you do, only further denies yourself the opportunity to take personal accountability for and deal with them. Anyone will do as the target, but what better one than the person who regularly and directly challenges you with sound and logical questions, observations and insights. This is the type of enquiry that might well give you the opportunity to get off your merry-go-round role of ‘playground bully’ towards a major case player (not the only one) who you’ve had in your sights for many of the wrong or highly debatable reasons, over the past two decades. Speaking of tiresome.. I was never a playground bully Joe. In fact, I was that kid who punched he Bully in the face. Otherwise, I have no idea what the hell you are going on about. I remember.. your Dad gave you some good advice for that specific schoolyard situation. If you missed it though, this is what I was saying..
For years, you've been fabricating one scenario after another against hand-picked LKC players, relying entirely on personal speculation between what is known or accepted to be fact, and the conclusions you've drawn based upon them. Essentially, that Charles Lindbergh conspired to have his son killed because he didn't measure up to some perceived high physical specimen standards while quite simultaneously, John Condon had jumped into bed with the kidnapping interests and giving the shaft to his national hero. Some pretty scandalous stuff there, but I think that's pretty much the limb position you actively hang out on here.
This is not about me Michael, trying to get inside your dear head, as you seem to believe time and time again. This is Michael espousing his views openly on a discussion forum, never quite saying it clearly enough to completely tie himself, but always leaving himself just a bit of wiggle room and an escape hatch. You can't seriously and objectively continue to believe 100% in houses of cards that constantly need to be propped up, gutted and renovated like yours, without entertaining serious misgivings over their veracity from time to time.
Each and every one of your 'conclusions-void-of-conclusive-proof' is designed to support these tottering structures. When their veracity is questioned for some often quite obvious reason, there is no attempt on your part to honestly evaluate how sound knowledge, logic and insight might help to give them entirely new form and substance, even if they end up looking totally different. Instead, you appear to do little more than jealously throw your arms around them and then yell at anyone who ruins your day and has the 'effrontery' to question their wholeness.
Whenever you're ready to take accountability for any of your LKC fabrications and openly discuss them in good faith, you have an open ear and mind here to work with you and anyone else who is genuinely interested in discovering the whole and unadulterated truth within them.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 30, 2023 11:31:15 GMT -5
For the record Michael, my understanding is, and has always been, that Condon related contradictory accounts about the needle salesman visit, and other events as well. Here are my current questions around this event and best attempts to answer them from the known information. Did Condon give contradictory accounts of the needle salesman visit? Yes, his statements if taken accurately, bear this out. Does that make him a liar? In my books, yes if he did so with intent to deceive. Did he intend to deceive? Yes, that appears most likely. Was anyone else involved in this same deception? Yes, Condon’s daughter, Myra Hacker, and quite possibly through some association, Henry Breckinridge.
Does this out of necessity, make Condon, or anyone else involved here, a confederate of the kidnapping interests and a criminal? No, of course not.
For what reason(s) would Condon’s original story be changed by him and then essentially affirmed by his daughter, Myra Hacker? From my own information, including that presented in DCII, I’d like to throw this explanation into the ring for further discussion. I believe it represents a reasonable and logical explanation for Condon’s contradictory accounts regarding the needle salesman’s visit and in a larger sense, his overall involvement in the case. Condon’s daughter, Myra Hacker, through her own initiative, or as agreed upon with her father and possibly Henry Breckinridge, placed herself in Condon’s original role with Henry Breckinridge. She did this to relieve him of some of the exposure and stress he would have been enduring based on his intimate involvement within the case, most notably the failed return of Charles Lindbergh Jr. and the lack of success towards the apprehension of Cemetery John. This was also an opportunity for her to ‘put her foot down’ and be in a position to keep her father from talking too much about the case in general, given that his role of Jafise was now a matter of public record. She would have believed all of the unwelcome notoriety was having a detrimental effect, not only towards its solution and success in result, but also on her own family. This appears to be borne out by her alleged statement, “My father will think as I think and say as I say.”The relative alignment between Condon’s and Breckinridge’s original statements and the significant disparities within them and Myra Hacker’s statement, strongly suggests here that while responsibility of Condon’s role was strategically shifted onto Myra, she was not given all of the correct details to successfully effect this ruse, or was not able to accurately recall some of them, when interviewed.Unless something more nefarious can be conclusively proven from the accepted facts, I would tend to write off this Condon conundrum as a relatively benign measure taken to extract him somewhat from the publicity he had attracted as a result of his ongoing involvement in the case and the unwelcome publicity it had garnered for his family.A couple of things.... First, this is the most candid you've been in years. Of course, you attempt to neutralize the main issues we (now) obviously agree upon in order to upset what "you think I think." That's been your main theme as I've proven in the past. The most candid I’ve been in years? Michael, where on earth have YOU been lately, and over the past 23 years?
Since we now agree that Condon was lying and attempting to deceive, we must naturally ask "why" as well consider what resulted because of this deception. Next, there's no source that I've been able to find that indicates Breckinridge was involved in this conspiracy with Condon & Myra. Quite the contrary. The whole reason he moved into Condon's house was because he did not trust him. Interesting. You believe Breckinridge knew nothing about this at all. I'm not saying you're wrong here but that seems very unlikely to me, considering the fact that he essentially lived at the Condon house during this time. Are you suggesting Condon told two distinctly differing accounts a couple of years later, believing none of the discrepancies within would have been run by Breckinridge for confirmation of what actually took place? The whole reason Breckinridge moved into the Condon house was not because he did not trust Condon. Naturally, he would have wanted to ensure Condon’s honesty and sincerity, but Breckinridge also intended to make himself immediately available for discussion with Condon and any breaking news relating to the ransom negotiations. In other words, he was taking this seriously. Why have you not included this known fact? It’s very annoying and counter-productive to good faith discussion when you steadily ‘drip-drip’ these kinds of one-sided and misleading notions, expecting others will just go along with you as you hastily dispense them and then keep running forward.
Keyes said Breck sent fake notes to test Condon as I documented in my book. Condon failed that test too. Okay, please stop right there and remind me where in your books, you report this alleged account and opinion on your part that Condon ‘failed the test.’ This is one I’m not going to leave alone until the complete information (within and without what you've chosen to include in your books relative to the same account) points to the most logical conclusion, or is rendered indecisive by a lack of further information. It’s in your court here.
We must also remember that it was Breck who told the authorities he believed the Needle Salesman was involved in some way and also the fact the man was a Lawyer. Involving himself in these false statements and obstruction could have sent any of these people to jail and, as far as I can tell, it served no purpose for Breckinridge and defies the reasoning for his presence in the house in the first place. Your apparent condemnation over the individual actions and statements which took place during a period of high alert and awareness on the part of both Condon and Breckinridge, is almost laughable. You’re actually attempting to cast some kind of ill-conceived criminal shadow on Breckinridge here for the absolute value of his contemporaneous opinion on the significance of the needle salesman? (and scissors grinder) Would you have also had him disbarred, incarcerated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law for transporting the ransom money to Condon’s house and placing it his trust to do as he felt best? I thought you said Breckinridge didn’t trust Condon. So does that now make him an accomplice of Condon’s confederacy in the kidnapping interests? I imagine he'll have probably worked himself to the chair by the time you're done with him.. lol.
You seem to think lying to the authorities during a kidnapping and murder investigation is cool, just as long as you can whip up some sort of ridiculous excuse... like Condon was tired or stressed. Sorry, but this is neither "logical" nor "reasonable." In fact, its the damnedest thing I've ever read in my life and there's no way you can expect me to think you are being serious. You could well actually believe this as a result of your probably being only half aware of the mindset you’ve allowed yourself to engage in here. I do trust there is hope though, within the other half.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 30, 2023 12:13:06 GMT -5
For the record Michael, my understanding is, and has always been, that Condon related contradictory accounts about the needle salesman visit, and other events as well. Here are my current questions around this event and best attempts to answer them from the known information. Did Condon give contradictory accounts of the needle salesman visit? Yes, his statements if taken accurately, bear this out. Does that make him a liar? In my books, yes if he did so with intent to deceive. Did he intend to deceive? Yes, that appears most likely. Was anyone else involved in this same deception? Yes, Condon’s daughter, Myra Hacker, and quite possibly through some association, Henry Breckinridge.
Does this out of necessity, make Condon, or anyone else involved here, a confederate of the kidnapping interests and a criminal? No, of course not.
