|
Post by Michael on Jan 14, 2024 18:31:56 GMT -5
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. I dispute your characterization of the source documentation included in my footnotes. What you are doing is accusing me of what you do and it's the height of hypocrisy. My main goal in every book was to reveal unknown facts and support them with real sources all listed in my footnotes. So many books on this case offer information, and while it may be footnoted, many of those footnotes do not bear out. Mine do Joe. Of course, there are multiple sources for many events, some of which I've revealed for the first time which allowed me to answer many questions that persisted since 1932. For me, I go where the facts lead me. My information on Rail 16 proves that. I didn't like or dislike anything I found, rather, I used it ALL to solve and make known the true situation. You cannot do that Joe. You embrace what you like and disregard, shrug off, or make weird excuses for what you do not. The key to this case is to assemble ALL known sources then sort out the discrepancies and the consistencies alike. More often than not, the truth will rise to the surface. Problem is, most stop once they find a source they happen to like. It's why so many previous authors got so much wrong. One cannot take something into consideration that they have never seen. It's like this animal activity assertion in Judge Pearlman's book... Her expert can only draw a conclusion based upon the evidence he's handed. And so, if there is more he hasn't seen, there's the flaw in whatever conclusion he's drawn. And - they are now painted into a corner. I'm never painted into a corner because I have no agenda other than the truth. That's it. Whatever my personal beliefs are, they could be amended by additional sources. Problem is, to this day I continue to find (and have shared with me) more and more that support my beliefs. Nothing to contradict me. Absolutely nothing. But if that day comes, rest assured, I will be factoring it in ... just like I did with Rail 16. With respect to Garelick .... there you go again. I NEVER implied what you allege. We have TWO choices from what I can tell. Hauptmann was either Cemetery John, and Condon lied and said he was not, or he was not. Neither mean he wasn't involved so relax for once and embrace the facts for God's sake. It still could mean Condon knew Hauptmann was involved and wanted to protect him either way. Because, of course, that's what he was doing. Next, Condon gave several different descriptions of Cemetery John. Some things in some "fit" Hauptmann, while others did not. The invented thumb deformity did not fit, but again, that was by design to protect the culprits. And yes, naming one of the Extortionists would have been dangerous. That's why he took off for Florida hoping to pin it on a known kidnapper who was already in jail. But, in the end, it was either him or Hauptmann. So Hauptmann lost. Look at his interview with Hauptmann in Flemington. He's telling him what's going on. Breckinridge told police what occurred. He never changed his story as far as I know. He said Condon was there. Condon said he was there. It was his daughter who injected herself prompting Condon to change his story. We've been through this all before. Myra was trying to protect her father by lying for him - and he allowed it! What kind of person allows that in this situation?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 14, 2024 18:37:57 GMT -5
Can you post that interview?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 14, 2024 19:03:08 GMT -5
Can you post that interview? Much of this is in V2 on pages 316-19. If you want me to post the actual document let me know because I'll have to search for it.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 15, 2024 12:03:08 GMT -5
I'll check the book.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 16, 2024 15:42:03 GMT -5
For now, I'll post Condon's Oct. 24, 1934 interview with Hauptmann. There's no need to refer to book content only here when this information is freely available. Condon certainly was telling Hauptmann "what was going on," a little over a month after the latter's arrest. Namely, that he knew Hauptmann was Cemetery John and that he believed there were persons above Hauptmann within the kidnapping and extortion. Again, here we see Condon questioning his interviewee about his potential association with Al Capone. This belief on Condon's part that others were involved with Hauptmann, appears to have remained intact up until the time of Condon's interview with Garelick, immediately before the trial.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 16, 2024 16:46:25 GMT -5
For now, I'll post Condon's Oct. 24, 1934 interview with Hauptmann. There's no need to refer to book content only here when this information is freely available. Condon certainly was telling Hauptmann "what was going on," a little over a month after the latter's arrest. Namely, that he knew Hauptmann was Cemetery John and that he believed there were persons above Hauptmann within the kidnapping and extortion. Again, here we see Condon questioning his interviewee about his potential association with Al Capone. This belief on Condon's part that others were involved with Hauptmann, appears to have remained intact up until the time of Condon's interview with Garelick, immediately before the trial. Well, here you are doing exactly what you always do.... There ABSOLUTELY is a need to refer to the book because this interview does not occur in a vacuum. I am certainly sure you wish it did, however, anyone who has read my book can see what's going on here because all that's led up to it is extremely important and places it within the proper context. That's not to mention that on his way out of the cell door he told Hauck he could NOT testify against this [Hauptmann] man. We know he said this based on Hauptmann's reaction believing he was safe and the fact that it was NEVER disputed by those who were there. So what you are doing is akin to a lie by omission. He told investigators John had a lump deformity on this thumb. Which thumb depended on the day of the week it seems. Every suspect the cops had him look at prompted him to feel their thumb and many were ruled out because they did not have it. Of course, as I wrote in my book, Condon made this feature up to protect any guilty party that may be brought before him. Next, he told Cops John was "dead" and that the real culprits were somewhere near Bayshore. Once Hauptmann was arrested, Condon was brought the Greenwhich Street station and after quizzing Hauptmann and feeling his thumb he told Inspector Lyons he would NOT say Hauptmann was Cemetery John. He later told Special Agent Turrou Hauptmann was NOT Cemetery John. Now, considering how Wilentz treated certain Witnesses, like Lupica and Kloppenburg, does anything think during his meeting with Condon in his Perth Amboy office just prior to the trip to Flemington that no pressure was applied? Of course it was. Then comes this meeting at the Flemington Jail. The Stockburger report shows Condon dancing around, seemingly testing Hauptmann's resolve. Would Hauptmann flip on Condon? That is something this interview reveals Condon attempting to find out. He's also explaining why he's saying what he's saying. Condon HAS BEEN ACCUSED, he has "suffered" and his "wife is crying everyday." Everything else mixed in like not being afraid, he's a professor, and contributed his own money, etc., is for the consumption of the officials with him attempting to show he's innocent and above the accusation leveled at him. And how does he wind this up? By telling Hauptmann he "believes" he's innocent and looks forward to sending his mother a telegram letting her know he was "not guilty." It's all right there. This isn't a confused old man, but a calculated one walking a tightrope that most people in their right mind could never navigate. Next, Condon TOLD Garelick that he was down there, not to find Hauptmann's Confederates, but because he wasn't sure they had the right man! So no Joe, your fantastic excuse for why Condon took off to attempt to find a replacement for Hauptmann does not work here. He was not trying to destroy the State's case by finding the "Italian" (Condon went so far as to call him a "Calabrese Italian") Look-out who both he and Reich claimed was at Woodlawn. So yes, I understand why you say there's no need to review all the facts in my book because they completely demolish your position.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 20, 2024 15:49:50 GMT -5
For now, I'll post Condon's Oct. 24, 1934 interview with Hauptmann. There's no need to refer to book content only here when this information is freely available. Condon certainly was telling Hauptmann "what was going on," a little over a month after the latter's arrest. Namely, that he knew Hauptmann was Cemetery John and that he believed there were persons above Hauptmann within the kidnapping and extortion. Again, here we see Condon questioning his interviewee about his potential association with Al Capone. This belief on Condon's part that others were involved with Hauptmann, appears to have remained intact up until the time of Condon's interview with Garelick, immediately before the trial. Well, here you are doing exactly what you always do.... There ABSOLUTELY is a need to refer to the book because this interview does not occur in a vacuum. I am certainly sure you wish it did, however, anyone who has read my book can see what's going on here because all that's led up to it is extremely important and places it within the proper context. That's not to mention that on his way out of the cell door he told Hauck he could NOT testify against this [Hauptmann] man. We know he said this based on Hauptmann's reaction believing he was safe and the fact that it was NEVER disputed by those who were there. So what you are doing is akin to a lie by omission. First of all, I did not say your book should not be referred to. All I said was that it should not be the only thing considered here. Before you repeat this again, try brushing up on your reading and comprehension skills.
And why did Condon state, he “could not testify against this man? Because he firmly believed Hauptmann was not Cemetery John? Well, that’s certainly one way you can interpret his remark. Or might it perhaps be due to the documented sentiments he had previously expressed to Leon Turrou, in which he felt his life wouldn’t “be worth five cents” if he fingered Hauptmann, because “his accomplices would kill” him? You’re really quite adept at using the same vacuum effect you so often accuse others of using.
He told investigators John had a lump deformity on this thumb. Which thumb depended on the day of the week it seems. Every suspect the cops had him look at prompted him to feel their thumb and many were ruled out because they did not have it. Of course, as I wrote in my book, Condon made this feature up to protect any guilty party that may be brought before him. You’ve got this account wrong. Condon wasn’t referring to a deformity. Maybe you’re dipping into and latching on to Robert Zorn’s misguided beliefs here to better lobby your point, I’m not sure. What I do know for certain is that by this point, you’ve managed to very much confuse yourself about exactly what this actually was. I’ll tell you, and I hope you’ll seriously consider it. Condon was referring to the well-developed ‘mutton chop’ like muscle group at the base of CJ’s thumb. It’s called the thenar eminence and it’s not a deformity, but tends to be a signature trait of tradesmen whose use their hands for their livelihood when well developed. This muscle group is strengthened by repetitive actions such as pounding a hammer, gripping pipes, sawing wood, and many other tasks performed by professional tradesmen. Please don't misrepresent what Condon was referring to by incorrectly calling this a deformity.
Next, he told Cops John was "dead" and that the real culprits were somewhere near Bayshore. Once Hauptmann was arrested, Condon was brought the Greenwhich Street station and after quizzing Hauptmann and feeling his thumb he told Inspector Lyons he would NOT say Hauptmann was Cemetery John. He later told Special Agent Turrou Hauptmann was NOT Cemetery John. Now, considering how Wilentz treated certain Witnesses, like Lupica and Kloppenburg, does anything think during his meeting with Condon in his Perth Amboy office just prior to the trip to Flemington that no pressure was applied? Of course it was. Condon believed a lot of things relative to the existence of an organized gang right up until the time of the trial. Why are you suddenly believing at face value, someone you constantly villainize as a serial liar? You've also developed no conclusive proof to date that Condon was coerced into testifying that Hauptmann was CJ so this is just more prime speculation vicariously turned into ‘accepted fact.' Hauptmann effectively gave up his carpentry trade almost to the day he received the $50,000 from Condon. Would it not be reasonable to believe that this highly specific muscular development at the base of his thumb that you incorrectly call a deformity, might have receded somewhat due to lack of regular daily exercise and use? And after two-and-a-half years of stock market investing and playing around with his friends on Hunter’s and City Islands?
Then comes this meeting at the Flemington Jail. The Stockburger report shows Condon dancing around, seemingly testing Hauptmann's resolve. Would Hauptmann flip on Condon? That is something this interview reveals Condon attempting to find out. He's also explaining why he's saying what he's saying. Condon HAS BEEN ACCUSED, he has "suffered" and his "wife is crying everyday." Everything else mixed in like not being afraid, he's a professor, and contributed his own money, etc., is for the consumption of the officials with him attempting to show he's innocent and above the accusation leveled at him. And how does he wind this up? By telling Hauptmann he "believes" he's innocent and looks forward to sending his mother a telegram letting her know he was "not guilty." It's all right there. This isn't a confused old man, but a calculated one walking a tightrope that most people in their right mind could never navigate. Condon is attempting to appeal to Hauptmann’s emotions here and is clearly in charge of a conversation designed to do just that. Look how ‘human’ Hauptmann has suddenly become by the end of their meeting, despite showing again and again his innate ability to thwart the thrust of Condon’s gentle enquiries that threaten to expose him. And Condon is demonstrating clearly that he’s anything but worried about being exposed for involvement as a ‘confederate’ in their exchanges here. This is simply your well-engrained speculation at work again. Condon is a man walking a tightrope? I think not. Condon simply wants Hauptmann to believe he is being empathic towards him and probably believes he stands a good chance of meeting with him again. Condon appears genuine here in his desire to gain Hauptmann's confidence and help him release the burden he knows the latter is quietly and very stoically, bearing and suffering from.
Next, Condon TOLD Garelick that he was down there, not to find Hauptmann's Confederates, but because he wasn't sure they had the right man! So no Joe, your fantastic excuse for why Condon took off to attempt to find a replacement for Hauptmann does not work here. He was not trying to destroy the State's case by finding the "Italian" (Condon went so far as to call him a "Calabrese Italian") Look-out who both he and Reich claimed was at Woodlawn. It makes little sense to me that Condon is questioning as potentially being CJ, a man a full half foot shorter than the description of CJ that he gave to investigators although perhaps that discrepancy lies within your plus/minus standards. Before we discuss this further, what else is known here? For example, was the sheriff present during their conversation and when Garelick allegedly implied Condon had doubts about Hauptmann being CJ? Is this Garelick's own personal word you're adhering to here? You know, I'll tell you something that underscores the absolute irony within this whole argument, is the fact that Wilentz had absolutely no need to ever have Condon positively identify Hauptmann as CJ at Flemington. Hauptmann had so much streaming circumstantial physical evidence tightly wrapped around his neck from 'alpha to omega' within this crime, it really wasn’t necessary. All Condon really had to do at most, was swear that Hauptmann strongly resembled the man he met at both Woodlawn and St. Raymond’s Cemeteries and described in detail to investigators long before his arrest. Just like Lupica said the man in the Dodge resembled Hauptmann. The jury were simple minded folk, but they weren’t stupid and I don’t believe the verdict would have been any different.
