|
Post by Michael on Dec 9, 2006 11:40:40 GMT -5
But Joe - 'trust' is an essential component of compassion. One cannot be wholly without compassion but be trustworthy. On one hand you are assigning a considerable amount of weight to CJ as it pertains to a very human emotion but then saying he is devoid of yet another - they go hand in hand.
Additionally, 'trust' is something that develops over time. I see nothing in the negotiation process which would cause such an immediate withdrawal of suspicion from anyone connected to the crime unless they have a source telling them they can.
So which CJ was he? Like just about every aspect of this case it can only be explained away if we choose to have our cake and eat it too.
A hardened emotionless criminal? Well, not according to Condon.
If we go back to Gary's point.... Condon is painting this picture of CJ as being extremely emotional and absolutely full of human emotion. Dr. Gardner once told me to re-read the supposed dialog pointing out it was like Condon was almost 'father-like' in his conversation with him - and it is.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Dec 9, 2006 12:18:46 GMT -5
OK Michael--I am willing to accept the following theory:
Just for the sake of discussion, lets make BRH-Fisch into CJohn? They could be? Bruno then writes Condons name in the closet and follows him around and builds the ladder and writes the notes? That could work for me. Condon says "I can never accuse or identify this man"? OK Jafsie keep your shirt on. So they become our "outsiders". (City Mice)
Now ....lets take all the servants and roll them into Betty Gow, Ollie, Violet, Margarite, Red, Ellerson and call them "the insiders". (Country Mice)
Where is the connection between the insiders and the outsiders? Manke's Lunchenette, Temple of Divine Power or I forget?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Dec 9, 2006 12:31:56 GMT -5
I think there is a lot of agreement here. My emphasis really is not the risk or that Hauptmann is not involved. I just question blindly accepting the story as what is commonly believed. In my mind there are inconsistencies in what is told about CJ. I am not convinced CJ is Hauptmann or Fisch or even a third we (I) don't know.
In the meeting at St Raymonds I am questioning Condon mentioning in his greeting. "Do I know you." I sensed enough here to question is CJ the same CJ from the first to the second cemetary. We also have to remember the account that #2 in line confederate is supposed to know Condon. Maybe he was asking if he was this individual. The hacking cough fits perfectly with Fisch and personally the thumb as well. We all think it is funny how Condon chased CJ at Woodlawn. What if one of the lookouts was cornered rather than the one who greeted Condon at the gate of the cemetary. You would think Condon could tell the difference by how they dressed etc etc but in his inabilities, the darkness, and aged mind couldn't sort it out right. Perhaps to make the himself the hero of the chase changed the reality of what happened.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 9, 2006 19:26:37 GMT -5
I think there's a big difference when we talk about the kind of trust exhibited by two previously unattached parties compared to the trust we normally associate with family and close friends. Not to belabour it, but the standard dictionary definition of trust is confidence; firm belief; reliance. So it may be more fitting in this case to say that as the negotiations proceeded, the two sides seemed to have developed a level of confidence that each others expressed intentions would be acted upon.
CJ certainly comes across sounding like a great guy with the best of intentions and from all appearances, he's out to keep his side of the bargain. But does he not throughout the entire negotiations, demonstrate the worst kind of human qualities imaginable through his ongoing deception, ultimately the exchange of a corpse for instant riches? How on earth does anyone reach the level of depravity to pull this off while at the same time, shedding a tear for the sake of what his mother would say about his criminal actions?
I tend to believe CJ - Hauptmann had some kind of severe and undiagnosed mental condition that allowed him to demonstrate a decided lack of human compassion almost on command towards a given situation. I wouldn't put it past a traumatic event at a critical time in his life, such as a severe blow to the head, the very kind he received during WWI.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 10, 2006 10:33:19 GMT -5
Maybe its me, but this just doesn't make sense. There has to be a reason for anyone to develop confidence and/or hold a firm belief. Hardened criminals rarely trust anyone. Even members of this gang probably held reservations when it amounted to absolute trust concerning each other AND I believe this may have been delt with in some respects by keeping certain parties 'in the dark.' Sociopaths and/or mental cases, never trust anyone and certainly can't be trusted themselves.
If we accept what Condon says about CJ then he isn't the Leader. His actions, emotions, and statements reveal he is merely a cog in the wheel. If Condon is lying then we have to ask why he is making all of this up.
It's my opinion, at this point, that Hauptmann was not CJ. Regardless, I haven't seen anything which would lead me to believe he had such a mental condition. After combing through all of the source material he seemed quite normal mentally. In the end he proved himself worthy of not divulging incriminating evidence against those others who were involved in this situation. Was that because he was a mental case?
Doubtful.
