Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2018 12:29:01 GMT -5
So, Michael, I have been going over your section about St. Raymond cemetery guard, Bernard Uebel, TDC, Chapter 4, page 250.
Going over Uebel's original statements from 1932, the first sighting he talks about occurred on April 1, 1932, which puts a maroon sedan on Whittemore Ave. along with 4 persons, one of which is suggestive physically of being Al Reich. They are there for 3 or 4 hours hanging around and then leave. Uebel says he saw this same maroon car on April 11, 1932 but this time he got the license plate number. This plate traced back to Gregory Coleman of the Bronx Home News. Coleman admitted being at St. Raymond's cemetery with Condon a few times.
So I was wondering what dates Coleman gave for visiting St. Raymond's with Condon? Apparently Condon said that Coleman went to St. Raymond cemetery with him on Monday April 4th, 1932.
Was Coleman asked about the box that was taken into his car during the April 11th sighting by Uebel?
Could someone like Al Reich have used Coleman's car (without Coleman in it) to make these trips? I would think that Reich would not want his car at that cemetery under any circumstances before the night of April 2, 1932. Nor would he want his car there when the ransom box was being retrieved.
I realize from reading this segment that in 1936 Uebel made some changes which would end up excluding this maroon car altogether.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 15, 2018 13:25:53 GMT -5
So I was wondering what dates Coleman gave for visiting St. Raymond's with Condon? Apparently Condon said that Coleman went to St. Raymond cemetery with him on Monday April 4th, 1932. I know Coleman said in the morning around noon on the 4th (page 254). Uebel's eyewitness account is HUGE. Having said that, I know I really confuse the impact by presenting everything this man ever said but there can be no doubt he was telling it as he remembered it. The biggest issue was remembering the dates based upon his "payday." The other issue is that the 4 years between interviews reveals that he confused the cars. So if we use other sources which line up with what he obviously saw we can get to the real dates of the events. We know where Condon was on the 2nd so whatever he saw concerning him did not occur on that date. Although Reich drove that group up that morning, he DID return to NYC that day and in fact, when they were ready for him to come and get them they had to call down to ask him to return. Was Coleman asked about the box that was taken into his car during the April 11th sighting by Uebel? I don't know. I do know that he was brought down for interrogation but if there was a transcript made its not at the NJSP to consult. Could someone like Al Reich have used Coleman's car (without Coleman in it) to make these trips? I would think that Reich would not want his car at that cemetery under any circumstances before the night of April 2, 1932. Nor would he want his car there when the ransom box was being retrieved. I realize from reading this segment that in 1936 Uebel made some changes which would end up excluding this maroon car altogether. I don't think so. I think that if Coleman's car was used he'd be in it. His goal seemed to be to get the inside story. At the same time God only knows the "spin" that was given to him. Just look at some of the differences in Vigil for example. There's a lot to consider I know, but one thing I do not doubt is Uebel's honesty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2018 21:32:17 GMT -5
Uebel's eyewitness account is HUGE. Having said that, I know I really confuse the impact by presenting everything this man ever said but there can be no doubt he was telling it as he remembered it. The biggest issue was remembering the dates based upon his "payday." I completely agree that what Uebel saw is HUGE. Using Uebel's payday as the deciding factor for dating what he saw, that makes the first (amended) visit on either March 31st (Thursday) or April 1st (Friday). If the events that occurred on this first visit are actually the ones he described originally as a second visit, then this still puts Condon at St Raymonds cemetery the day before the ransom is paid and he is taking that very long trek to the marshes and back, with or without a white envelope. No matter how you look at this Condon is at this cemetery prior to the payment of the ransom. This is HUGE!!! If the second date (amended) is April 4th which is a Monday then this puts Condon, Coleman and Reich there also and they are retrieving the ransom box. This is truly incredible. Uebel's 1936 recollections recall only two sightings. The first one is dropped. When you say Reich returned to NYC are you talking about when Lindbergh, Breckinridge and Condon went to search for the Boad Nelly and Charlie? This would be April 3rd, a Sunday. What would be the purpose of Reich going to the cemetery?? I think I might be getting confused. Help!! I think Uebel is being honest also, just as Riehl was about the Woodlawn cemetery encounter.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 16, 2018 6:47:30 GMT -5
I completely agree that what Uebel saw is HUGE. Using Uebel's payday as the deciding factor for dating what he saw, that makes the first (amended) visit on either March 31st (Thursday) or April 1st (Friday). If the events that occurred on this first visit are actually the ones he described originally as a second visit, then this still puts Condon at St Raymonds cemetery the day before the ransom is paid and he is taking that very long trek to the marshes and back, with or without a white envelope. No matter how you look at this Condon is at this cemetery prior to the payment of the ransom. This is HUGE!!! When it comes to the dates this whole thing can be confusing obviously. Even now because I am working on something else it requires me to go back and refresh my memory so I don't make any mistakes. There is no doubt that his original dates are in question. This is due to the fact we know where Condon was on certain dates AND that Uebel was basing his accounts on whatever day he was paid. Since he doesn't seem to remember that exact day then we are left to figure it out based on other things. So what we have to do is match up all accounts that cover specific dates to see what lines up and what can not. Uebel obviously isn't aware of any of that - only what he saw and the days he believed he saw it. Since we know all about the visit on the 4th occurring from several sources, and it matches one of the events Uebel said he saw, I believe that cements his accounts as all having all occurred. Again, the only questions are the actual dates of the events. For me, the most important interview of Uebel was by Detectives Avon and Thompson. This was the earliest and most "fresh" version concerning what he saw. I believe Uebel's account that occurred on the 1st actually occurred on the 3rd. In this account there are a bunch of men looking around which led to Uebel to believe they were "looking for someone." That would put the next account over to the 4th. Again, this is what I believe because it seems obvious to me. Since there is a lot to weigh and consider its up to you to decide where you might personally stand. If the second date (amended) is April 4th which is a Monday then this puts Condon, Coleman and Reich there also and they are retrieving the ransom box. This is truly incredible. This was the "walk around" day. What's weird about it is the course Condon took. It could have been he/they intended to retrieve that box on this day but because Condon saw that Uebel was watching them