|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 1, 2012 14:12:04 GMT -5
I'm about 100 pages into A Talent to Deceive, by William Norris. That's about 1/3 of the way through.
So far, I find it fascinating and fun to read. Infinitely more enjoyable and informative than Zorn's book.
Anyway…what I found the most interesting detail, so far, is Morris' assertion that John Condon was clandestinely hired by the Morrow family to educate Dwight Morrow's illegitimate son. Obviously, this was well before the kidnapping. This means the Morrow family--and, probably, Lindbergh as well--knew Condon prior to the crime. And if that's true, then this would shed all new light on his subsequent involvement in the case
The primary source of this information: Rosalind Russell, the actress! How she ended up entwined in the case is curious, and is based on hearsay, but I immediately found the story compelling, and credible. That's because of an anecdote my own grandfather told me about Lindbergh when I was a teen. (It turned out to be the main catalyst for my interest in the case.)
The anecdote is hearsay, too, but it was based on his knowing a famous actor (who you all have heard of) who knew Lindbergh and thought he was a phony bastard. Granted, this isn't very much to go on, and it's certainly not enough to bolster another actor's credibility, but I am not dismissing it.
I have always had several strong doubts about Condon's complete innocence in the case. At the absolute very least, I feel he perjured himself on the witness stand, and obstructed justice. I never thought he was known by Lindbergh and/or the Morrows prior to the kidnapping, though. If there is any possibility Norris is right, then it compels me to think again about Jafsie.
Do any of you think Condon was an accessory prior to the crime?
Jd
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 1, 2012 14:41:25 GMT -5
Absolutely not. You would have to be certifiable to plan a major crime with Condon. Besides, even though he was a blowhard who I suspect withheld much and invented much more from the police, I doubt he would even entertain the thought of joining such a plan. Speaking of perjury, it's a good thing Norris doesn't take the stand.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 1, 2012 15:52:15 GMT -5
Bill's book is an awesome read and he is a great Author. He brings out some new stuff in his book, like what Rosland Russell said, which is food for thought.
I tend to agree with Kevin that I don't believe Condon could have been in this from the beginning. If what Russell said was true, its possible the story grew from its original state - know what I mean?
I believe Inspector Walsh was right when he said they brought in Condon....that he was the person suggested in the Note. It's one of the reasons Condon gave the 20K back in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 1, 2012 16:14:08 GMT -5
Michael,
Which "they" are you referring to?
Like I said, I've always had doubts about Condon. One of my doubts is due to something Mark Falzini told me when I visited the archives.
Mark reminded me that the ink color used in the ransom signatures was blue and red. He also reminded me that Condon used to write his Bronx Home News letters with home-made purple ink.
Blue and red make purple.
That, of course, could be another coincidence in an incredibly coincidence-filled case. But then again, maybe not.
Ultimately, though, I have to take a deep breath, exhale, and admit I think that when all is said and done, Condon was just a pompous, bombastic, blowhard. I haven't finished Norris' book, though, so perhaps more seeds of doubt will be sewn in my mind.
Even if Condon had nothing to do with the planning or plotting of the crime, he's still responsible for falsely identifying Hauptmann. He had a major hand in sending him to the chair. (Although he would have fried no matter what, given the environment back then.)
Jd
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 1, 2012 17:04:28 GMT -5
You'd also have to be certifiable to entrust him with $70,000 in traceable gold certificates. A lot more about the crime would have been known if he had handed it all to CJ. Instead, he persuades Cemetery John not to take ONLY the money that would be easiest to trace.
Didn't Elmer Irey want to prosecute Condon for that? Or was Irey merely pissed off about it?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 1, 2012 17:05:39 GMT -5
jdanniel, I see Condon as THE one who brought about the conviction and execution of Hauptmann. Of course I could be wrong. Surely they had to have someone to ID the person who received the ransom from Condon. And, too, (if I have the testimony sequence correct)Condon was flying on the coattails of CAL's voice ID.and surely he wasn't going to refute that(?) And as we all know Condon had been threatened by the prosecution. And, just in my view, (once the child wasn't saved) Condon was trying to salvage his own "hero" role. How certain was the case without Condon's (false) ID? I appreciate your points of view on the case Your remarks lead me to go back and read Norris, again.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 1, 2012 17:53:00 GMT -5
You can call me Jd.
