|
Post by Michael on Jun 21, 2018 6:23:12 GMT -5
This aspect about old Jafsie has ALWAYS bothered me too. Immensely. Hi Dena. I think this question finally gets answered in my new book. No other book ever seemed to address the nagging questions we've all had over the years. Those who like Condon excuse everything, and those that suspect him accept everything negative. One of the things I do is go over all of this controversy and give everything there is that is available at the Archives. I do this to show the facts and let the Reader decide for themselves. It's all there to make a decision but for me its pretty obvious. I give a little more of my own personal opinion about it too.... My first volume included some of my opinions but in this next volume its a little more than that.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 21, 2018 13:45:57 GMT -5
Well, again, it wouldn't have made any difference to the case if Condon was an axe murderer. The problem is the moive behind the crime. The only clue is Germany. Direction should be focused there.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 21, 2018 13:54:54 GMT -5
Sure, there's a nice sideshow there. You could write a book which might sell if anybody's interested in that stuff anymore - which I kinda doubt. But Condon really had nothing to do with the crime unless we've been gloriously conned all these years. And show me any evidence of that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 22, 2018 5:42:51 GMT -5
Well, again, it wouldn't have made any difference to the case if Condon was an axe murderer. The problem is the moive behind the crime. The only clue is Germany. Direction should be focused there. For me, if we can solve a bunch of "small" mysteries it can sometimes lead to the solution of bigger ones. Condon needs to be trustworthy considering his role. The other bonus, for me at least, is that its interesting to finally know the truth about things we've been "wondering" or "supposing" about for so long.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 22, 2018 9:04:02 GMT -5
its mentioned briefly in the fbi files that condon had a problem with a child, also they said he was acused of stealing money out of a womens pocketbook one time. sue also found it mentioned in the delong interviews
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 22, 2018 11:20:18 GMT -5
For me that just makes him an interesting sideshow. Where there's smoke there's fire, and he probably was a ped. and perhaps a thief, but not a problem one or there would be more smoke. So write another book about Jafsie, but it won't solve the crime an inch more.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 22, 2018 12:53:32 GMT -5
Seems somebody has to get at that Donovan material that Michael was talking about as a good starter, Find the real motive behind the crime. Maybe have to eventually go overseas. But what's money when you can solve an enigma?
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Jun 22, 2018 14:04:08 GMT -5
A while back I briefly considered whether the family of the alleged victim was behind cemetery John and using Condon was a way to get revenge on him or humiliate him. The thought was based on nothing more than the mix of Scandinavians and Italian in the family. Would make for an interesting story but I could find nothing to support it.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 22, 2018 15:07:05 GMT -5
I started out thinking this would be a simple crime to solve because of the maid pulling her own plug. But I think now that there's two levels, and one hasn't even been looked at. Why was Donovan involved? He wasn't a nobody, what's he doing at LKC? Somebody tell me and it would help.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 22, 2018 18:41:33 GMT -5
A while back I briefly considered whether the family of the alleged victim was behind cemetery John and using Condon was a way to get revenge on him or humiliate him. The thought was based on nothing more than the mix of Scandinavians and Italian in the family. Would make for an interesting story but I could find nothing to support it. You're definitely thinking outside the box with this idea. Remember what Condon claimed CJ told him? That he (Cemetery John) was brought in because they had something on him.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 22, 2018 19:08:16 GMT -5
