|
Post by rmc1971 on Aug 23, 2007 9:30:49 GMT -5
One aspect that I have been considering lately is the taxi driver who delivered the ransom note to the Condon residence the night of the payment. I find the contrast interesting between this driver and Perrone. This guy was able to turn and walk away, while Perrone was essentially grilled. I'm wondering if anyone in their research has delved into this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 23, 2007 20:31:52 GMT -5
I've done quite a bit on this. I am convinced that Condon lied. No one ever pulled up in front of his home - that's for certain - authorities were staked out across the street watching his home and saw no one.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 24, 2007 5:38:30 GMT -5
Take a good look at this report.... Condon's MO is to always "fish" for information. If you read then re-read the reports as to the information coming from Condon you can plainly see he is attempting to direct and/or confuse the Police. I don't care what anyone says - he is doing this on purpose. No car ever pulled up in front of his home to deliver a message on this day. Apologists for Condon may say he was "confused" or "mistaken" because its the only defense one can formulate for him. The Authorities had rented a room across the street and, unknown to him, were watching the whole time.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Aug 25, 2007 2:43:07 GMT -5
So, is your feeling he was part of the kidnapping plot, part of a Lindbergh cover up, or a dupe?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 25, 2007 10:12:49 GMT -5
He's lying and inventing things. He uses information he gleans from the Authorities then incorporates them into his tales. There was no Taxi in front of his home. Again he lies about a very important matter.
My position is: Inspector Walsh was right. The reference in the ransom note about bringing an additional party in was Condon. He was known by one of the criminals who committed the crime and was brought in by them.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 25, 2007 12:24:31 GMT -5
Not to be a "Condon apologist" here Michael, (although I do think you give him too rough a ride over his role ) but didn't the agents who were staked out across from Condon's residence on the night of April 2, also miss the departure of Lindbergh and Condon in Al Reich's Ford coupe as they drove to St. Raymond's Cemetery? Obviously, Captain Oliver saw them leave. I've always thought these agents were either asleep on the job or just not in place at the critical timeframes involved and therefore I'm left with a less than convinced opinion about their own accounts. BTW -- The report you updoaded on Condon's information above, doesn't seem to connect.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 25, 2007 13:01:51 GMT -5
There were (F)BI Agents, NYPD, and Reporters all watching the house. I have no issues whatsoever with the reports concerning what they saw. If anyone was asleep it was Schwarzkopf for allowing this to happen w/o Police involvement/supervision.
As far as Oliver is concerned. The only source for his "tailing" them to St. Raymond's comes from Schoenfeld and I just don't know if I believe it or not. There is a note in Schwarzkopf's file which Dr. Gardner pointed out to me which says: "Oliver says no taxi driver" but I believe this information is coming from his men watching the house...Itchner was one I believe.
Fact is - no one watching this house saw a taxi pull up. Since Condon lied repeatedly in just about every instance then there is an irresistible conclusion to draw here.
Give it a couple of hours - I believe the server is busy. If by tomorrow its still not working I'll upload it again.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 25, 2007 13:28:17 GMT -5
I'm wondering here in a big way why this would not have been more widely reported, considering the sense of competition amongst the various law enforcement agencies and the fact that a little over a month later with the discovery of the child's body, the wraps came off this case entirely. It's a pretty siginificant detail, ie. no cab showing up, although it doesn't preclude the possibility a note was dropped off by someone on foot.
I'm not sure what else you know about this event or non-event as it might be, but did anyone at all observing the house that night see anything at all, ie. an individual walking up to the house? What conclusion are you implying here? Do you consider the fact that Lindbergh and Condon's departure was totally missed, somewhat of an indicator that perhaps not as many people were actually watching the house as was reported?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 25, 2007 18:03:18 GMT -5
Because Joe - Lindbergh had forbidden it. These stake-outs were basically done secretly and no one was supposed to know about them. Neither the (F)BI nor the NYPD knew the other was watching and no one wanted Lindy or the NJSP to find out.
Coming from the back yard to the front door.... But of course this isn't what Jafsie said. Its a huge difference and if someone had done this then Condon would have known this was the situation.
The bottom line is the man lied about this.
I don't think it was missed Joe.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Aug 27, 2007 5:22:42 GMT -5
So, how do you see Perrone tied into this? Who would you foresee tracking down a cab to deliver a note to the Condon residence?