I'm not sure if Condon had the impact that Lindbergh had, as far as identifying Hauptmann was concerned. However, he certainly added the element of high drama.
Lindbergh sealed Hauptmann's fate; Condon just added a few nails to the coffin for good measure.
It is not entirely implausible that Condon identified Hauptmann out of fear..fear for either his safety or the safety of his family. If he did know the culprits, then that does make sense.
But I think he identified Hauptmann for the sake of grandstanding. That, coupled with his utterly ludicrous "declaration of identification" nonsense, made him, and not Lindbergh, the showstopper.
As far as Lindbergh's identification is concerned: I've often wondered if it is possible to reenact that scene. I don't really have any serious interest in driving to the Bronx, though.
But there is no scenario in my imagination that can convince me a man in a car with the windows mostly rolled up can hear the words HEY DOCTOR from nearly a football field away, and identify the speaker of those words 30 months later.
Oh...by the way...Lindbergh was supposedly hard of hearing.
I'm not suggesting Hauptmann was totally innocent. I am, however, suggesting neither Condon nor Lindbergh were being truthful on the witness stand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2012 18:00:37 GMT -5
Hi Jd. I recently finished William Norris' book. It was an interesting read. He made some interesting points in it. I won't say much since you are reading it now. When you are done post what you thought of it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 2, 2012 13:16:33 GMT -5
Ok, just to stir things up a bit, are you applying the same standard to Norris that you do to Fisher? it seems to me if Fisher, who you rightly criticize, made one tenth of the unsupported claims that Norris does, you would take him to task in a big way. Is there some prejudice involved? Personally, I found it to be the most offensive book on the LKC ever written. I don't care what theory someone proposes, just back it up with substance instead of smoke and mirrors.
Not even close. An old coot loose in the cemetery with 70k is a lot different than an old coot with your noose in his hands ( or mouth as the case might be).
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 2, 2012 15:43:15 GMT -5
Kev, you clearly are not a fan of Norris' book...or, at least, its veracity.
Are you willing to cite an example or two of Norris not being factual?
Jd
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 2, 2012 16:31:06 GMT -5
Meaning those involved. I believe at least one was familiar with him.
None of which were found among Hauptmann's things.
Plotting no. Diversionary yes.
One could argue Condon was playing these games simply because he didn't want to die, but if he didn't then I can't see getting involved unless he's a party to the extortion. He seems to be protecting Hauptmann and it isn't until he's threatened with arrest that he changes his mind about him being CJ.
This doesn't mean Hauptmann wasn't CJ. Condon just could have been doing his job in protecting him. Once his back is against the wall now its either Hauptmann or him. So he has no choice. It could be he knows Hauptmann is involved and that he wasn't CJ - but it doesn't even matter because he now HAS to identify him as being that man regardless. It's a "catch-22" for him but the choice is made because its the lesser of two evils at the time. He avoids arrest now waits to see what the "group" is going to do to him for stabbing them in the back.
He removed the 20K which was the higher denominations and what they were counting on to quickly track them down with because they would have been easier to trace. Condon knew that, and also that extra amount was what was raised when 'they' brought in their extra guy. The Lindbergh being poor routine was typical Condon. He uses stupid excuses for doing things and repeats them often.
I would have to check but he was accused of being in league with them by either Irey, or Wilson or both immediately upon learning what he did.
I am not applying the same standards and rightfully so. The books are different in nature and the Authors present their materials much differently. One is a theory book and is presented as such. The other tells us what to believe by blasting and belittling others. This is done by asserting others misrepresent facts then, in doing so, he does exactly that himself by presenting a lot of fiction as absolute fact.