For what reason(s) would Condon’s original story be changed by him and then essentially affirmed by his daughter, Myra Hacker? From my own information, including that presented in DCII, I’d like to throw this explanation into the ring for further discussion. I believe it represents a reasonable and logical explanation for Condon’s contradictory accounts regarding the needle salesman’s visit and in a larger sense, his overall involvement in the case. Condon’s daughter, Myra Hacker, through her own initiative, or as agreed upon with her father and possibly Henry Breckinridge, placed herself in Condon’s original role with Henry Breckinridge. She did this to relieve him of some of the exposure and stress he would have been enduring based on his intimate involvement within the case, most notably the failed return of Charles Lindbergh Jr. and the lack of success towards the apprehension of Cemetery John. This was also an opportunity for her to ‘put her foot down’ and be in a position to keep her father from talking too much about the case in general, given that his role of Jafise was now a matter of public record. She would have believed all of the unwelcome notoriety was having a detrimental effect, not only towards its solution and success in result, but also on her own family. This appears to be borne out by her alleged statement, “My father will think as I think and say as I say.”The relative alignment between Condon’s and Breckinridge’s original statements and the significant disparities within them and Myra Hacker’s statement, strongly suggests here that while responsibility of Condon’s role was strategically shifted onto Myra, she was not given all of the correct details to successfully effect this ruse, or was not able to accurately recall some of them, when interviewed.Unless something more nefarious can be conclusively proven from the accepted facts, I would tend to write off this Condon conundrum as a relatively benign measure taken to extract him somewhat from the publicity he had attracted as a result of his ongoing involvement in the case and the unwelcome publicity it had garnered for his family.Condon lied. We know Myra injected herself into two situations: The 2nd Taxi Driver lie and the Needle Salesman visit. Both times Condon obviously allowed her to do this. So now, not only is he lying, he's dragged his daughter into the mix and exposed her to potential criminal prosecution as well. Some father, huh? So why the necessity and desperation? Stress? That ship had sailed my friend. She was obviously trying to protect her father by stepping in and lying for him and it had to be for something a whole lot more than stress. In the case of the 2nd Taxi Driver, we know there was no Taxi Driver, and no car either, that pulled up to that house despite Condon insisting he a Taxi man AND saw his car running out front. So she magically appears in the front room to see the man who was never there in the first place despite the fact she had, according to federal investigators, already left before this note was supposed to have been delivered. That's not because of "stress" Joe. It's because he was lying about it so she needed to step in. It's like the suspect in just about every ID Discovery show that says he was home all night with his wife and the wife backs him up but we find out after they are divorced that she lied and the dude wasn't home. Let me ask you, Michael. What does the above, leading and obviously conspiratorial minded story you’ve concocted, really mean to you? What is Condon’s true intent here relative to his role as an alleged confederate to the kidnapping interests, yet 180 degrees counter to professed devotion to and assisting the Lindberghs during their time of distress? You’re the perennial record that starts skipping halfway through the song. Can you please try to be less cagey, and more candid towards actually saying something conclusive?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 30, 2023 12:30:34 GMT -5
For the record Michael, my understanding is, and has always been, that Condon related contradictory accounts about the needle salesman visit, and other events as well. Here are my current questions around this event and best attempts to answer them from the known information. Did Condon give contradictory accounts of the needle salesman visit? Yes, his statements if taken accurately, bear this out. Does that make him a liar? In my books, yes if he did so with intent to deceive. Did he intend to deceive? Yes, that appears most likely. Was anyone else involved in this same deception? Yes, Condon’s daughter, Myra Hacker, and quite possibly through some association, Henry Breckinridge.
Does this out of necessity, make Condon, or anyone else involved here, a confederate of the kidnapping interests and a criminal? No, of course not.
For what reason(s) would Condon’s original story be changed by him and then essentially affirmed by his daughter, Myra Hacker? From my own information, including that presented in DCII, I’d like to throw this explanation into the ring for further discussion. I believe it represents a reasonable and logical explanation for Condon’s contradictory accounts regarding the needle salesman’s visit and in a larger sense, his overall involvement in the case. Condon’s daughter, Myra Hacker, through her own initiative, or as agreed upon with her father and possibly Henry Breckinridge, placed herself in Condon’s original role with Henry Breckinridge. She did this to relieve him of some of the exposure and stress he would have been enduring based on his intimate involvement within the case, most notably the failed return of Charles Lindbergh Jr. and the lack of success towards the apprehension of Cemetery John. This was also an opportunity for her to ‘put her foot down’ and be in a position to keep her father from talking too much about the case in general, given that his role of Jafise was now a matter of public record. She would have believed all of the unwelcome notoriety was having a detrimental effect, not only towards its solution and success in result, but also on her own family. This appears to be borne out by her alleged statement, “My father will think as I think and say as I say.”The relative alignment between Condon’s and Breckinridge’s original statements and the significant disparities within them and Myra Hacker’s statement, strongly suggests here that while responsibility of Condon’s role was strategically shifted onto Myra, she was not given all of the correct details to successfully effect this ruse, or was not able to accurately recall some of them, when interviewed.Unless something more nefarious can be conclusively proven from the accepted facts, I would tend to write off this Condon conundrum as a relatively benign measure taken to extract him somewhat from the publicity he had attracted as a result of his ongoing involvement in the case and the unwelcome publicity it had garnered for his family.Finally, you have decided to "write off" these lies and deceptions given by the man who met face to face with Cemetery John twice, and pulled that ransom money ruse at St. Raymond's. You don't view the multiple felonies as "nefarious" and believe they were "benign." Again, Breckinridge believed the Needle Salesman was probably involved, and Condon indicated he may have been the Lookout at Woodlawn. So lying about this to authorities in ANY way obstructs, misdirects, wastes their valuable time while also exemplifying very bad faith. It is criminal behavior and represents a laundry list of prosecutable offenses. And last but not least, when it comes to Condon, you have no issue whatsoever with his identification of Hauptmann. This even after he refused to initially identify him and took off to Florida with the idea to identify Garelick instead. It's all textbook examples of nefarious behavior. Don’t even bother attempting to put words into my mouth, but I’ll tell you what I think of your above paragraph. Not much. Why? Because you’re attempting once again to present for general consumption your speculation and specific assumptions, by directing them in the direction of your personal theories. I’d love to be able to intensively debate the full scope of what you recklessly term Condon’s ‘ransom money ruse’ while exploring all aspects of it beyond your comfort zone, as I would for countless examples of this same kind of fluff, knowing full well you’ll likely just hit the stop button and chuck something back at me like, “Go away and read my books..”
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 30, 2023 12:57:49 GMT -5
I remember.. your Dad gave you some good advice for that specific schoolyard situation. If you missed it though, this is what I was saying.. For years, you've been fabricating one scenario after another against hand-picked LKC players, relying entirely on personal speculation between what is known or accepted to be fact, and the conclusions you've drawn based upon them. Essentially, that Charles Lindbergh conspired to have his son killed because he didn't measure up to some perceived high physical specimen standards while quite simultaneously, John Condon had jumped into bed with the kidnapping interests and giving the shaft to his national hero. Some pretty scandalous stuff there, but I think that's pretty much the limb position you actively hang out on here. This is not about me Michael, trying to get inside your dear head, as you seem to believe time and time again. This is Michael espousing his views openly on a discussion forum, never quite saying it clearly enough to completely tie himself, but always leaving himself just a bit of wiggle room and an escape hatch. You can't seriously and objectively continue to believe 100% in houses of cards that constantly need to be propped up, gutted and renovated like yours, without entertaining serious misgivings over their veracity from time to time. Each and every one of your 'conclusions-void-of-conclusive-proof' is designed to support these tottering structures. When their veracity is questioned for some often quite obvious reason, there is no attempt on your part to honestly evaluate how sound knowledge, logic and insight might help to give them entirely new form and substance, even if they end up looking totally different. Instead, you appear to do little more than jealously throw your arms around them and then yell at anyone who ruins your day and has the 'effrontery' to question their wholeness. Whenever you're ready to take accountability for any of your LKC fabrications and openly discuss them in good faith, you have an open ear and mind here to work with you and anyone else who is genuinely interested in discovering the whole and unadulterated truth within them. Do you even read your own posts? You post that its not about you trying to get into my head then prove it by posting what you believe is in my head. Again, its all about what you think "I" believe that's got you so twisted in a knot. After reading this yarn, I think its what you believe that should have others scratching their heads. I've produced documentation to back up every fact in all of my books. In fact, some have criticized the overuse of citations as a distraction. And yet, here you are, saying I am "fabricating" things and relying on "speculation?" No, I am someone who reveals some dark truths that you do not happen to like, because they harm your personal conclusions. And so, as a result, you attempt to call ANY fact into question if YOU believe it will point in a direction you do not "like." You see, your "Magic Boots" excuse and the Condon was "stressed" explanations are absolutely absurd. So I don't blame you for falsely claiming I've "fabricated" everything. I mean, what other recourse do you have?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 30, 2023 13:16:52 GMT -5
Condon lied. We know Myra injected herself into two situations: The 2nd Taxi Driver lie and the Needle Salesman visit. Both times Condon obviously allowed her to do this. So now, not only is he lying, he's dragged his daughter into the mix and exposed her to potential criminal prosecution as well. Some father, huh? So why the necessity and desperation? Stress? That ship had sailed my friend. She was obviously trying to protect her father by stepping in and lying for him and it had to be for something a whole lot more than stress. In the case of the 2nd Taxi Driver, we know there was no Taxi Driver, and no car either, that pulled up to that house despite Condon insisting he a Taxi man AND saw his car running out front. So she magically appears in the front room to see the man who was never there in the first place despite the fact she had, according to federal investigators, already left before this note was supposed to have been delivered. That's not because of "stress" Joe. It's because he was lying about it so she needed to step in. It's like the suspect in just about every ID Discovery show that says he was home all night with his wife and the wife backs him up but we find out after they are divorced that she lied and the dude wasn't home. Let me ask you, Michael. What does the above, leading and obviously conspiratorial minded story you’ve concocted, really mean to you? What is Condon’s true intent here relative to his role as an alleged confederate to the kidnapping interests, yet 180 degrees counter to professed devotion to and assisting the Lindberghs during their time of distress? You’re the perennial record that starts skipping halfway through the song. Can you please try to be less cagey, and more candid towards actually saying something conclusive?Concocted? By your own admission both Myra and Condon lied and deceived investigators. Since Condon placed himself in the house interacting with the Needle Salesman only weeks before claiming he knew nothing about him because he wasn't home, he HAD to have conspired with his daughter to place her there instead. That my friend is a "conspiracy" because what they both conspired to do was a crime. Next, you proclaim to know what Condon's true intent was but call me out for fabricating things? Of course he "professed" to wanting to assist the Lindberghs. What did you expect him to do? Oh, that's right, even if he said otherwise, you'd have some lame excuse on the ready. Dude, you have no problem with this man lying his ass off to the cops and act like its no big deal. He's dragged his daughter into the middle of this, and still, you don't have a problem. No, no, all these LIES are innocent in some way and should have no bearing whatsoever on his motives during this investigation. You've got to be the most gullible person ever if you really believe this. This writing is on the wall Joe ... stop getting mad at me because you pretend not to see it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 30, 2023 13:45:40 GMT -5
A couple of things.... First, this is the most candid you've been in years. Of course, you attempt to neutralize the main issues we (now) obviously agree upon in order to upset what "you think I think." That's been your main theme as I've proven in the past. The most candid I’ve been in years? Michael, where on earth have YOU been lately, and over the past 23 years?