I started out thinking this would be a simple crime to solve because of the maid pulling her own plug. But I think now that there's two levels, and one hasn't even been looked at. Why was Donovan involved? He wasn't a nobody, what's he doing at LKC? Somebody tell me and it would help. Don't think that Donovan was involved in any removal of the baby or killing of him. But CAL Sr. apparently had known Donavan prior to the purported crime. Donovan, with his Republican political connections, his past record at the high levels of the US Justice Dept., his knowledge of organized crime, and his skill at working with the media, would have made an excellent "fixer" after the fact. And any emphasis on a fixer after the purported crime would at least suggest that CAL himself, relative(s), friend(s), and/or household staff was involved; in other words, an "inside job". which was what most investigators believed right up until Hauptmann was arrested. Frankly, jack7, I don't see any connection to Germany. Hauptmann was not the kind of German-American to have unusually strong ties to the "Fatherland" and never was very much into German politics or government.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 22, 2018 23:01:11 GMT -5
Thanks for the info. Hurt. I think Germany went after him, not the other way around. But, like a lot of stuff, we'll probably never know unless there's something in the still classified information on the LC.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 23, 2018 2:22:03 GMT -5
Thanks Hurtelable, you always have very good information. I'd sure like to see what's in that Donovan stuff Michael was talking about. I suppose you would too. Could there be a way? Right now I'm worried about the cold floor on my bare feet, so your thoughts may be more productive.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 23, 2018 9:11:29 GMT -5
its mentioned briefly in the fbi files that condon had a problem with a child, also they said he was acused of stealing money out of a womens pocketbook one time. sue also found it mentioned in the delong interviews wolfman, can you possibly quote these passages from the FBI files? Did Condon have any arrests or convictions on his record?
|
|
|
Post by deedee1963 on Jun 23, 2018 15:32:23 GMT -5
I'm on my phone & Im having a difficult time posting. I'm actually trying to respond to Michael's recent post. lol. So I hope this is in the correct place. But this is why I think Condons being an "alleged" pedophile matters or should matter to the LKC. Because if anyone had this knowledge of Condons penchant for children -and it certainly sounds as if someone was aware of it as it's documented-Condon could be compelled to participate in other criminal activities as well. Because the threat of exposure as being a pedophile would be a powerful motivator to go along with the flow I would think.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph F. Condon on Jun 26, 2018 19:27:31 GMT -5
Jafsie was my great uncle, my grandfathers brother. My grandfather, Joseph, was an attorney who lived in the Bronx near Jafsie's home on Decatur Ave. It upsets me for some wanna be Dick Tracy to disparage the reputation of a good man, but the world is full of them today. I would like to get in touch with you if possible. My phone number is 949 551-5819.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Jun 27, 2018 0:31:30 GMT -5
Hello Joseph, While I appreciate you have been disturbed by some of the posts about your great uncle, I am glad that you have taken the initiative to post and offer a different perspective. I am sure that you have significant insight into Dr. Condon as a person that we on the board cannot hope to achieve on our own, and I hope that you will continue to post to share some of your stories with us. (Am I correct in believing that one of the rescues credited to Dr. Condon was actually by your grandfather? Wasn’t your grandfather also a teacher before becoming a lawyer? Did you ever hear stories about his early baseball games in the Bronx?)
Since your comments were under this particular heading, I assume that these are the comments you are most concerned with.
You may have noticed from some other recent posts that a new book has been published (the Dark Corners of the Lindbergh Kidnapping, Volume II) which addresses this topic, among many others. You may not have had an opportunity to see this book yet, but I can assure that it is not merely scurrilous gossip but has carefully researched documentation.
However most members of the board have not yet had an opportunity to read the book and the request has been made that no discussion take place about its contents until after people have had a fair chance to do so.
With that in mind, I would like to offer the information I have gathered on the topic separately.
There is one particular incident in question. Dr. Condon had been transferred from PS 32 to PS97 in 1902, I believe. The latter school was renamed in 1903 as PS12. Dr. Condon was the principal there.
The allegation is that starting in October 1903 until June 1904, Dr. Condon would call a 16 year old girl to his office several times a week and “caress” her. This continued until her parents found out and complained to the School Board. Superintendent Maxwell ordered Associate Superintendent O’Brien to investigate and O’Brien’s report was presented to the Board of Education. The Board “exonerated” Dr. Condon.