So yes, I understand why you say there's no need to review all the facts in my book because they completely demolish your position. For the record, I have reviewed all of the information you present as fact in your book, and I use it in part to formulate my own position on the case. But it's not this information that "demolishes my position." In fact, it's just your misinterpretation of the same information and incomplete detective work, that you only believe accomplishes this. Pity..
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 21, 2024 9:21:26 GMT -5
First of all, I did not say your book should not be referred to. All I said was that it should not be the only thing considered here. Before you repeat this again, try brushing up on your reading and comprehension skills.
And why did Condon state, he “could not testify against this man? Because he firmly believed Hauptmann was not Cemetery John? Well, that’s certainly one way you can interpret his remark. Or might it perhaps be due to the documented sentiments he had previously expressed to Leon Turrou, in which he felt his life wouldn’t “be worth five cents” if he fingered Hauptmann, because “his accomplices would kill” him? You’re really quite adept at using the same vacuum effect you so often accuse others of using.
I'll leave that up for others to decide. Thanks for backtracking and changing your position because its the right course. And --- here you go again! I am wasting my time. I just gave you a list of possibilities and you simply wash, rinse, and repeat something my previous replies have already disproven. And I am the one with reading comprehension problems? Once again, I never said Condon REFUSED to identify Hauptmann because he was not Cemetery John. Regardless of whether he was or not, Condon was attempting to protect Hauptmann. It's obvious and there's nothing you can say, invent, or offer up a word salad excuse that is going to change that. Anyway, its nice to see that you've selected an option that I provided, and finally committed to it, because that's the second time recently so we are making progress. But you have to start reading my posts more closely and/or stop attempting to Gas Light me as if I don't remember what I've previously written. You’ve got this account wrong. Condon wasn’t referring to a deformity. Maybe you’re dipping into and latching on to Robert Zorn’s misguided beliefs here to better lobby your point, I’m not sure. What I do know for certain is that by this point, you’ve managed to very much confuse yourself about exactly what this actually was. I’ll tell you, and I hope you’ll seriously consider it. Condon was referring to the well-developed ‘mutton chop’ like muscle group at the base of CJ’s thumb. It’s called the thenar eminence and it’s not a deformity, but tends to be a signature trait of tradesmen whose use their hands for their livelihood when well developed. This muscle group is strengthened by repetitive actions such as pounding a hammer, gripping pipes, sawing wood, and many other tasks performed by professional tradesmen. Please don't misrepresent what Condon was referring to by incorrectly calling this a deformity.
No, I didn't. First, Condon never mentioned such a deformity until very late in the game. Why hadn't he mentioned it earlier? And why did he tell Investigators that it was on the right, left, or both hands depending on when he happened to mention it? Condon claimed this "unusual" feature was either a "muscular" or more often referred to as a large "fleshy" development. What you've done is run out and try to explain this away, in your usual fashion, as if Condon was an idiot or something. So no, pretending Condon was saying this was a "thenar eminence" is pure fiction. Fact is, it was something Condon was portraying as a unique feature to assist in his identification. It was an invention ... maybe that's why you like the guy so much, because you two are cut from the same cloth perhaps? Also consider Condon mentioned that John had finger tips shaped in a way that reflected "disease" or "pulmonary inroad." Haven't you come up with some cockamamie explanation for this yet? Condon believed a lot of things relative to the existence of an organized gang right up until the time of the trial. Why are you suddenly believing at face value, someone you constantly villainize as a serial liar? You've also developed no conclusive proof to date that Condon was coerced into testifying that Hauptmann was CJ so this is just more prime speculation vicariously turned into ‘accepted fact.' Hauptmann effectively gave up his carpentry trade almost to the day he received the $50,000 from Condon. Would it not be reasonable to believe that this highly specific muscular development at the base of his thumb that you incorrectly call a deformity, might have receded somewhat due to lack of regular daily exercise and use? And after two-and-a-half years of stock market investing and playing around with his friends on Hunter’s and City Islands?
Say what? I don't believe him Joe, that's the point! You are so far gone I don't think its productive to continue on with this discussion. As far as Wilentz or Police, there are plenty of documented examples that demonstrate these tactics. If you or anyone else believe Condon backtracked without any pressure or coercion then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them. And no, I wouldn't expect your invention to disappear at any time. Most especially since his friend Condon didn't seem to notice/remember it during the early part of the investigation. And I wouldn't expect Cemetery John's diseased fingers to change either. Oh, that's right, Condon made that up too. Lying and Deceiving investigators is something you've already conceded and admitted he was doing and don't seem to have a problem with. He's doing that here too, of course. So why all the kicking and screaming Joe? Condon is attempting to appeal to Hauptmann’s emotions here and is clearly in charge of a conversation designed to do just that. Look how ‘human’ Hauptmann has suddenly become by the end of their meeting, despite showing again and again his innate ability to thwart the thrust of Condon’s gentle enquiries that threaten to expose him. And Condon is demonstrating clearly that he’s anything but worried about being exposed for involvement as a ‘confederate’ in their exchanges here. This is simply your well-engrained speculation at work again. Condon is a man walking a tightrope? I think not. Condon simply wants Hauptmann to believe he is being empathic towards him and probably believes he stands a good chance of meeting with him again. Condon appears genuine here in his desire to gain Hauptmann's confidence and help him release the burden he knows the latter is quietly and very stoically, bearing and suffering from.
Look at how the lineup went in the Bronx. Condon pulled Hauptmann out, interacted with him, then tells cops he either won't say he's Cemetery John or that he is NOT Cemetery John. He did the same thing in Flemington with a little more flair. Then he runs off to Florida to attempt to replace Hauptmann with a known kidnapper. So no, I totally reject your Harlequin Romance novel version here. That's not real life, and if it truly is, I would have been out of a job back in 1991. I know exactly what he was doing because I've seen it and lived it at least five days a week for three decades. It makes little sense to me that Condon is questioning as potentially being CJ, a man a full half foot shorter than the description of CJ that he gave to investigators although perhaps that discrepancy lies within your plus/minus standards. Before we discuss this further, what else is known here? For example, was the sheriff present during their conversation and when Garelick allegedly implied Condon had doubts about Hauptmann being CJ? Is this Garelick's own personal word you're adhering to here? You know, I'll tell you something that underscores the absolute irony within this whole argument, is the fact that Wilentz had absolutely no need to ever have Condon positively identify Hauptmann as CJ at Flemington. Hauptmann had so much streaming circumstantial physical evidence tightly wrapped around his neck from 'alpha to omega' within this crime, it really wasn’t necessary. All Condon really had to do at most, was swear that Hauptmann strongly resembled the man he met at both Woodlawn and St. Raymond’s Cemeteries and described in detail to investigators long before his arrest. Just like Lupica said the man in the Dodge resembled Hauptmann. The jury were simple minded folk, but they weren’t stupid and I don’t believe the verdict would have been any different.
(Response to Blue): Exactly! Get your head out of the sand Joe. What you are doing is making my point for me. (Response to Red): As far as Wilentz, yes, he needed the guy who was face to face with the "Kidnapper" on two separate occasions to identify Hauptmann as that man because the State's theory was that Hauptmann was a Lone Wolf. If Condon gave rise to any doubt in the Jury's minds there goes the State's case. Imagine if he testified exactly like what he told Lyons, Turrou, or Hauck? Not Guilty. But if he positively says it was him? C'mon Joe. For the record, I have reviewed all of the information you present as fact in your book, and I use it in part to formulate my own position on the case. But it's not this information that "demolishes my position." In fact, it's just your misinterpretation of the same information and incomplete detective work, that you only believe accomplishes this. Pity.. How about obliterates?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 26, 2024 7:57:08 GMT -5
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. I dispute your characterization of the source documentation included in my footnotes. What you are doing is accusing me of what you do and it's the height of hypocrisy. My main goal in every book was to reveal unknown facts and support them with real sources all listed in my footnotes. So many books on this case offer information, and while it may be footnoted, many of those footnotes do not bear out. Mine do Joe. I have no issues about those sources and footnotes you have personally chosen to include in your books.Of course, there are multiple sources for many events, some of which I've revealed for the first time which allowed me to answer many questions that persisted since 1932. For me, I go where the facts lead me. My information on Rail 16 proves that. I didn't like or dislike anything I found, rather, I used it ALL to solve and make known the true situation. You cannot do that Joe. You embrace what you like and disregard, shrug off, or make weird excuses for what you do not. The key to this case is to assemble ALL known sources then sort out the discrepancies and the consistencies alike. More often than not, the truth will rise to the surface. Problem is, most stop once they find a source they happen to like. It's why so many previous authors got so much wrong. One cannot take something into consideration that they have never seen. Rail 16, and exploring that subject with objectivity and all the known and previously unknown evidence to conclude Hauptmann most likely grabbed it from Rauch’s basement and didn’t saw it from his attic floor, is a great example of what I’ve been talking about. The above scenario has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Lindbergh was responsible for his son’s kidnapping and death, or the question of Condon’s true motives in the face of his professed devotion to assisting the Lindberghs. It’s essentially a neutral event of factual proof that you can herald and then carry off into the sunset without fear of being contradicted for your otherwise stated and highly speculative positions on those two guys. Please don’t try and equate your use of balance and fair play in the case of the true source of Rail 16, with your partial and even stilted interpretation of events, such as the ransom box at St. Raymond’s or the Lindberghs’ departures from Next Day Hill to Highfields on February 27, 1932.
It's like this animal activity assertion in Judge Pearlman's book... Her expert can only draw a conclusion based upon the evidence he's handed. And so, if there is more he hasn't seen, there's the flaw in whatever conclusion he's drawn. And - they are now painted into a corner. I'm never painted into a corner because I have no agenda other than the truth. That's it. Whatever my personal beliefs are, they could be amended by additional sources. Problem is, to this day I continue to find (and have shared with me) more and more that support my beliefs. Nothing to contradict me. Absolutely nothing. But if that day comes, rest assured, I will be factoring it in ... just like I did with Rail 16. Lise Perlman’s book is pretty much unadulterated propaganda, peppered with enough factual information, to make it more than palatable for the uninformed.
Again, the origin of Rail 16 does not affect your position about the intent and actions of Condon and Lindbergh. One has nothing to do with the other.
Regarding your statement about factoring in something that might contradict your stated beliefs.....if you’re able to. I believe there are a whole lot of pretty big tamales out there already that don’t seem to appear on your current radar.
With respect to Garelick .... there you go again. I NEVER implied what you allege. We have TWO choices from what I can tell. Hauptmann was either Cemetery John, and Condon lied and said he was not, or he was not. Neither mean he wasn't involved so relax for once and embrace the facts for God's sake. It still could mean Condon knew Hauptmann was involved and wanted to protect him either way. Because, of course, that's what he was doing. Next, Condon gave several different descriptions of Cemetery John. Some things in some "fit" Hauptmann, while others did not. The invented thumb deformity did not fit, but again, that was by design to protect the culprits. And yes, naming one of the Extortionists would have been dangerous. That's why he took off for Florida hoping to pin it on a known kidnapper who was already in jail. But, in the end, it was either him or Hauptmann. So Hauptmann lost. Look at his interview with Hauptmann in Flemington. He's telling him what's going on. Garelick was a half-foot shorter than Condon’s base description of CJ. Condon was not interviewing him because he believed he might have been CJ or trying to pin that role on him. Condon’s essential description of CJ matches that of Hauptmann. Condon still had concerns a gang was involved and although I believe he felt more secure about his own and family’s safety just before the trial based on the state’s case, he demonstrates here that he still had concerns about possible retribution from anyone still at large.
Breckinridge told police what occurred. He never changed his story as far as I know. He said Condon was there. Condon said he was there. It was his daughter who injected herself prompting Condon to change his story. We've been through this all before. Myra was trying to protect her father by lying for him - and he allowed it! What kind of person allows that in this situation? Who? Condon, who had probably just had the riot act read to him by his daughter and family. One that clearly stated he was causing him and them a lot of personal distress and posing a threat to their safety as a result of his ongoing involvement and seeming obsession in the case. It’s both humorous and difficult to fathom your own ‘act of distress’ as you attempt to cast Condon in some dark, vile conspiratorial light for his contradictions around the street vendor’s appearance.
You’re reaching for something beyond objective reasoning here, when the answer might well be in your pocket. This essentially, has become your general MO in this case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2024 11:02:22 GMT -5
Rail 16, and exploring that subject with objectivity and all the known and previously unknown evidence to conclude Hauptmann most likely grabbed it from Rauch’s basement and didn’t saw it from his attic floor, is a great example of what I’ve been talking about. The above scenario has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Lindbergh was responsible for his son’s kidnapping and death, or the question of Condon’s true motives in the face of his professed devotion to assisting the Lindberghs. It’s essentially a neutral event of factual proof that you can herald and then carry off into the sunset without fear of being contradicted for your otherwise stated and highly speculative positions on those two guys. Please don’t try and equate your use of balance and fair play in the case of the true source of Rail 16, with your partial and even stilted interpretation of events, such as the ransom box at St. Raymond’s or the Lindberghs’ departures from Next Day Hill to Highfields on February 27, 1932.