Since we now agree that Condon was lying and attempting to deceive, we must naturally ask "why" as well consider what resulted because of this deception. Next, there's no source that I've been able to find that indicates Breckinridge was involved in this conspiracy with Condon & Myra. Quite the contrary. The whole reason he moved into Condon's house was because he did not trust him. Interesting. You believe Breckinridge knew nothing about this at all. I'm not saying you're wrong here but that seems very unlikely to me, considering the fact that he essentially lived at the Condon house during this time. Are you suggesting Condon told two distinctly differing accounts a couple of years later, believing none of the discrepancies within would have been run by Breckinridge for confirmation of what actually took place? The whole reason Breckinridge moved into the Condon house was not because he did not trust Condon. Naturally, he would have wanted to ensure Condon’s honesty and sincerity, but Breckinridge also intended to make himself immediately available for discussion with Condon and any breaking news relating to the ransom negotiations. In other words, he was taking this seriously. Why have you not included this known fact? It’s very annoying and counter-productive to good faith discussion when you steadily ‘drip-drip’ these kinds of one-sided and misleading notions, expecting others will just go along with you as you hastily dispense them and then keep running forward.
Keyes said Breck sent fake notes to test Condon as I documented in my book. Condon failed that test too. Okay, please stop right there and remind me where in your books, you report this alleged account and opinion on your part that Condon ‘failed the test.’ This is one I’m not going to leave alone until the complete information (within and without what you've chosen to include in your books relative to the same account) points to the most logical conclusion, or is rendered indecisive by a lack of further information. It’s in your court here.
We must also remember that it was Breck who told the authorities he believed the Needle Salesman was involved in some way and also the fact the man was a Lawyer. Involving himself in these false statements and obstruction could have sent any of these people to jail and, as far as I can tell, it served no purpose for Breckinridge and defies the reasoning for his presence in the house in the first place. Your apparent condemnation over the individual actions and statements which took place during a period of high alert and awareness on the part of both Condon and Breckinridge, is almost laughable. You’re actually attempting to cast some kind of ill-conceived criminal shadow on Breckinridge here for the absolute value of his contemporaneous opinion on the significance of the needle salesman? (and scissors grinder) Would you have also had him disbarred, incarcerated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law for transporting the ransom money to Condon’s house and placing it his trust to do as he felt best? I thought you said Breckinridge didn’t trust Condon. So does that now make him an accomplice of Condon’s confederacy in the kidnapping interests? I imagine he'll have probably worked himself to the chair by the time you're done with him.. lol.
You seem to think lying to the authorities during a kidnapping and murder investigation is cool, just as long as you can whip up some sort of ridiculous excuse... like Condon was tired or stressed. Sorry, but this is neither "logical" nor "reasonable." In fact, its the damnedest thing I've ever read in my life and there's no way you can expect me to think you are being serious. You could well actually believe this as a result of your probably being only half aware of the mindset you’ve allowed yourself to engage in here. I do trust there is hope though, within the other half.1. Yes, I believe that was the most candid you've been. Usually, you would avoid this type of admission because you think it would assist what you think is my position. 2. I have no idea what you are talking about. YOU seem to be implicating Breckinridge by suggesting he was a party to the conspiracy between Myra & Condon. If you read what I wrote above, I deny this for the reasons stated. Again, there is no interview that I know of where the information from Condon was followed up with Breckinridge. If you have one, I'd like to see it. Condon lied like this all the time. Sometimes he was confronted about discrepancies and sometimes he wasn't. When he was, he typically followed it up with another lie or feigned confusion. 3. The main reason Breckinridge moved into the Condon home was because he did not trust him. If you'd prefer the historical (fictional) narrative then write your own book. For me, that's been done already. I provide the footnotes to my new facts to let the reader decide for themselves. No one reading my volumes hasn't read Fisher, Kennedy, Scaduto, and Gardner already so they have them to compare it to. Newsflash! No one fully trusted Condon. 4. The information about the Notes & Breckinridge are in V2. I suggest you reread the entire book. Once you get there, you will see mentioned that Keyes had a source that Reich was involved in the "drug trade." I wasn't sure about this, but I've since found several other good independent sources that claim the same thing. Doesn't make it true, but it shows Keyes wasn't making it up. Of course none of this will matter to you regardless but its important to know for "most" when considering a source. 5. Now its "high alert" and "awareness" that caused Condon to lie? Good Lord, what's next? I've cast no shadow on Breckinridge other than the part where I show he lied about transporting ransom money because he was worried about "compounding a felony" and being disbarred for it. So laugh it up Joe, you don't seem to know what was going on despite claiming to have read the books. You know, this is really getting silly. I see no benefit to wasting my time on this with you further.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 31, 2023 10:22:51 GMT -5
Michael, I don’t believe that anyone here including myself, has any real doubts about the veracity of the documentation and citations used within your books, relative to any specific event within this case. That’s not the point, never has been and until you fully understand that, you’ll unfortunately keep feeling the need to defend your positions against attacks that don’t really exist. What you have been unable to accomplish to date, is to demonstrate with even one shred of conclusive proof, that the factual information you’ve chosen to present has any direct bearing whatsoever on your stated positions that Lindbergh conspired to have his son murdered or that Condon was a willing confederate of the kidnapping interests, working counter to his professed devotion to assisting the Lindberghs. This despite the judgmental hangman tone found in your books and which you reinforce here on this discussion forum. Your Junge recollection, warped shutter, boxwood bush, Murray Garsson visit to Highfields, assorted closet skeletons, peddler visits and many other examples of documents and citations, in reality are nothing more than neutral events until it can conclusively be proven there is a direct relationship of intent and action between them and the establishment of guilt of the party in question. Not once in 24 or so years have you been able to accomplish this. If there’s one very clear and often demonstrated thing I’ve learned from debating this case with you over the years, is that being a very fine researcher and more than capable lobbyist and debate tactician, does not necessarily make one a competent detective.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2023 22:00:24 GMT -5
Michael, I don’t believe that anyone here including myself, has any real doubts about the veracity of the documentation and citations used within your books, relative to any specific event within this case. That’s not the point, never has been and until you fully understand that, you’ll unfortunately keep feeling the need to defend your positions against attacks that don’t really exist. What you have been unable to accomplish to date, is to demonstrate with even one shred of conclusive proof, that the factual information you’ve chosen to present has any direct bearing whatsoever on your stated positions that Lindbergh conspired to have his son murdered or that Condon was a willing confederate of the kidnapping interests, working counter to his professed devotion to assisting the Lindberghs. This despite the judgmental hangman tone found in your books and which you reinforce here on this discussion forum. Your Junge recollection, warped shutter, boxwood bush, Murray Garsson visit to Highfields, assorted closet skeletons, peddler visits and many other examples of documents and citations, in reality are nothing more than neutral events until it can conclusively be proven there is a direct relationship of intent and action between them and the establishment of guilt of the party in question. Not once in 24 or so years have you been able to accomplish this. If there’s one very clear and often demonstrated thing I’ve learned from debating this case with you over the years, is that being a very fine researcher and more than capable lobbyist and debate tactician, does not necessarily make one a competent detective. You are so hellbent against anything that places either Lindbergh or Condon in a negative light that you are willing to ignore, excuse, or shrug off extremely suspicious and/or illegal behavior by them both. The totality of which, by the way, would make any Prosecutor blush. Why you are so emotionally attached to these characters I will never know, but claiming the multitude of examples are "neutral" is perfect evidence of what I speak. It isn't neutral at all, for one example, to lie about things which the net effect is to (purposely) misdirect police and insulate the perpetrators of the extortion and/or kidnapping. I've offered several counter arguments as to 'why' these things may have occurred outside of the obvious... For example, Condon might have been blackmailed or threatened with death. Even these things you ignore and go straight for grade school explanations such as Condon, in essence, caring too much for the Lindberghs. WTF kind of rebuttal is this? Honestly. It's as if you morph into an eight year old or something. Then you play games with certain facts by pretending or forgetting about them but seem to remember off the top of your head a story I told years ago about my childhood. It's maddening because I've watch you make perfect sense about many other things that aren't related to either Condon or Lindbergh. The bottom line is the totality of the facts make Lindbergh look very bad. If he wasn't involved, there was something "else" going on. Condon though, forget about it. The man was guilty of so many crimes I've lost track. And his goal was obviously to get the men he was dealing with their money without revealing their identities. So you can deny facts, or pretend like lying to the NJSP, NYPD, and the FBI on countless occasions wasn't a big deal, but you lose all credibility when you do that. You see, I don't do any of that. I look at the facts and don't offer any fairy tale explanations like you have, do, and will always and forever in the future.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 1, 2024 10:32:17 GMT -5