This allegation and the board proceedings are historical facts. Both Dr. Condon and his cousin Dennis Doyle acknowledge the existence of the allegation while denying the truth of it. Is the accusation true? We don’t know.
I might make the following observations:
1. There was never any criminal charge arising out of this allegation. The proceeding was purely a matter before the Board of Education.
2. I believe that all recorded rumours pertaining to sexual misconduct by Dr. Condon derive from this one event. The allegation by “Hiram” recorded elsewhere on this site, for example, does not seem to offer personal knowledge, but rather a rumour.
3. Similarly the question posed by Edward Reilly to Dr. Condon at Hauptmann’s trial, as to “conduct unbecoming” with a female teacher, I also believe to be a distortion of this allegation. In that regard, Dr. Condon had transferred from PS 32 to PS 97 at his own request because he lived closer to the latter school. There is no record of the transfer being for another purpose, and yes, the school board records would have explicitly referred to such an allegation and did in other cases. Dr. Condon in his police interview attempted to suggest that there was an allegation pertaining to his predecessor at PS 97, but that is not factually accurate either.
4. Hiram suggested that the allegation was covered up due to Dr. Condon’s political and religious connections. While it is true that in 1904, Dr. Condon had good connections to Tammany Hall through Louis Haffen, the matter was recorded in several newspapers and was even referred to again in one newspaper in 1932.
5. Not to condone anything, but relationships with teenagers, while still unusual, were regarded somewhat differently in 1904 (for example, Peaches and Daddy). It is not the age difference per se (Condon was 43), but rather the abuse of a position of trust by a principal;
6. I note that Myra was born on November 9, 1903, so the allegation is that the conduct started during the final month of Mrs. Condon's pregnancy.
As Michael indicated previously, his new book does address this topic. I won’t address his section on this subject yet, but it is very informative and provides significant evidence.
Even so, I still don’t regard the matter as fully resolved, as other research avenues could be explored. In particular, I would like to see O’Brien’s report.
These types of allegations are very difficult and, as Michael has observed on the board, were treated differently a century ago. While it is disturbing to levy such an accusation against someone, we must also keep in mind the alleged victim.
At this point, I should comment that, although I am not an expert in psychology, I have in my professional career been required to evaluate numerous allegations of childhood sexual abuse. Some were true and some were false. As a generalization, I would observe that there is a distinction between perpetrators who prey on children pre- and post-puberty. For the former, the perpetrator may not distinguish between boys and girls as targets. For the latter, a distinction is made. The point I am trying to make is that given the one allegation we know about, it is unlikely that Dr. Condon targeted young boys or kindergarten age girls, as has been previously suggested.
Another behavioural point – a true pedophile will continue in his behaviour until stopped. Without absolving such individuals of moral guilt, it is a compulsion that will not stop on its own. If Dr. Condon were such a predator, I would expect more examples than we have seen.
All of the above may not alleviate your distress or concerns, Joseph, but I do hope you won’t be dissuaded from participating further in the board and offering your unique perspective.
By the way, I am really more of a Pruneface than Dick Tracy, but I take your point.
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Jul 3, 2018 17:04:29 GMT -5
Hello Joseph, While I appreciate you have been disturbed by some of the posts about your great uncle, I am glad that you have taken the initiative to post and offer a different perspective. I am sure that you have significant insight into Dr. Condon as a person that we on the board cannot hope to achieve on our own, and I hope that you will continue to post to share some of your stories with us. (Am I correct in believing that one of the rescues credited to Dr. Condon was actually by your grandfather? Wasn’t your grandfather also a teacher before becoming a lawyer? Did you ever hear stories about his early baseball games in the Bronx?)
Since your comments were under this particular heading, I assume that these are the comments you are most concerned with.
You may have noticed from some other recent posts that a new book has been published (the Dark Corners of the Lindbergh Kidnapping, Volume II) which addresses this topic, among many others. You may not have had an opportunity to see this book yet, but I can assure that it is not merely scurrilous gossip but has carefully researched documentation.
