jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 6, 2008 6:38:44 GMT -5
To brain means to be struck on the head, and the term brained is a boxing term which means punch-drunk. The best example is Muhammed who, in spite of all the talk of Parkinsons, etc., was severely brained by Larry Holmes. If the information about the woman seer (Mary Cerrita) is correct, she knew far more about the crime than she should have. As I recall, according to Gardner, the detectives said it raised more questions than it answered, but on the other hand does that mean it wasn't properly investigated? Gardner has lots on this (church connection), and does not use Wright as a source.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 28, 2008 11:11:01 GMT -5
Always keeping in mind Kevin's theory about the case I stumbled upon an investigation revolving around a man named Arthur T. Barry. Barry was a jewel thief and after much investigation work it was decided to bring Condon to the Newark Police Headquarters to view a line-up consisting of Berry, Police Officers, and Reporters in order to see if Berry was "Cemetery John." Dr. Condon looked these men over and stated that none of these men were "John" to whom he paid the Ransom Money. He picked out Barry and stated that he knew him from seeing his picture in the newspaper.
Dr. Condon then asked Barry several questions and asked him to pronounce several words such as: perfect, The will smack you out, and other words that was used by "John." he then looked over Ann Blake and stated that Barry nor Ann Blake were not the people whom he was in contact with in regards to the paying of the ransom money. (Cpl. Leon & Horn, NJSP, 11-2-32) A couple of observations on my part.... They always seem to be relying on Condon's identification. If Condon says "no" then the investigation dies. For me thats very important because someone who had involvement may have been prematurely written off. Remember that Condon said Hauptmann was not Cemetery John but instead of letting him go then accused Condon of involvement. The other thing are the line-ups. Many of these reports indicate that Condon seems to know who the person is the Police suspect as soon as he walks into the room. Next, why is Condon even bothering to look over Barry's wife Ann? Is this because of Tuckahoe, or possibly the 2nd person in the Cemetery at St. Raymond's? A little more on Barry: redeemed-family.webs.com/gloriousyouth.htmArthur Berry was a very famous jewel thief who practiced his trade back in the roaring 20s. He was a very unusual thief in that he would only steal from the very rich. Not only did they ever have to be rich, but they had to be of the elite rich. The story goes that Arthur would pass up many jewels and take only the finest, most precious. He was the thief that was a connoisseur of art. Since Arthur Berry stole only from the highest elite of the society it became something of a social status to have been robbed by this notorious robber. This kind of widespread popularity gave the police nightmares. Well, one day the police caught him in the act, and he was shot. While he was suffering excruciating pain he promised himself that he would never steal again. Now, that was a good beginning; but for some strange happening, Arthur escaped his imprisonment and spent three more years on the loose. Then came his downfall, when an insanely jealous woman turned on him by telling the police where he was. He was recaptured and spent next eighteen years behind bars. While in prison, Arthur made up his mind that crime didn't pay and that he would never steal again.
When Arthur got out of prison he made his way to a little town up in New England and settled down. People did not suspect that he was a famous jewel thief, and due to his hard work and neighborliness, he soon became one of the small town's respected citizens.
All went well with Arthur until someone came to the little town and recognized him as the famous jewel thief. As the news spread as to who he was, reporters came rushing in from the largest city newspapers to interview this reformed criminal.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 29, 2008 19:06:26 GMT -5
Not to beat a dead horse but..... I just can't get over the wares Condon was peddling. Here's yet another example to add to the mountain wherein Jafsie seems to contradict himself. Concerning this example, on June 10, 1934 someone wrote him an anonymous letter signed "M" and postmarked NY, NY. It suggests that "John" was one A. Alexander of 321 West 89th St. Special Agent Seery contacted Alexander who admitted his real name was J. A. Shegloff and was born in Tula, Russia. He was 35 years old, 5'8", 150 lbs. blue eyes, dark reddish blonde hair, spoke with a foreign accent, and clean shaven. According to Seery: .....Shegloff's description bore a sufficient general likeness, which seemed to warrant his being observed by Condon. Under date of June 18, 1934, Shegloff voluntarily accompanied agent to the residence of Dr. Condon, who, after scrutinizing Shegloff closely, advised that Shegloff did not resemble the "John" in instant case. Dr. Condon stated that Shegloff was one or two inches shorter then "John", that he was compact and chunky whereas "John" had broad shoulders, that his hair was darker then that of "John". (Special Agent Seery, 6-20-34) First I find it extremely odd to bring a suspect to the home of your witness. How could one expect Condon to identify someone without any fear for himself or his family? Next, the utter absurdity to claim someone whose height is exactly the same as Hauptmann's being too short, his weight being 30 pounds lighter then Hauptmann being too "chunky," and although having lighter hair then Hauptmann - Condon claims its too dark to be "John." This isn't an isolated incident, in fact, Condon does this for the full 2-1/2 years "John" is at large. +++ ***Please take note of Bill Cameron's post below! lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=news&action=display&thread=407
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Sept 30, 2008 12:03:17 GMT -5
If, after the child was found dead, did Condon not want to ID anyone = fear(?) Or had he simply not gotten a good enough look at CJ to be able to recognize him again(?)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 1, 2008 5:53:29 GMT -5
That depends on which of the varying accounts of his interactions with CJ you consider. As I recall, when he was conversing on that bench CJ's collar was up and only came down once or twice quickly. Next, at St. Raymond's CJ almost had to convince Condon he was the same person while he was standing (supposedly) behind a bush.