And that makes me want to ask another question: do you feel there was a direct link to Condon and Hauptmann?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 28, 2007 5:38:33 GMT -5
It's my position that the man who was supposed to deliver the note to Condon got "cold feet" and decided to have a Taxi Cab deliver it for him. Now everyone who studies this case does, or eventually will, believe they can understand the differing personalities and I am no exception. Condon was something of a parrot, that is, he would use known truths in order to bolster his lies. He took the Perrone situation and used it to invent the 2nd Taxi Driver.
It's not a bad idea unless Cops & Reporters are watching your house.
This is my position so I am quite sure others may disagree in fact I do believe Joe might......
I believe they were known to each other. The common denominator may have been a 3rd party. Hauptmann was happy when Condon came to see him. I am convinced he believed Condon was going to save him. And despite Condon's lies publicly we know he did try and flatly did indeed say Hauptmann was not John. Once he was threatened by Police and realizing he had no other alternative - then he came up with that nonsensical "declaration vs. identification" crap.
Thank God for Turrou's report or we'd have people to this day continuing to pretend they understand that explanation. It's this report which proves Authorities/Condon lied.
And so, after finally deciding to finger Hauptmann to save his own skin he announces, in essence, he's dead man and that "they" were going to kill him.
Again, I believe he knew who "they" were.
After this became known Hauptmann's demeanor changes. It reminds me of a guy who finds out his girl is cheating on him - and it hit him like a ton of bricks. Eventually we have Hauptmann claiming that Condon held the keys to his cell, and in a rare reversal finally claims he had seen Condon around before - telling both Fisher (Gardner p385) and D.G. Werner. (Liberty Magazine).
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 28, 2007 12:53:10 GMT -5
I don't believe it was ever intended for the Woodlawn Cemetery instructional note to be hand-delivered by the kidnapper or a confederate. This note, received by Condon on the evening of March 12, clearly states upfront that the writer does trust him but "we" will not come to his house for fear of being nabbed by surveillance police.
This event brings to mind the appearance of the needle salesman and scissors sharpener just a few days after Perrone's delivery of the fourth ransom note. Could that person have been a confederate of the kidnapper instructed to assess the "lay of the land" at Condon's residence for hand-delivery of future communications? The protracted meeting between CJ and Condon at Woodlawn suggests that an element of trust had by now been established. Perhaps the greeting at the door by Condon and Breckinridge and their responses did not sit well enough at the time.
I don't know... what would be the value in "inventing" this individual? There were at least five people in the Condon house on the night of April 2 who were waiting for word from the kidnapper. Would all of these people also have occasion to "invent" the existence of such an individual? I don't suggest he undoubtedly appeared out of a cab and think it more likely he simply walked up to the house unseen by whoever actually had Condon's place under surveillance.
I believe Condon was genuinely confused by the expectations on the part of the police in having to positively and instantly identify someone he had spoken to two and a half years earlier and the obvious chaos within the Greenwich Police Station. He stated repeatedly, and his conviction seems genuine to me, that he wanted to be careful about identifying someone who might go the chair because of his testimony. I really don't think there was much doubt in his mind from the beginning about Hauptmann being the man but at the same time, he had genuine concern over his and his family's safety from other members of what he considered a likely gang still at large.
Within Hauptmann's well documented litany of lies, deceptions and streaks of last gasp determination, these are just more charades, Michael. Here's a guy who knows he is deeply involved and whom we now also know is deeply involved, but at the same time has the ability to swear to everyone trying to help him that he's a total innocent who knows nothing. That's a great statement he makes, about Condon holding the keys to his cell, designed to capitalize precisely on Condon's previous non-committedness about identifying him, but it lacks credibility at a root level and I believe it's nothing more than typical and total Hauptmann desperation.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 29, 2007 2:14:54 GMT -5
It is impossible for me to believe that the second cab driver became "the one that got away"? By April 2nd JFC and Myra were experienced go-betweens and "knew the drill". There is no ways some cabbie came to the door, handed one of them the note and then just disappeared into thin air. They are lying, apparently to practice for the Samuelsohn Affair down-the-road?
This raises the issue of how Perrone got involved the first time? Michael already believes his descriptions of the note-hander are nearly as widely different as Con-dons of CJ? Or at least different every time? Who supplied Perrone for his role? Why not just mail the notes?
It appears that Condon is a known quantity from the start which would help explain his local note to the BHN. But not to CAL since he had Breckenridge babysit Condon at first to check him out. So someone else supplied Condon as the go-between--maybe Mrs. Morrow as suggested by Bill Norris? Condons role was to grab the safety pins and the sleeping suite by French leave. They would come in handy later on.
