|
Post by scathma on Jun 21, 2018 12:01:18 GMT -5
Just received my copy of TDC Vol. 2 yesterday... and now I know why the cost went up. It is substantially larger than Vol.1 and, when combined with the use of a smaller font, there clearly is a lot more information than Vol. 1! Can't wait to delve into it! Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 21, 2018 18:59:41 GMT -5
Mine just arrived too!
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Jun 21, 2018 20:41:07 GMT -5
I got mine yesterday and I finally finished it today! At least my first read - I will have to go back again to absorb everything....
Scathma, couldn't you have lined up the floorboards better? Did Koehler teach you nothing?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 22, 2018 9:08:14 GMT -5
just ordered mine, I will review it
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jun 22, 2018 19:29:27 GMT -5
I got mine yesterday and I finally finished it today! At least my first read - I will have to go back again to absorb everything....
Scathma, couldn't you have lined up the floorboards better? Did Koehler teach you nothing? Originally I thought they were... but when I left the room, Bornmann was in there for awhile and now I can't be sure whether he may have tampered with them a bit
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jun 25, 2018 12:12:21 GMT -5
I think I'm a slow reader but I think I will finish Vol 2 by tonight.
I don't want to spoil the experience for people who haven't gotten their copy yet but I can make a general observation that shouldn't diminish things while we wait.
As someone relatively new to this board, I do not have the in-depth knowledge of the case that comes from years of study or hands-on research. My understanding has come from having read many of the books available on the case. Perhaps some of you share the same frustration I felt from reading so many instances of conflicting information put forth as fact from the various authors. All too often, an earlier book would serve as a reference for a later book and if that earlier book had used a flawed or incomplete source (like the FBI Summary Report) then that compromised or unverified information would forever become part of the LKC canon. It has been a topic of much discussion on this board as to the varying levels of research (or complete lack thereof) that certain authors undertook in the course of generating their respective books.
What is great about the TDC series is that the reader can rely on the information being presented because it has been exhaustively researched and the sources footnoted. This same reliance cannot be afforded to the great many other books on the topic. It doesn't take a novice new to this case or discussion board to quickly discover how unreliable Condon's statements are; TDC Vol 2 painstakingly documents how "unreliable" is a gross understatement when describing Condon and that virtually every time he opened his mouth he was lying, embellishing or contradicting a previous statement.
Other books may be adequate to give a general (albeit potentially flawed or biased) overview of the case, but when it comes to documenting the actions and words of Condon, TDC Vol 2 must now be regarded as the definitive source.
|
|
geld
Trooper
Posts: 43
|
Post by geld on Jun 25, 2018 18:55:33 GMT -5
Got my copy two weeks ago, good read, well structured. Indicates all the effort that years of research can produce.
SCATHMA said it all!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2018 17:39:45 GMT -5
I just finished my first read of Michael's Volume II. This is an amazing book that reflects in even greater detail the exhaustive effort Michael has put into researching this case. There are NO BOOKS that compare to what Michael has done in disclosing so much of the investigation surrounding the people and evidence in this case. It is truly necessary to read this book more than once in order to absorb the amount of facts and investigative reports that make up this latest volume.
I am now going to begin my second read of this book plus make detailed notes.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 28, 2018 20:42:35 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
I agree with everyone that the amount of work and research you've put into Volume 2 is amazing!
I'm still reading it, but I wanted to help confirm something you bring up in Chapter 3 that I've never heard before. At the top of page 115, you question Condon's claim that the kidnapper(s) called him on the phone on the morning of March 14th.
That call has bothered me for a long time and this is why. Condon claimed in JTA that the call came in around 10:30AM; the kidnapper(s) claiming "There has been a delay sending the sleeping suit."
What is a known fact is that later that afternoon, from 4 to 6 PM, Condon was at the College of New Rochelle giving a lecture to a class of high school girls.