The fear was real in my opinion. He struggled between the fear of this gang and the fear of the Police. In the end the Police won.
|
|
|
Post by A Condon on Dec 4, 2008 5:17:03 GMT -5
What I found astonishing was the fact that Dr. Condon would ride the buses searching for CJ and at various times would yell out, I am Jafsie and call to stop someone he claimed was CJ. He was also reported to have dressed as a woman in these escapades.
I would give all of the tea in China to see that, Dr. Condon with his handlebar mustache hidden under a scarf or coat collar. Amazing. No wonder he was known as an eccentric.
Pat Doyle
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 4, 2008 17:15:40 GMT -5
Pat,
What about his keen observation skills? The ones that have "John" being Scandinavian but immediately identifies Robert Reihl as German from just a few words.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Dec 4, 2008 20:43:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Dec 4, 2008 20:44:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by acondon on Dec 22, 2008 7:22:09 GMT -5
A question?
Does anyone here know which relative of Bruno Hauptmann lived close to St. Raymond's cemetery. Dr. Condon mentioned this in Jafsie Tells All. He theorized in the book where CJ might have obtained the ink, paper to write the boad nelley note. He stated BRH had a close relative living near the cemetery.
Thanks Pat Doyle
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 23, 2008 6:42:41 GMT -5
Pat,
I believe he is referring to the Muellers. I want to re-check my facts first, but I believe they lived near either Woodlawn or St. Raymond's at one time. I will get back to you.
Also, there was a J. Faulkner, a former pupil of Condon's, who lived within walking distance from St. Raymond's.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 1, 2009 17:04:33 GMT -5
Well, I was wrong. I consulted Siglinde, who is the absolute best when it comes to names, dates, and places. She said there wasn't anyone related to Hauptmann living near St. Raymond's cemetery as Jafsie points out in his book. Here's an interesting document and its contents to consider in light of the above post:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 24, 2009 18:12:03 GMT -5
" Circus Horse Whose Oats Have Been Spiked"....
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2009 6:04:43 GMT -5
In Fisher's awful book, The Ghost's of Hopewell, he actually addresses the bizarre nature of Condon as follows: Today, Condon's so-called cemetery sightings are what they were in 1932 - the fanciful conjecture of a man with an active imagination and an addition to the limelight. (p65) I point this out because if you happen to stumble upon anyone who actually believes Fisher's theories, they alway seem to march in lock-step with all of his beliefs.... ....except this one. Here Fisher offers a weird explanation for what we all can see as clear as day. However, his "Followers" defend Condon to the end. Don't get me wrong, Fisher is defending him here too, but he's being a little more reasonable about how he tap dances around the subject. Lindbergh conspiracy theorists point out, quite correctly, that Dr. Condon was not a credible person. They claim he lied to the police, lied to Colonel Lindbergh, and lied in court under oath. How convenient then, that amid all this lying, the old man was telling the truth about his mysterious, and quite dramatic, encounter with the Italian woman at the charity bazaar. (p67) It's the olde "do as I say but not as I do" position.... Unfortunately for Fisher, he is making a point while destroying his own argument. He is claiming Condon was a liar. He was lying about everything that points to another person being involved but (in the back round) we're "allowed" to believe Condon concerning anything that points to Hauptmann. Or at least consider it. Shhh, don't tell anyone. Here's the situation... Condon dealt with Cemetery John. He possessed facts relevant to the solution of the case. Certain things he said were supported by other people. Some were proven by Police and others disproven. So a blanket dismissal doesn't work when looking at all of the circumstances and variables which apply. The other thing is to put it all into proper perspective. When is Condon most creditable? Is it when he's facing threats or arrest? Could this be because he'll lie to protect himself? Or could it be because he's protecting someone? Or, as Fisher claims, he is flipping after these threats because he wants to be in the limelight? You tell me.
|
|
|
Post by mhaighirtis on Jun 3, 2009 16:06:35 GMT -5
I have read the book twice and still can not get beyond the simple fact that John Condon (ego maniac) put the ad in the local Bronx paper (The Home News) and not the leading papers in New Jersey or the United Press or Asociated Press. Can anybody explain that to me convincingly?