Michael, I don’t believe that anyone here including myself, has any real doubts about the veracity of the documentation and citations used within your books, relative to any specific event within this case. That’s not the point, never has been and until you fully understand that, you’ll unfortunately keep feeling the need to defend your positions against attacks that don’t really exist. What you have been unable to accomplish to date, is to demonstrate with even one shred of conclusive proof, that the factual information you’ve chosen to present has any direct bearing whatsoever on your stated positions that Lindbergh conspired to have his son murdered or that Condon was a willing confederate of the kidnapping interests, working counter to his professed devotion to assisting the Lindberghs. This despite the judgmental hangman tone found in your books and which you reinforce here on this discussion forum. Your Junge recollection, warped shutter, boxwood bush, Murray Garsson visit to Highfields, assorted closet skeletons, peddler visits and many other examples of documents and citations, in reality are nothing more than neutral events until it can conclusively be proven there is a direct relationship of intent and action between them and the establishment of guilt of the party in question. Not once in 24 or so years have you been able to accomplish this. If there’s one very clear and often demonstrated thing I’ve learned from debating this case with you over the years, is that being a very fine researcher and more than capable lobbyist and debate tactician, does not necessarily make one a competent detective. You are so hellbent against anything that places either Lindbergh or Condon in a negative light that you are willing to ignore, excuse, or shrug off extremely suspicious and/or illegal behavior by them both. The totality of which, by the way, would make any Prosecutor blush. Why you are so emotionally attached to these characters I will never know, but claiming the multitude of examples are "neutral" is perfect evidence of what I speak. . Not so at all.. I have no allegiance to either man nor do I have an interest in trying to bend hell or heaven to suit my cause. Both are direct result products of the kind of lives we live. And mine doesn’t include condemning someone of a major crime, under potentially fraudulent terms, the kind that no prosecutor in a court of law would ever seriously entertain. Unfortunately, this dark ages kind of mentality has never really gone away in today’s world.It isn't neutral at all, for one example, to lie about things which the net effect is to (purposely) misdirect police and insulate the perpetrators of the extortion and/or kidnapping. I've offered several counter arguments as to 'why' these things may have occurred outside of the obvious... For example, Condon might have been blackmailed or threatened with death. You have not developed one shred of conclusive proof Condon was intentionally aiding and abetting the perpetrators and guarding their security for his own benefit. As I’ve said above, you’ve simply chosen to assemble a montage of things, a house of cards filtered through your trademark dark thoughts approach which you believe out of necessity points to Condon being a criminal scumbag in one of the worst ways imaginable. As I said previously said, you’re so far short of a dozen here, I don’t believe you’re even half aware of it.Even these things you ignore and go straight for grade school explanations such as Condon, in essence, caring too much for the Lindberghs. WTF kind of rebuttal is this? Honestly. It's as if you morph into an eight year old or something. Then you play games with certain facts by pretending or forgetting about them but seem to remember off the top of your head a story I told years ago about my childhood. It's maddening because I've watch you make perfect sense about many other things that aren't related to either Condon or Lindbergh. You mentioned that you were the one to punch the bully and I related my recollection of you telling me that. But I wouldn’t have mentioned it unless I didn’t believe there was a message of some direct value within. Think about that.
I appreciate your support towards my general attempts to make sense of things within this case, and I can assure you, I apply the same type of analysis and degrees of rigour and scrutiny to all of them, including the true roles of both Lindbergh and Condon, without allowing my emotions to affect them.
But I have little time for filling page after page within my discussion board responses to any given event for either player, both of whom I acknowledge to be far from sainthood, than I would for Richard Hauptmann, someone conclusively proven to have been intimately involved within this crime and yet with with absolutely no conclusive link of criminality between himself and Lindbergh or Condon. Remember him? The same guy you don’t seem to talk about much anymore.
Back to your point, perhaps if I ever get around to writing my own book, you’ll be able to see it all in print. The complete and balanced viewpoint picture included, as it relates to both Condon and Lindbergh.
The bottom line is the totality of the facts make Lindbergh look very bad. If he wasn't involved, there was something "else" going on. Condon though, forget about it. The man was guilty of so many crimes I've lost track. And his goal was obviously to get the men he was dealing with their money without revealing their identities. So you can deny facts, or pretend like lying to the NJSP, NYPD, and the FBI on countless occasions wasn't a big deal, but you lose all credibility when you do that. You see, I don't do any of that. I look at the facts and don't offer any fairy tale explanations like you have, do, and will always and forever in the future. Of course, Condon was doing everything he could to get the perpetrator his money to accomplish the return of the child even if that meant not inhibiting their escape and anonymity, but he wasn’t doing it in the strictly self-serving sense you've concluded here.
Recall that he wanted nothing to do with handing over the money in the absence of positive proof the baby was alive and made that very clear, but of course he was overruled by both Lindbergh and Breckinridge. How do you account for this very important variable within your imagined scenario? I'm looking forward to hearing how you explain this away.
Bottom line is, Condon wanted to be able to return the child to his parents, even if he also knew that action would certainly garner him love and praise from Lindbergh and the public. If that kind of heartfelt sentiment is too corny or emotional for you within his self-injection into the case, then perhaps you might think about reappraising your own values.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 1, 2024 17:48:10 GMT -5
Not so at all.. I have no allegiance to either man nor do I have an interest in trying to bend hell or heaven to suit my cause. Both are direct result products of the kind of lives we live. And mine doesn’t include condemning someone of a major crime, under potentially fraudulent terms, the kind that no prosecutor in a court of law would ever seriously entertain. Unfortunately, this dark ages kind of mentality has never really gone away in today’s world. Well, I'll let each reader draw their own conclusions. For me, its quite obvious. 'Nuff said about that. The rest of this paragraph seems to be in a different type of language so I have no idea what you are trying to convey. Honestly, I don't think I want to so its probably a good thing. You have not developed one shred of conclusive proof Condon was intentionally aiding and abetting the perpetrators and guarding their security for his own benefit. As I’ve said above, you’ve simply chosen to assemble a montage of things, a house of cards filtered through your trademark dark thoughts approach which you believe out of necessity points to Condon being a criminal scumbag in one of the worst ways imaginable. As I said previously said, you’re so far short of a dozen here, I don’t believe you’re even half aware of it. Not one shred huh? Well, to someone who believes lying to the cops is completely innocent, I can understand why you'd say something this absurd. House of Cards? Right, lying to the Cops hundreds of times and lying to the Grand Jury was done to aid in the capture of the criminals. Silly me, what was I thinking? And giving descriptions of people to the Cops then later telling them he couldn't give one because he never saw the man really helps their investigation - doesn't it? Lying about a lump on the thumb of John so he could use it to protect the criminals (who never had such a lump) was an honest mistake. Using a bait and switch tatic with the Ransom Box and lying about its construction was another of those saintly maneuvers that would never assist the criminals in any way. Telling the Cops Hauptmann wasn't Cemetery John then taking off to Florida to frame Garelick was totally above board too. Who's "half aware" again? While I'm sure this line of reasoning makes sense to you, let me assure you that it does not. You mentioned that you were the one to punch the bully and I related my recollection of you telling me that. But I wouldn’t have mentioned it unless I didn’t believe there was a message of some direct value within. Think about that. I appreciate your support towards my general attempts to make sense of things within this case, and I can assure you, I apply the same type of analysis and degrees of rigour and scrutiny to all of them, including the true roles of both Lindbergh and Condon, without allowing my emotions to affect them. But I have little time for filling page after page within my discussion board responses to any given event for either player, both of whom I acknowledge to be far from sainthood, than I would for Richard Hauptmann, someone conclusively proven to have been intimately involved within this crime and yet with with absolutely no conclusive link of criminality between himself and Lindbergh or Condon. Remember him? The same guy you don’t seem to talk about much anymore. Back to your point, perhaps if I ever get around to writing my own book, you’ll be able to see it all in print. The complete and balanced viewpoint picture included, as it relates to both Condon and Lindbergh. Exactly, there is definitely a message there. Well, I am serious when I say that you have, but there's no way on Earth you apply things in the same way. ZERO. These excuses are silly while in other situations there are sound and coherent observations and analysis. It's like you are two different people sometimes. Again, it all depends on whether Lindbergh, Condon, or where you think that fact may lead. It's tough love Joe, but somebody has to do it. Of course I remember him. I am the one who put everything together to demonstrate that Rail 16 and S-226 were once the same board. Remember? I didn't hide the Contracts or Invoices. Had I done what you allude to, I would have never written such a chapter or revealed all the documentation and information that I found that finally ends the debate. Or, perhaps some still see an avenue to dispute it, I don't know, but the there's just too much to show it was. See how that works? I don't invent a lullaby to talk around certain facts or pour sugar in your gas tank because its not how I want it to be. As far as a link between Lindbergh and Hauptmann I haven't been able to find any. But then again, he was running the investigation so of course no one was investigating him. Condon though, well there is circumstantial evidence that I wrote about in my books. Of course Condon got a call from Dixon's Boat House back when Hauptmann was a member ... this being at the same time Condon claimed he hadn't spoken to Dixon. Then again, the guy was a monumental LIAR wasn't he? So when someone lies so much we believe him because you "like" the guy. Of course Condon trying to protect him doesn't mean anything either. No, that's completely normal. Of course, Condon was doing everything he could to get the perpetrator his money to accomplish the return of the child even if that meant not inhibiting their escape and anonymity, but he wasn’t doing it in the strictly self-serving sense you've concluded here. Recall that he wanted nothing to do with handing over the money in the absence of positive proof the baby was alive and made that very clear, but of course he was overruled by both Lindbergh and Breckinridge. How do you account for this very important variable within your imagined scenario? I'm looking forward to hearing how you explain this away. Bottom line is, Condon wanted to be able to return the child to his parents, even if he also knew that action would certainly garner him love and praise from Lindbergh and the public. If that kind of heartfelt sentiment is too corny or emotional for you within his self-injection into the case, then perhaps you might think about reappraising your own values. So you think Condon was like that character in "Undercover Brother" or something? Yes, that's why Condon removed the 20K of $50s, the most identifiable bills that Irey believed would immediately lead to the arrest of the perpetrators. Remember? Irey wanted to kill Condon for doing that didn't he? And look at what you've chosen to omit .... the fact that even after the baby turned up dead, Condon continued on with his lies, BS, and antics. It never stopped Joe. They had their dead baby so the extortion stopped. But Condon never did.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 1, 2024 18:26:15 GMT -5