I think the biggest problem I have is when someone says someone else is an idiot, then points to something that isn't true in order to exemplify that claim. It's all about the presentation with me. Suggesting something, or asserting something. Believing something, or telling someone they are wrong.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 2, 2012 16:37:46 GMT -5
Hey JD, I think it would be a helluva lot easier to provide what is factual - The crime occurred in 1932
- Lindbergh was married to Anne Morrow
- Anne had a brother named Dwight jr and a sisters Elisabeth & Constance
- Richard Hauptmann was convicted of the crime
I must have missed that disclaimer
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 2, 2012 18:34:58 GMT -5
Michael,
My take on this is that Condon was more concerned about his wife's mental state than his own safety. He finally squealed on Hauptmann because she was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
Hypothetically speaking, do you think he would have ratted out Hauptmann had she not gone to pieces? My gut tells me Condon would have gladly gone to jail if it meant retaining his integrity, and to maintain a principle.
Jd
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 2, 2012 18:39:34 GMT -5
Kev,
I am about halfway done with A Talent to Deceive. I just got done reading the lengthy section about Norris' visit to Amherst and his research into John Wyckoff Morrow, which apparently was a dead end. Norris admits it, basically.
There is a LOT of information in the first 120 or so pages that I haven't seen anywhere else. You don't put any credence into his searching for Edna Sharpe or Betty Gow? He does seem to have done a LOT of traveling around the globe for the sake of research.
Jd
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 2, 2012 18:45:26 GMT -5
No. In my opinion he was in league with these guys. I don't believe his Wife had anything to do with it. He told Agent Turrou HIS life was no longer worth anything after he changed his story and identified Hauptmann. That, to me, shows where his head was at.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 2, 2012 19:49:59 GMT -5
someone told ritchie sloan that condons wife was blind. i dont know if it can be verified. the guy was old at the time and knew condon
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 3, 2012 11:25:35 GMT -5
JD, I don't want to totally destroy Norris, it's just that the bar for non-fiction/ history has to be held high. I am sure Norris did research and traveled, so did Zorn. But in each case the authors made a conscience decision to re-write history. That's fine except re-writing history takes years of careful research and even then it may not yield what you expect or hope. What both Zorn and Norris did was take a shortcut. They looked for anything to support a position and then filled in the gaps. That's called creative writing and it belongs in the fiction section. I have sat down with Lloyd Gardner many times and discussed this case, I pretty much know how he views it personally, but you would not catch him putting that in print. Why? Because Dr. Gardner is a professional historian and would never write anything without firm support. That's why it takes so long to produce a great book. Now if Norris labeled his book as fiction, I would have absolutely no problem with it. Unfortunately, he choose to call it non-fiction and theory or not, I expect truth and diligence in the print. I do not expect slight of hand, supposition, and faulty logic. I find that insulting.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 3, 2012 15:59:01 GMT -5
Kevin,
I think he did. ALL of the books on this case that I've read have a bias...including Gardner's.
I have the original hardback edition. Page 413.
"Pull on these loose threads, and they come away easily. It has not proven possible to weave into a tight pattern any of the theories spun out over the years since the night Charlie was taken from his bed."
It was hard for me to deal with the paragraph that contained the above sentences.
I shouldn't quibble, though. Gardner's book is so meticulously researched and presented, it establishes the standard by which other LKC authors should aspire to. But that doesn't mean it is unbiased.
Jd
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 3, 2012 16:11:56 GMT -5
That's Lloyd stating the obvious, but that's not theory.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 3, 2012 18:41:42 GMT -5
other lindbergh authors to inspire to? i wouldnt go that far with gardners book
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 4, 2012 6:52:59 GMT -5
No other author* comes close to the amount of time in research that Dr Gardner has done. If Fisher had, there wouldn't be so many errors in his books.
* Michael can't be included yet
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 4, 2012 8:02:56 GMT -5
Thanks Kevin. I do have to say that research doesn't make an "Author" either. It's a real shame I don't have the ability that comes so natural to some. For example, I recently had lunch with Lloyd. I took advantage of the situation by bouncing off him something I've been laboring over. For weeks I've been going over a point in my head because I couldn't come up with a way how I might attempt to both properly write about, and best present it.
Lloyd heard my point then without hesitation told me how he'd do it. And it was perfect. The wording was exactly what I had been searching for all of this time. So this one point might demonstrate why it takes so much time for me to put things together. While I have all of this research under my belt, I realize much can be lost in improperly presenting it too. I have to be careful in realizing the limitations of my abilities in order to make sure I don't sell short some of the important facts I've discovered. For me that is no easy task.