Mhaighirtis
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 3, 2009 16:36:30 GMT -5
I know others will have a different opinion on this, but I really don't see much that's odd about Condon's article in the BHN. It was a paper he wrote in many times and he was a Bronx boy. Also, and I credit Mark Falzini for this, it's important to remember that Condon was not volunteering to be a go between in his letter. he was offering money and encouraging the kidnapper(s) to seek out a Catholic priest to facilitate a safe return of the child. My opinion, for what it's worth , is that Condon was simply doing what he always did, grandstanding. I don't think it was as important to him that his letter reached the kidnapper(s), rather he wanted the people of his community to see him as a pillar of moral fortitude and a patriotic citizen. In other words, it was more about him than the kidnapping. That the kidnapper did just happen to live in the Bronx is just one of those coincidences. There were people all around the country doing the same as Condon in response to this crime.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 4, 2009 17:19:23 GMT -5
But does lying and misdirecting the Police qualify as "Grand-Standing?"
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 4, 2009 20:00:23 GMT -5
Absolutely, although I think it's the other way around. Condon's need to be center stage results in constant exaggeration and invention.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2009 7:26:25 GMT -5
I think there are several explanations for his actions which may be inserted as an explanation "why" he's doing or saying something in particular. 1. He forgets 2. He embellishes or exaggerates to bolster his image 3. He lies Maybe we can list some examples then give opinions as to what everyone thinks they represent? Here's my first: - The Delivery of the 2nd "Taxi Driver" Note.
My explanation: The front door was being watch by Law Enforcement and Reporters. No one pulled up in a Taxi. As a matter of fact, no one pulled up at all. (Conclusion: Lie)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 6, 2009 7:37:12 GMT -5
The hour long meeting with CJ at Woodlawn. Exaggeration. I wouldn't be surprised if the old man got lost in there or lost his nerve. No way did they converse for over an hour.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 7, 2009 7:29:02 GMT -5
This is a good one, however, how do you get around Al Reich's May statement backing this up? And if they did speak for an hour Condon certainly doesn't bring an hour's worth of information back with him. I wonder what he felt they said which wasn't important enough to tell the Police about?
A similar problem exists with my point about the 2nd Taxi Driver. Condon's daughter backs up the delivery. But how I can personally get around that is this: The BOI, the NYPD, and multiple Newspaper Reporters contradict this. Also, Condon said his daughter wasn't there.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 7, 2009 9:07:30 GMT -5
Oh, I can believe he was there for over an hour. I just don't believe that time was spent talking with CJ. It's a perfect example of Condon embellishing every action he takes. And note, this example serves no good purpose in terms of misleading the police.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2009 5:50:35 GMT -5
I just came across an FBI report which claims he was engaged in conversation for an hour and 45 minutes. I don't know what that is based on but its something that might have to do with the timeline concerning when they left and when they came back. I'd have to check that out though.... I have to differ on your take about what Condon was trying to accomplish. He was always trying to impress upon them that he was in touch with the right parties. He was never like, "hey, I don't know" or "these might be the ones," etc. It was always these people are the ones and does everything in his power to keep the full attention on his dealings. The hour long "conversation" could account for the "source" of his vast knowledge about the situation - thereby giving his rants creditability. It could be - once Condon is in the spotlight then he only has a limited opportunity to discuss matters with those employing his services. Which leads me to my next lie: - That he hadn't opened the second letter contain within the first when he called down to Hopewell.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 9, 2009 7:13:51 GMT -5
But that is my take on him. I just don't ascribe any criminal intent to those actions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2009 18:24:19 GMT -5
I got you. But at what point do his actions point to something other then "grandstanding" for you? If he lies, for example, and it doesn't make him look good or if it puts him in a terrible position - does your theory still hold true? In other words, in some places your explanation may hold water, but if in others it does not - how then is it explainable where Condon is completely innocent under the theory of "grandstanding?"
See my point?
What if the people "down soud" were the actual kidnappers? Then Condon is guilty of exactly what Curtis was convicted of: Obstruction of Justice.