I'll just NEVER understand this blind defense of Condon. If this were any other case, and one of the key people involved:
1) Clearly lied about the second taxi cab driver when he almost certainly had the note in his possession already, telling multiple versions some of which included his daughter. 2) Lied about the needle salesman. 3) Sent the cops on a wild goose chase to find the ransom box maker, misdirecting them by telling them the location of a closed shop and lying about the materials used, so that the box could never be identified even if discovered. 4) Somehow got the kidnappers to return $20K of the most identifiable bills, which the kidnappers added because they "brought someone else" into the scheme. I wonder who that could be? 5) Gave the extortionists a secret head start by paying the ransom in a different location than he claimed, stashing the (now empty) box in a bush so that it appeared he was paying the ransom while the extortionists were long gone. 6) Refused to identify a suspect, even going so far as to visit Florida to search for the "real kidnapper," before being forced to finger Hauptmann.
The list goes on and on and on and on. If this were any other case with any other individual, it would be plain as day. But somehow we're just supposed to take Condon's word as to how, when and why he got involved in the case.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 1, 2024 22:27:11 GMT -5
Yes, but none of this constitutes smoking-gun proof, so, ultimately, it can't be allowed to mean anything. As it stands, all we have is the sound of a gunshot, the smell of gunpowder, and a bullet hole in the wall--and lots of things sound like gunshots and smell like gunpowder. As for the hole: Must we be so hellbent on this pet-theory house-of-cards conspiracy that we are incapable of so much as considering the clear possibility of mice? And if the actual smoking gun itself is ever found, well, remember, lots of things work and look like guns, so...
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 6, 2024 9:51:48 GMT -5
Not so at all.. I have no allegiance to either man nor do I have an interest in trying to bend hell or heaven to suit my cause. Both are direct result products of the kind of lives we live. And mine doesn’t include condemning someone of a major crime, under potentially fraudulent terms, the kind that no prosecutor in a court of law would ever seriously entertain. Unfortunately, this dark ages kind of mentality has never really gone away in today’s world. Well, I'll let each reader draw their own conclusions. For me, its quite obvious. 'Nuff said about that. The rest of this paragraph seems to be in a different type of language so I have no idea what you are trying to convey. Honestly, I don't think I want to so its probably a good thing. In other words, you have yet to put forth one example of conclusive proof that Condon intentionally aided and abetted the kidnapping and/or extortion as a willing confederate of these same interests, and counter to his expressed intentions to assist the Lindberghs in their time of distress. For years, you’ve provided lots of hand-picked and sinister looking prospects to underscore your hard core beliefs. Ultimately, the main issue for you here, one that seems to have you never gaining any positive ground, is your consistency in ‘pulling up short,’ by choosing to overlook, intentionally or not, key elements that might well cast an entirely different light on each and every one of them. Until you stop trying to pass off these types of partial investigations as complete, there’s really very little to discuss here in an unbiased, objective and meaningful way. When you’re open to the possibility that every one of them is deserving of the determination of its full value, we’ll really have something to talk about. You have not developed one shred of conclusive proof Condon was intentionally aiding and abetting the perpetrators and guarding their security for his own benefit. As I’ve said above, you’ve simply chosen to assemble a montage of things, a house of cards filtered through your trademark dark thoughts approach which you believe out of necessity points to Condon being a criminal scumbag in one of the worst ways imaginable. As I said previously said, you’re so far short of a dozen here, I don’t believe you’re even half aware of it. Not one shred huh? Well, to someone who believes lying to the cops is completely innocent, I can understand why you'd say something this absurd. House of Cards? Right, lying to the Cops hundreds of times and lying to the Grand Jury was done to aid in the capture of the criminals. Silly me, what was I thinking? And giving descriptions of people to the Cops then later telling them he couldn't give one because he never saw the man really helps their investigation - doesn't it? Lying about a lump on the thumb of John so he could use it to protect the criminals (who never had such a lump) was an honest mistake. Using a bait and switch tatic with the Ransom Box and lying about its construction was another of those saintly maneuvers that would never assist the criminals in any way. Telling the Cops Hauptmann wasn't Cemetery John then taking off to Florida to frame Garelick was totally above board too. Who's "half aware" again? While I'm sure this line of reasoning makes sense to you, let me assure you that it does not. Again Michael, anyone here, myself included, can present points and counterpoints towards each of your above examples for the purpose of opening the door a bit more to their full truth. I have previously done that for each of your above examples. Good faith in debating this case is not only doing this but honestly considering the possibilities that may upset long standing beliefs. Why do you appear so unwilling to fully discuss each of your examples of Condon’s actions and statements in an unbiased, objective and meaningful way?
You mentioned that you were the one to punch the bully and I related my recollection of you telling me that. But I wouldn’t have mentioned it unless I didn’t believe there was a message of some direct value within. Think about that. I appreciate your support towards my general attempts to make sense of things within this case, and I can assure you, I apply the same type of analysis and degrees of rigour and scrutiny to all of them, including the true roles of both Lindbergh and Condon, without allowing my emotions to affect them. But I have little time for filling page after page within my discussion board responses to any given event for either player, both of whom I acknowledge to be far from sainthood, than I would for Richard Hauptmann, someone conclusively proven to have been intimately involved within this crime and yet with with absolutely no conclusive link of criminality between himself and Lindbergh or Condon. Remember him? The same guy you don’t seem to talk about much anymore. Back to your point, perhaps if I ever get around to writing my own book, you’ll be able to see it all in print. The complete and balanced viewpoint picture included, as it relates to both Condon and Lindbergh. Exactly, there is definitely a message there. Well, I am serious when I say that you have, but there's no way on Earth you apply things in the same way. ZERO. These excuses are silly while in other situations there are sound and coherent observations and analysis. It's like you are two different people sometimes. Again, it all depends on whether Lindbergh, Condon, or where you think that fact may lead. It's tough love Joe, but somebody has to do it. Of course I remember him. I am the one who put everything together to demonstrate that Rail 16 and S-226 were once the same board. Remember? I didn't hide the Contracts or Invoices. Had I done what you allude to, I would have never written such a chapter or revealed all the documentation and information that I found that finally ends the debate. Or, perhaps some still see an avenue to dispute it, I don't know, but the there's just too much to show it was. See how that works? I don't invent a lullaby to talk around certain facts or pour sugar in your gas tank because its not how I want it to be. As far as a link between Lindbergh and Hauptmann I haven't been able to find any. But then again, he was running the investigation so of course no one was investigating him. Condon though, well there is circumstantial evidence that I wrote about in my books. Of course Condon got a call from Dixon's Boat House back when Hauptmann was a member ... this being at the same time Condon claimed he hadn't spoken to Dixon. Then again, the guy was a monumental LIAR wasn't he? So when someone lies so much we believe him because you "like" the guy. Of course Condon trying to protect him doesn't mean anything either. No, that's completely normal. If you applied the same degree of rigour and scrutiny in a general sense towards Hauptmann and his contradictions, as you do towards Condon, and keeping your obvious bias towards Condon out of the equation, I believe that Hauptmann would not only be guilty again but clearly demonstrated to be fully independent of Condon from a criminal conspiracy standpoint.Of course, Condon was doing everything he could to get the perpetrator his money to accomplish the return of the child even if that meant not inhibiting their escape and anonymity, but he wasn’t doing it in the strictly self-serving sense you've concluded here. Recall that he wanted nothing to do with handing over the money in the absence of positive proof the baby was alive and made that very clear, but of course he was overruled by both Lindbergh and Breckinridge. How do you account for this very important variable within your imagined scenario? I'm looking forward to hearing how you explain this away. Bottom line is, Condon wanted to be able to return the child to his parents, even if he also knew that action would certainly garner him love and praise from Lindbergh and the public. If that kind of heartfelt sentiment is too corny or emotional for you within his self-injection into the case, then perhaps you might think about reappraising your own values. So you think Condon was like that character in "Undercover Brother" or something? Yes, that's why Condon removed the 20K of $50s, the most identifiable bills that Irey believed would immediately lead to the arrest of the perpetrators. Remember? Irey wanted to kill Condon for doing that didn't he? And look at what you've chosen to omit .... the fact that even after the baby turned up dead, Condon continued on with his lies, BS, and antics. It never stopped Joe. They had their dead baby so the extortion stopped. But Condon never did. Yes, Irey realized that Condon had done something which might make apprehending the extortionist a longer term process, but he also knew the $50 gold certificates would not likely be passed before the smaller denomination bills. He also was discerning enough to understand that Condon did not do this through any kind of criminal intent or against Lindbergh, who effectively sanctioned the move.
