Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2019 18:07:41 GMT -5
Michael/Amy/Wayne: Have any of you seen a photo of the shutters closed that would show that they were warped taken from inside the nursery? Wouldn't one have been taken since Anne and Betty said they could not lock the shutters because they were warped? Wouldn't LE have closed the shutters and taken closeups of the locks? Speaking for myself, I am not aware of any closeup pictures of the shutter bolt on the kidnap window. The kidnap window interior picture shows one shutter in the open position and one closed. The picture also shows the flash bulb flash. There are no police reports available on the shutters for the kidnap window. If they did exist at some point, they are not at the archives now. Those two shutters went missing after they were removed from the window! We have to rely on the statements of Anne Lindbergh and Betty Gow and Mrs. Morrow who say that this pair of shutters was warped and could not be properly latched.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 27, 2019 7:19:34 GMT -5
Since the shutters were not able to be locked, and the "kidnapper(s)" had access to the nursery because of same, it seems to me closing the shutters and taking photos showing that would be of great importance. [Well, not to CAL apparently since he was going to have the front door repaired but not the shutters]. You just pointed out one of the major problems with the early "investigation." They were taking photos all over the place but nothing as it concerned the "warping" which Watson asserted did not exist once his crew left the job. We know there was attention paid to the shutters because Schwarzkopf had them removed but all evidence was probably lost once they were removed and crashed to the ground below. They do not exist at the NJSP Archives and aren't on any inventory. This is the only picture of closed shutters that I ever found: imgur.com/cxAabov
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2019 9:41:50 GMT -5
Since the shutters were not able to be locked, and the "kidnapper(s)" had access to the nursery because of same, it seems to me closing the shutters and taking photos showing that would be of great importance. [Well, not to CAL apparently since he was going to have the front door repaired but not the shutters]. I absolutely agree that such photos should have been taken. As I have said in the past, those warped kidnap window shutters were evidence in this crime. They made the kidnapping possible. Yet, this evidence goes missing, gets misplaced, however you want to look at it. Why?? If these shutters support the crime as was being reported, why would such key evidence disappear? I, personally, think they scream inside job. Fix some door weather stripping but not the shutters?!! A couple of pics of the house as it looked after the crime was reported: www.nj.gov/state/archives/images/slcsp001/SLCSP001_06.jpgwww.nj.gov/state/archives/images/slcsp001/SLCSP001_07.jpgThese two pictures show the nursery windows and how the nursery kidnap window appeared with one shutter open and one in the closed position.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Aug 28, 2019 10:24:52 GMT -5
Attachment DeletedNot to mention the stein, luggage and toy ark in the way as well... note the fingerprint powder on the glass panes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 10:41:18 GMT -5
Is that fingerprint powder all over the window sill area? LE certainly did a thorough job - too bad all prints had all been wiped off. They did do a thorough job dusting for fingerprints but did not recover any. Yet, 8 days later when Condon is in that nursery room looking at this very window, he claims he saw a print! This is how he "discovered" that the kidnapper had the fleshy lump at the base of his thumb. Why would anyone ever believe what this man says?!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 10:51:41 GMT -5
Not to mention the stein, luggage and toy ark in the way as well... note the fingerprint powder on the glass panes Right! How can anyone take seriously that there was a window entry into this nursery? Some mud smudges are not proof that anyone entered that nursery through that window or any other. The lack of evidence to be found in this crime scene is saying inside job. If this hadn't involved the Lindberghs/Morrows, the police would have gone by what their instincts were telling them about this basically undisturbed crime scene.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 28, 2019 22:53:21 GMT -5
Not to mention the stein, luggage and toy ark in the way as well... note the fingerprint powder on the glass panes Right! How can anyone take seriously that there was a window entry into this nursery? Some mud smudges are not proof that anyone entered that nursery through that window or any other. The lack of evidence to be found in this crime scene is saying inside job. If this hadn't involved the Lindberghs/Morrows, the police would have gone by what their instincts were telling them about this basically undisturbed crime scene. First of all anyone entering that window would have to essentially launch themselves three feet over that chest and yet it is pretty much in tact, which is unlikely. Then, any kidnapper leaving in a haste would have quickly moved that chest out of the way for faster/easier exit, especially while carrying a giant sack with a child in it. Alas, it was left where it was - which seems to indicate nobody actually left that way. Garder wrote about this and it always stands out when I think about the crime scene: “In the nursery that night, though, Officer Wolfe studied the window and chest. If the kidnapper got in without disturbing anything, thought Wolfe, he could hardly have exited without moving that chest. He had to get closer to the window in order to get out with the child. “The culprit would have pushed it around [aside] in order to gain a secure foothold [on the ladder],” and “he certainly would not have taken time to push the chest back in place, especially as he had the baby in his arms and was in the act of a desperate crime. But bear in mind—the chest had not been moved.” Wolfe’s thoughtful examination of the undisturbed chest, perhaps the best clue inside the house, was not paid much attention.”Excerpt From: Lloyd C. Gardner. “The Crime of the Century.”
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 29, 2019 8:54:06 GMT -5
I take it seriously, theres no proof he went out the front door. are you people crazy?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 29, 2019 9:33:15 GMT -5
I take it seriously, theres no proof he went out the front door. are you people crazy? There were two things supposedly in need of repair at that house. 1. Front Door.
1A. The day before the crime, Lindbergh called to have the front door fixed. The door was "sticking" due to the weather stripping.
2. Shutters.
2A. Lindbergh did not call to have the shutters fixed. Once asked "why" he claimed it was because the house was "too new." Watson said the shutters were not warped when his crew left the job. What caused the shutters to become "warped" and when? Why was the house "too new" to repair the shutters but not "too new" to repair the door? Why not have both repaired?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Aug 29, 2019 12:06:32 GMT -5
I take it seriously, theres no proof he went out the front door. are you people crazy? There were two things supposedly in need of repair at that house. 1. Front Door.
1A. The day before the crime, Lindbergh called to have the front door fixed. The door was "sticking" due to the weather stripping. 2. Shutters.
2A. Lindbergh did not call to have the shutters fixed. Once asked "why" he claimed it was because the house was "too new." Watson said the shutters were not warped when his crew left the job. What caused the shutters to become "warped" and when? Why was the house "too new" to repair the shutters but not "too new" to repair the door? Why not have both repaired?