they left it alone. Or it could have been simply what it was - a walk-thru to explain what supposedly occurred. Uebel said the actual date of the box retrieval occurred on the 11th. However, considering he is "off" by two days concerning the other two previous things he saw, I think it might be reasonable to consider he is off on this date at well. For me the important part is more about what he saw and less about the actual date it occurred. Whether it occurred on the 11th or not makes no difference to me. What's important is that box being hidden there and others coming back to get it AND the facts concerning what Condon was saying about the box. Considering that Uebel had no way of knowing the money and the box became separated in addition to Condon suggesting it had been, out of the blue, is very important. People who don't "like" that this happened will shrug it off, that I am certain, but I do not think any reasonable person will. Uebel's 1936 recollections recall only two sightings. The first one is dropped. When you say Reich returned to NYC are you talking about when Lindbergh, Breckinridge and Condon went to search for the Boad Nelly and Charlie? This would be April 3rd, a Sunday. What would be the purpose of Reich going to the cemetery?? I think I might be getting confused. Help!! Yes April 3rd. In Uebel's original interview he places " a dark complexioned man with three or four others" but doesn't include Condon among them. The man with the " protruding jaw" (later referred to as " Lantern Jaw") could be Reich because he returned to the City immediately after dropping them all off. It could be it wasn't Reich, but he is an imposing figure and his jaw is something that stands out to me. Why the cops didn't show Uebel a picture of Reich to try to rule him out is beyond me. It could be some think it wasn't him. Whether it was or was not - someone knew it was there and came back to retrieve it. I think Uebel is being honest also, just as Riehl was about the Woodlawn cemetery encounter. I am with you. These men are obviously telling the cops what they saw. Shift Uebel's original dates for what he saw and you're looking at April 3rd and 4th. This whole Ransom Drop was a bait and switch. That explains the Look-Out, the Strange Detour, Condon's BS about that Box from beginning to end, and his strange comments about it being possibly buried in a grave, and why that empty Ransom Box was stashed in the bush. So of course they needed to get back there and pick it up before someone else found it. This also explains why that box was never meant to be used for storage, why it wasn't among Hauptmann's things, and why it was never seen again.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 6, 2019 15:50:06 GMT -5
Reading through the latest posts on the "J. J. Faulkner" letter thread, the discussion turned to Bernard Uebel's statements in 1932 and Uebel's 1936 interviews with Gov. Hoffman's investigators. So I got out my copy of The Dark Corners V. 2 and reread the Bernard Uebel section.
Clearly, if we follow Uebel, there were at least three episodes after and possibly before the night of the ransom payment when several people close to Jafsie Condon, including at one point Jafsie himself, came to St. Raymond's Cemetery in various cars to talk with one another and stroll around the vicinity. Other than recovering what one might presume was the ransom box, it's hard to imagine the logic of these talks and walks in relation to the post-ransom payment situation (or perhaps pre-ransom payment as well). In short, what were they up to? And why were they taking the risk of exposure as possible abettors of the extortion plot? Seems to me they were taking unnecessary chances,
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 6, 2019 22:35:16 GMT -5
Reading through the latest posts on the "J. J. Faulkner" letter thread, the discussion turned to Bernard Uebel's statements in 1932 and Uebel's 1936 interviews with Gov. Hoffman's investigators. So I got out my copy of The Dark Corners V. 2 and reread the Bernard Uebel section. Clearly, if we follow Uebel, there were at least three episodes after and possibly before the night of the ransom payment when several people close to Jafsie Condon, including at one point Jafsie himself, came to St. Raymond's Cemetery in various cars to talk with one another and stroll around the vicinity. Other than recovering what one might presume was the ransom box, it's hard to imagine the logic of these talks and walks in relation to the post-ransom payment situation (or perhaps pre-ransom payment as well). In short, what were they up to? And why were they taking the risk of exposure as possible abettors of the extortion plot? Seems to me they were taking unnecessary chances, It seems like at least one of them was to retrieve the box but they didn't know where (or for what) they were looking. The next was to retrieve the box.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 7, 2019 8:46:29 GMT -5
Reading through the latest posts on the "J. J. Faulkner" letter thread, the discussion turned to Bernard Uebel's statements in 1932 and Uebel's 1936 interviews with Gov. Hoffman's investigators. So I got out my copy of The Dark Corners V. 2 and reread the Bernard Uebel section. I used each and every source I could find on this subject in the book. I did it to provide "food for thought" and also so I wouldn't be accused of omitting anything. I personally believe Uebel's earliest memories are the best to consider as we can see some details start to fade or blur slightly four years later by 1936. The only issues are the dates of the events because he was basing it on whenever his "payday" was. Again, the "control" for what he saw, and the dates of these events, can be gauged by the "walk-through" mentioned in Vigil and Breckinridge's Grand Jury Testimony. This event lines up with one of Uebel's eyewitness accounts.
It seems like at least one of them was to retrieve the box but they didn't know where (or for what) they were looking. The next was to retrieve the box. I agree. He saw that these men were looking around as if "searching for someone." This is coming from a neutral perspective and "how" it appeared to Uebel at the time. As his last account seems to suggest .... that earliest "visit" was probably a search for "something" (Ransom Box) and not "someone."
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 7, 2019 12:51:47 GMT -5
Would anyone care to offer an opinion as to what Condon might be up to when he took a long walk around the cemetery grounds as described by Uedel?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Sept 21, 2019 9:31:31 GMT -5
My main question regarding the Uebel account and what has been inferred from it in theory, here and in Dark Corners V2, is this:
If Condon had actually transferred the money out of the ransom box during the time he walked out of sight down East Tremont Avenue in order to provide a quicker and safer getaway for the extortionist, and then returned with the empty box, why would he not have just testified as such? Surely that would have been a very palatable action for investigators in light of everything else that had been orchestrated by Lindbergh to optimize the chances of his son's return and keep the kidnappers from being apprehended. Later, Condon is out in plain sight on a number of occasions at St. Raymond's with inner circle people like Henry Breckinridge, Gregory Coleman, ostensibly Al Reich, and who knows else. He also removed 20K from the ransom payment on his own initiative before his walk down East Tremont Avenue and then down Whittemore Avenue. These events are not secrets.