Katherine Arthur Dunning, one of the high school students there, wrote an article for Liberty Magazine dated May 16, 1936 entitled, What Jafsie Told His High School Girls.
(Keep in mind, this was 19 days before Condon paid the ransom money and very few people knew he was Jafsie).
Remarkably, Condon told the entire class that he was Jafsie (!), pulled out and read 2 ransom notes, showed the girls the 3 toys taken from the nursery and the 2 large safety pins, and updated the girls on the events of the case!
The only thing Condon didn't talk about was his phone conversation with the kidnapper(s) just a few hours earlier.
This isn't proof, but there is no way Condon would have left that detail out. No way!
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 29, 2018 9:47:12 GMT -5
amy I have some problems with volume 2 just like volume 1 but im very busy right now to pinpoint things I didn't like in the book. I try not to knock any Lindbergh book because I know how hard it is to write one on this case. sue and I will put the end of the speculation on wether condon was a child lover or not. we know where we have to go in new York city to see certain things. we might not find anything or we will find the smoking gun
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2018 14:43:24 GMT -5
amy I have some problems with volume 2 just like volume 1 but im very busy right now to pinpoint things I didn't like in the book. I try not to knock any Lindbergh book because I know how hard it is to write one on this case. sue and I will put the end of the speculation on wether condon was a child lover or not. we know where we have to go in new York city to see certain things. we might not find anything or we will find the smoking gun Steve, I have been knocking myself out trying to find The Board of Education of the City of New York journals that might be read online for the years relating to Condon's conduct. Not having much success that way. I think it is vitally important that we learn the content of the hearing surrounding the accusations made by the student and her family against Condon. I don't think too highly of Dr. Condon for several reasons but I am still interested in knowing all that is possible in order to come to as accurate conclusion as is possible about what Michael's book has revealed about this incident involving Condon. I hope that you and Sue will share what you find out with all of us on this board.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jun 29, 2018 15:47:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 29, 2018 17:37:15 GMT -5
Thanks for all of the positive comments! It gives me the motivation I need to continue onto V3. Any reviews on Amazon or where ever you happened to have purchased the book is not required but appreciated. If not that's cool so don't worry about it. I saw that the police sketch at the bottom of Lamb's memo (page 249) didn't turn out like I expected it to. I think its important so I uploaded it here: imgur.com/Bphle6B
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 30, 2018 10:17:33 GMT -5
sue finds a lot of stuff but never gets the credit. shes a top researcher in this case, I see people posting something and I know sue found it way before they did. this happens all the time. as far as condon I cant wait to dig through the minutes and really see where this condon rumors go. it might take two trips into new York city.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2018 10:23:34 GMT -5
sue finds a lot of stuff but never gets the credit. shes a top researcher in this case, I see people posting something and I know sue found it way before they did. this happens all the time. as far as condon I cant wait to dig through the minutes and really see where this condon rumors go. it might take two trips into new York city. For me personally, Sue gave me info on Rev. Burns that I never had before, and frankly I do not believe I would have found since. She also gave me information from the Mersman factory. However, saying Sue doesn't get credit seems a little far-fetched. This idea that making a post in 2017 means what? That everyone in the world read it, then ripped it off? That no one in the world knew anything about it before that post then ripped it off? So there are things to consider before making such claims. Anyway, I will give her full credit for anything she turned up first... just give me some examples, and I will be happy to do it. As anyone who has read either of my books can plainly see - I give all credit where credit is due.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 30, 2018 10:24:03 GMT -5
Steve, I miss Sue's posts on this forum, her research always found some unusual angle and gave new perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 1, 2018 5:55:41 GMT -5