But Condon seems to know he's dealing with the right party. How does he know that, and if so, why lie about anything connected to these people so self gain or otherwise? After all, a child's life is at stake - is it not?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 11, 2009 5:43:39 GMT -5
What value does this have to assist Condon's reputation? How does saying something like this make him look better? In reality, isn't this a lie which could possibly misdirect the Police thereby obstruct their investigation? Why would he make something like this up?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 11, 2009 6:52:43 GMT -5
Look, if you are attempting to understand or define a logic behind all of Condon's actions and words, then all I can say to you is; good luck. I have no idea what particular beat he is marching to. Speaking only for myself, I don't really see the value in wasting too much thought or energy on this character. That is, unless some tangible evidence linking him to the crime or the money can be produced. Or at least a coherent explanation of his connection to BRH, his role in the planning and execution of the crime, and his payoff. To date I have not seen anything close.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 11, 2009 7:34:52 GMT -5
Sorry Kev, but I couldnt diss-agree with you more! i think we should pound away on Condons lies and miss-directions until we uncover his motives. Not one-at-a-time, but in their cumulative entirety: - he is finding fingerprints int he Nursery?
- hes talking too long with CJ? He cant identify BRH? Never!
- Hes talking to Italians on the phone?
- Hes lyiing about the symbol on the inside note?
- Hes interviewed by FBI/BOI 100 times?
- hes lying about the wooden box and Samuelsohn?
- he claims Fisch was murdered in Leipsig?
- he claims Red and Betty are innocent?
[*} He lies about opening the sleeping suite?
- He goes back to St. Raymonds for the wooden box?
- he meets the Tuckahoe Woman and denies it?
- He forgets who delivered the 2nd taxi note?
- He sees two other men talking CJ in St. Raymonds
- He holds back $50K Gold Certs?
- he flees to Panama with Myra to avoid quiestioning by Hoffman? Myra says "Samuelsohn does not exist"?
JFC Condon is way to goofy and self-absorbed to be any mastermind. But he could make a puppetmaster to manipulate the entire LKH for someone else? And dont forget--he never returned Charlie Jr. to his Moms arms--she never saw him again. "A lie is just as good as a confession"/ Charlie Jr died in process/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 11, 2009 14:06:40 GMT -5
Pound away to your hearts desire. In ten years you will be no wiser, no closer to the truth and your fists are going to hurt like hell! Condon is the ultimate time waster and if your time isn't valuable then I guess there's no harm in expending energy in a futile effort to understand the nature of his tales. All that matters to me is that there is no evidence that he was involved, connected, or benefited from this crime. Show me how he was recruited and paid by Hauptmann ( or vise versa if you desire) for example. Show me his enrichment. Explain why BRH wouldn't have given him up or why Condon would have id'd BRH. There's no sense to any of it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 11, 2009 15:53:28 GMT -5
Here's where I have to disagree.
It could be that we are wasting our time examining this. But we'd have to "waste it" in order to find out. There are several explanations, in my opinion, as to his behavior. One could be that he was just nuts, yet, he becomes incredibly sober when certain things happen. He seems to borrow ideas and information in order to support his positions. This is the work of someone crazy like a fox. There is motivation behind something that's the work of someone who isn't delusional or a crank.
What is it?
If its "grand-standing" then where's the benefit if he's feeding misinformation to the Police which would certainly hinder their efforts to capture the Criminals and certainly doesn't assist him in this endeavor?
He insists he's dealing with the Criminals, and he is, so how does he know that? He states his goal is to help the Police solve the crime and to return the child to Lindbergh. There's certainly glory if he does this. Yet, he does things which prevent it. He becomes almost hostile at the mere mention there might be someone else really dealing with the Criminals. Again, its like he knows who the real parties are which there's no way he possibly could unless certain facts exist.
What this could be is his playing the role "go-between" but actually one of "insulator." Get the ransom to the Criminals and make sure they aren't caught in the process. Like the gypsies coming to your front door to distract you while his Partners go in through the back - and rob you blind.
If its craziness, why is it grounded in several complexities as it surrounds the Crime?
If its a connection to the real event, then why don't we see "enrichment?"
What might the enrichment be? According to Inspector Walsh it was the extra 20K the Kidnappers added to the ransom when they were forced to bring someone else in. This was the same amount, coincidentally, that Condon returned to Lindbergh. His explanation was that he was "helping" Lindbergh. But in doing so, he helped himself by denying that sum AND helped the Criminals by preventing them from spending the most identifiable bills. Something he knew from the overheard conversations of the Authorities.
Might the enrichment be the lack of negative exposure? Perhaps blackmail? How about the chance to look good, or "grand-stand" by getting himself in limelight? Or perhaps to protect himself or his family from being murdered? Maybe to help someone who begged him for assistance, like he told O'Sullivan about the tale of the woman from a "good family" who had a very "bad brother?"
Enrichment could be anything from money, to property, to debt forgiveness, to protection, to a psychological need being fulfilled. This idea that we need to see unexplained $$ to prove involvement is as flawed as the Police excluding anyone who didn't write the ransom notes.
Not that I am saying this is Kevin's position when he mentions "enrichment" but I just wanted to clear up my position when that word is used.
|
|