How does this make Condon a confederate of the kidnappers?
Does anyone have a bottom line response without muddying the waters any further here?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Sept 21, 2019 10:04:38 GMT -5
Would anyone care to offer an opinion as to what Condon might be up to when he took a long walk around the cemetery grounds as described by Uedel? I think Condon believed that CJ, after receiving the ransom payment at the hedgerow down Whittemore Ave., may have made his escape via Westchester Creek.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 21, 2019 10:26:18 GMT -5
If Condon had actually transferred the money out of the ransom box during the time he walked out of sight down East Tremont Avenue in order to provide a quicker and safer getaway for the extortionist, and then returned with the empty box, why would he not have just testified as such? Surely that would have been a very palatable action for investigators in light of everything else that had been orchestrated by Lindbergh to optimize the chances of his son's return and keep the kidnappers from being apprehended. Later, Condon is out in plain sight on a number of occasions at St. Raymond's with inner circle people like Henry Breckinridge, Gregory Coleman, ostensibly Al Reich, and who knows else. He also removed 20K from the ransom payment on his own initiative before his walk down East Tremont Avenue and then down Whittemore Avenue. These events are not secrets. How does this make Condon a confederate of the kidnappers? Does anyone have a bottom line response without muddying the waters any further here? This isn't just a "yes" or "no" answer. One has to look at the entire scenario. He supposedly left a kidnapper down on Whittemore who was still there waiting for the money. And yet instead Condon goes in a completely different direction and one that happens to follow the footsteps of the Lookout. Nothing suspicious about that - right? Next, what was his explanation for doing so? There were three different stories and one just as unbelievable as the other. Lie after lie after lie. Do you expect that he'd reverse himself, admit he lied, or just continue to lie? If he was being honest in the first place he never had to tell any lie ... ever. This was a coordinated "bait and switch."
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Sept 21, 2019 10:57:41 GMT -5
If Condon had actually transferred the money out of the ransom box during the time he walked out of sight down East Tremont Avenue in order to provide a quicker and safer getaway for the extortionist, and then returned with the empty box, why would he not have just testified as such? Surely that would have been a very palatable action for investigators in light of everything else that had been orchestrated by Lindbergh to optimize the chances of his son's return and keep the kidnappers from being apprehended. Later, Condon is out in plain sight on a number of occasions at St. Raymond's with inner circle people like Henry Breckinridge, Gregory Coleman, ostensibly Al Reich, and who knows else. He also removed 20K from the ransom payment on his own initiative before his walk down East Tremont Avenue and then down Whittemore Avenue. These events are not secrets. How does this make Condon a confederate of the kidnappers? Does anyone have a bottom line response without muddying the waters any further here? This isn't just a "yes" or "no" answer. One has to look at the entire scenario. He supposedly left a kidnapper down on Whittemore who was still there waiting for the money. And yet instead Condon goes in a completely different direction and one that happens to follow the footsteps of the Lookout. Nothing suspicious about that - right? Next, what was his explanation for doing so? There were three different stories and one just as unbelievable as the other. Lie after lie after lie. Do you expect that he'd reverse himself, admit he lied, or just continue to lie? If he was being honest in the first place he never had to tell any lie ... ever. This was a coordinated "bait and switch." You seem confident it was a bait and switch.. okay fine. Then perhaps you can explain WHY.. or at least provide your best explanation. After all, it seems the inner circle are in on this too, including a newspaper editor, right? Is Lindbergh also wise to this, or is he in the dark?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 21, 2019 11:35:15 GMT -5
You seem confident it was a bait and switch.. okay fine. Then perhaps you can explain WHY.. or at least provide your best explanation. After all, it seems the inner circle are in on this too, including a newspaper editor, right? Is Lindbergh also wise to this, or is he in the dark? Who's "in on it?" Perhaps Reich. Or perhaps he's just aware that the box was stashed. Perhaps Coleman knew the box was stashed too. We do not know because they were never identified. If so, how did Condon explain it to them? Was it the truth or a lie? We do not know do we? One only needs to read Vigil to see that Condon told Coleman some things he did not tell police. That's important in the scheme of things - isn't it? So, you see, there are various possibilities to consider. As it pertains to Reich, I personally "believe" he knew more about what was really going on. As to Lindbergh... well there was a reason he told certain people he didn't trust Condon - right? And he's the source for Condon's movements that night. So I wouldn't expect that he himself was party to being ripped off or we'd know nothing at all about it. So what I see you are doing is trying to "get around" facts by attacking conjecture. And clearly what I wrote above are my beliefs. But what Condon did in the Uebel section of V2 are the facts. It appears by your line of questioning that its those facts you are attempting to brush off. It seems impossible to me for anyone to read all of the facts in V2 about Condon and still continue to believe he was on the level. You are somebody who has done a ton of research over the years so if you can feel comfortable offering various innocent explanations to what amounts to the thousands of lies that he told then I do not believe there is anything I can say further to change your mind. And frankly if you believe this is a scenario where there's "nothing to it" then you shouldn't change it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Sept 21, 2019 12:57:18 GMT -5
You seem confident it was a bait and switch.. okay fine. Then perhaps you can explain WHY.. or at least provide your best explanation. After all, it seems the inner circle are in on this too, including a newspaper editor, right? Is Lindbergh also wise to this, or is he in the dark? Who's "in on it?" Perhaps Reich. Or perhaps he's just aware that the box was stashed. Perhaps Coleman knew the box was stashed too. We do not know because they were never identified. If so, how did Condon explain it to them? Was it the truth or a lie? We do not know do we? One only needs to read Vigil to see that Condon told Coleman some things he did not tell police. That's important in the scheme of things - isn't it? So, you see, there are various possibilities to consider. As it pertains to Reich, I personally "believe" he knew more about what was really going on. As to Lindbergh... well there was a reason he told certain people he didn't trust Condon - right? And he's the source for Condon's movements that night. So I wouldn't expect that he himself was party to being ripped off or we'd know nothing at all about it. So what I see you are doing is trying to "get around" facts by attacking conjecture. And clearly what I wrote above are my beliefs. But what Condon did in the Uebel section of V2 are the facts. It appears by your line of questioning that its those facts you are attempting to brush off. It seems impossible to me for anyone to read all of the facts in V2 about Condon and still continue to believe he was on the level. You are somebody who has done a ton of research over the years so if you can feel comfortable offering various innocent explanations to what amounts to the thousands of lies that he told then I do not believe there is anything I can say further to change your mind. And frankly if you believe this is a scenario where there's "nothing to it" then you shouldn't change it. You're saying Condon ripped off Lindbergh at St. Raymond's and the inner circle here was wise to him, but of course said nothing to Lindbergh about this? That is some kind of conclusion.. and while we're talking about who's been studying this case for twenty years, I find it almost inconceivable that you've developed this kind of spin on things. There are far less questions that need to be asked than what you're suggesting here. And I'd venture your suggestion that I'm seeing only innocent explanations for things is simply a reflection of the clarity of your own viewpoint. Keep it simple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 13:53:17 GMT -5