However most members of the board have not yet had an opportunity to read the book and the request has been made that no discussion take place about its contents until after people have had a fair chance to do so.
With that in mind, I would like to offer the information I have gathered on the topic separately.
There is one particular incident in question. Dr. Condon had been transferred from PS 32 to PS97 in 1902, I believe. The latter school was renamed in 1903 as PS12. Dr. Condon was the principal there.
The allegation is that starting in October 1903 until June 1904, Dr. Condon would call a 16 year old girl to his office several times a week and “caress” her. This continued until her parents found out and complained to the School Board. Superintendent Maxwell ordered Associate Superintendent O’Brien to investigate and O’Brien’s report was presented to the Board of Education. The Board “exonerated” Dr. Condon.
This allegation and the board proceedings are historical facts. Both Dr. Condon and his cousin Dennis Doyle acknowledge the existence of the allegation while denying the truth of it. Is the accusation true? We don’t know.
I might make the following observations:
1. There was never any criminal charge arising out of this allegation. The proceeding was purely a matter before the Board of Education.
2. I believe that all recorded rumours pertaining to sexual misconduct by Dr. Condon derive from this one event. The allegation by “Hiram” recorded elsewhere on this site, for example, does not seem to offer personal knowledge, but rather a rumour.
3. Similarly the question posed by Edward Reilly to Dr. Condon at Hauptmann’s trial, as to “conduct unbecoming” with a female teacher, I also believe to be a distortion of this allegation. In that regard, Dr. Condon had transferred from PS 32 to PS 97 at his own request because he lived closer to the latter school. There is no record of the transfer being for another purpose, and yes, the school board records would have explicitly referred to such an allegation and did in other cases. Dr. Condon in his police interview attempted to suggest that there was an allegation pertaining to his predecessor at PS 97, but that is not factually accurate either.
4. Hiram suggested that the allegation was covered up due to Dr. Condon’s political and religious connections. While it is true that in 1904, Dr. Condon had good connections to Tammany Hall through Louis Haffen, the matter was recorded in several newspapers and was even referred to again in one newspaper in 1932.
5. Not to condone anything, but relationships with teenagers, while still unusual, were regarded somewhat differently in 1904 (for example, Peaches and Daddy). It is not the age difference per se (Condon was 43), but rather the abuse of a position of trust by a principal;
6. I note that Myra was born on November 9, 1903, so the allegation is that the conduct started during the final month of Mrs. Condon's pregnancy.
As Michael indicated previously, his new book does address this topic. I won’t address his section on this subject yet, but it is very informative and provides significant evidence.
Even so, I still don’t regard the matter as fully resolved, as other research avenues could be explored. In particular, I would like to see O’Brien’s report.
These types of allegations are very difficult and, as Michael has observed on the board, were treated differently a century ago. While it is disturbing to levy such an accusation against someone, we must also keep in mind the alleged victim.
At this point, I should comment that, although I am not an expert in psychology, I have in my professional career been required to evaluate numerous allegations of childhood sexual abuse. Some were true and some were false. As a generalization, I would observe that there is a distinction between perpetrators who prey on children pre- and post-puberty. For the former, the perpetrator may not distinguish between boys and girls as targets. For the latter, a distinction is made. The point I am trying to make is that given the one allegation we know about, it is unlikely that Dr. Condon targeted young boys or kindergarten age girls, as has been previously suggested.
Another behavioural point – a true pedophile will continue in his behaviour until stopped. Without absolving such individuals of moral guilt, it is a compulsion that will not stop on its own. If Dr. Condon were such a predator, I would expect more examples than we have seen.
All of the above may not alleviate your distress or concerns, Joseph, but I do hope you won’t be dissuaded from participating further in the board and offering your unique perspective.
By the way, I am really more of a Pruneface than Dick Tracy, but I take your point.