Correct me if I’m wrong here. You believe Condon pulled out the $20K with the intent only of removing the $50 bills from circulation, thereby intentionally lessening the likelihood of the apprehension of whoever otherwise would have been passing this part of the ransom payment? That's it?
The extortion didn't stop when Charlie's body was discovered; it effectively ended when Hauptmann got his $50,000, 42 days earlier. He would have had no intention of sticking around looking for more money from Lindbergh when he'd already acquiesced to Condon's direction to accept the originally-requested amount, at the same time exposing himself as the key extortionist. Why would he risk asking for more when he felt he'd already put himself on easy street with the equivalent of well over a million dollars in today's currency?
You might want to try streamlining your take on this case from some of its excess baggage at some point.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 6, 2024 9:56:48 GMT -5
I'll just NEVER understand this blind defense of Condon. If this were any other case, and one of the key people involved: 1) Clearly lied about the second taxi cab driver when he almost certainly had the note in his possession already, telling multiple versions some of which included his daughter. 2) Lied about the needle salesman. 3) Sent the cops on a wild goose chase to find the ransom box maker, misdirecting them by telling them the location of a closed shop and lying about the materials used, so that the box could never be identified even if discovered. 4) Somehow got the kidnappers to return $20K of the most identifiable bills, which the kidnappers added because they "brought someone else" into the scheme. I wonder who that could be? 5) Gave the extortionists a secret head start by paying the ransom in a different location than he claimed, stashing the (now empty) box in a bush so that it appeared he was paying the ransom while the extortionists were long gone. 6) Refused to identify a suspect, even going so far as to visit Florida to search for the "real kidnapper," before being forced to finger Hauptmann. The list goes on and on and on and on. If this were any other case with any other individual, it would be plain as day. But somehow we're just supposed to take Condon's word as to how, when and why he got involved in the case. You've 'pulled up short' on each and every one of your given examples as you have in previous responses. Your intent is clear.
See my above responses to Michael.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 6, 2024 10:02:31 GMT -5
Yes, but none of this constitutes smoking-gun proof, so, ultimately, it can't be allowed to mean anything. As it stands, all we have is the sound of a gunshot, the smell of gunpowder, and a bullet hole in the wall--and lots of things sound like gunshots and smell like gunpowder. As for the hole: Must we be so hellbent on this pet-theory house-of-cards conspiracy that we are incapable of so much as considering the clear possibility of mice? And if the actual smoking gun itself is ever found, well, remember, lots of things work and look like guns, so... Michael, you liked this post so maybe you can tell me what LJ's really trying to say here, while sitting in his Corbusier and puffing on his pipe?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 6, 2024 14:36:26 GMT -5
A pipe?? Ech. No way. Too messy and smoky. And I have not, nor have I ever, had anything whatsoever to do with Swiss architects or architecture.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 7, 2024 11:39:06 GMT -5
Michael, you liked this post so maybe you can tell me what LJ's really trying to say here, while sitting in his Corbusier and puffing on his pipe? Yes I did because he completely nailed it. I mean, it was a mic drop moment. I'm surprised you didn't like it too truth be told. You know, I'm torn. Are you attempting to Gas Light or is there just a screw loose somewhere? I just don't know. Like I mentioned previously, you aren't like this everywhere. Sometimes lucid, coherent, and sound. Other times, like when it comes to Condon and Lindbergh, you do exactly as LJ portrayed. It's definitely calculated because I've seen you attack the most mundane fact this way IF and only if, you believe I plan to use it to support a theory concerning one of the two.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 7, 2024 12:20:35 GMT -5
Well, I'll let each reader draw their own conclusions. For me, its quite obvious. 'Nuff said about that. The rest of this paragraph seems to be in a different type of language so I have no idea what you are trying to convey. Honestly, I don't think I want to so its probably a good thing. In other words, you have yet to put forth one example of conclusive proof that Condon intentionally aided and abetted the kidnapping and/or extortion as a willing confederate of these same interests, and counter to his expressed intentions to assist the Lindberghs in their time of distress. For years, you’ve provided lots of hand-picked and sinister looking prospects to underscore your hard core beliefs. Ultimately, the main issue for you here, one that seems to have you never gaining any positive ground, is your consistency in ‘pulling up short,’ by choosing to overlook, intentionally or not, key elements that might well cast an entirely different light on each and every one of them. Until you stop trying to pass off these types of partial investigations as complete, there’s really very little to discuss here in an unbiased, objective and meaningful way. When you’re open to the possibility that every one of them is deserving of the determination of its full value, we’ll really have something to talk about. Joe, your position is irrational. You yourself have (finally) conceded that Condon was lying and deceiving the authorities about CRUCIAL accounts. Exactly who does that benefit? How does, for example, lying about the woman at Tuckahoe assist the Lindberghs? What Condon did was get these culprits their money, shielded them from authorities, while netting the Lindberghs a dead baby and robbing them of 50 large. Afterwards, as was ALREADY established, he continued to lie, inventing the lump on the thumb, telling police "John" was "dead" and even refusing to identify Hauptmann then taking off to Florida in an attempt to identify Garelick instead. This is just the tip of the iceberg so please stop with this Romper Room type charade.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 13, 2024 10:56:48 GMT -5
Michael, you liked this post so maybe you can tell me what LJ's really trying to say here, while sitting in his Corbusier and puffing on his pipe? Yes I did because he completely nailed it. I mean, it was a mic drop moment. I'm surprised you didn't like it too truth be told. You know, I'm torn. Are you attempting to Gas Light or is there just a screw loose somewhere? I just don't know. Like I mentioned previously, you aren't like this everywhere. Sometimes lucid, coherent, and sound. Other times, like when it comes to Condon and Lindbergh, you do exactly as LJ portrayed. It's definitely calculated because I've seen you attack the most mundane fact this way IF and only if, you believe I plan to use it to support a theory concerning one of the two. A mic drop moment? How appropriate.. if you actually buy into the notion that interpretation of some of the evidence that attempts to portray Condon as a willing confederate of the kidnapping and/or extortion, actually constitutes a gunshot and its effects, and not just the broth made from the shadow of a starved pigeon. And do you really believe Condon would have testified at Flemington for the prosecution, if he was the least bit criminally involved in a criminal conspiracy with the true mastermind of this crime, Richard Hauptmann?
Additionally and for the record, you’ve made two errors in judgment here, which unfortunately will probably only serve to reinforce your unusual beliefs going forward. One being, that you state I view Condon or Lindbergh differently from anyone else in this case when it comes to evaluating their relationship to any known evidence within its complete scope, and not simply the cherries you and some others here pick from the overall tree. I can promise you that I'd have absolutely no interest in researching and discussing this case if your belief was actually true. And two.. well that one no longer applies in the absence of the first point.
If you were at all possessed with the level of critical objectivity required to make the most sense out of the true involvement of Condon and others within this case, you’d understand that I just dropped the mic at your feet.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 13, 2024 11:18:24 GMT -5
Joe, your position is irrational. You yourself have (finally) conceded that Condon was lying and deceiving the authorities about CRUCIAL accounts. Exactly who does that benefit? How does, for example, lying about the woman at Tuckahoe assist the Lindberghs? What Condon did was get these culprits their money, shielded them from authorities, while netting the Lindberghs a dead baby and robbing them of 50 large. Afterwards, as was ALREADY established, he continued to lie, inventing the lump on the thumb, telling police "John" was "dead" and even refusing to identify Hauptmann then taking off to Florida in an attempt to identify Garelick instead. This is just the tip of the iceberg so please stop with this Romper Room type charade. I'll debate any one of your above points, but I'm not going to continue playing 'catch the weasel' with you.