And through this kind of rigid cause and effect logic relative to the shutters that wouldn't lock, the sticking door repair request and your long-held notion that Lindbergh orchestrated all of this to dispose of his child, you believe he was setting in motion a plan for fake kidnappers to gain an easier entrance into the nursery and an easier retreat through the front door? I'd venture the reality here is that Lindbergh had less concern over the shutters that wouldn't lock given that it was not customary in the household to lock the upstairs windows, than the nuisance created by a sticking front door that was used regularly by the household and through which they welcomed guests. And it seems pretty apparent the south-east corner nursery window shutters were not the problem you've previously indicated by way of Betty Gow's claim they were prone to "flapping and banging" in the wind. If they truly did flap and bang in the wind, is it not logical that they would have kept CALjr awake on such nights, been a general headache for everyone in the house due to the noise, and would have necessitated a much earlier action to have that situation remedied? The same general idea can apply to your conclusion about the windows which you insist would have had to have been locked to prevent rattling in the wind, a statement that is not necessarily accurate. How much patience do you believe members of the household would have had with twenty or so unlocked upstairs windows rattling every night the wind set them off? Is it not more reasonable to suspect the windows in the Lindbergh house might well have been a notch or two above run-of-the-mill types and were not prone to rattling will-nilly? And about that front door that never did get "unstuck".. how would you say that affected the "plan" based on the fact that the fake kidnapping went ahead anyway? All in all, I believe you're managing to create a mountain, in part out of a couple of new home maintenance issues. If your claim that you've searched the archives three times from top to bottom is true, surely there would have to be something in there that circumstantially connects Lindbergh to one of these fake kidnappers through the detail of planning which would have had to have taken place through just the two examples you've identified. Clearly nothing has yet come to light in eighty-seven plus years.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 29, 2019 12:37:02 GMT -5
And through this kind of rigid cause and effect logic relative to the shutters that wouldn't lock, the sticking door repair request and your long-held notion that Lindbergh orchestrated all of this to dispose of his child, you believe he was setting in motion a plan for fake kidnappers to gain an easier entrance into the nursery and an easier retreat through the front door? I'd venture the reality here is that Lindbergh had less concern over the shutters that wouldn't lock given that it was not customary in the household to lock the upstairs windows, than the nuisance created by a sticking front door that was used regularly by the household and through which they welcomed guests. And it seems pretty apparent the south-east corner nursery window shutters were not the problem you've previously indicated by way of Betty Gow's claim they were prone to "flapping and banging" in the wind. If they truly did flap and bang in the wind, is it not logical that they would have kept CALjr awake on such nights, been a general headache for everyone in the house due to the noise, and would have necessitated a much earlier action to have that situation remedied? The same general idea can apply to your conclusion about the windows which you insist would have had to have been locked to prevent rattling in the wind, a statement that is not necessarily accurate. How much patience do you believe members of the household would have had with twenty or so unlocked upstairs windows rattling every night the wind set them off? Is it not more reasonable to suspect the windows in the Lindbergh house might well have been a notch or two above run-of-the-mill types and were not prone to rattling will-nilly? And about that front door that never did get "unstuck".. how would you say that affected the "plan" based on the fact that the fake kidnapping went ahead anyway? All in all, I believe you're managing to create a mountain, in part out of a couple of new home maintenance issues. If your claim that you've searched the archives three times from top to bottom is true, surely there would have to be something in there that circumstantially connects Lindbergh to one of these fake kidnappers through the detail of planning which would have had to have taken place through just the two examples you've identified. Clearly nothing has yet come to light in eighty-seven plus years.
I guess my first criticism is to say that you are attacking the messenger. So instead of reviewing the simplicity of the situation you call it "rigid" then go after what you believe my theories are. Why not evaluate the situation on its merits? Gow made the claim as to "why" those shutters would be closed. Right? So why take issue with me for bringing it to light? Next, if those windows were unlocked, there would be no seal and noise would be made by the blowing wind. So instead of asking me these questions as a way to neutralize any theory you may believe I hold - why not ask yourself these questions instead then work from there? Fact is, you are making my point for me. These shutters should have been addressed for many reasons. You are using the fact they were not as a reason to counter what Gow told police? What a Master Carpenter says about those windows? You are also pretending it made "sense" for someone who had a new home built to ignore one issue but not another? And we're talking about Lindbergh here. With all of the years you've researched him how does it square that he'd allow something to "go" undone that shouldn't be that way in the first place? His excuse is absurd, and it is magnified times ten by his request to fix something that had a similar issue. Then consider the timing of it.
Now what is absolutely necessary for anyone, Hauptmann if you like, to pull off this kidnapping? No Security Guard. That window to be unlocked. Those shutters to be unlocked. That dog to be left back in Englewood and not sleeping by the crib. Just to name a few. And who was responsible for all FOUR situations that I just rattled off?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 29, 2019 13:32:27 GMT -5
And who didn’t read the ransom note right away, seeming to know it didn’t contain time-sensitive information, and what actual kidnapper is going to waste time by walking off through a muddy field when they obviously had a car?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Aug 29, 2019 15:33:52 GMT -5
Now what is absolutely necessary for anyone, Hauptmann if you like, to pull off this kidnapping? No Security Guard. That window to be unlocked. Those shutters to be unlocked. That dog to be left back in Englewood and not sleeping by the crib. Just to name a few. And who was responsible for all FOUR situations that I just rattled off? FIVE - CAL's mandate that NO ONE is to enter the nursery between 8:00 pm-10:00 pm
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 30, 2019 7:33:21 GMT -5
Michael - what happened to the LKC records from the New York police? There's never any "one" place to search for material like this. Most of everything is located at the NJSP Archives. There's even a section of the NYSP files there. I have a list of all DD5s made by the NYPD, as well as the correspondence they received on the case from the public and used it to find the referenced material at the NJSP Archives. A lot was there - but other items weren't. Off the top of my head they conducted several investigations which concerned Cummings. I located some but not others in NJ. A few sources outside of the NJSP Archives might be the NY Municipal Archives that has some of the Bronx DA files. There are a few exceptions, but most of that material is already at the NJSP Archives. An example would be that Richard Cahill found the original license plate notation concerning the panel purchase there - while only a copy of it resides at the NJSP Archives. Years ago I was in contact with someone at the New York City Police Museum who stated some material was there, and the Lt. Finn collection is definitely at St. John's University, however, as it concerns this case I think there's only correspondence. If you had asked me this about 12 years ago I would have had a complete list for you for just about everything. I even tracked down Gaston Mean's diaries which are in New York too. As I sit here I cannot remember where, but I seemed to think they're in the NYC Public Library.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 31, 2019 8:21:52 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Aug 31, 2019 11:11:52 GMT -5