I mention Leon Ho-age in both V1 and V2. He was the private investigator who assisted Gov. Hoffman during his re-investigation of the case. He took offense to being called a PI and referred to himself as a "Crime Analyst." He always believed the crime was an "inside job" and drew from his years and years of specialized experience from insurance fraud investigations. imgur.com/F45qIIx
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2018 10:15:55 GMT -5
Michael,
Sorry if you have already stated this in one of your volumes but when exactly did Leon Ho-age begin working for Gov. Hoffman? Did Ho-age ever see the "Voice of Experience" letter Hoffman received in April of 1936?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 1, 2018 10:31:56 GMT -5
Sorry if you have already stated this in one of your volumes but when exactly did Leon Ho-age begin working for Gov. Hoffman? Did Ho-age ever see the "Voice of Experience" letter Hoffman received in April of 1936? While I can't say if he saw it or not I can say I've never seen him reference it. Ho-age first wrote the Governor in mid-December 1935. He first offered his services, free of charge, to assist the Governor on January 17, 1936. Hoffman had him checked out and learned that he was "level-headed," "fussy," and that "his experience" made him the "logical man" to help coordinate things for the Governor. That lead to this letter: imgur.com/gIVYlxo
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 1, 2018 11:44:48 GMT -5
Did Ho-Age ever sum up his conclusions anywhere?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 1, 2018 16:21:10 GMT -5
Really impressive Michael, I didn't want to finish it. I can't wait till we all start discussing all this new info.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2018 18:52:02 GMT -5
Michael,
Dark Corners, Volume II, Chapter One, Page 7 - "Murray Garsson" section:
The Hoffman sighting is very interesting. This sighting puts a car on the Lindbergh estate at dusk (same time of night when Lupica said he saw the ladder car on March 1st) two times prior to the kidnapping.
This ties into what Schwarzkopf told Edmund Delong during an interview. On page 91 of that interview he says Schwarzkopf told him "many other tracks were found leading from the house down towards the entrance gates. Some of these were older -- two and three days old. The police believe that these were made during early reconnoitering expeditions -- that the kidnapping had been carefully planned and that the kidnappers had been on the premises for several previous nights getting the lay of the land."
You mention that the Hoffmans gave a NJ license plate # P-25524. What NJ county had "P" plates?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 1, 2018 19:36:42 GMT -5
Did Ho-Age ever sum up his conclusions anywhere? If you remember pages 197-9 in V1 there were certain conclusions he made that I listed there. Aside from that I know what you are looking for but I've never seen him make a clue-esque conclusion like: " Col. Mustard in the Observatory with the candlestick." But its possible there is one. There is material he wrote that is not at the NJSP Archives which I assume is at UCLA. I saw one that I do not have on that episode of Pawn Stars but that could be a copy OR the original with a copy at UCLA. But in the end he's always asserted it was an " inside job." Really impressive Michael, I didn't want to finish it. I can't wait till we all start discussing all this new info. I'm anxious to discuss too - and thank you! The Hoffman sighting is very interesting. This sighting puts a car on the Lindbergh estate at dusk (same time of night when Lupica said he saw the ladder car on March 1st) two times prior to the kidnapping. This ties into what Schwarzkopf told Edmund Delong during an interview. On page 91 of that interview he says Schwarzkopf told him "many other tracks were found leading from the house down towards the entrance gates. Some of these were older -- two and three days old. The police believe that these were made during early reconnoitering expeditions -- that the kidnapping had been carefully planned and that the kidnappers had been on the premises for several previous nights getting the lay of the land."Yes it does. And possibly the Thompson account as well which I always believed were trial runs. You mention that the Hoffmans gave a NJ license plate # P-25524. What NJ county had "P" plates? It's hard to know from the reports at times. Sometimes its there, or in a teletype so once I identified the letter for one county I never forgot it. Concerning this report is does not say, however, I found this website and I have no reason to doubt that "P" was Passaic:
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 2, 2018 9:09:48 GMT -5