This isn't just a "yes" or "no" answer. One has to look at the entire scenario. He supposedly left a kidnapper down on Whittemore who was still there waiting for the money. And yet instead Condon goes in a completely different direction and one that happens to follow the footsteps of the Lookout. This was a coordinated "bait and switch." Help!! I need to understand about this lookout. He originally passed Lindbergh's car the first time before Condon ever went to supposedly talk to CJ on Whittemore Ave. Is this correct? Condon talks to CJ? then returns to Lindbergh at the car and gets the $50,000 and then walks in the same direction that the look out had walked previously, Condon passing by Whittemore Ave. completely with the box under his arm. Is this correct? Condon then reverses his steps, comes back to Whittemore Ave with the box, proceeds down Whittemore a little ways and then stashes the empty box in the hedge and returns to Lindbergh and gets in the car with the Boad Nelly Note. Is this correct? Does this mean that the lookout is the man who received the $50,000 and is actually CJ? This lookout walked past Lindbergh a second time, walking away from Whittemore Ave. and St. Raymonds cemetery, after Condon went down Wittemore Ave with the box but before Condon returned to Lindbergh who was in Reich's car. This walk by was when the lookout blew his nose loudly and discarded that handkerchief which was recovered at St. Raymonds. Am I understanding this correctly? I only understand "bait and switch" in the commercial use of it. Also, I agree that Al Reich knew more than he ever told about this whole negotiation process.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Sept 21, 2019 18:44:43 GMT -5
This isn't just a "yes" or "no" answer. One has to look at the entire scenario. He supposedly left a kidnapper down on Whittemore who was still there waiting for the money. And yet instead Condon goes in a completely different direction and one that happens to follow the footsteps of the Lookout. This was a coordinated "bait and switch." Help!! I need to understand about this lookout. He originally passed Lindbergh's car the first time before Condon ever went to supposedly talk to CJ on Whittemore Ave. Is this correct? Yes.Condon talks to CJ? then returns to Lindbergh at the car and gets the $50,000 and then walks in the same direction that the look out had walked previously, Condon passing by Whittemore Ave. completely with the box under his arm. Is this correct? Yes.Condon then reverses his steps, comes back to Whittemore Ave with the box, proceeds down Whittemore a little ways and then stashes the empty box in the hedge and returns to Lindbergh and gets in the car with the Boad Nelly Note. Is this correct? I don't buy that the box was empty as this would essentially indicate a conspiracy to rip off Lindbergh which included others in the inner circle.. unless.. Lindbergh was aware that Condon had intended to provide the extortionists with a cleaner getaway that was never reported to investigators. If this had been the case, it would have been reported that way by everyone. I believe Condon actually walked that extra mile down East Tremont because he was legitimately concerned about being mugged for what equates to almost $900,000 in today's value, and worried he would have nothing to show for his efforts in Lindbergh's eyes. Condon passed over the $50,000 at the hedgerow as history has recorded. Boring perhaps, but what actually happened.Does this mean that the lookout is the man who received the $50,000 and is actually CJ? This lookout walked past Lindbergh a second time, walking away from Whittemore Ave. and St. Raymonds cemetery, after Condon went down Wittemore Ave with the box but before Condon returned to Lindbergh who was in Reich's car. This walk by was when the lookout blew his nose loudly and discarded that handkerchief which was recovered at St. Raymonds. There's no way the lookout and CJ are the same person. He's not a newspaper reporter, investigator or homosexual. Someone else was assisting Hauptmann with the ransom payment logistics here, and his physical description does not match that of CJ.Am I understanding this correctly? I only understand "bait and switch" in the commercial use of it. Also, I agree that Al Reich knew more than he ever told about this whole negotiation process. Amy, I've added my own understanding in blue to your questions here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2019 7:06:58 GMT -5
You're saying Condon ripped off Lindbergh at St. Raymond's and the inner circle here was wise to him, but of course said nothing to Lindbergh about this? That is some kind of conclusion.. and while we're talking about who's been studying this case for twenty years, I find it almost inconceivable that you've developed this kind of spin on things. There are far less questions that need to be asked than what you're suggesting here. And I'd venture your suggestion that I'm seeing only innocent explanations for things is simply a reflection of the clarity of your own viewpoint. Keep it simple. Joe .... did you really just try to pull this after I already pointed out your strategy ahead of time? Since I didn't take the bait you just went ahead and put words in my mouth in order to satisfy that tactic. And the worst of it is that it was YOU who started off by saying you didn't want "muddy the waters" then went straight for it because you obviously cannot argue against the facts of the matter. Now as to "what" I am saying... It's in the books. It's all there. The fact are the facts so make what you will of them. If someone's body is found at the bottom of a bridge we cannot deny that body is there. And so if someone suggests they were pushed it does not mean the body isn't there. If someone suggests suicide, it does not mean that body isn't there. Condon was in league with the Extortionists. He was brought in, ex post facto, just as Inspector Walsh suggested. Add Keaten and Lamb to the laundry of LE who believed this. Consider the thousands of lies this guy told, and then the "wheres," "whens," and all the possible "whys." Take Condon's "recollections" concerning what CJ told him. They vary. I believe he was making it up, with some parts and pieces of reality mixed in. So CJ is this scared "tool" of the "Leader." It certainly could be projection. It could be a form of protection if "CJ" was ever caught. That seems to be Condon's role... to protect the extortionists while also getting them their money. But if you disagree with my theories that does NOT invalidate the facts which surround Uebel's eyewitness account. The man saw someone retrieve an identical box out of that bush. It does not invalidate what Lindbergh saw. He saw Condon make an unexpected detour following in the footsteps of the lookout. It does not invalidate Condon's LIES about that detour. Do the math. Look at what Condon said to O'Sullivan. This is an example. Or what he said to Special Agent Turrou during the time he was trying his best NOT to identify Hauptmann. There's another. Imagine if a good friend asked for your help because someone was going to KILL them. You'd have a decision to make wouldn't you? These aren't things I'm pulling out of my ass. Condon said, and did them. It's everywhere. Now my consideration of providing "innocent" explanations wasn't meant to offend you. My point being that if you truly aren't comfortable, despite all of the facts, then don't accept it until your are OR come up with something else that makes you feel that way.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2019 7:44:43 GMT -5