And through this kind of rigid cause and effect logic relative to the shutters that wouldn't lock, the sticking door repair request and your long-held notion that Lindbergh orchestrated all of this to dispose of his child, you believe he was setting in motion a plan for fake kidnappers to gain an easier entrance into the nursery and an easier retreat through the front door? I'd venture the reality here is that Lindbergh had less concern over the shutters that wouldn't lock given that it was not customary in the household to lock the upstairs windows, than the nuisance created by a sticking front door that was used regularly by the household and through which they welcomed guests. And it seems pretty apparent the south-east corner nursery window shutters were not the problem you've previously indicated by way of Betty Gow's claim they were prone to "flapping and banging" in the wind. If they truly did flap and bang in the wind, is it not logical that they would have kept CALjr awake on such nights, been a general headache for everyone in the house due to the noise, and would have necessitated a much earlier action to have that situation remedied? The same general idea can apply to your conclusion about the windows which you insist would have had to have been locked to prevent rattling in the wind, a statement that is not necessarily accurate. How much patience do you believe members of the household would have had with twenty or so unlocked upstairs windows rattling every night the wind set them off? Is it not more reasonable to suspect the windows in the Lindbergh house might well have been a notch or two above run-of-the-mill types and were not prone to rattling will-nilly? And about that front door that never did get "unstuck".. how would you say that affected the "plan" based on the fact that the fake kidnapping went ahead anyway? All in all, I believe you're managing to create a mountain, in part out of a couple of new home maintenance issues. If your claim that you've searched the archives three times from top to bottom is true, surely there would have to be something in there that circumstantially connects Lindbergh to one of these fake kidnappers through the detail of planning which would have had to have taken place through just the two examples you've identified. Clearly nothing has yet come to light in eighty-seven plus years. I guess my first criticism is to say that you are attacking the messenger. So instead of reviewing the simplicity of the situation you call it "rigid" then go after what you believe my theories are. Why not evaluate the situation on its merits? Gow made the claim as to "why" those shutters would be closed. Right? So why take issue with me for bringing it to light? Next, if those windows were unlocked, there would be no seal and noise would be made by the blowing wind. So instead of asking me these questions as a way to neutralize any theory you may believe I hold - why not ask yourself these questions instead then work from there? Fact is, you are making my point for me. These shutters should have been addressed for many reasons. You are using the fact they were not as a reason to counter what Gow told police? What a Master Carpenter says about those windows? You are also pretending it made "sense" for someone who had a new home built to ignore one issue but not another? And we're talking about Lindbergh here. With all of the years you've researched him how does it square that he'd allow something to "go" undone that shouldn't be that way in the first place? His excuse is absurd, and it is magnified times ten by his request to fix something that had a similar issue. Then consider the timing of it.
Now what is absolutely necessary for anyone, Hauptmann if you like, to pull off this kidnapping? No Security Guard. That window to be unlocked. Those shutters to be unlocked. That dog to be left back in Englewood and not sleeping by the crib. Just to name a few. And who was responsible for all FOUR situations that I just rattled off? Attacking the messenger? I'm not attacking you Michael, I've simply presented alternate scenarios for the items you've mentioned, but your first reaction seems to be one of self-defense and engaging in standard and adversary-inspired debate tactics. I am calling your cause and effect logic rigid however for the simple fact it continues to dutifully align with your agenda, in the absence of more detailed and due consideration to other answers. I would have thought you would welcome each and every logical alternate scenario for it's full potential import and not simply "shrug them off" in the same way you are quick to admonish others. I understand Michael. I (We all) appreciate that you've done an immense amount of research and without question, you've helped to advance everyone's general knowledge within this case. Personally, I read your books for the better part of an hour every working day because more often than not, they present the kind of counterpoint I need in my own mind to weigh and evaluate long held beliefs and dogma within this case. I also do this objectively, in a way that allows me to gain a better understanding of any given situation, without being influenced by what I would call a conspiratorial undercurrent within each of your two books, which makes it pretty clear who the mastermind was in this case. I believe you have a concern that I'm simply trying to knock down everything you've built up here, which couldn't be farther from the truth. I want answers, but I've never been willing to accept conclusions based on what I see as preferentially-inspired viewpoint. Again Michael, I'm not trying to disable your claims here, simply trying to explore them to their full and required endpoint before conclusions are made. I believe it's also important to keep in mind that any of the points made with respect to inferring they were engineered by Charles Lindbergh to his advantage towards the planned abduction of his child, mean absolutely nothing without actual proof of intent established. Irrespective of that last statement, can we objectively address a couple of points here, as I'm very interested to explore the following some more and hear your thoughts: The ShuttersIf they truly did "flap and bang" in the wind, would this not have been a major issue for a sleeping child in his nursery long before the night of March 1, 1932? As far as I know, Betty Gow's statement is the only one which addresses this concern. Do we know for sure if this is truly an accurate statement? Was there possibly a bit of hyperbole going on here? We know that both Betty and Anne pulled the shutters together against the window frame before leaving the nursery, leaving them in an unlocked position. During the wild and windy night of March 1, 1932 when conditions for this would be ripe, did anyone in the household comment that the shutters were "flapping and banging" in the wind, something that would have been noticeable? I don't recall that. What does this tell us? Could it be perhaps that the hinge arrangement was still new and stiff enough, so that they were able to move open and closed slightly, but not in the exaggerated way described in Gow's statement? Betty's words don't really seem to apply at all to conditions of the night of March 1, 1932, do they? The Sash Lock WindowsYour premise here is that the type of window installed in the Lindbergh home and particularly the nursery, would move around and rattle if the sash lock arrangement was not engaged and you cite Kevin Klein, Master Carpenter to bolster your claim. Absolutely no disrespect to Kevin with whom I've had many great discussions on the sometimes elusive detail within this case, but how is this known for certain? I've asked this question of a number of individuals who have restored older Victorian and Edwardian homes in Canada and from my own experience as well, while this very often is a condition experienced in these homes, it is not always the case. Considering whoever designed the sash lock window, the idea that they would always require their sash lock to be engaged to prevent the window from moving around and rattling, would seem to be a bit short-sighted. For example, what if one wanted to open the window half way on a warm and breezy day? Would it necessarily follow that moving and rattling windows would result? What about a little weather stripping for those windows, just like the front door? Or flexible brass stripping as a spacer down the inside of the window frame track, which presses outwards against the window sliding up and down, a common feature of these older style windows. The above would do the job quite nicely, particularly in a home as upscale home as Highfields and I have a strong feeling Watson the contractor with his displayed concern over the issue of the shutters, would not have settled for rattling windows in the Lindbergh home.