This is a perfect example concerning what I've been trying to impress upon you Joe. You look at facts and circumstances thru the lens of whether or not they harm either Lindbergh or Condon. You reject and/or resist even the most ordinary thing IF you believe its something I can use to harm either of these men. It's crazy. You just took the point I was making and put an exclamation point at the end of it. And so, while you are clearly imposing a bias perspective onto your evaluations, again, I do not do that as I just exemplified. Just look at how you ended this paragraph... Any scenario has multiple possibilities. What I've personally done is take the odds concerning two points and a straight line. You'll take even fictional ones, with the most outlandish tales and/or astronomical odds. Take a step back and ask yourself "why" you do that. Why, for example, you reject even the possibility that what I demonstrated by using the source documentation actually occurred. For you, the obvious here is not an option. This doesn't happen all the time, of course, because if its something you don't think I think could be used to harm Lindbergh or Condon you morph back to being rational. Think about that. If what I found about Rail 16 pointed to either of them, you would be thrashing it. But no, that's not what I found so you like it and agree. So -- which is it? Do I know what I'm doing or don't I?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 26, 2024 11:40:42 GMT -5
Rail 16, and exploring that subject with objectivity and all the known and previously unknown evidence to conclude Hauptmann most likely grabbed it from Rauch’s basement and didn’t saw it from his attic floor, is a great example of what I’ve been talking about. The above scenario has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Lindbergh was responsible for his son’s kidnapping and death, or the question of Condon’s true motives in the face of his professed devotion to assisting the Lindberghs. It’s essentially a neutral event of factual proof that you can herald and then carry off into the sunset without fear of being contradicted for your otherwise stated and highly speculative positions on those two guys. Please don’t try and equate your use of balance and fair play in the case of the true source of Rail 16, with your partial and even stilted interpretation of events, such as the ransom box at St. Raymond’s or the Lindberghs’ departures from Next Day Hill to Highfields on February 27, 1932.
This is a perfect example concerning what I've been trying to impress upon you Joe. You look at facts and circumstances thru the lens of whether or not they harm either Lindbergh or Condon. You reject and/or resist even the most ordinary thing IF you believe its something I can use to harm either of these men. It's crazy. You just took the point I was making and put an exclamation point at the end of it. And so, while you are clearly imposing a bias perspective onto your evaluations, again, I do not do that as I just exemplified. Just look at how you ended this paragraph... Any scenario has multiple possibilities. What I've personally done is take the odds concerning two points and a straight line. You'll take even fictional ones, with the most outlandish tales and/or astronomical odds. Take a step back and ask yourself "why" you do that. Why, for example, you reject even the possibility that what I demonstrated by using the source documentation actually occurred. For you, the obvious here is not an option. This doesn't happen all the time, of course, because if its something you don't think I think could be used to harm Lindbergh or Condon you morph back to being rational. Think about that. If what I found about Rail 16 pointed to either of them, you would be thrashing it. But no, that's not what I found so you like it and agree. So -- which is it? Do I know what I'm doing or don't I? What absolute claptrap. Try Halls-Mills.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2024 12:33:44 GMT -5
Garelick was a half-foot shorter than Condon’s base description of CJ. Condon was not interviewing him because he believed he might have been CJ or trying to pin that role on him. Condon’s essential description of CJ matches that of Hauptmann. Condon still had concerns a gang was involved and although I believe he felt more secure about his own and family’s safety just before the trial based on the state’s case, he demonstrates here that he still had concerns about possible retribution from anyone still at large.
AGAIN, that's the point! Let me ask you this... when was the first time you learned about Garelick? What sources are you drawing from to make such a concrete assertion about this trip? Please answer this. Next, Condon, as you've already conceded, was a liar. You've ignored my earlier reply about Garelick and merely regurgitate this silly talking point. He wasn't looking for Hauptmann's accomplice. He asked Garelick if he was "German." Why didn't he ask if he was Italian? I told you before but you "ignored" the point. He not only told Cops the Lookout at Woodlawn was "Italian" but that he was "Calabrese." Answer this Joe. Condon was quizzing him about St. Raymond's Cemetery, Hopewell, and Flemington. (As a reminder, Condon claimed he never saw a Look out at St. Raymond's). This prompted Garelick to stand up and ask why he was being asked these questions " when they got the man with the money and you have identified him?" Condon replied: " If I was sure that he was the right man I would of not [sic] come down here and question you about it." This response, I will again remind you, was made in front of two witnesses and never refuted. It also plainly shows that Garelick thought Condon HAD identified Hauptmann, but we know from the documentation what he told Lyons, Turrou, and Hauck don't we? He didn't and this response was consistent with information Garelick was not privy. Who? Condon, who had probably just had the riot act read to him by his daughter and family. One that clearly stated he was causing him and them a lot of personal distress and posing a threat to their safety as a result of his ongoing involvement and seeming obsession in the case. It’s both humorous and difficult to fathom your own ‘act of distress’ as you attempt to cast Condon in some dark, vile conspiratorial light for his contradictions around the street vendor’s appearance.
You’re reaching for something beyond objective reasoning here, when the answer might well be in your pocket. This essentially, has become your general MO in this case. Who is reaching? This is how you explain this away? You might want to rethink this and come back with something a little more sane.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 27, 2024 8:26:44 GMT -5
I thought I’d provide everyone with a bit of relief from the whole Samuel Garelick farce, with this piece of factually-related information. And unlike Garelick, this is not comic relief.
From the Bronx Grand Jury on May 20, 1932, here is is an excerpt from the transcript of Condon’s testimony regarding his Woodlawn Cemetery meeting with Cemetery John, to questioning from Assistant District Attorney Edward F. Breslin. Q: Can you give us a description of the man with whom you spoke with up there March 12?
A: Yes, allowing for the darkness and holding his coat up. Only once did it come down. He took down his coat for a moment and that was the first time and only time I got a glimpse of the full face. His hat, fedora and was down over his forehead. He looked to be Scandinavian type and his face with rather high cheek bones came down to almost a pointed chin, smooth face no blemishes, or blotches. It seem to me inroads of disease would make it that shape. It seemed to me he was 30 yrs. of age, about 5 ft. 9 in. high, and what we would call a middleweight from 158 maybe to 165 lbs.
Q: How about his nose?
A: His nose was straight down and the eyes separated a little from the bridge of the nose such as Chinese or Japanese, the almond shape, blueish grey in colour was the only color I got.
In another section of the transcript:
Q: Here’s what I wanted to get at – is this individual you were talking to about 5 foot 9? I would like to get a full description of him?
A: About 5 foot 8; weight about 158 pounds; adult; could run fast, and use his hands with dexterity. He had sort of a hatchet face, with prominent cheeks – I mean prominent cheek bones. He had wide, almond eyes. He had a prominent forehead, such as Scandinavians have. He said he was Scandinavian and asked me to call him John.
Q: Did he have a moustache?
A: No, and no glasses.
And from testimony taken at the Bronx District Attorney’s Office on May 14, 1932, again with Breslin questioning:
Q: Will you please describe him to us as best you can?
A: He appeared to be about 5 foot nine; shorter than I am; my rough guess of his age would be about 30. I will demonstrate my ability in telling ages by saying that Detective Thompson there is about 38. (indicating Detective Thompson).
My question here is why would Condon have described Cemetery John in this way if he Condon, had been criminally involved within the extortion of Charles Lindbergh? Michael believes Condon was trying to protect Hauptmann. Again, why would would Condon, just two, and then eight days after meeting CJ at Woodlawn Cemetery, essentially choose to point the finger at his so called 'fellow confederate' Richard Hauptmann, a man whose physical description so closely matches the above Grand Jury description? That's some protection!
The real answer seems quite inescapable. I believe this underscores the substance of my previous posts in that whole affair involving 5' 2" Samuel Garelick, a man who looked nothing like the above, is little more than a red herring that demonstrates Condon was simply looking for more information on what he perceived to be a gang that might still exist out there.
I'll leave it for others to decide here and I won't be part of any further non-productive back-and-forth exchanges on this discussion topic.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 27, 2024 12:21:59 GMT -5
My question here is why would Condon have described Cemetery John in this way if he Condon, had been criminally involved within the extortion of Charles Lindbergh? Michael believes Condon was trying to protect Hauptmann. Again, why would would Condon, just two, and then eight days after meeting CJ at Woodlawn Cemetery, essentially choose to point the finger at his so called 'fellow confederate' Richard Hauptmann, a man whose physical description so closely matches the above Grand Jury description? That's some protection! The real answer seems quite inescapable. I believe this underscores the substance of my previous posts in that whole affair involving 5' 2" Samuel Garelick, a man who looked nothing like the above, is little more than a red herring that demonstrates Condon was simply looking for more information on what he perceived to be a gang that might still exist out there.I'll leave it for others to decide here and I won't be part of any further non-productive back-and-forth exchanges on this discussion topic. Ok, so I'll answer my own question since you decided to evade it.... You learned about Garelick from me and used the information in my book for your position. So, you are relying on me, the guy you say doesn't know what he's talking about concerning this subject. Next, just as you've conceded, Condon was a liar. You've also conceded that he was deceiving Law Enforcement. This is important once considering that it was Condon who was proven, time and time, again and again and again, to be a farce himself. Finally, you took the time to type out something that completely supports what I've been saying but since you refuse to accept the obvious, you pretend any other choice is the right one. Fact is, Condon gave many different and various descriptions of Cemetery John. In one, he claimed CJ had the eyes like a " Chinaman". He also claimed he was " Scandinavian" due to both his appearance and accent. Claimed he coughed "continually" and his face looked like the " Ravages of Disease" made it the shape it was. The height ranged from 5'8" to 5'10-1/2". In the Bronx, Condon told Turrou that Hauptmann was not John, that his weight, hair, and eyes were all different. Etc. etc. etc. As anyone who has read V2 knows, Condon mixed in some truth with a lot of fiction. These are the methods of a "good" liar because, once they are caught, it gives them something to point to as a method to neutralize their lies. He later introduced the diseased fingers and fleshy development defect on CJ's thumb as a "fail safe" way to protect anyone who was actually involved. He tried this with Hauptmann but the Cops weren't having it which ultimately led to his last minute attempts to save him by driving to parts unknown at the 11th hour. In the end, despite driving all the way to Florida in an attempt to find a replacement for Hauptmann, he did not implicate Garelick. Was it because he was too short? Was it because he was not German? Possibly. But it does not undermine what he told Garelick, Lyons, Turrou, or Hauck. He was trying to protect Hauptmann and Hauptmann knew it. It's why he didn't seem worried at all when Anna told him the papers were reporting that Condon identified him. It also doen't undermine the fact that both he and Reich told police the "Lookout" was Italian, with Condon claiming he was "Calabrese." Apply your silly argument here Joe considering Garelick was asked if he was German and not Italian.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 27, 2024 12:53:53 GMT -5
My question here is why would Condon have described Cemetery John in this way if he Condon, had been criminally involved within the extortion of Charles Lindbergh? Michael believes Condon was trying to protect Hauptmann. Again, why would would Condon, just two, and then eight days after meeting CJ at Woodlawn Cemetery, essentially choose to point the finger at his so called 'fellow confederate' Richard Hauptmann, a man whose physical description so closely matches the above Grand Jury description? That's some protection! The real answer seems quite inescapable. I believe this underscores the substance of my previous posts in that whole affair involving 5' 2" Samuel Garelick, a man who looked nothing like the above, is little more than a red herring that demonstrates Condon was simply looking for more information on what he perceived to be a gang that might still exist out there.I'll leave it for others to decide here and I won't be part of any further non-productive back-and-forth exchanges on this discussion topic. Ok, so I'll answer my own question since you decided to evade it.... You learned about Garelick from me and used the information in my book for your position. So what?So, you are relying on me, the guy you say doesn't know what he's talking about concerning this subject. I'm not relying on you here and never have, but you are the only one I know of who actually believes Garelick is relevant within your indictment of Condon being criminally involved. Next, just as you've conceded, Condon was a liar. You've also conceded that he was deceiving Law Enforcement. This is important once considering that it was Condon who was proven, time and time, again and again and again, to be a farce himself. Condon's contradictions don't out of necessity make him a criminal conspirator. This is simply your speculation to fill in the sizeable missing gaps in your logic process. Finally, you took the time to type out something that completely supports what I've been saying but since you refuse to accept the obvious, you pretend any other choice is the right one. Condon gave that sworn testimony I posted 2 days and 8 days after he met Cemetery John at Woodlawn Cemetery. As in, when the details would still have been fresh in his mind. Fact is, Condon gave many different and various descriptions of Cemetery John. In one, he claimed CJ had the eyes like a " Chinaman". He also claimed he was " Scandinavian" due to both his appearance and accent. Claimed he coughed "continually" and his face looked like the " Ravages of Disease" made it the shape it was. The height ranged from 5'8" to 5'10-1/2". In the Bronx, Condon told Turrou that Hauptmann was not John, that his weight, hair, and eyes were all different. Etc. etc. etc. As anyone who has read V2 knows, Condon mixed in some truth was a lot of fiction. These are the methods of a "good" liar because, once they are caught, it gives them something to point to as a method to neutralize their lies. He later introduced the diseased fingers and fleshy development defect on CJ's thumb as a "fail safe" way to protect anyone who was actually involved. He tried this with Hauptmann but the Cops weren't having it which ultimately led to his last minute attempts to save him by driving to parts unknown at the 11th hour. Condon's contradictions don't out of necessity make him a criminal conspirator. This is simply your speculation to fill in the sizeable missing gaps within your logic process.In the end, despite driving all the way to Florida in an attempt to find a replacement for Hauptmann, he did not implicate Garelick. Was it because he was too short? Was it because he was not German? Possibly. But it does not undermine what he told Garelick, Lyons, Turrou, or Hauck. He was trying to protect Hauptmann and Hauptmann knew it. It's why he didn't seem worried at all when Anna told him the papers were reporting that Condon identified him. It also doen't undermine the fact that both he and Reich told police the "Lookout" was Italian, with Condon claiming he was "Calabrese." Apply your silly argument here Joe considering Garelick was asked if he was German and not Italian. Of course, Condon wouldn't have implicated someone he didn't believe was involved in the crime.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 27, 2024 21:48:29 GMT -5
"Of course" he wouldn't? Dude, are you on something? Look, I don't like doing this, but I'm starting to feel badly for you so I'll provide you with a counterargument. As we know, Condon told Agent Turrou that Hauptmann was NOT Cemetery John. But he also said that "they" were going to "kill" him. Something about his life not being worth "five cents" was in there too. So one could argue that Condon was attempting to find a stand in for Hauptmann to protect and save his own life. It's right there on a silver platter. But to ignore all of the facts and simply refuse to accept what occurred is ludicrous, embarrassing even. This is the same guy who said the Lookout was a "Calabrese Italian" then later was attempting to implicate Isidor Fisch as that man!