Both CAL and Condon clearly work as a "team" to cloud & obfuscate every aspect of the ransom exchange in St. Raymond's (eg the lookout, the withheld $20K, the 5-ply wooden box and the 2 extra men CJ talks to about the Boad Nelly note?) One lies and the other swears to it. This is why they find it necessary to leave the Country in Dec 1935 when they discover that Hoffman and Parker have been chatting with BRH at the State Prison. They must be afraid that BRH will spill the beans?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 29, 2007 16:32:56 GMT -5
So why wasn't the mail and/or the phone used as it had been in the past? Do you think they trusted an unknown Hack to deliver such an important message?
Surely no one would walk blindly into that situation.
Problem is we only have Condon's word on it. The length could be checked against Reich but can we trust him to rely the truth if it would contradict Condon? We have Condon telling us "John" had a gun which was pointed at him...is this to be believed if there was this trust to which you refer?
To distract the Authorities from the true situation.
Yes. So who saw this "Taxi?" What did each and everyone say they saw? Why did Condon say Myra wasn't there when she claims she was? Could he have been trying to protect her? Or was she trying to protect him?
So how does one get past Condon's invention if this is true? How does one walk up to a house being watched without being seen by anyone watching it? Then we have Condon telling a story to explain the note's delivery which isn't true. Why? Why not say "a man appeared" and "I don't know where he came from?" Why make up a story? The answer is clear.
He told Turrou Hauptmann was not John. There's no way around this. Throughout the years this was denied by everyone involved in the case yet here is the report in black and white. If you want to make up an excuse as to why he said this then you must equally make up one for why he later changed his mind.
And exactly what events took place before that change occurred. After the change does appear to have taken place then Condon tells Turrou "they" are going to kill him. They usually means more then one person doesn't it? What does Condon know that he isn't telling the Police?
Are you saying you don't believe Condon ever saw Hauptmann or that Hauptmann never saw Condon before?
My problem is telling Police certain people look like John who look absolutely nothing like Hauptmann. What of Perrone's report to police he saw Condon on City Island talking with the man who gave him the note? Why is this so often ignored?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 29, 2007 18:28:24 GMT -5
Michael....there is a funny thing about human nature and we have almost hit on it: A good example of this is the street magician that fools persons minds and appears to give persons blank papers for money--yes--he distracts their minds by Mind Control (Darren Brown is on Scifi tonight at 10/9C) One way he does this is by preoccupying the mind with a new puzzle, piece of info or question? Before the mind can grasp the first question, or attention, a brand new puzzle is provided. If you jump around 2,3,4 times--your distracted mind becomes lost or your circuits overload. eg you loose your mind! So, the strategy would be to keep adding on new, but unrelated, information or input until we are all confused? Used car salesman, cons and politicians know this game well. The hand is quicker than the mind: - he was tall, he was short, he jumped off a pole, he ran away so I chased him down?
- My son-in-law designed a 5 ply wooden box?
- There was a stooped man who blew his nose?
- He went away for 5 minutes, talked to 2 men, and wrote a note? I saw his thumbprint in the Nursery.
- he was Scandanavian, Chinese, or German and he coughed
- I went to Boston because CJ looked like John Gorch?
- I saw him from a bus? he was crying about his Mom?
- CJ gave CAL back $20,000 because he felt sorry for him?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Aug 29, 2007 21:11:15 GMT -5
Hi Rick, most people will follow the wrong lead, and is reminiscent of the Shepard case where even the mayor got into the act. The end result was even a serial TV series about a man with one arm. Lindbergh set up this series of events with Rosners help, and Rosner kept the stories active, and is probably the connection that created similar gang connections with Means, Curtis, and Condon. The boat story was real, but set up to create such a slight of hand or mind trick that has worked for more than seventy years.
The Borowitz collection has articles on Ronsner interviews, where he leaves reporters in chauffeur driven limousine claiming he was on his way to meet with a kidnapper. The boat trick fueled two of the go betweens stories, and was a very clever diversion that Lindbergh seemed to enjoy pranks and all.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 30, 2007 6:05:10 GMT -5
You're questioning me here Michael on something I can't tell you for certain. I'm only pointing out to you what the ransom note writer clearly expressed in the Woodlawn instructional note - that he was not certain enough for his own safety to personally deliver the note to Condon's house. So I don't see your point about the guy who flags down Perrone having gotten cold feet about delivering the note personally.