It seems to me he was sacrificing himself to protect his family - something which is not the method of a person devoid of compassion.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Dec 10, 2006 12:55:55 GMT -5
I think alot of cops including Schwartzkopf and Walsh were asking this exact question:
Tony Scaduto goes as far to say that it is now a little known fact that Jafsie Condon was the #1 Prime Suspect between May 12th 1932 and Sept 19th 1934? How did we all miss this? Not one single author prior to William Norris has implicated Condon? Right from the get go CAL had Breckenridge move in with the olde geezer to check him up? Somehow he received complete absolution when BRH spent the tenner? After Violet Sharpe died Harry Walsh took Jafsie for a walk outside at Alpine NJ and asked him....."dont you feel like jumping"? Some where I read that Condon was interrogated well over 100 times BB (before bruno)? He was a professional liar.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 10, 2006 14:10:25 GMT -5
And there lies the problem with the whole CJ matter. If one believes Condon is a liar or embellisher then one must dismiss all of his accounting of CJ and the meetings unless corroborated by a third party. You can't selectively cull his recounting at will or because it fits a prejudiced view. Yes all good liars construct their lies around some elements of truth, but without another source to go by the determination of what is true is impossible.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 10, 2006 15:52:04 GMT -5
Kevkon~ I agree whole heartedly that trying to sort Condon's truths from his lies from his embellishments is a pure stonewall. I guess most people when confronted with a liar keep thinking that somehow they'll find that glimmer of truth. Probably, as you indicate, a futile endeavor. His refusal to Id BRH to the police and it is said, in front of Hauptmann and then confiding same to his family members, how would you weigh this in terms of witnesses so to speak? Could that be that elusive glimmer of truth(?)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 10, 2006 19:02:48 GMT -5
You ask a great question and had this been figured out there wouldn't be anything for us to discuss because this completely solves the case once its answered in my opinion.
I believe someone organized and called the shots behind this whole 'thing.' This person couldn't have been Hauptmann.
I don't know if I agree he was their #1 suspect but they were very suspicious. Walsh was onto him from the very beginning but after he wrote those articles for the Jersey Journal the jealousy within the ranks of the NJSP got him kicked off the case. Next, the NJSP felt Condon was 'friendlier' to the FBI and would give them information which may break the case - so - once again, jealousy took over and instead of being tough on him they kiss his a** in order to win him over. It wasn't until Hauptmann was arrested and Condon said Hauptmann wasn't John that all parties resurrected the idea that Condon was 'in on it' and the threats got him to cave on the idea of naming Hauptmann as John.
It proved Walsh's methods would have worked if they stayed the course.
Exactly. The character and/or role played by Condon perfectly exemplifies everything in this case. A microcosm if you will. And I do believe, buried in all of his nonsense, are the seeds of truth - we just have to decipher it. Exactly how is as Kevin suggests.....
Measure it against those others who were there. Woodlawn, St. Raymond's, the two Taxi drops, etc. This however presents yet another dilemma because questions could be raised (and have) about the sincerity of those individuals.
We must proceed cautiously by exploring each and every scenario and see which makes the most sense.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 11, 2006 19:42:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on Jun 23, 2008 10:44:10 GMT -5
I think my point is this: Unless this party at Woodlawn and St. Raymond's (if they were the same person ) is armed with some kind of insider knowledge then they are operating with complete disregard for their own safety. I don't believe they would have been successful at any stage...most especially the actual kidnapping....if this was their methodology.
Obviously it wasn't.
The ladder itself, as Kevin has proven to me, shows a high level of planning and fore-thought, therefore, I can't accept this level of preparation on one hand only to be completely disregarded in order to explain away what would amount to lack of preparation by assigning or chalking this up to a generic form of the word "risk."
So what I see is a level of risk - certainly - but a group that is prepared - therefore - they have taken steps to minimize the risk. For me the irresistible conclusion is a member of the gang knew one or more on the inside who was providing them information. Lets try to link the Insider Info w/ Mancke's resturant: - Lets assume for convenience that Violet is the insider?
- What information does she provide?
- How does she convince the gang it is low/no risk kidnap?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 23, 2008 22:29:49 GMT -5
Hi Sue: Also Elmer Smith - juror, an insurance salesman, if they'd have let him talk deliberations might still be going on. There are four Ottos and three Oscars but alas only one Irving, Cecil, Gerta and Egbert. Did I ever tell you that I dream about Gerta Henkel? Yours as always and forever like we talked about while we were under the bridge, Jack
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 23, 2008 23:42:04 GMT -5
I wrote a Laurel and Hardy skit many years ago (unfortunately L&H were mostly dead at the time) called "Altar Boys". It was about their being pressed into service by their church because the kids were all sick. Stan gets into the communion wine and things develop from there. He gives people cups of wine then drinks a couple himself - you can probably imagine. I never sold that one (wanna buy it - still up for grabs - a nostalgia item similar to the Poop - oops - Pope Papers) - couldn't think of another duo who could handle it, although Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder were the next best thing to L&H and probably might have. Irey had punch on Lindbergh because Lindbergh won the Medal Of Honor. See my post on LKHS.
|
|