However, I will readily admit what is the easy part is pointing out where someone else is wrong. Hindsight is absolutely 20/20.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 4, 2012 22:27:23 GMT -5
kevkon have you read the other books? absurd theorys and plenty of mistakes. the reason fisher is pounded, is because gardner dont like his opinion of the case thats all it comes down to. he fails to point out other mistakes in other books, plus gardner never debated his book
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 5, 2012 8:28:39 GMT -5
Yeah Steve, I've read just about all of them including some really obscure books. I don't have any problem with theories, including ones that may seem "absurd". What I do have a problem with is writers using bad sources and stating fiction as fact regardless of whether they are doing so to promote some new theory or just trying to reaffirm the trial verdict. In either case they are failing as historians and their product does not further the truth. The major difference between Lloyd Gardner and Jim Fisher is that Dr Gardner delivers a highly researched account of the case which allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusion, while Fisher sets the official account of the crime in stone. Simply put, one book keeps the case open and one seeks to close it. The real question is , if the case is closed then why are there so many people still questioning it? I don't know about you, but if I thought that I knew exactly what happened, then I wouldn't be on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 5, 2012 12:07:15 GMT -5
i disagree. fisher had to research this case without computers and already set researchers work to study from. gardner had more resources, plus jim had to debate his book where gardner never did so far. i dont buy he had new stuff on this case that makes hauptmann innocent. gardners book isnt the open minded book mikes always says
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Aug 5, 2012 13:26:31 GMT -5
Noel Behn, I believe, was the first one to mention the Rosalind Russell connection.
Provenance and original order. Provenance and original order.
See page 334 in Lindbergh: The Crime:
"The governor [Harold Hoffman] demanded that Wilentz turn over to him material in his possession concerning an alleged illegitimate son of the late Dwight W. Morrow. The attorney general did so January 22, with a stern warning for the chief executive not to follow this course of investigation."5
See Notes:
p. 442
5. Box 16, folder 604, Harold Hoffman Collection. The information focused on a story that the actress Rosalind Russell, the second woman lead in the touring play Second Man, told her producer.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 6, 2012 5:58:57 GMT -5
Here is that footnote: Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2012 16:02:40 GMT -5
The Jafsie-Morrow connection might SEEM significant but I can connect Jafsie to Two of my conspirators from my book "The Lindbergh Baby Kidnap Conspiracy". When he was a principle he worked with Mrs. Morgenthau who dedicated herself to education issues & boards. He also worked as a Tammany Hall political hack for Herbert Lehman - see his letter to Lehman & Lehman's reply & the way the Lehman papers at Columbia University try to hide that letter by re-direction - crossing out the clear reference - Lindbergh Kidnapping Case - and re-routing it to Condon, John - so you would have to know about Condon in order to locate him. This from my book. Alan
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Mar 9, 2023 9:10:32 GMT -5
The thread suggests some interesting connections regarding John Condon, but the comment on his possible relationship with the mob is intriguing. The mobs did, of course, make vast amounts of bootlegging during prohibition, but another of the rackets was gambling, especially in boxing events which were very popular in New York and New Jersey. Jersey City was famous as a boxing site, and we all know that Condon was much interested in the sport, witness his strong relationship with Al Reich who boxed in Jersey City. Sha-toe, the famous tavern in Fort Lee, was supplied by bootleggers, frequented by servants from the Morrow household (eg. Ellerson, Banks, and others) and burned down following the passing of the Eighteenth Amendment. So I have a question: Is there any evidence that John Condon was a gambler, specifically on the outcome of boxing matches? These matches were often arranged by the mobs and were said to have been rigged. This was a mob source of income that does not seem to be well advertised, but it does suggest a possibility that Condon followed boxing matches and could have bet money on the outcomes. One of the kidnappers was said to have known Condon (CJ reports this in connection to #2 of kidnapping group). This knowledge, if the statement is true, may relate to the boxing world and the mob controlling it.
|
|
|
Post by ace on Mar 14, 2023 11:34:46 GMT -5
I have the paperback edition of Behn's book, and there the citation cited above appears on page 355. The supporting footnote is on page 468.
|
|