If I had to give my best guess it would be that the writer wanted this specific note delivered in a way that ensured Condon did not have time to react to anything but to follow the writer's implicit directions to get to Woodlawn NOW with the money. Why wouldn't the ransom note writer trust a unknown cab driver for this special delivery, a person whom he probably felt could not identify him later and whose professional business it was to promptly deliver people and items to locations that were well known to him?
I don't know about that - I think that would depend on their desire and/or desperation to move things forward. Certainly the needles salesman and scissors sharpener could have been a reporter(s) or someone hired by the news or police to check up on Condon. But didn't Condon later claim this man bore a resemblance to Isidor Fisch as did the Cemetery lookouts? At the same time, we also have Dr. Gardner's strange account of the man who burst into Breckinridge's office a few days after the kidnapping imploring him that he must deal with "them" and that the "needs of science must be served..." Gardner also makes a case for the possibility of this having been Fisch or a confederate of the kidnappers. Would you also unequivocally state here that no one would walk blindly into that situation?
I didn't imply this was the kind of trust nurtured and developed between close friends. The burden of obligation to develop an adequate level of mutual trust at the Woodlawn Cemetery falls directly on CJ if he's to be successful in obtaining the ransom payment. It wouldn't surprise me if only out of caution he in fact had had a gun pointed at Condon during the entire meeting. And it sounds like they were both thinking along the same lines - didn't Condon claim he had a couple of cavalry pistols in his overcoat pockets? Seems like serious measures for a serious game.
Michael, do you have a roster of those who conclusively and without question, were watching Condon's house on the night of April 2? I can't really comment on your assertions, which I'm not clear on to begin with, without knowing more about who was there and the source of information.
No. I don't doubt that Hauptmann had previously seen Condon in and around the Bronx, but I think it speaks against him that he didn't acknowledge this truthfully upfront. My point related to Hauptmann's melodrama in saying Condon held the keys to his cell. How on earth would Condon have been able to ensure Hauptmann's release from incarceration and his sentence?
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Aug 30, 2007 7:52:51 GMT -5
Part of me wants to think he was more than a dupe, but to believe Condon was part of a plot would require me to believe he could have kept quiet about it. I can't get to that point - at least not yet.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 31, 2007 4:31:16 GMT -5
John Condon splashed his garralous personality and annoying histrionics over most of what he touched as he immersed himself in his role of Jafsie. And like his hero Lindbergh, he was plainly in way over his head from the beginning. His advancing age and slipping faculties would have made him difficult for anyone to control with perhaps the exception of the President and J. Edgar Hoover. All of this and Hauptmann's stubborn refusal to hold himself accountable for any of his case-related crimes provides great fodder for making Condon look much worse than the individual he really was and for tying him into something far more criminal than he was truly capable of. His track record speaks volumes about a lifetime of honesty, integrity and community service. None of those basic qualities suddenly left Condon overnight following his originally well intentioned offer of service to Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 31, 2007 7:54:37 GMT -5
"John" for example meets Condon twice and risks arrest. We know it wasn't assumed Condon wasn't followed because we have a "look-out" at both places. I suppose my point is there were other methods of delivery which had proven effective. Everyone seems to have Hauptmann-on-the-brain despite acknowledging they accept he wasn't alone. With this in mind, why does everyone at all stages have to be him? In my opinion the man with this note was supposed to deliver it and breaks weak. Any situation was "scoped" out in my opinion. The constant explanations, a la Fisher, that everything was luck - is craziness. Condon claimed to have had a gun too. What can we trust coming from Condon? How does one select from the various stories this man told in order to determine what's true and what isn't? Despite this, if "trust" exists then there is no need for "John" to have a gun trained in on Condon. Across the street in a rented house/room - Detective Clune (NYPD)
- Detective Itchner (NYPD)
- Special Agent Lackney (FBI)
- Bender (United Press)*
Positioned so to see the front of home - Arthur Auerbach (Daily News)*
- Al Willard (Daily News)*
- Captain Oliver (NYPD)**
Vicinity of Condon's Home Watching Events - Arthur O'Sullivan (Daily News)
- James Meade (Telegram)*
- Ginger Ungermack (City News)*
- Joseph Endler (Herald-Tribune)*
- Eddie Delano (NYT)*
- Willie Mason (Unknown Paper)*
- Ray Doyle (Mirror)*
- Frank Farley (Mirror)*
- Freddie Must (Mirror)*
- Walter Ranzini (Dailey News)*
- Harry Schwarzler (Druggist - working corner store)*
(*) I do not have the reports for their interviews although indications are they would be interviewed and later reports indicate the conclusion that no one saw a Taxi. Therefore, it is clearly implied they were interviewed and no one listed saw one.