Help!! I need to understand about this lookout. He originally passed Lindbergh's car the first time before Condon ever went to supposedly talk to CJ on Whittemore Ave. Is this correct? Yes. According to Lindbergh, Condon had the note, was leaning in the car reading it and taking an " unusual amount of time" during this situation because Condon said he wanted to give the kidnappers " time to identify him." Lo, and behold Lindbergh then sees the lookout although Condon claimed he never did. It was after this that Condon went to speak with the man and girl/woman. Eventually, someone yells out (supposedly CJ), the man and girl/woman quickly scoot away, and Condon wanders down the very dark Whittemore to speak with the person who owns that voice. Condon talks to CJ? then returns to Lindbergh at the car and gets the $50,000 and then walks in the same direction that the look out had walked previously, Condon passing by Whittemore Ave. completely with the box under his arm. Is this correct? Condon then reverses his steps, comes back to Whittemore Ave with the box, proceeds down Whittemore a little ways and then stashes the empty box in the hedge and returns to Lindbergh and gets in the car with the Boad Nelly Note. Is this correct? Yes. Condon returns with the story that CJ will take 50K instead of the 70K. Once in possession of the box of money walks right past Whittemore then down East Tremont instead - completely " out of sight." When Lindbergh next sees him he's returning with the box clearly under his arm then makes the turn down Whittemore. Does this mean that the lookout is the man who received the $50,000 and is actually CJ? This lookout walked past Lindbergh a second time, walking away from Whittemore Ave. and St. Raymonds cemetery, after Condon went down Wittemore Ave with the box but before Condon returned to Lindbergh who was in Reich's car. This walk by was when the lookout blew his nose loudly and discarded that handkerchief which was recovered at St. Raymonds. This is a good question Amy and I considered that myself, however, the lookout came running back from East Tremont after Condon disappeared down Whittemore with that box. It seems impossible he'd be the one with the money at that point. He stops, starts looking all around, then walks with his face covered and blows his nose loudly. Lindbergh himself believed it was a signal, and sure enough, Condon immediately shows after it but supposedly never saw the man. The whole scene was a perfect spot and shows it was coordinated and well thought out. Where Lindbergh was parked he could only "see" a limited amount of the area. Furthermore, a man running down the street like that diverts all attention to him. It's a beautiful thing if you think about it. I only understand "bait and switch" in the commercial use of it. I am using it here as I've experienced it. Think "street hustler." These are the people who take money and put it in an envelope. As a result, the envelope becomes the "target" of attention because one assumes it represents the money. Unfortunately, the money isn't in there but one's focus never leaves it. In the end one winds up holding the envelope thinking its full of money and its full of paper or some other BS instead. Also, I agree that Al Reich knew more than he ever told about this whole negotiation process. Very hard to believe police didn't press him more. It all boiled down to the rivalry and the fear they'd "lose" Condon to the other Agency if he got upset. They viewed him as the "key" .... just as Hauptmann did.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Sept 22, 2019 9:28:37 GMT -5
You're saying Condon ripped off Lindbergh at St. Raymond's and the inner circle here was wise to him, but of course said nothing to Lindbergh about this? That is some kind of conclusion.. and while we're talking about who's been studying this case for twenty years, I find it almost inconceivable that you've developed this kind of spin on things. There are far less questions that need to be asked than what you're suggesting here. And I'd venture your suggestion that I'm seeing only innocent explanations for things is simply a reflection of the clarity of your own viewpoint. Keep it simple. Joe .... did you really just try to pull this after I already pointed out your strategy ahead of time? Since I didn't take the bait you just went ahead and put words in my mouth in order to satisfy that tactic. And the worst of it is that it was YOU who started off by saying you didn't want "muddy the waters" then went straight for it because you obviously cannot argue against the facts of the matter. Now as to "what" I am saying... It's in the books. It's all there. The fact are the facts so make what you will of them. If someone's body is found at the bottom of a bridge we cannot deny that body is there. And so if someone suggests they were pushed it does not mean the body isn't there. If someone suggests suicide, it does not mean that body isn't there. Condon was in league with the Extortionists. He was brought in, ex post facto, just as Inspector Walsh suggested. Add Keaten and Lamb to the laundry of LE who believed this. Consider the thousands of lies this guy told, and then the "wheres," "whens," and all the possible "whys." Take Condon's "recollections" concerning what CJ told him. They vary. I believe he was making it up, with some parts and pieces of reality mixed in. So CJ is this scared "tool" of the "Leader." It certainly could be projection. It could be a form of protection if "CJ" was ever caught. That seems to be Condon's role... to protect the extortionists while also getting them their money. But if you disagree with my theories that does NOT invalidate the facts which surround Uebel's eyewitness account. The man saw someone retrieve an identical box out of that bush. It does not invalidate what Lindbergh saw. He saw Condon make an unexpected detour following in the footsteps of the lookout. It does not invalidate Condon's LIES about that detour. Do the math. Look at what Condon said to O'Sullivan. This is an example. Or what he said to Special Agent Turrou during the time he was trying his best NOT to identify Hauptmann. There's another. Imagine if a good friend asked for your help because someone was going to KILL them. You'd have a decision to make wouldn't you? These aren't things I'm pulling out of my ass. Condon said, and did them. It's everywhere. Now my consideration of providing "innocent" explanations wasn't meant to offend you. My point being that if you truly aren't comfortable, despite all of the facts, then don't accept it until your are OR come up with something else that makes you feel that way. Michael, let's talk plainly as I would like to understand your viewpoint entirely. I believe you're speculating that Condon was brought in to assist the extortionists in getting their $50,000 ransom demand, even though prior secret arrangements and adequate compensation for a fake kidnapping had been made between them and the Lindbergh inner circle. So, despite having being already paid, they're essentially gouging Lindbergh for additional monies, and Lindbergh in charge, has felt it's best to comply or risk having his scheme exposed. In order to facilitate their plan, the extortionists act upon Dr. John Condon's open letter to the Bronx and offer to act as a go-between, even though Condon is already certain they will accept his offer, as he is already part of the scheme. Have I got this right so far?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 9:32:35 GMT -5
Thanks for all the responses to my post!