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Aug 31, 2019 11:20:22 GMT -5
Now what is absolutely necessary for anyone, Hauptmann if you like, to pull off this kidnapping? No Security Guard. That window to be unlocked. Those shutters to be unlocked. That dog to be left back in Englewood and not sleeping by the crib. Just to name a few. And who was responsible for all FOUR situations that I just rattled off? FIVE - CAL's mandate that NO ONE is to enter the nursery between 8:00 pm-10:00 pm There are lots of convenient things that tie the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy together, but how seriously do you seriously accept them for their conspiratorial application? Both presidents were elected to Congress in '46.[5] Both presidents were elected to the presidency in '60.[5] "Lincoln" and "Kennedy" each have 7 letters.[5] Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.[5] Both wives lost a child while living in the White House.[5] Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.[5] Both were shot in the head.[5] Lincoln's secretary, Kennedy, warned him not to go to the theatre. Kennedy's secretary, Lincoln, warned him not to go to Dallas.[5] Both were assassinated by Southerners.[5] Both were succeeded by Southerners.[5] Both successors were named Johnson.[5] Both successors were born in '08.[5] Both assassins, John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, were born in '39.[5] Both assassins were known by their three names.[5] Each assassin's name is composed of fifteen letters.[5] Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse; Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.[5] Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.[5] How about a little proof of intent here and not just this gleeful and continual fist bumping?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 31, 2019 12:25:15 GMT -5
There are lots of convenient things that tie the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy together, but how seriously do you seriously accept them for their conspiratorial application? Both presidents were elected to Congress in '46.[5] Both presidents were elected to the presidency in '60.[5] "Lincoln" and "Kennedy" each have 7 letters.[5] Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.[5] Both wives lost a child while living in the White House.[5] Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.[5] Both were shot in the head.[5] Lincoln's secretary, Kennedy, warned him not to go to the theatre. Kennedy's secretary, Lincoln, warned him not to go to Dallas.[5] Both were assassinated by Southerners.[5] Both were succeeded by Southerners.[5] Both successors were named Johnson.[5] Both successors were born in '08.[5] Both assassins, John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, were born in '39.[5] Both assassins were known by their three names.[5] Each assassin's name is composed of fifteen letters.[5] Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse; Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.[5] Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.[5] How about a little proof of intent here and not just this gleeful and continual fist bumping? Seriously Joe? Not even the totality of all things you've written above come close to just one of the points I've made below. And again, without re-writing my books, those points only scratch the surface.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 31, 2019 13:01:22 GMT -5
Attacking the messenger? I'm not attacking you Michael, I've simply presented alternate scenarios for the items you've mentioned, but your first reaction seems to be one of self-defense and engaging in standard and adversary-inspired debate tactics. I am calling your cause and effect logic rigid however for the simple fact it continues to dutifully align with your agenda, in the absence of more detailed and due consideration to other answers. I would have thought you would welcome each and every logical alternate scenario for it's full potential import and not simply "shrug them off" in the same way you are quick to admonish others. I didn't mean literally attacking Joe. You know, figure of speech and all that good stuff that comes with it. I understand Michael. I (We all) appreciate that you've done an immense amount of research and without question, you've helped to advance everyone's general knowledge within this case. Personally, I read your books for the better part of an hour every working day because more often than not, they present the kind of counterpoint I need in my own mind to weigh and evaluate long held beliefs and dogma within this case. I also do this objectively, in a way that allows me to gain a better understanding of any given situation, without being influenced by what I would call a conspiratorial undercurrent within each of your two books, which makes it pretty clear who the mastermind was in this case. I believe you have a concern that I'm simply trying to knock down everything you've built up here, which couldn't be farther from the truth. I want answers, but I've never been willing to accept conclusions based on what I see as preferentially-inspired viewpoint. My responses to your points are made in good faith. I'm not "worried" about any differences of opinions because, like you say above, those are good things to work through and/or attempt to address. I've noticed (and its me I'm talking about) a specific pattern in your replies. Is that wrong for me to point out? It's just me being me. If I see something I usually say something. On top of that there's nothing "wrong" with that approach either. I'm just as open to it as the next guy and there's no "rule" forbidding any strategy you or anyone else might have. Anyway, it's not meant to upset you or anything just to (perhaps) get to the bottom of it. Maybe I'm completely wrong. So your response should clear that up if I am. Right? It is what it is and like they say: we're just "conversating."
Again Michael, I'm not trying to disable your claims here, simply trying to explore them to their full and required endpoint before conclusions are made. I believe it's also important to keep in mind that any of the points made with respect to inferring they were engineered by Charles Lindbergh to his advantage towards the planned abduction of his child, mean absolutely nothing without actual proof of intent established. I don't know Joe. Maybe these are your rules but they aren't mine. One has to go where the information leads them. This idea that certain information is "off limits" doesn't work in the real world. One must examine them then pursue where ever they lead. If to no where - so what? But this idea that one isn't "allowed" to see what is so plainly in front of them is a huge mistake. Everything necessary for this crime to have occurred was assisted by Lindbergh's actions. So what I see from your other post is that you think its all a coincidence. It might be. Or it might have to do with something else. So the approach of let's "leave it alone" will never lead to the discovery concerning what that was.