(**)According to Shoenfeld. I have never seen another source for this. Hopefully this will exemplify to you the level of research I have been doing. I always hesitate to post these specifics because charlatans like Allen steal it then pawn it off as their own. There is also a very good unpublished document written by Dr. Gardner on this subject. Of course, like his book, its masterful. Research always trumps fantasy. We all speculate but beware those who speculate and state their speculation as fact. I supposed because both Hauptmann and Condon knew Condon's identification was coerced. If someone whose faculties are "slipping" then how does one determine when they are slipping and when they aren't? Perhaps when he says something agreeable they are good but when he appears to be lying or saying something that doesn't agree with what one wants then he's slipping? Condon knew what he was doing. He was role-playing as a Confidence-Man. It was intentional and he believed he was fooling everyone. No one was fooled. Not Lindbergh, not Breckenridge, not Sisk, not Keaton, and certainly not Walsh. They all knew. What track record might that be? Accusations of molestation? Swindler? Liar?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 31, 2007 10:26:46 GMT -5
I think the difference with the Woodlawn instructional note was a perceived need on the part of the ransom note writer to ensure the delivery took place without delay and at a predictable time for the meeting to happen as he had planned. I do believe Hauptmann had a confederate at both cemeteries and the descriptions given by Condon, Reich and Lindbergh do not support this other individual at Woodlawn and St. Raymond's as being Hauptmann. Scoped out by who? Do you think the needle salesman / scissors sharpener might have been a police plant? My original point here was that Gardner's assertion of the Breckinridge visitor being a confederate, supports a scenario of risk taking on the part of the kidnappers, that I don't believe you've previously discounted or even argued against. If you support this, then why is a confederate acting as a street vendor such an unreasonable conclusion? I think the ransom note writer was essentially being truthful when he said in the fourth note that he trusted Condon. This doesn't mean CJ trusted that there would be no surprises for him at Woodlawn Cemetery, such as the cemetery guard that he at first believed were "the cops." In the same note, he states that even Condon cannot tell if police or secret service agents are watching. In his position, having a gun doesn't surprise me, despite any of his personal feelings towards Condon. Point well taken. Your information presents a new perspective for me and I can assure you it's going to be mulled over and over in my own mind for a while. There's still something at the base of this account that doesn't sit right with me and eliminate the possiblity the note was somehow delivered to the door. This doesn't mean Condon's identification of Hauptmann was wrong. When we're talking about dubious credibility, such as your point about Condon's mercurial interpretation of the truth, where is the credibility of Hauptmann, a confirmed liar and criminal? His statement about Condon holding the keys to his cell only adds to his woes in that department. Where else did he deserve to be based on his proven involvement? So what was his game? You make Condon sound like some devious but addle-brained mastermind, ala Dr. Evil. That's quite a list of detractors you've posted. What did they all know about him? Here is the report by Agent Sisk which reads more or less as a resume of Condon's past achievements and honours. (I've borrowed this from Ronelle's board and trust she's OK with that) www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/jafsie%20sisk.pdfThe accusation of molestation against Condon was a totally unsubstantiated allegation (that even the police attempted to use against him) unless you have further information that supports it more fully. And then you about face and tell me there was nothing to Hauptmann's serious crimes in post-war Germany that would affect a jury's opinion of his propensity for criminal activity. Gimme a break.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 31, 2007 19:19:35 GMT -5
Anyone. Either the actual criminals or those hired to do so for them.
No. I believe I would have found reference to this. It seems to me they were possibly involved or employed by those involved. Most people aren't aware that the FBI had a strong suspect concerning this angle.
Having a gun - no. Pointing it at Condon - yes.
Remember - this involves my point about the Taxi and the man coming from a Taxi. One of those watching the house said they couldn't discount the note being delivered from someone approaching from the back of the house.
Additionally, I think I should mention that a man by the name of Lowenthal came forward claiming to be an eyewitness to the Taxi Event. The Police investigated and discounted him as a "publicity seeker." Normally I am not so quick to dismiss these accounts but even if there was just (1) cop watching the house from across the street that's enough for me here....they wouldn't miss it especially seeing everything else.