As far as Garelick, I realize many might think because they never heard of him that he's not important. Fact is, I mention a ton of people who weren't known to be associated with this case and, in fact, they are all important because there is something new to be learned from each. It underscores the research that's required that has never been done. I realize few will ever be in the position to do the crazy amount that I have, but shrugging off stuff isn't a solution to any problem. Your replies, especially the last ones, completely defy common sense.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 3, 2024 10:47:23 GMT -5
"Of course" he wouldn't? Dude, are you on something? Look, I don't like doing this, but I'm starting to feel badly for you so I'll provide you with a counterargument. As we know, Condon told Agent Turrou that Hauptmann was NOT Cemetery John. But he also said that " they" were going to " kill" him. Something about his life not being worth "five cents" was in there too. So one could argue that Condon was attempting to find a stand in for Hauptmann to protect and save his own life. It's right there on a silver platter. But to ignore all of the facts and simply refuse to accept what occurred is ludicrous, embarrassing even. This is the same guy who said the Lookout was a "Calabrese Italian" then later was attempting to implicate Isidor Fisch as that man! As far as Garelick, I realize many might think because they never heard of him that he's not important. Fact is, I mention a ton of people who weren't known to be associated with this case and, in fact, they are all important because there is something new to be learned from each. It underscores the research that's required that has never been done. I realize few will ever be in the position to do the crazy amount that I have, but shrugging off stuff isn't a solution to any problem. Your replies, especially the last ones, completely defy common sense. I’m not feeling badly about this debate at all because I believe we may actually make some eventual headway here, if we can just try to minimize the frayed synapse responses, cloud yelling and ‘millennial’ style jargon and bombast.
At the time of Hauptmann’s arrest, Condon still believed that a gang was involved, possibly at large and therefore in a position to exact revenge on him and his family, if he identified Hauptmann or anyone else brought into custody. He made this position clear to Agent Turrou, and had not expressed such a lament on any previous occasion that I'm aware of. What's different this time?
I believe for very good reason, that Condon had essentially bought into the possibility that CJ was telling him the truth at Woodlawn when he provided a description of the ‘gang,’ which included three other men and two women. With the exception of Dr. Dudley Schoenfeld, writer Leigh Matteson, Lt. James Finn and Captain Richard Oliver who now believed this crime was probably the work of a ‘lone man,’ Condon was of a different mindset, fully believing CJ had been talking with a confederate or confederates during their initial phone conversation and that another person was observing them at Woodlawn. Further, he was no doubt influenced by other perceived accomplices, ie. the street vendor visits, the violin auction lady, as well as the alleged lookouts at Woodlawn and St. Raymond’s. A case of this magnitude was certain to grown 'arms and legs' and Condon was simply unable to discern which ones were relevant.
At Greenwich, Condon was asked to determine if the man he had met two-and-a-half years earlier, was Richard Hauptmann. Condon refused to declare an identification at the time, but added that Hauptmann could have been “his brother.” That is significant in itself. His comments about CJ being heavier and his hair different shouldn’t really come as a surprise given that these physical attributes are capable of changing dramatically for anyone over the course of thirty months. Actually, I’m not sure how Condon could have commented about the differences in hair, given that CJ never took his hat off at either cemetery. So how much weight should that observation reasonably, be given?
In one light, the argument can be made that Condon resisted identifying the suspect because he firmly believed Hauptmann was not the man. It can also be that he resisted identifying the suspect because he was not 100% certain and required additional information outside of the chaotic scene Condon was thrown into at Greenwich. And there are other circumstances and possibilities at play here.
Condon had already reviewed countless mug shots and been brought before potential suspects, with investigators getting no further ahead until Greenwich. And each time, after Condon unafraid of doing so, having made a clear declaration relating to whether or not he believed any of the previous suspects, was CJ.
With Hauptmann at Greenwich, this was not the case. And if Condon truly believed he was not the man, what possible reason would he have had in withholding such a statement to exculpate a suspect he believed to be innocent? Why would he not have simply declared they had the wrong man in custody?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 3, 2024 19:25:11 GMT -5
I’m not feeling badly about this debate at all because I believe we may actually make some eventual headway here, if we can just try to minimize the frayed synapse responses, cloud yelling and ‘millennial’ style jargon and bombast.
At the time of Hauptmann’s arrest, Condon still believed that a gang was involved, possibly at large and therefore in a position to exact revenge on him and his family, if he identified Hauptmann or anyone else brought into custody. He made this position clear to Agent Turrou, and had not expressed such a lament on any previous occasion that I'm aware of. What's different this time?
I believe for very good reason, that Condon had essentially bought into the possibility that CJ was telling him the truth at Woodlawn when he provided a description of the ‘gang,’ which included three other men and two women. With the exception of Dr. Dudley Schoenfeld, writer Leigh Matteson, Lt. James Finn and Captain Richard Oliver who now believed this crime was probably the work of a ‘lone man,’ Condon was of a different mindset, fully believing CJ had been talking with a confederate or confederates during their initial phone conversation and that another person was observing them at Woodlawn. Further, he was no doubt influenced by other perceived accomplices, ie. the street vendor visits, the violin auction lady, as well as the alleged lookouts at Woodlawn and St. Raymond’s. A case of this magnitude was certain to grown 'arms and legs' and Condon was simply unable to discern which ones were relevant.
At Greenwich, Condon was asked to determine if the man he had met two-and-a-half years earlier, was Richard Hauptmann. Condon refused to declare an identification at the time, but added that Hauptmann could have been “his brother.” That is significant in itself. His comments about CJ being heavier and his hair different shouldn’t really come as a surprise given that these physical attributes are capable of changing dramatically for anyone over the course of thirty months. Actually, I’m not sure how Condon could have commented about the differences in hair, given that CJ never took his hat off at either cemetery. So how much weight should that observation reasonably, be given?
In one light, the argument can be made that Condon resisted identifying the suspect because he firmly believed Hauptmann was not the man. It can also be that he resisted identifying the suspect because he was not 100% certain and required additional information outside of the chaotic scene Condon was thrown into at Greenwich. And there are other circumstances and possibilities at play here.
Condon had already reviewed countless mug shots and been brought before potential suspects, with investigators getting no further ahead until Greenwich. And each time, after Condon unafraid of doing so, having made a clear declaration relating to whether or not he believed any of the previous suspects, was CJ.
With Hauptmann at Greenwich, this was not the case. And if Condon truly believed he was not the man, what possible reason would he have had in withholding such a statement to exculpate a suspect he believed to be innocent? Why would he not have simply declared they had the wrong man in custody? Again, and its both in my book and I quoted it previously.... Condon told Turrou that Hauptmann was NOT Cemetery John. Why are you having so much trouble accepting this fact? The part about being his "brother" isn't what you are portraying it to be. As I also wrote in my book, complete with examples, Condon was hearing this from the police at various times throughout the investigation. One example would be Simeck, the man Condon identified but had a rock solid alibi. This led to speculation among police concerning Simeck's brother. So what Condon was doing what a "good" liar does -- by throwing something Cops said previously back at them as a way to legtimize NOT identifying Hauptmann. More proof of nefarious behavior in an attempt to protect Hauptmann. He did the same thing after it was suggested that CJ might be dead. Later, lo and behold, Condon is running around telling other Cops that CJ was dead. Again, all in the book. You see, you must ignore a whole helluva lot in order to say Condon was on the level ... and you are doing exactly that. As far as multiple people being involved, no matter what the truth was, Condon was dealing with them. Of those, he knew how many there were.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 4, 2024 12:16:57 GMT -5
I’m not feeling badly about this debate at all because I believe we may actually make some eventual headway here, if we can just try to minimize the frayed synapse responses, cloud yelling and ‘millennial’ style jargon and bombast.
At the time of Hauptmann’s arrest, Condon still believed that a gang was involved, possibly at large and therefore in a position to exact revenge on him and his family, if he identified Hauptmann or anyone else brought into custody. He made this position clear to Agent Turrou, and had not expressed such a lament on any previous occasion that I'm aware of. What's different this time?
I believe for very good reason, that Condon had essentially bought into the possibility that CJ was telling him the truth at Woodlawn when he provided a description of the ‘gang,’ which included three other men and two women. With the exception of Dr. Dudley Schoenfeld, writer Leigh Matteson, Lt. James Finn and Captain Richard Oliver who now believed this crime was probably the work of a ‘lone man,’ Condon was of a different mindset, fully believing CJ had been talking with a confederate or confederates during their initial phone conversation and that another person was observing them at Woodlawn. Further, he was no doubt influenced by other perceived accomplices, ie. the street vendor visits, the violin auction lady, as well as the alleged lookouts at Woodlawn and St. Raymond’s. A case of this magnitude was certain to grown 'arms and legs' and Condon was simply unable to discern which ones were relevant.
At Greenwich, Condon was asked to determine if the man he had met two-and-a-half years earlier, was Richard Hauptmann. Condon refused to declare an identification at the time, but added that Hauptmann could have been “his brother.” That is significant in itself. His comments about CJ being heavier and his hair different shouldn’t really come as a surprise given that these physical attributes are capable of changing dramatically for anyone over the course of thirty months. Actually, I’m not sure how Condon could have commented about the differences in hair, given that CJ never took his hat off at either cemetery. So how much weight should that observation reasonably, be given?
In one light, the argument can be made that Condon resisted identifying the suspect because he firmly believed Hauptmann was not the man. It can also be that he resisted identifying the suspect because he was not 100% certain and required additional information outside of the chaotic scene Condon was thrown into at Greenwich. And there are other circumstances and possibilities at play here.
Condon had already reviewed countless mug shots and been brought before potential suspects, with investigators getting no further ahead until Greenwich. And each time, after Condon unafraid of doing so, having made a clear declaration relating to whether or not he believed any of the previous suspects, was CJ.
With Hauptmann at Greenwich, this was not the case. And if Condon truly believed he was not the man, what possible reason would he have had in withholding such a statement to exculpate a suspect he believed to be innocent? Why would he not have simply declared they had the wrong man in custody? Again, and its both in my book and I quoted it previously.... Condon told Turrou that Hauptmann was NOT Cemetery John. Why are you having so much trouble accepting this fact? The part about being his "brother" isn't what you are portraying it to be. I’ve always made it very clear that your books are extremely valuable sources of information that otherwise might not be attainable in anyone’s general research efforts. Frankly speaking though, and I hope you don’t take this too negatively, your apparent understanding and portrayed rendition of the Greenwich Station event in regards to John Condon’s participation there, is a classic example of the tabloid and yellow journalism stylings you often employ within your books. You’re not alone of course. It’s become a relatively common theme within most books on the case over the past fifty years. Bottom line here is that you’ve made personal use of this occurrence via your own patented drip-drip approach, to keep this ‘Confederate Condon’ axe you’ve been grinding away on for years, nice and sharp.Now that my little observational rant is out of the way and to address your point, if Condon is not truthfully implying great similarity between Hauptmann and CJ when he says the two could be brothers, then what else do you believe he is saying? And is he not also expressing clear concern about ensuring the suspect has every right and privilege accorded him under law to safeguard his potential innocence?Here’s a quote from Dark Corners:Dr. Condon: He is the one who would come nearer to answering the description than anybody I saw. You gave me no hint and I picked him out. He is a little heavier. Can I go over and talk to him? – I couldn’t say he is not the man.
Inspector Lyons: It looks like him?
Dr. Condon: Yes.
Inspector Lyons: But you cannot identify him?
Dr. Condon: No, I have to be very careful. The man’s life is in jeopardy.
As I also wrote in my book, complete with examples, Condon was hearing this from the police at various times throughout the investigation. One example would be Simeck, the man Condon identified but had a rock solid alibi. This led to speculation among police concerning Simeck's brother. So what Condon was doing what a "good" liar does -- by throwing something Cops said previously back at them as a way to legtimize NOT identifying Hauptmann. More proof of nefarious behavior in an attempt to protect Hauptmann. Condon said a lot of strange and questionable things that you can take a lot of ways through the filter of personal interpretation. Here, you’re using that essentially known, base line personality trait of his, something anyone who knew him well would probably concur with, as proof he was protecting the suspected kidnapper and killer of the Lindbergh child. Sorry, but it takes a deeper understanding of the multiple relevant factors at play here, not to mention personal powers of discernment, to present a more convincing argument than the one you’ve given here. Condon’s time spent in the company of Agent Turrou, is a major eye-opener that clearly demonstrates his sudden and high level of anxiety brought about by the prospect of having to identify Hauptmann, a man he not only recognized to be Cemetery John, but knew implicitly by now, was suspected of being deeply involved in the crime.