Next, everyone who believes Hauptmann guilty point to Whited. Those who believe he was innocent say he was a liar. Right? But I've proven Whited did see something and let the excuses begin. It all just keeps piling up. Must everyone believe what I see? No. But ignoring it doesn't make a lick of sense. The ShuttersIf they truly did "flap and bang" in the wind, would this not have been a major issue for a sleeping child in his nursery long before the night of March 1, 1932? As far as I know, Betty Gow's statement is the only one which addresses this concern. Do we know for sure if this is truly an accurate statement? Was there possibly a bit of hyperbole going on here? We know that both Betty and Anne pulled the shutters together against the window frame before leaving the nursery, leaving them in an unlocked position. During the wild and windy night of March 1, 1932 when conditions for this would be ripe, did anyone in the household comment that the shutters were "flapping and banging" in the wind, something that would have been noticeable? I don't recall that. What does this tell us? Could it be perhaps that the hinge arrangement was still new and stiff enough, so that they were able to move open and closed slightly, but not in the exaggerated way described in Gow's statement? Betty's words don't really seem to apply at all to conditions of the night of March 1, 1932, do they? As I've always said, there was something else going on. I can't go through all of those points here because that's what my books are for. However, I agree with you. There's something rotten in Denmark once considering the shutters would blow in the wind. Most especially if the child was supposed to be sleeping in that very room. Other than to say "hey, so what, its Lindbergh so apparently they didn't flap" I have to go with what the facts indicate. Gow referred to the reason they shut the shutters was because one of them was " flapping" in the wind. Her words. Now, if one doesn't "like" this we could invent ways for those shutters not to have done what Gow said they would do, or instead we can look for answers elsewhere. I choose the latter. Why? Because shutters that "flap" in the wind will most definitely "flap" again on a windy night during a different block of time. The Sash Lock WindowsYour premise here is that the type of window installed in the Lindbergh home and particularly the nursery, would move around and rattle if the sash lock arrangement was not engaged and you cite Kevin Klein, Master Carpenter to bolster your claim. Absolutely no disrespect to Kevin with whom I've had many great discussions on the sometimes elusive detail within this case, but how is this known for certain? I've asked this question of a number of individuals who have restored older Victorian and Edwardian homes in Canada and from my own experience as well, while this very often is a condition experienced in these homes, it is not always the case. Considering whoever designed the sash lock window, the idea that they would always require their sash lock to be engaged to prevent the window from moving around and rattling, would seem to be a bit short-sighted. For example, what if one wanted to open the window half way on a warm and breezy day? Would it necessarily follow that moving and rattling windows would result? What about a little weather stripping for those windows, just like the front door? Or flexible brass stripping as a spacer down the inside of the window frame track, which presses outwards against the window sliding up and down, a common feature of these older style windows. The above would do the job quite nicely, particularly in a home as upscale home as Highfields and I have a strong feeling Watson the contractor with his displayed concern over the issue of the shutters, would not have settled for rattling windows in the Lindbergh home. The reason I even asked Kevin was because I had these types of windows in my home in Lambertville. If I didn't lock them they rattled. It's as simple as that. Kevin verified it as it relates to these types of windows. The locks seal the windows by design. Believe me, if Kevin told me "no" or gave me an explanation that it would not have happened it wouldn't have been in the book. So read what I quoted and apply accordingly. Or don't. But I'm not going to ignore it myself.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Aug 31, 2019 19:31:03 GMT -5
There are lots of convenient things that tie the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy together, but how seriously do you seriously accept them for their conspiratorial application? Both presidents were elected to Congress in '46.[5] Both presidents were elected to the presidency in '60.[5] "Lincoln" and "Kennedy" each have 7 letters.[5] Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.[5] Both wives lost a child while living in the White House.[5] Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.[5] Both were shot in the head.[5] Lincoln's secretary, Kennedy, warned him not to go to the theatre. Kennedy's secretary, Lincoln, warned him not to go to Dallas.[5] Both were assassinated by Southerners.[5] Both were succeeded by Southerners.[5] Both successors were named Johnson.[5] Both successors were born in '08.[5] Both assassins, John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, were born in '39.[5] Both assassins were known by their three names.[5] Each assassin's name is composed of fifteen letters.[5] Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse; Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.[5] Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.[5] How about a little proof of intent here and not just this gleeful and continual fist bumping? Seriously Joe? Not even the totality of all things you've written above come close to just one of the points I've made below. And again, without re-writing my books, those points only scratch the surface. You're speculating and offering opinion only again. What is your proof that the things you've mentioned have anything to do with the notion that Charles Lindbergh engineered the disappearance and murder of his son? That is, your conclusive connection between Lindbergh and just anyone within a long laundry list of potential suspects that includes Hauptmann? Or are you content within a long laundry list of "what ifs" that go no further than the pages of your books?"
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 1, 2019 0:57:28 GMT -5
FIVE - CAL's mandate that NO ONE is to enter the nursery between 8:00 pm-10:00 pm There are lots of convenient things that tie the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy together, but how seriously do you seriously accept them for their conspiratorial application? Both presidents were elected to Congress in '46.[5] Both presidents were elected to the presidency in '60.[5] "Lincoln" and "Kennedy" each have 7 letters.[5] Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.[5] Both wives lost a child while living in the White House.[5] Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.[5] Both were shot in the head.[5] Lincoln's secretary, Kennedy, warned him not to go to the theatre. Kennedy's secretary, Lincoln, warned him not to go to Dallas.[5] Both were assassinated by Southerners.[5] Both were succeeded by Southerners.[5] Both successors were named Johnson.[5] Both successors were born in '08.[5] Both assassins, John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, were born in '39.[5] Both assassins were known by their three names.[5] Each assassin's name is composed of fifteen letters.[5] Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse; Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.[5] Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.[5] How about a little proof of intent here and not just this gleeful and continual fist bumping? Honestly, if you're gonna use these as your arguments, you should really fact check to make sure they are important, relevant and most importantly true (spoiler: many of them aren't). www.snopes.com/fact-check/linkin-kennedy/
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 1, 2019 7:35:30 GMT -5
You're speculating and offering opinion only again. What is your proof that the things you've mentioned have anything to do with the notion that Charles Lindbergh engineered the disappearance and murder of his son? That is, your conclusive connection between Lindbergh and just anyone within a long laundry list of potential suspects that includes Hauptmann? Or are you content within a long laundry list of "what ifs" that go no further than the pages of your books?" Speculating about what? Nothing I've listed are "what ifs." I've listed facts and events to consider. Some may try to tackle them one at a time. But try considering all of them at once. They damn near pile to the ceiling! Aside from that, you are asking "me" to "prove" where everything leads. Demands like this come from those who believe nothing without a "smoking gun." Right? I was on a Jury once when one of my peers said " ...but no one actually saw her shoot that poor girl in the head." But you know what? She DID shoot that poor girl in the head and we brought back a "guilty" verdict. So how did we get there? Regardless, my books (so far) have been written for only one purpose - to bring out these facts that were concealed in the dark corners of the archives collecting dust - so they could be considered. Believe me I know some people wish that I hadn't. Ask yourself "why." To me it is important to correct history when the version of it we've all been taught just isn't accurate. I hold no grudge towards anyone who sees things differently, and I've always tried not to force what I see onto anyone else. There are those who wish I was more forthcoming about my beliefs, and those, like you, who wish I was not. Another thing I've always railed against is the idea of a "two choice" system. There's a ton of moving parts so condensing them into two clearly defined positions makes it "easier" to navigate. But there are MANY choices besides "black" or "white." So certain things can happen for reasons outside of "one" or the "other." There aren't really "two sides" but "all" sides to consider. No one should ever paint themselves into a corner then expect to solve this thing.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Sept 1, 2019 10:03:40 GMT -5