Try spelling out, one at a time, those points you're willing to discuss honestly, objectively and openly without prejudice, to their core. Each and every item on your and others' personal laundry lists as they pertain to the villainizing of any one case particular, must stand on its own two feet and not simply be propped up by others in proximity.
For example, demonstrate to my satisfaction how Condon, after privately informing Wilentz on the day of Hauptmann's arraignment, that Hauptmann was Cemetery John, would have then been close to identifying a Florida man as the latter, just days before the trial. In fact, a man who was a full half foot shorter than CJ!
I've a good idea why he talked to Samuel Garelick and it has a lot to do with the idea that Condon still held the belief that others currently at large, were involved.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 13, 2024 20:14:01 GMT -5
A mic drop moment? How appropriate.. if you actually buy into the notion that interpretation of some of the evidence that attempts to portray Condon as a willing confederate of the kidnapping and/or extortion, actually constitutes a gunshot and its effects, and not just the broth made from the shadow of a starved pigeon. And do you really believe Condon would have testified at Flemington for the prosecution, if he was the least bit criminally involved in a criminal conspiracy with the true mastermind of this crime, Richard Hauptmann?
Additionally and for the record, you’ve made two errors in judgment here, which unfortunately will probably only serve to reinforce your unusual beliefs going forward. One being, that you state I view Condon or Lindbergh differently from anyone else in this case when it comes to evaluating their relationship to any known evidence within its complete scope, and not simply the cherries you and some others here pick from the overall tree. I can promise you that I'd have absolutely no interest in researching and discussing this case if your belief was actually true. And two.. well that one no longer applies in the absence of the first point.
If you were at all possessed with the level of critical objectivity required to make the most sense out of the true involvement of Condon and others within this case, you’d understand that I just dropped the mic at your feet. Broth from the shadow of a starved pigeon? Try not to smoke before you post next time. Condon had no choice but to testify. He was certainly going to be charged with any number of crimes if he did not. He had a choice to make: Hauptmann or him. Clearly after telling Agent Turrou that Hauptmann was NOT Cemetery John and also saying " they" were going to kill him, this choice was not an easy one to make. And Hauptmann, while clearly involved, was no "Mastermind" concerning anything. He couldn't have been or he would have failed miserably. And again, you DO view Condon and Lindbergh differently. You can deny it all you want but its plain to see. And here you go with the projection again -- "critical objectivity" is something you sometimes have, while at other times you turn into a beer & pretzel comedian.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 13, 2024 20:32:28 GMT -5
Joe, your position is irrational. You yourself have (finally) conceded that Condon was lying and deceiving the authorities about CRUCIAL accounts. Exactly who does that benefit? How does, for example, lying about the woman at Tuckahoe assist the Lindberghs? What Condon did was get these culprits their money, shielded them from authorities, while netting the Lindberghs a dead baby and robbing them of 50 large. Afterwards, as was ALREADY established, he continued to lie, inventing the lump on the thumb, telling police "John" was "dead" and even refusing to identify Hauptmann then taking off to Florida in an attempt to identify Garelick instead. This is just the tip of the iceberg so please stop with this Romper Room type charade. I'll debate any one of your above points, but I'm not going to continue playing 'catch the weasel' with you.
Try spelling out, one at a time, those points you're willing to discuss honestly, objectively and openly without prejudice, to their core. Each and every item on your and others' personal laundry lists as they pertain to the villainizing of any one case particular, must stand on its own two feet and not simply be propped up by others in proximity.
For example, demonstrate to my satisfaction how Condon, after privately informing Wilentz on the day of Hauptmann's arraignment, that Hauptmann was Cemetery John, would have then been close to identifying a Florida man as the latter, just days before the trial. In fact, a man who was a full half foot shorter than CJ!
I've a good idea why he talked to Samuel Garelick and it has a lot to do with the idea that Condon still held the belief that others currently at large, were involved.Nobody asked you to play drain the lizard Joe. Fact is, I've done all of this before, ad nauseam. So no, I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again. Read the books, and if there are facts that you would like to challenge then bring them up and cite the pages. You can come up with Flying Carpets and Magic Boots all you want because, while you may think these are good explanations, they help to solidify my positions since that's the best you can do. Condon, after seeing Hauptmann in Flemington, told the Prosecutors he was not going to testify against Hauptmann. He told the reporters that he did NOT identify him. Previously, as I've already cited, he told Agent Turrou that Hauptmann was NOT Cemetery John. And thank you for pointing out how different Garelick and Hauptmann were because that helps to prove what i've been saying. Your idea (rebuttal) is a surprise. I say that because its not the "off the wall" type you usually produce when it comes to Condon. Regardless, the State's case was that Hauptmann was a Lone Wolf. What you suggest is that despite saying Hauptmann wasn't John and resisting that identification as best he could, he's off to Florida to undermine the Cops & Prosecution in another way by investigating/searching for a potential Confederate at the 11th hour? You see, everything else this man did was relevant. Trying to ignore his patterns and past practices where it suits you shows bias. He lied and was deceptive, you said so yourself. Again, for what purpose? It doesn't assist anyone but those who were involved. But here you believe he morphed into an honest man and at the last minute went looking for the other culprits when nobody else would.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 14, 2024 9:56:16 GMT -5
A mic drop moment? How appropriate.. if you actually buy into the notion that interpretation of some of the evidence that attempts to portray Condon as a willing confederate of the kidnapping and/or extortion, actually constitutes a gunshot and its effects, and not just the broth made from the shadow of a starved pigeon. And do you really believe Condon would have testified at Flemington for the prosecution, if he was the least bit criminally involved in a criminal conspiracy with the true mastermind of this crime, Richard Hauptmann?
Additionally and for the record, you’ve made two errors in judgment here, which unfortunately will probably only serve to reinforce your unusual beliefs going forward. One being, that you state I view Condon or Lindbergh differently from anyone else in this case when it comes to evaluating their relationship to any known evidence within its complete scope, and not simply the cherries you and some others here pick from the overall tree. I can promise you that I'd have absolutely no interest in researching and discussing this case if your belief was actually true. And two.. well that one no longer applies in the absence of the first point.
If you were at all possessed with the level of critical objectivity required to make the most sense out of the true involvement of Condon and others within this case, you’d understand that I just dropped the mic at your feet. Broth from the shadow of a starved pigeon? Try not to smoke before you post next time. Entertaining as usual, but I don’t smoke anything. I thought perhaps you’d have recognized that piece of the Lincoln quote, an apt comparison I’ve previously used to describe the nature of some of your case conclusions, “His argument is as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had been starved to death.”
Condon had no choice but to testify. He was certainly going to be charged with any number of crimes if he did not. He had a choice to make: Hauptmann or him. Clearly after telling Agent Turrou that Hauptmann was NOT Cemetery John and also saying "they" were going to kill him, this choice was not an easy one to make. And Hauptmann, while clearly involved, was no "Mastermind" concerning anything. He couldn't have been or he would have failed miserably. Right, I’d love to see just one of those charges actually stick beyond your imagination. This is just more of the usual Harry Walsh type smoke you’re blowing here. Coar and Leon practically lived with Condon for a while. What would they have said, Michael? Condon was very clear with Wilentz when he told him on the day of Hauptmann’s New Jersey arraignment that Hauptmann was CJ. No one ‘forced’ him into declaring his identification at that time. Condon sat on his identification of Hauptmann for a little over a month following their first meeting after the latter’s arrest.
You’re absolutely right when you refer to Condon’s expression of fear to Agent Turrou if he fingered Hauptmann at Greenwich Station, but you’re missing the point almost fully. His reasoning here appears clear as he blurted out his position spontaneously. He still believed the kidnapping and extortion were the work of a gang. Why would he have stated his fear of retribution from other gang members, if he believed Hauptmann was not Cemetery John? That’s a critical element here and it confounds me how you don’t recognize the logic here within the consideration of your own position. Is it not clear enough?
I have little argument with Condon's use of 'identification' and 'declaration of identification.' There was no 'splitting of hairs' here, as Reilly put it at the trial. Condon was a product of the 19th century, born at the beginning of the Civil War. He was well beyond middle age before heavier-than-air flight and widespread use of the automobile. He not only thought, acted and spoke in a Victorian sense until his last days, despite his foibles and eccentricities, he was an intellectual and educator to the core and a stickler for content and form.
Condon had his reasons for withholding his declaration of identification. In addition to the above, I firmly believe he was genuinely incensed at the Hauptmann lineup circus scene at Greenwich, harboured ill feelings towards some of the clumsy Jersey cops who rode him as a confederate to the extortionist(s), and that Condon believed he could gain an admission of guilt from Hauptmann through the soft approach, and do far better than his detractors. And why on earth do you think at a time just before the trial, Condon was still seeking out people a half foot shorter than Hauptmann and asking questions like, “Do you know Al Capone?”, if he didn’t believe in the gang theory and other members were still at large?
Hauptmann as an individual, was capable of focus and determination towards an objective to the extreme few of us will ever appreciate or even understand through life experiences. But that doesn’t mean he was so absolutely brilliant that he couldn’t make mistakes. He made many mistakes, some very stupid ones that despite his very high personal sense of caution, were key elements towards his exposure in both the kidnapping and extortion, starting with the nursery note and continuing right through to his questioning by Samuel Foley over the closet trim writing and association with the kidnap ladder.