Feathers, John Condon's cousin Patty Doyle is a former member of this board and she once commented on this board stating that the allegations of John Condon being a pedophile is untrue and that John love to converse with his students.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 6, 2018 17:30:19 GMT -5
Journal of The Board of Education of the City of New York, May 10, 1910: "Your Committee now respectfully reports the charges of neglect of duty and gross misconduct were preferred by the City Superintendent against Gustave A. Carls, Principal of PS 32, Borough of the Bronx; JOHN F. CONDON, Principal of PS 12, Borough of the Bronx; and John F. Waters, Principal of PS 24, Borough of Manhattan. Copies of said charges, with the specifications thereof, were duly served on said Principals, and they were notified to answer same before your Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 1910 at 4:30 pm. Messrs. Carls, CONDON and Waters appeared at the time stated, DID NOT DENY THE CHARGES, and offered explanations in extenuation of their conduct. After careful consideration, your Committee FOUND THE CHARGES SUSTAINED AND REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT MESSRS. CARLS AND CONDON SHOULD BE SEVERELY REPRIMANDED AND ALSO FINED FIVE DAYS' PAY."ilovedfw, You deserve a promotion! How did you find this?
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Jul 6, 2018 17:45:05 GMT -5
I might be mistaken but I believe the 1910 charges were for cheating in student sporting events. Specifically Condon and two other principals certified that certain students were eligible to participate in events when they were actually ineligible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2018 17:54:12 GMT -5
Yes, feathers you are correct. That ruling is from the charges concerning Condon's misconduct regarding the falsifying of student eligibility to compete in sports. It is not about the sexual misconduct complaint that was made several years earlier.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jul 6, 2018 18:06:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jul 7, 2018 11:02:16 GMT -5
sue found it
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 7, 2018 13:17:44 GMT -5
I say congrats on finding it. The outcome is mentioned in my book and the reason why that decision was made but I don't have the actual transcripts of that school board hearing. Everything I have came from Condon and the police reports. That letter from the victim's sister is the place where everyone will have to draw their own conclusions about this. It's beyond clear to me.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 7, 2018 13:28:03 GMT -5
I also want to mention that I wouldn't be surprised if Feathers, Wayne, or any other member have it as well. But I definitely do not.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph F. Condon on Jan 24, 2021 21:49:23 GMT -5
MK Miller, If the names Sarah, Lawrence and John mean anything to you, please give me a call at 949 551-5000. After reading your post again after quite a while, I may have some information for you. Jafsie was my great uncle.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph F. Condon on Jun 24, 2021 22:29:33 GMT -5
deedee, I believe that if you did your research, you would find that Dr. John F. Condon earned his PHD in Pedagogy which is the art, science or profession of teaching especially education. Jafsie was certainly interested in children and he also taught adults at night school in the Bronx. It is therefore unfortunate that some gossip columnists or aspiring detectives attribute his interests to something un-savory. In regard to Jafsie going to the "apartment of a man with pickled heads in jars" yes, that is true. His friend who was a research scientist received a Nobel Prize for his studies of the human brain. Some people in their quest for fame would make unfounded assumptions in their aspirations to become a Walter Weasel, excuse me Walter Winchell, gossip columnist. In regard to Jafsie receiving an award for lifesaving, yes that is true. He also received an award for calming an audience in a crowded movie theater when it caught fire. Jafsie was also captain of the Bronx Suburbans baseball team and also Fordham University's first football coach.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph F. Condon on Jun 24, 2021 22:52:54 GMT -5
At the time the three principals were reprimanded for declaring a student eligible to participate in sports. The principals were elementary school principals and the rules at the time applied only to high schools. Following the reprimands, the school boards amended the rules to include elementary schools therefore the principals were falsely accused as it was their discretionary authority to determine eligibility.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jun 25, 2021 3:31:08 GMT -5