There is another aspect to this April 2, 1932 ransom payment scenario that I would like commented on. According to Colonel Lindbergh's May 20, 1932 statement to Inspector Harry Walsh about the events of this night Lindbergh says the following:
"I remained at Doctor Condon's house until evening when a taxicab delivered a message from the kidnappers. This contained instructions to Doctor Condon to proceed to a florist shop on Tremont Avenue near Whittemore. I drove Doctor Condon to this location. We drove past the florist shop, turned around and parked directly opposite its entrance."[/u](underscoring is mine)
This portion of the statement involves Lindbergh's vantage point of observing what was happening. By driving past the shop and turning around (u turn) and parking outside of Bergens florist shop, that would put the passenger side of the car curbside and Lindbergh in the driver's seat street side with his back facing Whittemore Ave. and St. Raymond's cemetery.
Is Lindbergh watching from a rearview mirror observing this lookout, the man and the girl, and Condon's activities? He (and the car) are not facing that area according to the way he is parked. Does this matter??
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Sept 22, 2019 10:46:11 GMT -5
Thanks for all the responses to my post! There is another aspect to this April 2, 1932 ransom payment scenario that I would like commented on. According to Colonel Lindbergh's May 20, 1932 statement to Inspector Harry Walsh about the events of this night Lindbergh says the following: "I remained at Doctor Condon's house until evening when a taxicab delivered a message from the kidnappers. This contained instructions to Doctor Condon to proceed to a florist shop on Tremont Avenue near Whittemore. I drove Doctor Condon to this location. We drove past the florist shop, turned around and parked directly opposite its entrance." [/u](underscoring is mine) This portion of the statement involves Lindbergh's vantage point of observing what was happening. By driving past the shop and turning around (u turn) and parking outside of Bergens florist shop, that would put the passenger side of the car curbside and Lindbergh in the driver's seat street side with his back facing Whittemore Ave. and St. Raymond's cemetery. [/i][/quote] Is Lindbergh watching from a rearview mirror observing this lookout, the man and the girl, and Condon's activities? He (and the car) are not facing that area according to the way he is parked. Does this matter??[/quote][/i][/quote] (Amy) Before Condon retrieved the instruction letter on the Bergen Greenhouses porch, I believe that he and Lindbergh would have had no idea where Condon would be meeting up with CJ, so their location in front of the building was established only by the message delivered earlier to Condon's house. Once CJ's proximity was established to the left of the St. Raymond's gates, Lindbergh could have re-positioned Reich's Ford to afford the best point of view, but perhaps he also felt starting and moving the the vehicle might put CJ on heightened alert. Based on Lindbergh's vantage point a bit northwest of the gates and facing in a westerly direction, I'd venture he would have had his torso twisted 90 degrees left in the driver's seat, watching for anything from the area originally identified by CJ, through the vehicle's open window and also the side and rear view mirrors. Naturally, if one believes Condon knew all along exactly where he would be conducting his business with CJ, (I don't) I'm sure the point will be made that the car's parked location was pre-established and guided to, to afford less of a view of the proceedings for Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2019 18:07:27 GMT -5
Michael, let's talk plainly as I would like to understand your viewpoint entirely. I believe you're speculating that Condon was brought in to assist the extortionists in getting their $50,000 ransom demand, even though prior secret arrangements and adequate compensation for a fake kidnapping had been made between them and the Lindbergh inner circle. So, despite having being already paid, they're essentially gouging Lindbergh for additional monies, and Lindbergh in charge, has felt it's best to comply or risk having his scheme exposed. In order to facilitate their plan, the extortionists act upon Dr. John Condon's open letter to the Bronx and offer to act as a go-between, even though Condon is already certain they will accept his offer, as he is already part of the scheme. Have I got this right so far? Since we're talking plainly... You seem to be hung up on whatever theories you believe I hold instead of the facts of the matter at hand. So the first course of action, it seems to me, should be to take a step back and consider what they all mean to you instead of trying to figure out what I am thinking. See my point? My entire book shows how its not just a "one and done" or a case of being accidentally wrong or mis-remembering. He's lying. There are limitless examples and evidence about how everything ties together. So any argument excusing Condon's behavior fails miserably. Of course after that speculation is required to fully explain "why" he was doing this. A motive. People are arrested all of the time for crimes but Law Enforcement aren't always certain of a motive. But does that mean there wasn't one? Of course not, and they try to find it by and through the facts they already have as well as continued investigation. Trying to insinuate its not possible based upon any flaw you see in my explanation doesn't erase the fact this guy was doing what he was doing. But to answer your question as far as Condon was concerned, I believe he was brought in first and the letter was the result of it. As we all know they were having a problem attempting to collect and didn't want the gangsters or any of these other people trying to stick their nose into it. At one point it appears they were going to use Breckinridge and apparently didn't feel comfortable so they contacted someone they trusted to get them the money without ratting them out. So Condon was brought in. How did they bring him in? Was he threatened or did he willingly get involved. Did they have something "on" him or was he in fear for his life? Did he decide 20K was worth his involvement? These are the questions that should be kicked around. I am no fan of using a slide-rule to explain his behavior with multiple and various excuses. He's making things up, protecting these people, and obstructing the police.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2019 18:22:14 GMT -5
This portion of the statement involves Lindbergh's vantage point of observing what was happening. By driving past the shop and turning around (u turn) and parking outside of Bergens florist shop, that would put the passenger side of the car curbside and Lindbergh in the driver's seat street side with his back facing Whittemore Ave. and St. Raymond's cemetery. Is Lindbergh watching from a rearview mirror observing this lookout, the man and the girl, and Condon's activities? He (and the car) are not facing that area according to the way he is parked. Does this matter?? Great observation and question. Naturally, if one believes Condon knew all along exactly where he would be conducting his business with CJ, (I don't) I'm sure the point will be made that the car's parked location was pre-established and guided to, to afford less of a view of the proceedings for Lindbergh. Bingo. This entire scenario and situation was obviously planned for. Obviously with Reich at the wheel their main concern was the police. Of course Lindbergh driving could have thrown a wrench into the works. And Condon was against that wasn't he?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Sept 23, 2019 9:01:05 GMT -5