You're speculating and offering opinion only again. What is your proof that the things you've mentioned have anything to do with the notion that Charles Lindbergh engineered the disappearance and murder of his son? That is, your conclusive connection between Lindbergh and just anyone within a long laundry list of potential suspects that includes Hauptmann? Or are you content within a long laundry list of "what ifs" that go no further than the pages of your books?" Speculating about what? Nothing I've listed are "what ifs." I've listed facts and events to consider. Some may try to tackle them one at a time. But try considering all of them at once. They damn near pile to the ceiling! Aside from that, you are asking "me" to "prove" where everything leads. Demands like this come from those who believe nothing without a "smoking gun." Right? I was on a Jury once when one of my peers said " ...but no one actually saw her shoot that poor girl in the head." But you know what? She DID shoot that poor girl in the head and we brought back a "guilty" verdict. So how did we get there? Regardless, my books (so far) have been written for only one purpose - to bring out these facts that were concealed in the dark corners of the archives collecting dust - so they could be considered. Believe me I know some people wish that I hadn't. Ask yourself "why." To me it is important to correct history when the version of it we've all been taught just isn't accurate. I hold no grudge towards anyone who sees things differently, and I've always tried not to force what I see onto anyone else. There are those who wish I was more forthcoming about my beliefs, and those, like you, who wish I was not. Another thing I've always railed against is the idea of a "two choice" system. There's a ton of moving parts so condensing them into two clearly defined positions makes it "easier" to navigate. But there are MANY choices besides "black" or "white." So certain things can happen for reasons outside of "one" or the "other." There aren't really "two sides" but "all" sides to consider. No one should ever paint themselves into a corner then expect to solve this thing. spec·u·la·tion /ˌspekyəˈlāSH(ə)n/ noun 1. the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. Speculation as it pertains to your claim that these facts and events you list are actual evidence towards a major crime. Michael, I'm not sitting here wishing you wouldn't express your opinion, but I would have thought by now you would have something a bit more conclusive to show to match this level of continuous innuendo. As I've previously stated, I try to view the information you've presented without really considering your personal opinion. Why do I do this? Because it's great information period, but I like to consider it for it's factual merit without any added and written-in bias. I've tried reading your books in the manner you insist how to get the best bang for the buck, (Stop, do not pass Go until instructed) and while I can understand your desire for more people to be "led to water," words you used in a previous discussion, that really doesn't interest me. So my apologies here, but after a couple of go-throughs, I do jump around all over the place in your book looking for information, (no Index) which to your credit you have meticulously footnoted. At the same time I almost systematically ignore any references you might make akin to implying a person, for example "would have to be crazy" not to believe CJ would have gladly accepted Condon's $1,000 offer.. or that CJ for some strange reason would have implicated Betty Gow and Red Johnson to draw suspicion away from himself. I could add more examples, but I think you get my point. By the way, I can venture quite safely, at least I truly hope, you had much more to go on within your deliberations on that jury than the calibre and rationality behind some of those things you've listed, which you claim pile damn near to the ceiling in the LKC.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Sept 1, 2019 10:21:33 GMT -5
There are lots of convenient things that tie the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy together, but how seriously do you seriously accept them for their conspiratorial application? Both presidents were elected to Congress in '46.[5] Both presidents were elected to the presidency in '60.[5] "Lincoln" and "Kennedy" each have 7 letters.[5] Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.[5] Both wives lost a child while living in the White House.[5] Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.[5] Both were shot in the head.[5] Lincoln's secretary, Kennedy, warned him not to go to the theatre. Kennedy's secretary, Lincoln, warned him not to go to Dallas.[5] Both were assassinated by Southerners.[5] Both were succeeded by Southerners.[5] Both successors were named Johnson.[5] Both successors were born in '08.[5] Both assassins, John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, were born in '39.[5] Both assassins were known by their three names.[5] Each assassin's name is composed of fifteen letters.[5] Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse; Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.[5] Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.[5] How about a little proof of intent here and not just this gleeful and continual fist bumping? Honestly, if you're gonna use these as your arguments, you should really fact check to make sure they are important, relevant and most importantly true (spoiler: many of them aren't). www.snopes.com/fact-check/linkin-kennedy/I'm sure you got my point.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 1, 2019 10:37:33 GMT -5
spec·u·la·tion /ˌspekyəˈlāSH(ə)n/ noun 1. the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. Speculation as it pertains to your claim that these facts and events you list are actual evidence towards a major crime. Michael, I'm not sitting here wishing you wouldn't express your opinion, but I would have thought by now you would have something a bit more conclusive to show to match this level of continuous innuendo. As I've previously stated, I try to view the information you've presented without really considering your personal opinion. Why do I do this? Because it's great information period, but I like to consider it for it's factual merit without any added and written-in bias. I've tried reading your books in the manner you insist how to get the best bang for the buck, (Stop, do not pass Go until instructed) and while I can understand your desire for more people to be "led to water," words you used in a previous discussion, that really doesn't interest me. So my apologies here, but after a couple of go-throughs, I do jump around all over the place in your book looking for information, (no Index) which to your credit you have meticulously footnoted. At the same time I almost systematically ignore any references you might make akin to implying a person, for example "would have to be crazy" not to believe CJ would have gladly accepted Condon's $1,000 offer.. or that CJ for some strange reason would have implicated Betty Gow and Red Johnson to draw suspicion away from himself. I could add more examples, but I think you get my point. Once again - I have listed facts, evidence, and events for consideration. Had I not they most likely would never have been available to discuss. Some might, but I submit not in consideration of their full weight. Once again, when looking at everything in its totality - there is much more to think about. What it all means is up to whoever is sincerely thinking them over. It's why we are all here ... to discuss what we've learned then attempt to apply it accordingly. To suggest I've produced a small amount I think is disingenuous. Also, to attempt to minimize it by demanding a smoking gun is also along those same lines. Continuous innuendo concerning what? The suspicious nature of it all? Conjecture meant to lead to answers and/or determine what it could all mean?
Now if you do not agree with my positions that I have made, at times, in the books such as those you've reference above then isn't this a good place to debate them? What I see is that you are taking a more general approach designed to ignore a large amount of circumstances that cannot be explained away. BTW: I stand by both of those beliefs. A criminal seeking 50K won't turn down another 1K. No way no how UNLESS it's a ruse. Since that box was hidden then its plain to see what was going on. Perhaps again, you may come up with other reasons to believe why Condon lied, and hid that box in the bush, but I cannot get around it. The information will never touch the ceiling if you choose to ignore it or dismiss all things with explanations based on emotion. It's not one or two we're talking about. I've dealt with many people over the years telling me what a criminal would or would not do never considering that I've spent over 26 years of my life living with these guys. If you think for one second that people who took this level of risk, with a dead child laying in the bushes somewhere - would not maximize the amount of money they could get then you're on drugs. Bringing down the amount from 70K to 50K is even more outrages once considering Condon's "explanation" for it. I get that you do not "like" the idea that Condon was an emissary of the Kidnappers. So offer ideas to counter what the new material indicates. Simply saying "speculation" doesn't get anyone there because all of the information in the source material must be legitimately addressed.