What does it mean? He said it wasn't him and it took coercion for him to change his mind. Sure, if Condon is working for the Kidnappers then his job would be to protect one of them. Might even be true he IS one but not "John." There's no way to know but to say Hauptmann was John based upon Condon is crazy if you ask me.
He was brought in by the Kidnappers. His game appears to confuse, delay, and protect. Perhaps they had something on him but nevertheless he was doing his part.
Condon talking about Condon..... What did others say about him? What did his actions during this case say? What did all the Principals say about him before his testimony? Why did they lie about their undying trust in him when records show that wasn't the case?
Was it a false accusation? Or did it simply "go away?" What made it go away?
About face? Who ever said Hauptmann was perfect human being? Not me. All I said was that his crimes in Germany weren't what they've been portrayed and out of context with historical circumstances. Condon is a different situation because you're ready to Knight him and make him a Saint right along side of Mother Theresa.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 1, 2007 7:20:45 GMT -5
You seem to be implying here that Condon betrayed "one of his own" in fingering Hauptmann. If this was the case, Michael you know very well there is no way Hauptmann goes quietly to the chair. Based on his perfect track record of desperate moves for desperate times, he would have spilled every single detail of any grand conspiracy to make Lindbergh's son disappear, if he was part of such a fantastic scheme.
The accusation of molestation against Condon doesn't even come close to ringing true based upon his record of close contact with approximately 50,000 student children and adolescents over the course of a distinguished teaching and administrative career. I'm surprised you highlight this as such a black mark against the man in the total absence of any proof whatsoever, something you would otherwise profess to require in spades for anyone else in this case. Instead, speculation seems to run amok and rule the roost here to the detriment of everything good he accomplished in his life.
The historical circumstances that are relevant include the fact that the German people as a whole, were devastated by the loss of possessions from the ravages of war. What do you think their attitude would have been towards someone stealing large amounts of money, possessions and food staples from citizens who could ill afford these losses? Where is your sense of historical relativity here?
I think you've also polarized my impressions of Condon into him being some kind of Shining Example, which you must realize from any of my previous posts on the man, are anything but over-complimentary. This is not difficult to understand based on your own impression of him being some kind of criminal mastermind, and someone who in reality had zero qualifications to be.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 1, 2007 9:19:06 GMT -5
The Kidnappers brought him in. If one reads over the source material as to what exactly went on, instead of what we've been told went on, then there's only two conclusions one can make. They can invent silly excuses or they can call a spade a spade.
The totality of the circumstances speak for themselves.
It appears to me these people brought other people in as insulators and/or their eyes & ears. An example could have been slipping the man with the little girl $5.00 to report back to them what the situation is he is witnessing.
Would this make this man "one of them?"
There's no doubt in my mind Hauptmann, like Condon before him, was protecting other people. Unlike Condon he didn't break weak. He was saying all he could having been dealt the hand he now faced with Condon doing what he never expected he'd do.
I am in shock you'd say something like this. We find out everyday people who we never expect - did or are doing - something outlandish. Most especially around children.
Senator Craig.
No one would ever believe this either. He may eventually come out and say he's "gay" like that will excuse his conduct somehow. Let me tell you that one's sexual orientation has nothing to do with hooking up with complete strangers in a public bathroom. That's dysfunctional and unacceptable in any community. His actions when he was caught prove he's an old pro at this so how long do you think he was engaging in it before it was discovered?
Do you believe child molestation happened less before 1932 then it does today? Even with all the reports we hear about so many go unreported. Back then it wasn't until after the Lindbergh Kidnapping that people started to actually pay attention to children's issues. It needs to be placed into proper perspective.
You're saying he was innocent and drawing conclusions based upon what exactly?
I never said it was a good thing. Not the issue. You are skewing the point.
Criminal Mastermind? I've never said any such thing. I think you're going off on points I've made in directions I never traveled. Perhaps its where you think my mind is but I think if you read what I've written its pretty clear what I am saying.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 1, 2007 12:05:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by giszmo on Sept 1, 2007 18:13:50 GMT -5
The accusation of molestation against Condon doesn't even come close to ringing true based upon his record of close contact with approximately 50,000 student children and adolescents over the course of a distinguished teaching and administrative career. (Joe)
Why, then, did the police bring it up in their closed door meeting in May or June 1932? It's in the transcript. To say that it is not in the least bit true for the reasons you state is disturbingly naive.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2007 9:20:59 GMT -5
That's a difficult position to debate in the absence of anything tangible presented and which backs up your own conclusions. When are you implying the kidnappers brought Condon into their fold - before or after his letter to the BHN?