Naturally, if one believes Condon knew all along exactly where he would be conducting his business with CJ, (I don't) I'm sure the point will be made that the car's parked location was pre-established and guided to, to afford less of a view of the proceedings for Lindbergh. Bingo. This entire scenario and situation was obviously planned for. Obviously with Reich at the wheel their main concern was the police. Of course Lindbergh driving could have thrown a wrench into the works. And Condon was against that wasn't he? The St. Raymond's scenario was planned by the kidnappers, but they would have had no guarantee where the vehicle would be parked. A pretty fair estimation though that the vehicle would end up at the Bergen front door, based on the location of the instruction letter. It appears Reich had been set to drive Condon, but Lindbergh felt there was increased danger and had genuine concern for Condon's safety given the large amount of money involved, and I also believe he felt he needed to take accountability and follow the money so to speak. After all, if something went south and the ransom payment was made and child not returned, Lindbergh would have a lot of questions to answer. Condon was more comfortable with Reich and against Lindbergh driving at first, but not for the reasons you intimate. And Michael, if Condon was looking to gain monetarily to the tune of 20K out of this as you've suggested, he really shot himself in the foot by handing it back to Lindbergh rather than stash it in some boxwood bush for himself later on, didn't he? I've noticed how you seem to avoid this very important fact and point.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Sept 23, 2019 9:34:38 GMT -5
Michael, let's talk plainly as I would like to understand your viewpoint entirely. I believe you're speculating that Condon was brought in to assist the extortionists in getting their $50,000 ransom demand, even though prior secret arrangements and adequate compensation for a fake kidnapping had been made between them and the Lindbergh inner circle. So, despite having being already paid, they're essentially gouging Lindbergh for additional monies, and Lindbergh in charge, has felt it's best to comply or risk having his scheme exposed. In order to facilitate their plan, the extortionists act upon Dr. John Condon's open letter to the Bronx and offer to act as a go-between, even though Condon is already certain they will accept his offer, as he is already part of the scheme. Have I got this right so far? Since we're talking plainly... You seem to be hung up on whatever theories you believe I hold instead of the facts of the matter at hand. So the first course of action, it seems to me, should be to take a step back and consider what they all mean to you instead of trying to figure out what I am thinking. See my point? My entire book shows how its not just a "one and done" or a case of being accidentally wrong or mis-remembering. He's lying. There are limitless examples and evidence about how everything ties together. So any argument excusing Condon's behavior fails miserably. Of course after that speculation is required to fully explain "why" he was doing this. A motive. People are arrested all of the time for crimes but Law Enforcement aren't always certain of a motive. But does that mean there wasn't one? Of course not, and they try to find it by and through the facts they already have as well as continued investigation. Trying to insinuate its not possible based upon any flaw you see in my explanation doesn't erase the fact this guy was doing what he was doing. But to answer your question as far as Condon was concerned, I believe he was brought in first and the letter was the result of it. As we all know they were having a problem attempting to collect and didn't want the gangsters or any of these other people trying to stick their nose into it. At one point it appears they were going to use Breckinridge and apparently didn't feel comfortable so they contacted someone they trusted to get them the money without ratting them out. So Condon was brought in. How did they bring him in? Was he threatened or did he willingly get involved. Did they have something "on" him or was he in fear for his life? Did he decide 20K was worth his involvement? These are the questions that should be kicked around. I am no fan of using a slide-rule to explain his behavior with multiple and various excuses. He's making things up, protecting these people, and obstructing the police. I'm not any more hung up on your theories in this case than you are at continuously choosing what events, actions and statements suit you best to explain them. If I see a veritable field of waving red flags within your conclusions, I'll certainly try to make you aware of that fact. Essentially you believe super-patriot Condon, for whatever reason is now shafting Lindbergh, the all-American hero he's previously positioned on a gilded pedestal? In other words, on his own volition Condon is now he's in league with the same guys who have already killed his hero's child? That's just crazy, Michael. I believe you've been misreading Condon's true motives and intentions within his actions for many years and your basic default position regarding him, has not allowed you now to consider much else.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 23, 2019 11:43:01 GMT -5
I'm not any more hung up on your theories in this case than you are at continuously choosing what events, actions and statements suit you best to explain them. If I see a veritable field of waving red flags within your conclusions, I'll certainly try to make you aware of that fact. Essentially you believe super-patriot Condon, for whatever reason is now shafting Lindbergh, the all-American hero he's previously positioned on a gilded pedestal? In other words, on his own volition Condon is now he's in league with the same guys who have already killed his hero's child? That's just crazy, Michael. I believe you've been misreading Condon's true motives and intentions within his actions for many years and your basic default position regarding him, has not allowed you now to consider much else. "Super-Patriot." That says it all Joe. That's how you explain ALL the lies, and obstruction? Anyway, to me, ignoring everything about Condon's actions in both of my volumes all the while claiming to want to point out "red-flags" is a monumental contradiction. I never had a "default" position on Condon. I've always been suspicious, just as Walsh, Ketean, Lamb, etc. etc. all were. And the documentation later confirmed them. The emotional position about "Heroes" and "Patriots" isn't part of my DNA. I could care less about that stuff. I've met a lot of famous people in my lifetime and believe me they are just like the rest of us. No one is exempt.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 23, 2019 14:11:08 GMT -5
ALLEGED super-patriot child molester, please...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 23, 2019 18:14:52 GMT -5