And again, you DO view Condon and Lindbergh differently. You can deny it all you want but its plain to see. And here you go with the projection again -- "critical objectivity" is something you sometimes have, while at other times you turn into a beer & pretzel comedian. You've long proven yourself to be the master projectionist here, but I'm not sure you even know what that term actually means, as it relates to your debate style.
And I like weekend beer in moderation, but don’t like pretzels. They’re highly overrated. Give me a bowl of Miss Vickie’s Malt Vinegar and Sea Salt chips any day.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 14, 2024 10:52:22 GMT -5
I'll debate any one of your above points, but I'm not going to continue playing 'catch the weasel' with you.
Try spelling out, one at a time, those points you're willing to discuss honestly, objectively and openly without prejudice, to their core. Each and every item on your and others' personal laundry lists as they pertain to the villainizing of any one case particular, must stand on its own two feet and not simply be propped up by others in proximity.
For example, demonstrate to my satisfaction how Condon, after privately informing Wilentz on the day of Hauptmann's arraignment, that Hauptmann was Cemetery John, would have then been close to identifying a Florida man as the latter, just days before the trial. In fact, a man who was a full half foot shorter than CJ!
I've a good idea why he talked to Samuel Garelick and it has a lot to do with the idea that Condon still held the belief that others currently at large, were involved. Nobody asked you to play drain the lizard Joe. Fact is, I've done all of this before, ad nauseam. So no, I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again. Read the books, and if there are facts that you would like to challenge then bring them up and cite the pages. You can come up with Flying Carpets and Magic Boots all you want because, while you may think these are good explanations, they help to solidify my positions since that's the best you can do. In your books, you offer accepted facts which you have hand-picked from a veritable mountain of source information. Based on these accepted facts, you have interpreted by way of your personal set of filters, their meaning. Of course, many of these conclusion prompt hard questions demanding of good answers. This is where the shimmy shake routine begins, personal accountability goes down the drain, and you just point vicariously to the same flawed conclusions as if they were Sunday morning bible scriptures for everyone to be guided by. Condon, after seeing Hauptmann in Flemington, told the Prosecutors he was not going to testify against Hauptmann. He told the reporters that he did NOT identify him. Previously, as I've already cited, he told Agent Turrou that Hauptmann was NOT Cemetery John. And thank you for pointing out how different Garelick and Hauptmann were because that helps to prove what i've been saying. With respect to Garelick, I believe what you’re implying here is that Condon was not able to identify Hauptmann at Greenwich because he recognized Garelick as someone who better fit Cemetery John’s actual description.
Why then would Condon have described CJ to investigators in a way that essentially fit Hauptmann to a tee, well before the latter’s arrest? If you believe Condon was part of a criminal conspiracy, why would he have thrown one of his compatriots under the bus from the start? And wouldn't that have been dangerous for Condon?
Your idea (rebuttal) is a surprise. I say that because its not the "off the wall" type you usually produce when it comes to Condon. Regardless, the State's case was that Hauptmann was a Lone Wolf. What you suggest is that despite saying Hauptmann wasn't John and resisting that identification as best he could, he's off to Florida to undermine the Cops & Prosecution in another way by investigating/searching for a potential Confederate at the 11th hour? You see, everything else this man did was relevant. Trying to ignore his patterns and past practices where it suits you shows bias. He lied and was deceptive, you said so yourself. Again, for what purpose? It doesn't assist anyone but those who were involved. But here you believe he morphed into an honest man and at the last minute went looking for the other culprits when nobody else would. Do I detect a ray of light here on your part, that tells me you’re willing to see and understand another way of looking at this evidence? There’s a whole lot more examples out there, Michael.
I’ve always maintained that Condon, with Lindbergh and Breckinridge, essentially acted unilaterally from the time of Condon’s entrance into the case until the time of the discovery of Charlie’s body. They were in no way held accountable to law enforcement during this time other than for the purposes of information exchange and recommendations. I’m sure they didn’t record many details of what was done and said. The official documented record for this time period, is a tangled mess, which is far from straightforward.
I don’t know exactly why Condon changed his story about the needle salesman’s visit from having been there to not being there with Myra Hacker in his place. But I do know that the change in story affected more than just himself and the needle salesman. And that he and Myra Condon were both interviewed about the account. So we’ve got three other reputable individuals including Henry Breckinridge, Myra Hacker and Mrs. Condon involved now. How do you believe this is Condon acting as some kind of sinister mastermind changing the story to keep ‘things from unraveling’ for himself? Is he threatening these other people if they don't go along? This is a great example of why I use terms like ‘half-baked’ to describe some of your questionable conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 14, 2024 17:55:33 GMT -5
Right, I’d love to see just one of those charges actually stick beyond your imagination. This is just more of the usual Harry Walsh type smoke you’re blowing here. Coar and Leon practically lived with Condon for a while. What would they have said, Michael? Condon was very clear with Wilentz when he told him on the day of Hauptmann’s New Jersey arraignment that Hauptmann was CJ. No one ‘forced’ him into declaring his identification at that time. Condon sat on his identification of Hauptmann for a little over a month following their first meeting after the latter’s arrest.
You’re absolutely right when you refer to Condon’s expression of fear to Agent Turrou if he fingered Hauptmann at Greenwich Station, but you’re missing the point almost fully. His reasoning here appears clear as he blurted out his position spontaneously. He still believed the kidnapping and extortion were the work of a gang. Why would he have stated his fear of retribution from other gang members, if he believed Hauptmann was not Cemetery John? That’s a critical element here and it confounds me how you don’t recognize the logic here within the consideration of your own position. Is it not clear enough?
I have little argument with Condon's use of 'identification' and 'declaration of identification.' There was no 'splitting of hairs' here, as Reilly put it at the trial. Condon was a product of the 19th century, born at the beginning of the Civil War. He was well beyond middle age before heavier-than-air flight and widespread use of the automobile. He not only thought, acted and spoke in a Victorian sense until his last days, despite his foibles and eccentricities, he was an intellectual and educator to the core and a stickler for content and form.
Condon had his reasons for withholding his declaration of identification. In addition to the above, I firmly believe he was genuinely incensed at the Hauptmann lineup circus scene at Greenwich, harboured ill feelings towards some of the clumsy Jersey cops who rode him as a confederate to the extortionist(s), and that Condon believed he could gain an admission of guilt from Hauptmann through the soft approach, and do far better than his detractors. And why on earth do you think at a time just before the trial, Condon was still seeking out people a half foot shorter than Hauptmann and asking questions like, “Do you know Al Capone?”, if he didn’t believe in the gang theory and other members were still at large?
Hauptmann as an individual, was capable of focus and determination towards an objective to the extreme few of us will ever appreciate or even understand through life experiences. But that doesn’t mean he was so absolutely brilliant that he couldn’t make mistakes. He made many mistakes, some very stupid ones that despite his very high personal sense of caution, were key elements towards his exposure in both the kidnapping and extortion, starting with the nursery note and continuing right through to his questioning by Samuel Foley over the closet trim writing and association with the kidnap ladder.
Once again, Condon lied to authorities who were conducting a kidnapping, extortion, and murder investigation. He purposely misled them. There are multiple charges that can come from this. We know what Walsh and Keaten believed. Now, are you asking me what Coar and Leon believed? And no, they did not live with Condon. Condon specifically told Special Agent Turrou that Hauptmann was NOT Cemetery John. I don't know what else needs to be discussed. He announced to the Press that he did NOT identify Hauptmann. He told Prosecutor Hauck that he was NOT going to testify against Hauptmann. If you read my book, then you'd know Lloyd Fisher was privy to the fact the the Prosecution was uncertain exactly what Condon was going to say on the stand. In short, they were worried he was going to pull what he had been previously. And, of course, he took off without telling anyone for parts unknown in an attempt to find a replacement nominee for Hauptmann so he could indeed ultimately avoid naming him. Next, you are revealing your bias - AGAIN. Whether or not Hauptmann actually was Cemetery John is besides the point. You see, you judge facts and circumstances based on what you believe will be harmful to a position you hold near and dear to your heart. Your conviction that Hauptmann was Cemetery John means anything that disputes it will be fought against tooth and nail. And so, addressing the fact your dear beloved Condon said it wasn't him means we get a word salad of excuses for his behavior in a (very weak) attempt to neutralize the fact the man said he was NOT him. Fact is, if Hauptmann was him, then here's MORE proof that Condon was attempting to obstruct justice by originally claiming he was not. These cake and eat it too type arguments you constantly make are laughable. In the end, there were three people who saw Cemetery John. Condon, Reich, and Riehl. You reject Riehl because he said it wasn't Hauptmann. You reject the FACT that Condon said at multiple times to multiple people that Hauptmann was NOT Cemetery John but accept his court testimony. And why is that? Because you don't want anyone to think Hauptmann was "innocent" so he "must" be Cemetery John at all costs. That means Condon must also be free from sin. This despite the fact that you acknowledge he lied to and deceived the Police, but in this twisted world within which you reside, he was still doing nothing wrong!
|
|