Condon was 74 years old at the time he was essentially commandeered out of his home much earlier in the day for the purpose of potentially identifying Hauptmann as CJ. Well into the evening, in Turrou’s custody, he is clearly both fatigued and feeling disheveled from the chaotic proceedings within the Greenwich Station. He wants to go home but knows he cannot until he is allowed to. Clearly, he is in much fear for his own life and that of his family. He realizes that with Hauptmann's arrest, he will be thrust back into the central workings of the case. He may now even finding himself regretting his decision to inject himself into the case. His is an absolutely conflicted mind wrestling with what he feels is his responsibility as an American citizen, against the possibility of an involved criminal gang doing him harm. At the same time and given his private conversation with Hauptmann at Greenwich, he is probably already entertaining thoughts that he himself might be able to appeal to Hauptmann’s emotional side in order break through the latter’s obstinacy and muteness, something that no doubt would have given Condon a great deal of satisfaction.
Ultimately, I believe that Condon determined his only recourse was to not identify Hauptmann as CJ at Greenwich. Of course while this appears to be cagey behaviour, it also doesn’t mean he’s clearing Hauptmann in his mind. And what he does here in no way goes against the grain of what Condon claimed all along, that he would not declare his identification until he felt it was the right time. Despite whatever misgivings he still may have had in the way of a gang still at large, he did exactly that on October 24, 1934, when he told David Wilentz that Richard Hauptmann was Cemetery John. At this meeting, Condon received Wilentz’s word that he would not make his declaration public before Condon’s testimony at Flemington, a promise that Wilentz kept.
He did the same thing after it was suggested that CJ might be dead. Later, lo and behold, Condon is running around telling other Cops that CJ was dead. Again, all in the book. You see, you must ignore a whole helluva lot in order to say Condon was on the level ... and you are doing exactly that. As far as multiple people being involved, no matter what the truth was, Condon was dealing with them. Of those, he knew how many there were. Again with "All in the book?" Please..
I believe the above are just more capsule conclusions based on your preferred personal interpretations and belief that among more nebulous things, there existed, a shadowy and vaporous gang that essentially linked Lindbergh with Hauptmann. And I’ll offer a capsule conclusion of my own here. You’re incorrect about this and more.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 4, 2024 19:31:29 GMT -5
I’ve always made it very clear that your books are extremely valuable sources of information that otherwise might not be attainable in anyone’s general research efforts. Frankly speaking though, and I hope you don’t take this too negatively, your apparent understanding and portrayed rendition of the Greenwich Station event in regards to John Condon’s participation there, is a classic example of the tabloid and yellow journalism stylings you often employ within your books. You’re not alone of course. It’s become a relatively common theme within most books on the case over the past fifty years. Bottom line here is that you’ve made personal use of this occurrence via your own patented drip-drip approach, to keep this ‘Confederate Condon’ axe you’ve been grinding away on for years, nice and sharp. Yellow Journalism? Are you nutz? The information comes from the source materials. My observations are sound, and its your rebuttals that prove it. I mean, this is the best you can do? It's not even rational. It's not a "drip drip" approach. It's an "everything" approach. Now that my little observational rant is out of the way and to address your point, if Condon is not truthfully implying great similarity between Hauptmann and CJ when he says the two could be brothers, then what else do you believe he is saying? And is he not also expressing clear concern about ensuring the suspect has every right and privilege accorded him under law to safeguard his potential innocence? AGAIN, Condon was using a tactic here. It's one, like I said before, that "good" liars employ. I know because of my 27+ years experience dealing with it. What he is doing is taking past experiences, such as the Police injecting the alternative concerning suspects that might actually have a brother that was involved instead. And so, Condon was using this to PROTECT both himself and Hauptmann. By examples, I demonstrated this line came from Police multiple times previous to Condon pulling it out of his bag of tricks. AGAIN, this wasn't the only time he did these things. Here's what's going on with you... You are AFRAID that because Condon told Turrou that Hauptmann was NOT Cemetery John, that other people will believe Hauptmann was innocent. As a result, you reject what he said, at all costs, then make up silly and unbelievable excuses --- while also sayng I don't have an understanding of the events --- like you supposedly do. Here’s a quote from Dark Corners:Dr. Condon: He is the one who would come nearer to answering the description than anybody I saw. You gave me no hint and I picked him out. He is a little heavier. Can I go over and talk to him? – I couldn’t say he is not the man.
Inspector Lyons: It looks like him?
Dr. Condon: Yes.
Inspector Lyons: But you cannot identify him?
Dr. Condon: No, I have to be very careful. The man’s life is in jeopardy.
Thank you for typing this out. When looking at everything in its totality, it proves everything I've been saying. After this exchange, Condon went with Agent Turrou and quickly started fishing for information about Hauptmann's arrest. He then made some statements that I quote in my book that led Turrou to believe Condon had actually identified Hauptmann, which we can see from above that he did not. Next thing you know, Turrou records this: In a subsequent conversation, however he [CONDON] indicated that he was not going to identify the man [HAUPTMANN] because he was doubtful whether Hauptmann was John. He said that Hauptmann bears a great likeness to his (Hauptmann's) brother, who was the real John, and with whom he had made the contact at the cemetery. He asserted that John was killed long ago and that the money was taken away from him by his confederates. He intimated that the real men who are responsible for the kidnaping and murder of the Lindbergh child are now some where in Long Island, around Bayshore. So what do we see here? 1. NOT GOING TO IDENTIFY HAUPTMANN 2. Hauptmann bore a likeness to his brother 3. Real Cemetery John was DEAD 4. The REAL Kidnappers were somewhere around Bayshore READ THESE AGAIN JOE!He's using several tactics to protect Hauptmann. John's Dead... sound familiar? It should. He got the idea from Keaten. Condon said a lot of strange and questionable things that you can take a lot of ways through the filter of personal interpretation. Here, you’re using that essentially known, base line personality trait of his, something anyone who knew him well would probably concur with, as proof he was protecting the suspected kidnapper and killer of the Lindbergh child. Sorry, but it takes a deeper understanding of the multiple relevant factors at play here, not to mention personal powers of discernment, to present a more convincing argument than the one you’ve given here.
Plain English. Deeper understanding? You mean like your Harlequin Romance interpretation? No thanks, that's not real life ... then or now. Condon’s time spent in the company of Agent Turrou, is a major eye-opener that clearly demonstrates his sudden and high level of anxiety brought about by the prospect of having to identify Hauptmann, a man he not only recognized to be Cemetery John, but knew implicitly by now, was suspected of being deeply involved in the crime. So open your eyes and stop with this canard. He's misdirecting Turrou to Bayshore for God's sake! What kind of Kool Aide are you drinking? Condon was 74 years old at the time he was essentially commandeered out of his home much earlier in the day for the purpose of potentially identifying Hauptmann as CJ. Well into the evening, in Turrou’s custody, he is clearly both fatigued and feeling disheveled from the chaotic proceedings within the Greenwich Station. He wants to go home but knows he cannot until he is allowed to. Clearly, he is in much fear for his own life and that of his family. He realizes that with Hauptmann's arrest, he will be thrust back into the central workings of the case. He may now even finding himself regretting his decision to inject himself into the case. His is an absolutely conflicted mind wrestling with what he feels is his responsibility as an American citizen, against the possibility of an involved criminal gang doing him harm. At the same time and given his private conversation with Hauptmann at Greenwich, he is probably already entertaining thoughts that he himself might be able to appeal to Hauptmann’s emotional side in order break through the latter’s obstinacy and muteness, something that no doubt would have given Condon a great deal of satisfaction. More bluster. Try the common sense answer. He knew Hauptmann was involved, because it was clearly his job was to get them their money and protect them from arrest. As my book demonstrates, he did everything he could to that end to include trying to find a stand in for Hauptmann. In the end, faced with either a "him or me" situation, he took the "me" option. Ultimately, I believe that Condon determined his only recourse was to not identify Hauptmann as CJ at Greenwich. Of course while this appears to be cagey behaviour, it also doesn’t mean he’s clearing Hauptmann in his mind. And what he does here in no way goes against the grain of what Condon claimed all along, that he would not declare his identification until he felt it was the right time. Despite whatever misgivings he still may have had in the way of a gang still at large, he did exactly that on October 24, 1934, when he told David Wilentz that Richard Hauptmann was Cemetery John. At this meeting, Condon received Wilentz’s word that he would not make his declaration public before Condon’s testimony at Flemington, a promise that Wilentz kept. Pure fantasy.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 10, 2024 9:32:28 GMT -5
I’ve always made it very clear that your books are extremely valuable sources of information that otherwise might not be attainable in anyone’s general research efforts. Frankly speaking though, and I hope you don’t take this too negatively, your apparent understanding and portrayed rendition of the Greenwich Station event in regards to John Condon’s participation there, is a classic example of the tabloid and yellow journalism stylings you often employ within your books. You’re not alone of course. It’s become a relatively common theme within most books on the case over the past fifty years. Bottom line here is that you’ve made personal use of this occurrence via your own patented drip-drip approach, to keep this ‘Confederate Condon’ axe you’ve been grinding away on for years, nice and sharp. Yellow Journalism? Are you nutz? The information comes from the source materials. My observations are sound, and its your rebuttals that prove it. I mean, this is the best you can do? It's not even rational. It's not a "drip drip" approach. It's an "everything" approach. I believe you have found yourself in the unenviable position where you are having some difficulty distinguishing between the factual information you present and your own brand of editorial style, subjective commentary. It’s the latter that you consciously inject as a kind of courtroom summation, in order to attempt to convince the reader. Sensationalizing the relevance of any given narrative and consciously seeking to sway opinion, is just one form of yellow journalism. The tabloids of course, are full of this kind of stuff and I’ve noted a significant amount of the same in your books. Let me know if you’d like me to point out some good examples. And I make this claim in no way to discredit your otherwise excellent research efforts and willingness to share factual information with others.
Now that my little observational rant is out of the way and to address your point, if Condon is not truthfully implying great similarity between Hauptmann and CJ when he says the two could be brothers, then what else do you believe he is saying? And is he not also expressing clear concern about ensuring the suspect has every right and privilege accorded him under law to safeguard his potential innocence? AGAIN, Condon was using a tactic here. It's one, like I said before, that "good" liars employ. I know because of my 27+ years experience dealing with it. What he is doing is taking past experiences, such as the Police injecting the alternative concerning suspects that might actually have a brother that was involved instead. And so, Condon was using this to PROTECT both himself and Hauptmann. By examples, I demonstrated this line came from Police multiple times previous to Condon pulling it out of his bag of tricks. AGAIN, this wasn't the only time he did these things. There’s no question that Condon was ‘all ears and eyes’ adept at picking up on anything that might relate even in the remotest of ways towards his involvement in the case. I think we can agree on that. He was absolutely consumed by it from the time he decided to inject himself and make his personal oath to serve the man he had essentially placed upon a pedestal, until the moment he identified Hauptmann as Cemetery John on the stand in Flemington. The irony here is that he’s no different than you or I in our desire to know as much as possible in any given area of study. Where you tend to align yourself with Condon himself perhaps without even realizing it, is in your tendency to draw some highly questionable conclusions from select information that otherwise cries out for deeper analysis and overall understanding.
That Condon expressed a ‘brother’ may have been involved, or that the real CJ was dead and the gang holed up near Bayshore is information that came to his ears and it seems pretty clear that he considered it all potentially valid, no matter how absurd it might have seemed had he fully digested it. Given Condon’s well known propensity for grandiose behaviour, exaggeration and inflated claims, not to mention the extreme pressure he would have been under in his role, do statements of this type in such a massively convoluted case truly point only to criminal behaviour on Condon's part as a willing gang confederate? I don't think so. Here's what's going on with you... You are AFRAID that because Condon told Turrou that Hauptmann was NOT Cemetery John, that other people will believe Hauptmann was innocent. As a result, you reject what he said, at all costs, then make up silly and unbelievable excuses --- while also sayng I don't have an understanding of the events --- like you supposedly do. Michael, I almost incredibly, UNAFRAID of what you’ve stated here! What does concern me though is when people make decisions about things from positions that do consider the totality of relevant evidential information, and then attempt to sway public opinion with their own beliefs. And that concern goes well beyond a very interesting and 92-year-old crime case, that in today's world, carries such relative insignificance.