P.S. On the index. Of course after reading it cover to cover that's going to happen. But it cannot work if its done straight away. There's too much that relies on both previous and later material.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2019 8:53:44 GMT -5
spec·u·la·tion /ˌspekyəˈlāSH(ə)n/ noun 1. the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. Speculation as it pertains to your claim that these facts and events you list are actual evidence towards a major crime. Michael, I'm not sitting here wishing you wouldn't express your opinion, but I would have thought by now you would have something a bit more conclusive to show to match this level of continuous innuendo. As I've previously stated, I try to view the information you've presented without really considering your personal opinion. Why do I do this? Because it's great information period, but I like to consider it for it's factual merit without any added and written-in bias. I've tried reading your books in the manner you insist how to get the best bang for the buck, (Stop, do not pass Go until instructed) and while I can understand your desire for more people to be "led to water," words you used in a previous discussion, that really doesn't interest me. So my apologies here, but after a couple of go-throughs, I do jump around all over the place in your book looking for information, (no Index) which to your credit you have meticulously footnoted. At the same time I almost systematically ignore any references you might make akin to implying a person, for example "would have to be crazy" not to believe CJ would have gladly accepted Condon's $1,000 offer.. or that CJ for some strange reason would have implicated Betty Gow and Red Johnson to draw suspicion away from himself. I could add more examples, but I think you get my point. Once again - I have listed facts, evidence, and events for consideration. Had I not they most likely would never have been available to discuss. Some might, but I submit not in consideration of their full weight. Once again, when looking at everything in its totality - there is much more to think about. What it all means is up to whoever is sincerely thinking them over. It's why we are all here ... to discuss what we've learned then attempt to apply it accordingly. To suggest I've produced a small amount I think is disingenuous. Also, to attempt to minimize it by demanding a smoking gun is also along those same lines. Continuous innuendo concerning what? The suspicious nature of it all? Conjecture meant to lead to answers and/or determine what it could all mean?
Now if you do not agree with my positions that I have made, at times, in the books such as those you've reference above then isn't this a good place to debate them? What I see is that you are taking a more general approach designed to ignore a large amount of circumstances that cannot be explained away. BTW: I stand by both of those beliefs. A criminal seeking 50K won't turn down another 1K. No way no how UNLESS it's a ruse. Since that box was hidden then its plain to see what was going on. Perhaps again, you may come up with other reasons to believe why Condon lied, and hid that box in the bush, but I cannot get around it. The information will never touch the ceiling if you choose to ignore it or dismiss all things with explanations based on emotion. It's not one or two we're talking about. I've dealt with many people over the years telling me what a criminal would or would not do never considering that I've spent over 26 years of my life living with these guys. If you think for one second that people who took this level of risk, with a dead child laying in the bushes somewhere - would not maximize the amount of money they could get then you're on drugs. Bringing down the amount from 70K to 50K is even more outrages once considering Condon's "explanation" for it. I get that you do not "like" the idea that Condon was an emissary of the Kidnappers. So offer ideas to counter what the new material indicates. Simply saying "speculation" doesn't get anyone there because all of the information in the source material must be legitimately addressed.
P.S. On the index. Of course after reading it cover to cover that's going to happen. But it cannot work if its done straight away. There's too much that relies on both previous and later material. Where did I suggest you've "produced a small amount"? Don't look now folks, but I believe I've just been been "straw-manned.." You think I'm taking a "more general approach" regarding the extra $1,000 offered by Condon. It's the opposite here, Michael. Let's not just be concerned about your 26 years working with criminals. That's being general and not one of them was CJ in his personal situation. Let's deal with the specifics as they pertain to this case scenario, after all isn't that what we're studying? CJ is being offered an extra $1,000 of Condon's hard-earned money. And you think he'd be crazy for turning it down? What though were the conditions that went with obtaining that extra cash? What were the kinds of things that Condon was insisting upon in effect before he would hand it over? Knowing who he was dealing with, do you really feel CJ would really want to (or could) take Condon with him to see the child, or arrange delivery into the confidence of a Catholic priest, etc.? CJ wanted the ransom payment post haste and didn't want a long list of conditions to acquire an extra measly 2% of the $50,000 ransom demand. He was blowing Condon off, plain and simple and wanting nothing to do with his offer because of the strings attached. Really Michael, I'm surprised you don't see that, and it's just one example of why your ceiling high list, with a little bit of unbiased examination, doesn't actually come anywhere near the ceiling. Regarding Condon's impetus in having the 70K turn into 50K, it kind of blows a hole in the argument that he was brought in for another 20K, doesn't it? After all, if he really was a confederate or emissary of the kidnappers, wouldn't he have just pocketed the 20K instead of putting it back in Lindbergh's pocket? Kind of puts Condon in a more favorable light, but I don't think you've ever mentioned that.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2019 9:18:01 GMT -5
The ShuttersIf they truly did "flap and bang" in the wind, would this not have been a major issue for a sleeping child in his nursery long before the night of March 1, 1932? As far as I know, Betty Gow's statement is the only one which addresses this concern. Do we know for sure if this is truly an accurate statement? Was there possibly a bit of hyperbole going on here? We know that both Betty and Anne pulled the shutters together against the window frame before leaving the nursery, leaving them in an unlocked position. During the wild and windy night of March 1, 1932 when conditions for this would be ripe, did anyone in the household comment that the shutters were "flapping and banging" in the wind, something that would have been noticeable? I don't recall that. What does this tell us? Could it be perhaps that the hinge arrangement was still new and stiff enough, so that they were able to move open and closed slightly, but not in the exaggerated way described in Gow's statement? Betty's words don't really seem to apply at all to conditions of the night of March 1, 1932, do they? As I've always said, there was something else going on. I can't go through all of those points here because that's what my books are for. However, I agree with you. There's something rotten in Denmark once considering the shutters would blow in the wind. Most especially if the child was supposed to be sleeping in that very room. Other than to say "hey, so what, its Lindbergh so apparently they didn't flap" I have to go with what the facts indicate. Gow referred to the reason they shut the shutters was because one of them was " flapping" in the wind. Her words. Now, if one doesn't "like" this we could invent ways for those shutters not to have done what Gow said they would do, or instead we can look for answers elsewhere. I choose the latter. Why? Because shutters that "flap" in the wind will most definitely "flap" again on a windy night during a different block of time. The Sash Lock WindowsYour premise here is that the type of window installed in the Lindbergh home and particularly the nursery, would move around and rattle if the sash lock arrangement was not engaged and you cite Kevin Klein, Master Carpenter to bolster your claim. Absolutely no disrespect to Kevin with whom I've had many great discussions