It appears Reich had been set to drive Condon, but Lindbergh felt there was increased danger and had genuine concern for Condon's safety given the large amount of money involved, and I also believe he felt he needed to take accountability and follow the money so to speak. After all, if something went south and the ransom payment was made and child not returned, Lindbergh would have a lot of questions to answer. Condon was more comfortable with Reich and against Lindbergh driving at first, but not for the reasons you intimate. From V2 page 200: He was “somewhat suspicious” that both he and Breckenridge were to be left behind while they took the ransom money, so he told them he would drive instead of Reich, then said Reich would remain at the Condon residence with Breckinridge. According to Lindbergh:
“Condon stalled a bit and remarked to Colonel Breckenridge [sic] that he, Condon, feared that Colonel Lindbergh might use firearms were he, Lindbergh, present.” ***So no, "I" am not "intimating" anything ... as you can see that's coming from your "hero." And Michael, if Condon was looking to gain monetarily to the tune of 20K out of this as you've suggested, he really shot himself in the foot by handing it back to Lindbergh rather than stash it in some boxwood bush for himself later on, didn't he? I've noticed how you seem to avoid this very important fact and point. Joe - I listed it among the options to consider. It was Inspector Walsh who made that accusation - and for good reason. So to blow it off without due consideration because one believes Condon's a "super-patriot" or some other kind of similar reason is a huge mistake. This next portion about the 20k .... I wrote about this in the book too. So this idea that I've "avoided" anything is somewhat absurd. I post with the idea in mind that you've read this stuff, so I don't know what else to do because I cannot re-write the entire volume here merely for the benefit of defending myself against that kind of accusation.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Sept 24, 2019 13:38:49 GMT -5
I'm not any more hung up on your theories in this case than you are at continuously choosing what events, actions and statements suit you best to explain them. If I see a veritable field of waving red flags within your conclusions, I'll certainly try to make you aware of that fact. Essentially you believe super-patriot Condon, for whatever reason is now shafting Lindbergh, the all-American hero he's previously positioned on a gilded pedestal? In other words, on his own volition Condon is now he's in league with the same guys who have already killed his hero's child? That's just crazy, Michael. I believe you've been misreading Condon's true motives and intentions within his actions for many years and your basic default position regarding him, has not allowed you now to consider much else. "Super-Patriot." That says it all Joe. That's how you explain ALL the lies, and obstruction? Anyway, to me, ignoring everything about Condon's actions in both of my volumes all the while claiming to want to point out "red-flags" is a monumental contradiction. I never had a "default" position on Condon. I've always been suspicious, just as Walsh, Ketean, Lamb, etc. etc. all were. And the documentation later confirmed them. The emotional position about "Heroes" and "Patriots" isn't part of my DNA. I could care less about that stuff. I've met a lot of famous people in my lifetime and believe me they are just like the rest of us. No one is exempt. Condon ended up misleading police before the baby's body was found, in large part because he was essentially working for Lindbergh and the latter wanted to avoid police intervention in the ransom negotations. Walsh, Keaten and Lamb all worked for Schwarzkopf who was essentially subservient to Lindbergh and his direction. They knew they couldn't buttonhole Lindbergh so they picked on anyone else they could including his emissary Condon, who was a much easier target. I know you may think differently, but I don't believe any of your aforementioned NJSP investigative trio were particularly competent detectives, (especially Walsh) whose ego-driven methods would have partnered well with crackpot Murray Garsson of the Labor Department. I also know you believe Condon was some kind of shrewd, calculating criminal mastermind. Shrewd and calculating yes Michael, but can you offer one shred of unassailable proof that he ever knowingly tried to deceive the man he idolized, Charles Lindbergh, other than through the type of thin speculation you offer in your books? I do believe the 72-year-old Condon was suffering from some form of degenerative dementia, (would his children not agree?) and that given his always eccentric, garrulous and histrionic nature, any statements on his part would have become more exaggerated, fragmented or misaligned over time. And his inability to remember whatever deceptions he initiated within the ransom negotiation period would only have been exacerbated by his mental condition when the time came for his to submit to a full police investigation after May 12, 1932.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 24, 2019 14:03:49 GMT -5
I also know you believe Condon was some kind of shrewd, calculating criminal mastermind. Shrewd and calculating yes Michael, but can you offer one shred of unassailable proof that he ever knowingly tried to deceive the man he idolized, Charles Lindbergh, other than through the type of thin speculation you offer in your books? I do believe the 72-year-old Condon was suffering from some form of degenerative dementia, (would his children not agree?) and that given his always eccentric, garrulous and histrionic nature, any statements on his part would have become more exaggerated, fragmented or misaligned over time. And his inability to remember whatever deceptions he initiated within the ransom negotiation period would only have been exacerbated by his mental condition when the time came for his to submit to a full police investigation after May 12, 1932. Wrong again. This is merely a straw-man you've created. I've never believed Condon to be "shrewd," "calculating," or a "mastermind." He was a tool - and what he did as such made him a criminal. Condon is exactly as the facts reveal. And they are outlined in a couple hundred pages in my volumes backed by footnotes and citations coming from the Archives. Supposedly the Archives were "cool" back when some looked at about 4% or 5% of what's there. But for me? Not so much. Why? Because I've seen 100% ... so nothing I cite is "speculative." Once again, calling hundreds of facts "thin speculation" doesn't make it so. The man was lying. Was he lying NOT to deceive? Well, that seems to be YOUR position. If that's something you are comfortable with I certainly cannot talk you out of it, but there's so many examples it took almost an entire book for me to relay them.... and it wasn't even the tip of the iceberg because I could write a 2nd Volume just on his obstruction. All I see from you is either making excuses or using a slide-rule to judge his behavior. He says something you "like" then he's telling the truth. Doesn't matter if 3 or 4 previous version were different because that can be attributed to any number of things... Mental condition, age, eccentricities, wanting to "help" his "Hero," etc. etc. etc., just throw it at the wall and if it doesn't stick pretend that it does.
|
|