Hauptmann was extremely adept at saying what he had to despite the crappy hand he dealt himself when he decided to kidnap CALjr. He never gave up hope his saviours Governor Hoffman and Lloyd Fisher would rescue him from the chair. Unfortunately, he just ran out of words when he realized they had played their own last crappy hands.
I believe any crime against a child is of the worst kind possible. You will not get any argument from me there. But I would never be willing to hold any unsubstantiated allegation against anyone until I was certain that that allegation had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Maybe that's because Condon would have had to have been a criminal mastermind to accomplish what I believe you've implied to date. Add his genuine care and concern for people and a lifetime of community service and you couldn't end up with a less likely candidate. So what all went wrong and turned him into a cloak and dagger confidence man?
The Lieut. Keaten report you posted seems to demonstrate the police were still barking up the wrong tree and chasing their tales around Condon as late as July of 1934. They were clearly a very frustrated lot by this time.
I've never said the allegation didn't exist and I'll repeat myself: I believe any crime against a child is of the worst kind possible. You will not get any argument from me there. But I would never be willing to hold any unsubstantiated allegation against anyone until I was certain the that allegation had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
When we're on the subject of naivete here, how many of the investigators at that meeting do you think might have relished using this type of information, totally unsubstantiated, against Condon, one of their prime suspects at the time, solely for the purpose of drawing out some admission of guilt?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2007 10:30:31 GMT -5
I am going to give it to you straight.
The Police weren't "barking up the wrong tree" here. They never trusted Condon and the fact he lasted as long as he did was due to the rivalries between the various Agencies. They knew he was the key to a conviction and didn't want to lose his favor.
Once Condon "flipped" everyone testified, in essence, that he was always trusted and a great person. This was done merely to bolster his testimony which the Prosecution viewed as absolutely essential to their case.
Kennedy & Scaduto got it wrong when they implied the Police maliciously threatened to lock up Condon for his refusal to identify Hauptmann - simply because Hauptmann was innocent and they needed a goat. They threatened to lock him up because they viewed what he was doing exactly as it was - protecting someone involved. They absolutely would have, in my opinion, locked up Condon as an accessory if he hadn't indeed finally reversed himself. Even then, they didn't trust him and were very afraid he might get up on the stand and refuse to identify him.
The obvious proof is the intense investigations that were initiated in Nov '34 by the NJSP. Let me make this clear - they never trusted him and believed he had ties to the Parties involved. The bottom line is they had Hauptmann who wasn't talking and they had Condon who wouldn't identify him. Later, Condon gives in, therefore, its a classic "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".... Condon being a smaller bird - viewed as a tool or a "dupe" in the case.
Once Gov. Hoffman called for his interview Wilentz and Hauck did everything in their power to shield and protect Condon. They knew if he started to crack Hauptmann may avoid a penalty they believed he had coming and they'd look like fools.
They won out successfully blocking the Governor's contact with Condon and was never interviewed. His secrets went with him to his grave.....or did they?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 3, 2007 11:14:04 GMT -5
I also think worthy of mention are the (2) stories Condon told Arthur O'Sullivan. (Both are related in Dr. Gardner's book on pages 85 & 100).
The first where Condon claims to have been blindfolded and brought out to a boat off Throggs Neck for a fantastic encounter with the Kidnappers. Next, the other involves the woman begging for Condon's help which caused him to enter the case. These are the types of things agenda driven books may avoid because it upsets the "balance" of what's supposed to be true and what isn't. And even then, a lot of the other books make assertions that aren't based in fact at all - for example Fisher's books have countless errors regurgitated and uncorrected by many who enjoy what he has to say.
It's the thing that sets Dr. Gardner's book apart from the rest, that is, its based upon historical accuracy of all facts rather then the mention of only those that apply to whatever a particular Author wants you to buy into.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 3, 2007 15:29:57 GMT -5
Michael--vis-a-vis Jafsie Condon......do you also remember a speech he gave to reporters in either Pittsfield or Beckett Mass where he said something strange about the singnature/symbol? Its mentioned in Behn, but not the punchline?
Happy Labor Day!
|
|