What I do believe here from all accounts, is that even under the most trying of conditions that existed at the Greenwich Police Station, Condon was quite sure that Hauptmann was Cemetery John. But not absolutely. And he would have needed to be absolutely certain before essentially condemning Hauptmann as well as helping to ensure any person's right to be innocent until proven guilty, in spite of the fact events were designed to prompt him into declaring a positive identification. Two-and-a-half years had also passed since their last meeting, and he needed to be absolutely certain. If Condon had truly believed Hauptmann was not the man for any given reason that flew in the face of the detailed description he had given investigators immediately after the discovery of the child’s body, he would have clearly announced this as he had previously done many times. This is what the totality of evidence strongly suggests.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 10, 2024 13:50:09 GMT -5
I believe you have found yourself in the unenviable position where you are having some difficulty distinguishing between the factual information you present and your own brand of editorial style, subjective commentary. It’s the latter that you consciously inject as a kind of courtroom summation, in order to attempt to convince the reader. Sensationalizing the relevance of any given narrative and consciously seeking to sway opinion, is just one form of yellow journalism. The tabloids of course, are full of this kind of stuff and I’ve noted a significant amount of the same in your books. Let me know if you’d like me to point out some good examples. And I make this claim in no way to discredit your otherwise excellent research efforts and willingness to share factual information with others. Pot calling the Kettle Joe. I think you need to review some of the absolutely silly explanations that defy reality, which you've offered time and time again. You cannot help yourself and I'm quite sure there will be some in this very response as I work my way thru it. The facts are the facts. My opinions are clearly that. And lastly there's common sense. In my books, I've attempted to keep as much of my opinion out of it as possible. In fact, its one of the things I've been criticized for. The problem for you is that you think you know what my personal theories are and you do not like them. And so, as I've stated in the past, you will argue against the most mundane fact IF you believe it could lead to a place you think would assist those positions you do not like. It is crystal clear because you readily accept other facts of similar nature when they support something you do find favorable and/or pose what you consider to be no threat. In fact, the post above is designed to make you feel better about all of that. There’s no question that Condon was ‘all ears and eyes’ adept at picking up on anything that might relate even in the remotest of ways towards his involvement in the case. I think we can agree on that. He was absolutely consumed by it from the time he decided to inject himself and make his personal oath to serve the man he had essentially placed upon a pedestal, until the moment he identified Hauptmann as Cemetery John on the stand in Flemington. The irony here is that he’s no different than you or I in our desire to know as much as possible in any given area of study. Where you tend to align yourself with Condon himself perhaps without even realizing it, is in your tendency to draw some highly questionable conclusions from select information that otherwise cries out for deeper analysis and overall understanding.
That Condon expressed a ‘brother’ may have been involved, or that the real CJ was dead and the gang holed up near Bayshore is information that came to his ears and it seems pretty clear that he considered it all potentially valid, no matter how absurd it might have seemed had he fully digested it. Given Condon’s well known propensity for grandiose behaviour, exaggeration and inflated claims, not to mention the extreme pressure he would have been under in his role, do statements of this type in such a massively convoluted case truly point only to criminal behaviour on Condon's part as a willing gang confederate? I don't think so. Okay, so far we agree that Condon was a liar and deceived police. We also agree that he was listening and taking in everything the cops were both saying and doing. This other bluster about "oaths" and being consumed by whatever Harlequin Romance nonsense is exactly the stuff you've accused me of above. Consult that mirror I was telling you about. Condon was nothing like either of us. I know you well enough that you would have never lied to the police, purposely try to misdirect them, or obstruct justice. If Hauptmann was CJ, you would have said as much and then went off with Agent Turrou and say it again. If you weren't sure you wouldn't be sure and that's where it would stand. You certainly wouldn't take off for Florida to attempt to find a Scapegoat in order to save Hauptmann. So no, you aren't anything like this guy. Condon used what he saw and heard, not against the culprits, but against the police. It's as clear as day and knowing the guy was lying, as you've already admitted, then all of these other astronomically low odds explanations are crazy as hell. A perfect example is that you completely ignore the OBVIOUS then go straight for the fantasy novel explanation again. Not real life Joe. He's clearly doing what i explained above. How you come up with this nonsense to explain it away I will never know. Apply your own position that he knew Hauptmann was Cemetery John. How can he then claim CJ was "dead" and consider that "valid?" He can't. Your very own assertion defeats this explanation. You are so hung up on where everything leads that you are willing to check your common sense at the door. Michael, I almost incredibly, UNAFRAID of what you’ve stated here! What does concern me though is when people make decisions about things from positions that do consider the totality of relevant evidential information, and then attempt to sway public opinion with their own beliefs. And that concern goes well beyond a very interesting and 92-year-old crime case, that in today's world, carries such relative insignificance.
What I do believe here from all accounts, is that even under the most trying of conditions that existed at the Greenwich Police Station, Condon was quite sure that Hauptmann was Cemetery John. But not absolutely. And he would have needed to be absolutely certain before essentially condemning Hauptmann as well as helping to ensure any person's right to be innocent until proven guilty, in spite of the fact events were designed to prompt him into declaring a positive identification. Two-and-a-half years had also passed since their last meeting, and he needed to be absolutely certain. If Condon had truly believed Hauptmann was not the man for any given reason that flew in the face of the detailed description he had given investigators immediately after the discovery of the child’s body, he would have clearly announced this as he had previously done many times. This is what the totality of evidence strongly suggests. Whatever you say Joe. He knew Hauptmann was CJ but told Turrou CJ was dead because, as you put it, he considered that potentially "valid." So while you claim I am editorializing you are being absolutely irrational -- and I completely understand why because, honestly, you have no choice.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 11, 2024 8:33:16 GMT -5
Here’s a quote from Dark Corners:Dr. Condon: He is the one who would come nearer to answering the description than anybody I saw. You gave me no hint and I picked him out. He is a little heavier. Can I go over and talk to him? – I couldn’t say he is not the man.
Inspector Lyons: It looks like him?
Dr. Condon: Yes.
Inspector Lyons: But you cannot identify him?
Dr. Condon: No, I have to be very careful. The man’s life is in jeopardy.
Thank you for typing this out. When looking at everything in its totality, it proves everything I've been saying. What I see demonstrated here against the backdrop of the totality of evidence, is Condon’s clearly stated unwillingness to essentially condemn someone he was not absolutely certain was Cemetery John. You’re actually claiming you don’t see this within the above exchange?At the same time, he’s indicating that Hauptmann is as close CJ as anyone he’s yet encountered after St. Raymond’s. “I couldn’t say he is not the man,” are his exact words to Inspector Lyons. Given the gong show that Condon walked into at Greenwich, if ever there was time to acknowledge the right of innocence of a suspect until declaration of identity either way, it is here. Under the conditions, Condon’s actions here in refusing to declare an identification despite the pressure levelled at him here, are not only morally sound but admirable.After this exchange, Condon went with Agent Turrou and quickly started fishing for information about Hauptmann's arrest. He then made some statements that I quote in my book that led Turrou to believe Condon had actually identified Hauptmann, which we can see from above that he did not. Next thing you know, Turrou records this: In a subsequent conversation, however he [CONDON] indicated that he was not going to identify the man [HAUPTMANN] because he was doubtful whether Hauptmann was John. He said that Hauptmann bears a great likeness to his (Hauptmann's) brother, who was the real John, and with whom he had made the contact at the cemetery. He asserted that John was killed long ago and that the money was taken away from him by his confederates. He intimated that the real men who are responsible for the kidnaping and murder of the Lindbergh child are now some where in Long Island, around Bayshore.So what do we see here? 1. NOT GOING TO IDENTIFY HAUPTMANN 2. Hauptmann bore a likeness to his brother 3. Real Cemetery John was DEAD 4. The REAL Kidnappers were somewhere around Bayshore READ THESE AGAIN JOE!He's using several tactics to protect Hauptmann. John's Dead... sound familiar? It should. He got the idea from Keaten. It’s almost refreshing to see how willing you are to give Condon credit here for ‘stepping up’ here and bearing to an investigator what he may or may not have truly believed, regardless of how silly each one of these claims might sound. But here you are fully buying into and accepting the veracity of Condon's claims at face value, when out of the other side of your mouth, you're calling him little more than a chronic liar. Truly remarkable.
What Condon didn’t do in the identification process was to clear Hauptmann, which he would have done if he believed with absolute certainty, the latter was not Cemetery John.
Whatever Condon may have declared to Agent Turrou about his ability to essentially never forget a face, it seems clear he’s now pitted that mistaken belief against the reality of being asked to identify someone who could go to the electric chair as a result. And again, it’s not like Condon is being asked to identify Hauptmann the day after he met CJ at St. Raymond’s. It’s two-and-a-half years later and Condon is trying to process the likelihood of physical change here when he declares, “He is the one who would come nearer to answering the description than anybody I saw. You gave me no hint and I picked him out. He is a little heavier.” Condon said a lot of strange and questionable things that you can take a lot of ways through the filter of personal interpretation. Here, you’re using that essentially known, base line personality trait of his, something anyone who knew him well would probably concur with, as proof he was protecting the suspected kidnapper and killer of the Lindbergh child. Sorry, but it takes a deeper understanding of the multiple relevant factors at play here, not to mention personal powers of discernment, to present a more convincing argument than the one you’ve given here.
Plain English. Deeper understanding? You mean like your Harlequin Romance interpretation? No thanks, that's not real life ... then or now. I believe you're using the equivalent of a 1950’s computer programming thought process when it comes to sorting through the scope of the human condition associated with this case. You're relying too heavily on one dimensional reports, and simply failing to acknowledge the incredible matrix of terms and conditions that go along with each case participant as well as the circumstantial physical evidence, that has come to define this extraordinary case. As a result, you continually find yourself playing games like the one you're playing, down Harry Walsh Laneway.
Condon’s time spent in the company of Agent Turrou, is a major eye-opener that clearly demonstrates his sudden and high level of anxiety brought about by the prospect of having to identify Hauptmann, a man he not only recognized to be Cemetery John, but knew implicitly by now, was suspected of being deeply involved in the crime. So open your eyes and stop with this canard. He's misdirecting Turrou to Bayshore for God's sake! What kind of Kool Aide are you drinking? And you believe Condon is criminally “misdirecting Turrou to Bayshore” for what reason? This should be very interesting.. Condon was 74 years old at the time he was essentially commandeered out of his home much earlier in the day for the purpose of potentially identifying Hauptmann as CJ. Well into the evening, in Turrou’s custody, he is clearly both fatigued and feeling disheveled from the chaotic proceedings within the Greenwich Station. He wants to go home but knows he cannot until he is allowed to. Clearly, he is in much fear for his own life and that of his family. He realizes that with Hauptmann's arrest, he will be thrust back into the central workings of the case. He may now even finding himself regretting his decision to inject himself into the case. His is an absolutely conflicted mind wrestling with what he feels is his responsibility as an American citizen, against the possibility of an involved criminal gang doing him harm. At the same time and given his private conversation with Hauptmann at Greenwich, he is probably already entertaining thoughts that he himself might be able to appeal to Hauptmann’s emotional side in order break through the latter’s obstinacy and muteness, something that no doubt would have given Condon a great deal of satisfaction. More bluster. Try the common sense answer. He knew Hauptmann was involved, because it was clearly his job was to get them their money and protect them from arrest. As my book demonstrates, he did everything he could to that end to include trying to find a stand in for Hauptmann. In the end, faced with either a "him or me" situation, he took the "me" option. You’re correct to a degree if you’re implying that per Lindbergh’s and Breckinridge’s direction, Condon was to make no attempt to entrap, injure or capture Cemetery John while the ransom negotiations were on. But you’re in way over your head when you state categorically that he was trying to find a ‘stand in’ for Hauptmann and in the end it was “him or me,” thereby implying his own role as some kind of seamy criminal confederate would remain safe with him and that no one else in his life would possibly notice. How patently absurd. I take much of what you say very seriously and with due consideration, but this is a notable exception. Ultimately, I believe that Condon determined his only recourse was to not identify Hauptmann as CJ at Greenwich. Of course while this appears to be cagey behaviour, it also doesn’t mean he’s clearing Hauptmann in his mind. And what he does here in no way goes against the grain of what Condon claimed all along, that he would not declare his identification until he felt it was the right time. Despite whatever misgivings he still may have had in the way of a gang still at large, he did exactly that on October 24, 1934, when he told David Wilentz that Richard Hauptmann was Cemetery John. At this meeting, Condon received Wilentz’s word that he would not make his declaration public before Condon’s testimony at Flemington, a promise that Wilentz kept. Pure fantasy. It makes far more sense to me than your brand of judgmentalism, coming from a position that often takes short cuts and fails to consider, or even acknowledge critically-relevant information.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 11, 2024 8:35:50 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 11, 2024 9:39:28 GMT -5
I believe you have found yourself in the unenviable position where you are having some difficulty distinguishing between the factual information you present and your own brand of editorial style, subjective commentary. It’s the latter that you consciously inject as a kind of courtroom summation, in order to attempt to convince the reader. Sensationalizing the relevance of any given narrative and consciously seeking to sway opinion, is just one form of yellow journalism. The tabloids of course, are full of this kind of stuff and I’ve noted a significant amount of the same in your books. Let me know if you’d like me to point out some good examples. And I make this claim in no way to discredit your otherwise excellent research efforts and willingness to share factual information with others. Pot calling the Kettle Joe. I think you need to review some of the absolutely silly explanations that defy reality, which you've offered time and time again. You cannot help yourself and I'm quite sure there will be some in this very response as I work my way thru it. The facts are the facts. My opinions are clearly that. And lastly there's common sense. In my books, I've attempted to keep as much of my opinion out of it as possible. In fact, its one of the things I've been criticized for. Flash: You really should keep your personal opinions out of your books. I know I've never asked you for the personal opinion editorializing you continue to impart when presenting case related scenarios in them. As well, they are permanently declared in ink until such time you have the opportunity to reinforce or back pedal on them in subsequent publications. But here's a better idea. Just save yourself the task of continually attempting to lead the reader "to water," something you've told me you consciously do, on two previous occasions. In books that are otherwise excellent sources of case information, it just makes you appear too eager to try and prove to the world you're right.