Michael, Dark Corners, Volume II, Chapter One, Page 7 - "Murray Garsson" section: The Hoffman sighting is very interesting. This sighting puts a car on the Lindbergh estate at dusk (same time of night when Lupica said he saw the ladder car on March 1st) two times prior to the kidnapping. This ties into what Schwarzkopf told Edmund Delong during an interview. On page 91 of that interview he says Schwarzkopf told him "many other tracks were found leading from the house down towards the entrance gates. Some of these were older -- two and three days old. The police believe that these were made during early reconnoitering expeditions -- that the kidnapping had been carefully planned and that the kidnappers had been on the premises for several previous nights getting the lay of the land."You mention that the Hoffmans gave a NJ license plate # P-25524. What NJ county had "P" plates? Did anyone trace that NJ license plate P-25524 to an owner of that car? If not, is it possible to look that up somewhere?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 2, 2018 9:17:45 GMT -5
Just received my copy of TDC Vol. 2 yesterday... and now I know why the cost went up. It is substantially larger than Vol.1 and, when combined with the use of a smaller font, there clearly is a lot more information than Vol. 1! Can't wait to delve into it! There is also a tremendous improvement in the readability of Volume 2 when compared to Volume 1. The sentence structure and spelling are much better and there are much fewer "typos."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2018 9:19:19 GMT -5
Good question, Hurt. I don't know, myself if the NJSP made any detailed investigation on this lead. This is definitely a question for Michael.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 2, 2018 12:16:05 GMT -5
You mention that the Hoffmans gave a NJ license plate # P-25524. What NJ county had "P" plates? Did anyone trace that NJ license plate P-25524 to an owner of that car? If not, is it possible to look that up somewhere? It's not mentioned in the report I cite. If it exists, then it would be in the teletypes. I've searched myself but never located it but that doesn't mean its not there. As I've said in the past the teletypes are the hardest things to research through. They aren't easy to read and one could spend hours and find nothing of value. But as far as a plate goes that's where it would be. Next, I don't know exactly "when" the NJSP got their hands on this report. So the date on it doesn't necessarily mean the day they got it. It might not have been turned over right away meaning choosing which teletypes to look through is guesswork as to the proper starting point. Another interesting point is that when Gov. Hoffman was getting ready to make a presentation to the Court of Pardons he requested that Schwarzkopf make available all of Garsson's reports but was told he didn't have any. So it wasn't until Kimberling took over that Hoffman had access to them. There is also a tremendous improvement in the readability of Volume 2 when compared to Volume 1. The sentence structure and spelling are much better and there are much fewer "typos." We'll call it a learning experience. As I wrote V1 I knew it would be professionally edited so I didn't focus on that. Also, its hard to explain but the cops back then never spelled anything right and over time reading countless reports everyday its almost like the power of suggestion where your mind thinks one thing but you type another because you read it 10x that way earlier. I used an Editor at the publisher who charged me $1600. My first issue was that he corrected my footnotes which caused me unlimited amount of stress to undo. Now whether in doing that I undid all corrections I couldn't say. All that I know is what wound up being published was more like my uncorrected proof which explains why people think I didn't use an editor. In the end, I am still satisfied with the facts and footnotes which was the main reason I wrote it in the first place. As a result, I chose a different publisher, and was more careful with "how" I wrote what I did in the first place. I had a friend read it over and make suggestions which was a huge help. During the 2nd proofing round I must have read that manuscript 20 times. Since receiving my copy of the book I've noticed a few minor things (like for example "eye" instead of "eyes" in one place). How I missed them I'll never know but in V2 I am 100% responsible for whatever they are. And I am okay with them because, like the first, they do not invalidate the facts. Like I've always said I am not trying to win a Pulitzer, but instead simply trying to get out the facts as the Archives contain them and I think I've been able to do that.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jul 2, 2018 12:17:48 GMT -5
to many to post. I never made it a point when somebody here post something that I know sue found years ago.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jul 2, 2018 12:19:40 GMT -5
hi stella sue found enough stuff through the years to write her own book.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jul 2, 2018 12:22:16 GMT -5
I have burns autograph book he wrote on the case. I should sell it along with my Lindbergh ransom note poster
|
|