The discussion regarding Condon's background is very interesting and involves both his motives for agreeing to the role of intermediary and his tendency to offer different versions of his actions. It's quite likely that the kidnappers knew something of his past that he would not want to be made public, and he was made aware of this knowledge after he agreed to become their intermediary. This kept him in line and restrained him from revealing all he knew. What this information might have been is a matter of speculation, but it would conflict with the hero image that he wanted to present to the public. He dealt with the representatives of the kidnapping gang and may have never met with the members of the gang himself. The representatives were probably the "Italian woman" who supposedly met with Condon to discuss opening a boarding school as a cover and whose real purpose was to recruit him to work with the gang as intermediary. The second representative was the man he met in the cemetery who was assigned to collect the ransom. He did not know Hauptmann, and it's not likely that Hauptmann knew him either since they moved in entirely different situations. When the time came for Condon to identify Hauptmann, he hesitated since he could not be sure whether Hauptmann knew of his tragic flaw (whatever it was) and could expose him. He decided to visit Hauptmann in his cell and determine, not whether Hauptmann was actually the man whom he met in the cemetery, but to discover what Hauptmann knew about his past. During this interview Hauptmann gave no indication that he knew John Condon at all. If he did, he would certainly have given Condon some hint or clue that would have prevented Condon from identifying him directly in court. Since Hauptmann appears to be entirely unaware, and despite his own assurances to the prisoner at that time, Condon will feel safe in identifying Hauptmann as Cemetery John and will do so three times (trial transcript) in response to the question asked of him by the prosecutor. It is expedient for Condon to do so. What he believes is a subject for another post. It's likely that he thinks the kidnapping gang is a group of Italians who are using some Germans as their representatives, but this is another issue that should be explored at another time.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 25, 2021 12:08:50 GMT -5
The discussion regarding Condon's background is very interesting and involves both his motives for agreeing to the role of intermediary and his tendency to offer different versions of his actions. It's quite likely that the kidnappers knew something of his past that he would not want to be made public, and he was made aware of this knowledge after he agreed to become their intermediary. This kept him in line and restrained him from revealing all he knew. What this information might have been is a matter of speculation, but it would conflict with the hero image that he wanted to present to the public. He dealt with the representatives of the kidnapping gang and may have never met with the members of the gang himself. The representatives were probably the "Italian woman" who supposedly met with Condon to discuss opening a boarding school as a cover and whose real purpose was to recruit him to work with the gang as intermediary. The second representative was the man he met in the cemetery who was assigned to collect the ransom. He did not know Hauptmann, and it's not likely that Hauptmann knew him either since they moved in entirely different situations. When the time came for Condon to identify Hauptmann, he hesitated since he could not be sure whether Hauptmann knew of his tragic flaw (whatever it was) and could expose him. He decided to visit Hauptmann in his cell and determine, not whether Hauptmann was actually the man whom he met in the cemetery, but to discover what Hauptmann knew about his past. During this interview Hauptmann gave no indication that he knew John Condon at all. If he did, he would certainly have given Condon some hint or clue that would have prevented Condon from identifying him directly in court. Since Hauptmann appears to be entirely unaware, and despite his own assurances to the prisoner at that time, Condon will feel safe in identifying Hauptmann as Cemetery John and will do so three times (trial transcript) in response to the question asked of him by the prosecutor. It is expedient for Condon to do so. What he believes is a subject for another post. It's likely that he thinks the kidnapping gang is a group of Italians who are using some Germans as their representatives, but this is another issue that should be explored at another time. I'd venture that first and foremost, Richard Hauptmann probably couldn't have believed his good fortune that a much safer (for his sake) go-between avenue than gangsters Bitz and Spitale had basically fallen out of the sky for him. And virtually within his own backyard. If Hauptmann didn't already know of John Condon's relatively-high community profile and generally-positive reputation, he would have learned a lot from his letter to the Bronx Home News and offer to provide his services.
|
|