The problem for you is that you think you know what my personal theories are and you do not like them. And so, as I've stated in the past, you will argue against the most mundane fact IF you believe it could lead to a place you think would assist those positions you do not like. It is crystal clear because you readily accept other facts of similar nature when they support something you do find favorable and/or pose what you consider to be no threat. In fact, the post above is designed to make you feel better about all of that. Exactly, you're quite cagey about just coming out and stating your theories anywhere, but I'm sure that in part is due to the fact you're far from certain about any given one of them. For fun, here's where I believe you are in the current nutshell. Lindbergh couldn't stand the thought of keeping 'inferior Charlie,' even to the extent that he felt his crossed toes and large head were game enders. So he hired a shadowy gang that's remained anonymous now for ninety plus years, to look after the kidnapping and killing of his first born son. And swirling around that abhorrent morass, John Condon, in spite of his idolatry of Charles Lindbergh and never once going against the grain of his oath to serve the Lindberghs in their distress, decided to go uncharacteristically rogue and instead serve the kidnappers and extortionists, assisting their vested criminal interests in order to avoid being exposed for his own naughty behaviour. Am I pretty close?
Anyways, again you should keep your personal opinions about what any event or statement in this case means, out of your books. Then you'd truly have a winner.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 11, 2024 9:59:05 GMT -5
There’s no question that Condon was ‘all ears and eyes’ adept at picking up on anything that might relate even in the remotest of ways towards his involvement in the case. I think we can agree on that. He was absolutely consumed by it from the time he decided to inject himself and make his personal oath to serve the man he had essentially placed upon a pedestal, until the moment he identified Hauptmann as Cemetery John on the stand in Flemington. The irony here is that he’s no different than you or I in our desire to know as much as possible in any given area of study. Where you tend to align yourself with Condon himself perhaps without even realizing it, is in your tendency to draw some highly questionable conclusions from select information that otherwise cries out for deeper analysis and overall understanding.
That Condon expressed a ‘brother’ may have been involved, or that the real CJ was dead and the gang holed up near Bayshore is information that came to his ears and it seems pretty clear that he considered it all potentially valid, no matter how absurd it might have seemed had he fully digested it. Given Condon’s well known propensity for grandiose behaviour, exaggeration and inflated claims, not to mention the extreme pressure he would have been under in his role, do statements of this type in such a massively convoluted case truly point only to criminal behaviour on Condon's part as a willing gang confederate? I don't think so. Okay, so far we agree that Condon was a liar and deceived police. We also agree that he was listening and taking in everything the cops were both saying and doing. This other bluster about "oaths" and being consumed by whatever Harlequin Romance nonsense is exactly the stuff you've accused me of above. Consult that mirror I was telling you about. Again, here you're relying far too heavily on reports you can interpret only through your one-dimensional filter. The very fact that you fail to even consider the terms of the human condition here as it relates to John Condon, a man you really appear to understand very little about, is a very sizeable red flag here. At times, you remind me of a self-proclaimed Beatles expert who's never heard of John Lennon.Condon was nothing like either of us. I know you well enough that you would have never lied to the police, purposely try to misdirect them, or obstruct justice. If Hauptmann was CJ, you would have said as much and then went off with Agent Turrou and say it again. If you weren't sure you wouldn't be sure and that's where it would stand. You certainly wouldn't take off for Florida to attempt to find a Scapegoat in order to save Hauptmann. So no, you aren't anything like this guy. You're misrepresenting what I said here and playing the role of 'pious pope' to throw me some kind of imaginary bone for positive publicity. I made absolutely no comment about lying, misdirecting or obstructing. I said Condon wanted to know as much information as possible as it might relate to the case. Maybe I only made the assumption that both of us would like to do the same. Condon used what he saw and heard, not against the culprits, but against the police. It's as clear as day and knowing the guy was lying, as you've already admitted, then all of these other astronomically low odds explanations are crazy as hell. A perfect example is that you completely ignore the OBVIOUS then go straight for the fantasy novel explanation again. Not real life Joe. He's clearly doing what i explained above. How you come up with this nonsense to explain it away I will never know. Apply your own position that he knew Hauptmann was Cemetery John. How can he then claim CJ was "dead" and consider that "valid?" He can't. Your very own assertion defeats this explanation. You are so hung up on where everything leads that you are willing to check your common sense at the door. No Michael, I eliminate any and all explanations that clearly demonstrate their fully discrediting fatal flaws. I go with the one that remains standing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 11, 2024 11:49:59 GMT -5
I give you credit for trying Joe, but you really do have to read this stuff before posting it. It’s irrational, you contradict yourself, and you are all over the place. In fact, all of your outrages responses better support what I’ve been saying to the point there’s very little left for me to say. For example, while Condon tells Lyons that Hauptmann looks like Cemetery John (this despite all of the people he identified earlier during the investigation that look nothing like him), he also tells him he cannot identify him. This you “like,” therefore, its is completely acceptable and you give this song and dance explanation to attest to Condon’s honesty. This, despite previously acknowledging that Condon had both lied and deceived police in the past while they were conducting their investigation. Then, immediately after this fiasco, he goes with Special Agent Turrou, ultimately telling him Hauptmann was NOT Cemetery John. That the REAL Cemetery John was DEAD, and that the actual kidnapper was somewhere around Bayshore. It completely destroys your wishful thinking above. So what do you do? You actually accuse ME of “talking out of both sides of my mouth” by “accepting the veracity of Condon’s at face value.” It’s time to get that mirror out again Joe because you are projecting. I’m the guy who NEVER accepts what he says at face value, and I used this example to prove it. Again, your position is completely irrational once faced with the FACTS. As I said many times before, Condon was attempting to protect Hauptmann. It is clear as day. All of this stuff about me not understanding the human condition is laughable. Where do you come up with this stuff? I was pretty damn good at my job and if what you allege was true, I wouldn’t have been. I’ll just leave it at that. You're misrepresenting what I said here and playing the role of 'pious pope' to throw me some kind of imaginary bone for positive publicity. I made absolutely no comment about lying, misdirecting or obstructing. I said Condon wanted to know as much information as possible as it might relate to the case. Maybe I only made the assumption that both of us would like to do the same. First, I threw you no “bone” when expressing that neither of us was anything like Condon. My description of what you would have or would have not done was accurate, was it not? That’s just me calling it like I see it. Take it as a compliment, or don’t, it makes no difference to me. Next, in a rare moment of clarity as it concerned Condon, you have admitted in the past that he both lied and deceived police. December 28, 2023: [Me]: Did Condon give contradictory accounts of the needle salesman visit? [Joe]: Yes, his statements if taken accurately bear this out.
[Me]: Does that make him a liar? [Joe]: In my books, yes if he did so with intent to deceive.
[Me]: Did he intend to deceive? [Joe]: Yes, that appears most likely. Finally, I am slowly working on V5 on my very old computer. If it doesn't die, I can still afford to eat and pay my rent, or I don't get hit by a car or something, this book will be out sometime in 2026. I've got plenty of new information. Some I discovered and some from others who were kind enough to share it with me. Anyway, the plan is for me to write a last chapter on my beliefs. Get ready for your head to explode Joe, and get all of your word salad nonsense together in preparation to rebut.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 18, 2024 10:34:32 GMT -5
I give you credit for trying Joe, but you really do have to read this stuff before posting it. It’s irrational, you contradict yourself, and you are all over the place. In fact, all of your outrages responses better support what I’ve been saying to the point there’s very little left for me to say. Michael, I will never stop believing that someday you’ll begin to understand this case is far from being the black or white story you’re portraying it to be.For example, while Condon tells Lyons that Hauptmann looks like Cemetery John (this despite all of the people he identified earlier during the investigation that look nothing like him), he also tells him he cannot identify him. This you “like,” therefore, its is completely acceptable and you give this song and dance explanation to attest to Condon’s honesty. This, despite previously acknowledging that Condon had both lied and deceived police in the past while they were conducting their investigation. There was a valid reason for each and every one of Condon’s statements and actions, his contradictions, exaggerations, shifting personal opinions, public displays, loquaciousness and histrionics included.. and yes even any outright lies and deceptions he was either part of, or had engineered on his own. But he never once demonstrated an intentional deviation from the solemn personal oath he made to serve the Lindberghs, in spite of any of your ill-founded protestations and ridicule.
Unfortunately, for years you’ve sought only to bundle all of Condon’s potential misgivings as some kind of attractive, promotional package that paints him as a common criminal and confederate to scum of the earth, without giving each and every one its due and balanced consideration. This is why I’ve essentially had to make a second career of sorts, continually pointing out your own misdirections here, whether intentional or not. And a word to the wise. There are absolutely no accidents in the universe and taking shortcuts within the judgment process will only put you further behind the 8-Ball, no matter what your pleasure might be.
Then, immediately after this fiasco, he goes with Special Agent Turrou, ultimately telling him Hauptmann was NOT Cemetery John. That the REAL Cemetery John was DEAD, and that the actual kidnapper was somewhere around Bayshore. It completely destroys your wishful thinking above. So what do you do? You actually accuse ME of “talking out of both sides of my mouth” by “accepting the veracity of Condon’s at face value.” It’s time to get that mirror out again Joe because you are projecting. I’m the guy who NEVER accepts what he says at face value, and I used this example to prove it. Again, your position is completely irrational once faced with the FACTS. The real fiasco here was the situation that precipitated itself at Greenwich Station long before Condon arrived there to look at Hauptmann. You need to stop imagining what happened there was entirely of Condon’s making. There were valid reasons for Condon’s alleged statements to Agent Turrou, but to simply cast these types of potential misdirections or misunderstandings, as being criminally intentional, without applying the same degree of balance and perspective you continually admonish others to use, makes you appear very inconsistent and overly impressionable here towards a cause that's clearly been laid out by your personal interests.
As I said many times before, Condon was attempting to protect Hauptmann. It is clear as day. Yes, in your own mind, I’m pretty certain this is ‘clear as day.’ Your position though, appears to totally disregard many established truths about Condon. His overall reputation in the Bronx, work ethic, honesty, demonstrated sense of fair play, deep level of community service and involvement, a lifelong willingness to help others in need. For some reason, you seem to want to have no part in any of these, when attempting to decipher motive, means and opportunity. Perhaps you didn’t see much of these qualities within your daily dealings with criminals on the job over the course of 27 years. In fact, over the past 24 years, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen you state one positive thing about Condon, or Lindbergh for that matter, during attempts to weigh case related considerations. The universe is always listening, Michael..
All of this stuff about me not understanding the human condition is laughable. Where do you come up with this stuff? I was pretty damn good at my job and if what you allege was true, I wouldn’t have been. I’ll just leave it at that. I’m sure you were good at your job if you were there for 27 years. I’ve been around for more than 70 years as a keen observer of life and it's experiences, still working, and have known people and their acquaintances who’ve run the gamut of anything from the equivalent of being living saints, all the way to others and their willing involvement in corporate collusion within business of a magnitude that would make your head spin, up to and including mariticide and second degree murder on the streets. Please reconsider the importance of your expressly applying only a one dimensional filter that through it, continually attempts to explain everything within this case to your personal satisfaction.Feb 11, 2024 at 9:59am Joe said: You're misrepresenting what I said here and playing the role of 'pious pope' to throw me some kind of imaginary bone for positive publicity. I made absolutely no comment about lying, misdirecting or obstructing. I said Condon wanted to know as much information as possible as it might relate to the case. Maybe I only made the assumption that both of us would like to do the same.
First, I threw you no “bone” when expressing that neither of us was anything like Condon. My description of what you would have or would have not done was accurate, was it not? That’s just me calling it like I see it. Take it as a compliment, or don’t, it makes no difference to me. (Michael) C’mon Michael, it’s me here. You threw me a bone like a good ‘good cop’ while attempting to smoothly override my original point about Condon wanting to know as much information about the case as possible. My statement made absolutely no reference to anyone lying, misdirecting or obstructing. You were the one who was actually guilty of obstruction and misdirection here. Next, in a rare moment of clarity as it concerned Condon, you have admitted in the past that he both lied and deceived police. December 28, 2023: [Me]: Did Condon give contradictory accounts of the needle salesman visit? [Joe]: Yes, his statements if taken accurately bear this out. [Me]: Does that make him a liar? [Joe]: In my books, yes if he did so with intent to deceive. [Me]: Did he intend to deceive? [Joe]: Yes, that appears most likely. See my above response to your second point.
Finally, I am slowly working on V5 on my very old computer. If it doesn't die, I can still afford to eat and pay my rent, or I don't get hit by a car or something, this book will be out sometime in 2026. I do look forward to V5 as I have for all four previous volumes. You have never disappointed within your research abilities to extract information from the record, no matter how well buried it might be. And that’s by no means a bone I’m attempting to throw you. It’s an honest statement and compliment, which by no means though extends to the scope of your abilities as a detective.
I've got plenty of new information. Some I discovered and some from others who were kind enough to share it with me. Anyway, the plan is for me to write a last chapter on my beliefs. Get ready for your head to explode Joe, and get all of your word salad nonsense together in preparation to rebut. I’m glad to hear you’re taking my suggestion to heart and finally going to lay it on the line, so to speak. There really is no reason to be shy here 92 years after the fact, and I’m looking forward to how you tie things together within a general and detailed understanding of your beliefs within this case. Let me know if you're interested in considering an alternate viewpoint for your book.
On the subject of my reaction to your forthcoming revelations, I will tell you that I’ve donned my 1932 leather football helmet on a number of previous occasions, tightly laced to avoid just what you’re suggesting might happen. I believe it all began with Whateley’s deathbed admission of faith and opinion of guilt, which you incorrectly termed a ‘deathbed confession.’ Anyways, not to worry as my head’s still very much intact, and as I’ve heard such exaggerations many times since, I’ll pack the helmet away and take my chances the next time around.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 19, 2024 10:39:52 GMT -5
Michael, I will never stop believing that someday you’ll begin to understand this case is far from being the black or white story you’re portraying it to be. I've never painted this crime as "black or white." Some things are, but others can be any shade of grey you like. That's where the research comes in to determine. However, there's common sense that must be applied here too, and that's where you seem to be lacking truth be told. Coming up with outrages excuses for characters you happen to get emotional about is counterproductive. There was a valid reason for each and every one of Condon’s statements and actions, his contradictions, exaggerations, shifting personal opinions, public displays, loquaciousness and histrionics included.. and yes even any outright lies and deceptions he was either part of, or had engineered on his own. But he never once demonstrated an intentional deviation from the solemn personal oath he made to serve the Lindberghs, in spite of any of your ill-founded protestations and ridicule.
Unfortunately, for years you’ve sought only to bundle all of Condon’s potential misgivings as some kind of attractive, promotional package that paints him as a common criminal and confederate to scum of the earth, without giving each and every one its due and balanced consideration. This is why I’ve essentially had to make a second career of sorts, continually pointing out your own misdirections here, whether intentional or not. And a word to the wise. There are absolutely no accidents in the universe and taking shortcuts within the judgment process will only put you further behind the 8-Ball, no matter what your pleasure might be. There's nothing "ill-founded" about the facts. There are several motives for "why" someone obstructed justice which I've laid out several times in several places. Since you don't seem to like any of them, you resort to consulting your Harlequin Romance novels for the answers. That's not real life Joe. One does not keep an oath by protecting someone who was involved especially after the child was found dead. But this too, I believe, Condon had already known about all the while he was supposedly negotiating with the culprits for its safe return. Just like the ransom drop, it was all a ruse. All this other stuff is the usual word salads you think makes your position valid, but all it really does is point out the folly of the fantasies you put forth. Joe, if it was Reich or Rosner who was the actual intermediary here and did everything Condon did, you'd feel completely different. This is the problem with becoming emotionally attached, like you have to Condon. It's undeniable. The real fiasco here was the situation that precipitated itself at Greenwich Station long before Condon arrived there to look at Hauptmann. You need to stop imagining what happened there was entirely of Condon’s making. There were valid reasons for Condon’s alleged statements to Agent Turrou, but to simply cast these types of potential misdirections or misunderstandings, as being criminally intentional, without applying the same degree of balance and perspective you continually admonish others to use, makes you appear very inconsistent and overly impressionable here towards a cause that's clearly been laid out by your personal interests.
Is this really your rebuttal? Honestly? A child could do better here Joe. Yes, in your own mind, I’m pretty certain this is ‘clear as day.’ Your position though, appears to totally disregard many established truths about Condon. His overall reputation in the Bronx, work ethic, honesty, demonstrated sense of fair play, deep level of community service and involvement, a lifelong willingness to help others in need. For some reason, you seem to want to have no part in any of these, when attempting to decipher motive, means and opportunity. Perhaps you didn’t see much of these qualities within your daily dealings with criminals on the job over the course of 27 years. In fact, over the past 24 years, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen you state one positive thing about Condon, or Lindbergh for that matter, during attempts to weigh case related considerations. The universe is always listening, Michael..
Are you out of your mind? His overall reputation? Molesting a child? Stealing money on a ship? Disliked by his mailmen? Besides, none of this matters once considering the facts. People resort to crime in spite of their overall reputation. I could rattle off a million examples, to include a guy who was on my caseload, a Harvard Grad with a stellar work record and reputation. He tried drugs at a party, got hooked, lost his job, and started robbing banks to support his habit. Before that? Not even a speeding ticket. Or how about a staff member his background investigator called "Mr. Clean" because of his spotless history? Later fired and prosecuted for bringing in drugs to the Inmates. So spare me the lectures about things you know nothing about. I’m sure you were good at your job if you were there for 27 years. I’ve been around for more than 70 years as a keen observer of life and it's experiences, still working, and have known people and their acquaintances who’ve run the gamut of anything from the equivalent of being living saints, all the way to others and their willing involvement in corporate collusion within business of a magnitude that would make your head spin, up to and including mariticide and second degree murder on the streets. Please reconsider the importance of your expressly applying only a one dimensional filter that through it, continually attempts to explain everything within this case to your personal satisfaction. Again, if I was "one dimensional" Rail 16 wouldn't have been solved. What I did there, I do everywhere. And, by the way, time on the job has nothing to do with being good at it. C’mon Michael, it’s me here. You threw me a bone like a good ‘good cop’ while attempting to smoothly override my original point about Condon wanting to know as much information about the case as possible. My statement made absolutely no reference to anyone lying, misdirecting or obstructing. You were the one who was actually guilty of obstruction and misdirection here.
You watch too much TV Joe. Throwing you a "bone" never entered my mind before, during, or after I wrote my reply. What I wrote I did so because I believed it to be the truth. This idea about the "good cop / bad cop" may be a tactic that occurs with others, but try to remember that I was always the good cop. It was never a ruse. It's called doing the right thing and using your discretion both fairly and wisely while never allowing anyone to manipulate or consider you weak. I had it down to a science, so there was no hustle needed. Either they told me or they didn't. Either way, they knew I couldn't be lied to successfully. I do look forward to V5 as I have for all four previous volumes. You have never disappointed within your research abilities to extract information from the record, no matter how well buried it might be. And that’s by no means a bone I’m attempting to throw you. It’s an honest statement and compliment, which by no means though extends to the scope of your abilities as a detective. I'll leave this one alone.... I’m glad to hear you’re taking my suggestion to heart and finally going to lay it on the line, so to speak. There really is no reason to be shy here 92 years after the fact, and I’m looking forward to how you tie things together within a general and detailed understanding of your beliefs within this case. Let me know if you're interested in considering an alternate viewpoint for your book.
On the subject of my reaction to your forthcoming revelations, I will tell you that I’ve donned my 1932 leather football helmet on a number of previous occasions, tightly laced to avoid just what you’re suggesting might happen. I believe it all began with Whateley’s deathbed admission of faith and opinion of guilt, which you incorrectly termed a ‘deathbed confession.’ Anyways, not to worry as my head’s still very much intact, and as I’ve heard such exaggerations many times since, I’ll pack the helmet away and take my chances the next time around. I have and always will consider any rational viewpoints. I think my books prove that. Well, lets see.... Whateley was in a hospital bed dying and given his "last rites" by the Ministers there and he confessed to them that one or more people inside the house were involved. For me, that qualifies as a Deathbed Confession.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 24, 2024 10:11:06 GMT -5
Michael, I will never stop believing that someday you’ll begin to understand this case is far from being the black or white story you’re portraying it to be. I've never painted this crime as "black or white." Some things are, but others can be any shade of grey you like. That's where the research comes in to determine. However, there's common sense that must be applied here too, and that's where you seem to be lacking truth be told. Coming up with outrages excuses for characters you happen to get emotional about is counterproductive. Common sense Michael, should have told you clearly by now that what you incorrectly believe to be my emotional attachment to John Condon, and Charles Lindbergh for that matter, is really nothing more than a personal distaste for unfounded and prejudicial half-baked theories that attempt to criminalize the innocent in the absence of conclusive proof. If you consider that too emotional for your system, then so be it.
Sherlock quoted Voltaire a while ago. Here are a few others from a true champion of truth seeking.
It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one. Prejudices are what fools use for reason.
Illusion is the first of all pleasures.
No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking.
There was a valid reason for each and every one of Condon’s statements and actions, his contradictions, exaggerations, shifting personal opinions, public displays, loquaciousness and histrionics included.. and yes even any outright lies and deceptions he was either part of, or had engineered on his own. But he never once demonstrated an intentional deviation from the solemn personal oath he made to serve the Lindberghs, in spite of any of your ill-founded protestations and ridicule.
Unfortunately, for years you’ve sought only to bundle all of Condon’s potential misgivings as some kind of attractive, promotional package that paints him as a common criminal and confederate to scum of the earth, without giving each and every one its due and balanced consideration. This is why I’ve essentially had to make a second career of sorts, continually pointing out your own misdirections here, whether intentional or not. And a word to the wise. There are absolutely no accidents in the universe and taking shortcuts within the judgment process will only put you further behind the 8-Ball, no matter what your pleasure might be. There's nothing "ill-founded" about the facts. There are several motives for "why" someone obstructed justice which I've laid out several times in several places. Since you don't seem to like any of them, you resort to consulting your Harlequin Romance novels for the answers. That's not real life Joe. One does not keep an oath by protecting someone who was involved especially after the child was found dead. But this too, I believe, Condon had already known about all the while he was supposedly negotiating with the culprits for its safe return. Just like the ransom drop, it was all a ruse. All this other stuff is the usual word salads you think makes your position valid, but all it really does is point out the folly of the fantasies you put forth. Joe, if it was Reich or Rosner who was the actual intermediary here and did everything Condon did, you'd feel completely different. This is the problem with becoming emotionally attached, like you have to Condon. It's undeniable. Saying something is ‘ill founded’ has nothing to do with what is fact. Your personal interpretation of what the facts mean in specific case scenarios, is what I often refer to as ill-founded, and that opinion I believe is well founded through the many examples brought forth to date.
In this specific example, you’ve expressed the personal belief that Condon was aware of the child’s death from the beginning and yet proceeded to protect CJ (and any others involved) from the likelihood of capture.
So I'm clear, do you mean Condon knew about this from the time of his apparent self-injection into the case, or at some earlier point in time? The real fiasco here was the situation that precipitated itself at Greenwich Station long before Condon arrived there to look at Hauptmann. You need to stop imagining what happened there was entirely of Condon’s making. There were valid reasons for Condon’s alleged statements to Agent Turrou, but to simply cast these types of potential misdirections or misunderstandings, as being criminally intentional, without applying the same degree of balance and perspective you continually admonish others to use, makes you appear very inconsistent and overly impressionable here towards a cause that's clearly been laid out by your personal interests.
Is this really your rebuttal? Honestly? A child could do better here Joe. It’s highly unlikely a child would understand this case the way I do, Michael. On the other hand, a child might be very impressed and influenced by the appealing explanation put forth by an adult who had processed a select portion of this case’s evidence, under conditions of discernment and judgment that child was familiar with.Yes, in your own mind, I’m pretty certain this is ‘clear as day.’ Your position though, appears to totally disregard many established truths about Condon. His overall reputation in the Bronx, work ethic, honesty, demonstrated sense of fair play, deep level of community service and involvement, a lifelong willingness to help others in need. For some reason, you seem to want to have no part in any of these, when attempting to decipher motive, means and opportunity. Perhaps you didn’t see much of these qualities within your daily dealings with criminals on the job over the course of 27 years. In fact, over the past 24 years, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen you state one positive thing about Condon, or Lindbergh for that matter, during attempts to weigh case related considerations. The universe is always listening, Michael..
Are you out of your mind? His overall reputation? Molesting a child? Stealing money on a ship? Disliked by his mailmen? Besides, none of this matters once considering the facts. People resort to crime in spite of their overall reputation. I could rattle off a million examples, to include a guy who was on my caseload, a Harvard Grad with a stellar work record and reputation. He tried drugs at a party, got hooked, lost his job, and started robbing banks to support his habit. Before that? Not even a speeding ticket. Or how about a staff member his background investigator called "Mr. Clean" because of his spotless history? Later fired and prosecuted for bringing in drugs to the Inmates. So spare me the lectures about things you know nothing about. Yes, Condon’s overall reputation in the Bronx, which was not one of ‘child molester’ or ‘thief.’ How may of the approximately 50,000 students he was responsible for positively educating and influencing in life, would agree with you? How many influential individuals within that community, parents, friends and acquaintances he knew and who knew him well, would concur with your assessment?
You must be painfully aware of this great conundrum you have here on your hands after twenty-three plus years of focused case study. Why is it then that you continue to latch on and blow up to such magnificent proportions, a few extremely negative accounts here which were never proven to be conclusive in the way you shout about, and then passing this kind of back alley judgment of yours? You’d have done very well in Salem.. if you weren’t suspected of being a witch.
And in the way of possible explanations, I deeply question your overall sense of perspective and balance that has seemingly been so hyper skewed by your past 27 years of constant exposure to criminals, running almost concurrently with your extreme overexposure to the NJSP archives files. I'm left wondering from where else your sense of perspective and balance in this case, might emanate.
I’m sure you were good at your job if you were there for 27 years. I’ve been around for more than 70 years as a keen observer of life and it's experiences, still working, and have known people and their acquaintances who’ve run the gamut of anything from the equivalent of being living saints, all the way to others and their willing involvement in corporate collusion within business of a magnitude that would make your head spin, up to and including mariticide and second degree murder on the streets. Please reconsider the importance of your expressly applying only a one dimensional filter that through it, continually attempts to explain everything within this case to your personal satisfaction. Again, if I was "one dimensional" Rail 16 wouldn't have been solved. What I did there, I do everywhere. And, by the way, time on the job has nothing to do with being good at it. Rail 16 and it’s origin has no real impact within your personal case story board that seeks to villainize certain case characters. Essentially, it’s a neutral event that has no foreseen or ultimate bearing on the question of the guilt of anyone other than those responsible for the kidnap ladder’s construction itself. In this case, you’re more than happy to seek and herald the truth. And no, you do not do the same thing everywhere else and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.
|
|