on the sometimes elusive detail within this case, but how is this known for certain? I've asked this question of a number of individuals who have restored older Victorian and Edwardian homes in Canada and from my own experience as well, while this very often is a condition experienced in these homes, it is not always the case. Considering whoever designed the sash lock window, the idea that they would always require their sash lock to be engaged to prevent the window from moving around and rattling, would seem to be a bit short-sighted. For example, what if one wanted to open the window half way on a warm and breezy day? Would it necessarily follow that moving and rattling windows would result? What about a little weather stripping for those windows, just like the front door? Or flexible brass stripping as a spacer down the inside of the window frame track, which presses outwards against the window sliding up and down, a common feature of these older style windows. The above would do the job quite nicely, particularly in a home as upscale home as Highfields and I have a strong feeling Watson the contractor with his displayed concern over the issue of the shutters, would not have settled for rattling windows in the Lindbergh home. The reason I even asked Kevin was because I had these types of windows in my home in Lambertville. If I didn't lock them they rattled. It's as simple as that. Kevin verified it as it relates to these types of windows. The locks seal the windows by design. Believe me, if Kevin told me "no" or gave me an explanation that it would not have happened it wouldn't have been in the book. So read what I quoted and apply accordingly. Or don't. But I'm not going to ignore it myself. Regarding the "banging shutters," I'm just saying the actual living proof evidence (no one ever complaining about them including the sleeping child in that nursery, other than that they were a PITA to try and lock) would indicate they were not the problem a lot of people have made them out to be. As for the "rattling windows," you had an issue with your house in Lambertville, which was then supported by by one source that told you all sash lock windows would rattle unless locked? And this was the basis for your conclusion that the Lindberghs would have had to have locked their second story windows to keep them from rattling, knowing even that they never locked these windows on calm and windy nights and would of course have had them open at times to allow air to circulate? I can well understand why you're going to have a hard time selling this segment of your theory down the road other than to the converted here perhaps, if it took me only a first read to identify a major roadblock.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 3, 2019 6:45:50 GMT -5
[Where did I suggest you've "produced a small amount"? Don't look now folks, but I believe I've just been been "straw-manned.." You think I'm taking a "more general approach" regarding the extra $1,000 offered by Condon. It's the opposite here, Michael. Let's not just be concerned about your 26 years working with criminals. That's being general and not one of them was CJ in his personal situation. Let's deal with the specifics as they pertain to this case scenario, after all isn't that what we're studying? CJ is being offered an extra $1,000 of Condon's hard-earned money. And you think he'd be crazy for turning it down? What though were the conditions that went with obtaining that extra cash? What were the kinds of things that Condon was insisting upon in effect before he would hand it over? Knowing who he was dealing with, do you really feel CJ would really want to (or could) take Condon with him to see the child, or arrange delivery into the confidence of a Catholic priest, etc.? CJ wanted the ransom payment post haste and didn't want a long list of conditions to acquire an extra measly 2% of the $50,000 ransom demand. He was blowing Condon off, plain and simple and wanting nothing to do with his offer because of the strings attached. Really Michael, I'm surprised you don't see that, and it's just one example of why your ceiling high list, with a little bit of unbiased examination, doesn't actually come anywhere near the ceiling. Regarding Condon's impetus in having the 70K turn into 50K, it kind of blows a hole in the argument that he was brought in for another 20K, doesn't it? After all, if he really was a confederate or emissary of the kidnappers, wouldn't he have just pocketed the 20K instead of putting it back in Lindbergh's pocket? Kind of puts Condon in a more favorable light, but I don't think you've ever mentioned that. This is kind of getting silly. I'm not "just" concerned with my experience with felons, some of whom were involved in murder, kidnapping, criminal conspiracies, and extortion. I mentioned it because of its relevancy. It's like, for example, the Epstein suicide. I see all of these wild accusations about "murder" coming from people who never set foot in a prison in entire their lives. I've personally worked in SHU in two different institutions over the course of many years. So I have a degree of knowledge others who haven't do not. And yet - I've never worked SHU in MCC NY so I would defer to someone who has. But I'd still be in a better position to question what those who have may or may not reveal. So my point to all of this is that experience matters and is a factor. It's certainly not the be all end all but rather a consideration which needs to be made. Now the idea that this $1,000 was "Condon's hard-earned money" is based upon your perception of exactly "how" you "think" CJ would view it. Do you see any problem at all with that? Most people look at things like "they" would look at it. Trying looking at it as if you had just murdered a toddler. Can't can you? We've got a dead baby, a middle man who cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything, and you'd have everyone believe the perpetrators care about peoples feelings and therefore do not want to maximize their gain out of this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 3, 2019 7:00:50 GMT -5
Regarding the "banging shutters," I'm just saying the actual living proof evidence (no one ever complaining about them including the sleeping child in that nursery, other than that they were a PITA to try and lock) would indicate they were not the problem a lot of people have made them out to be. As for the "rattling windows," you had an issue with your house in Lambertville, which was then supported by by one source that told you all sash lock windows would rattle unless locked? And this was the basis for your conclusion that the Lindberghs would have had to have locked their second story windows to keep them from rattling, knowing even that they never locked these windows on calm and windy nights and would of course have had them open at times to allow air to circulate? I can well understand why you're going to have a hard time selling this segment of your theory down the road other than to the converted here perhaps, if it took me only a first read to identify a major roadblock. No. The basis for the "question" began with my personal experiences. I then asked an expert. I quoted what he wrote to me and the key part of it is " ...would certainly have moved and made some noise." So there's room for debate about what " some noise" might be. But since no one in that house complained about this, you rely on that to claim it did not happen. And yet, Betty Gow claimed a shutter had been flapping in the wind for the reason to close them. But you don't accept that, and somehow think the hinges were too tight. So look, in the end we're all going to look at things differently. I have never tried to "sell" any theory. My goal was to always reveal new material to be considered. You are considering it but don't find it to be much of value. I get that. I also understand that its human nature to dislike or try to devalue things that harm one's personal beliefs. I started writing these books because, while the message boards are important, it is impossible to get the full entire value and nature out there on this venue. So I've attacked and focused on most of what we discuss as being the most perplexing. So when I see you use the word "cherry-pick" I cannot help but to disagree. I would also direct you to the chapter on Mueller as an example. I believe you were one of the very first people to question his possible involvement. This was a factor in why I choose to write about him. So what I revealed might upset his family members and I'm sure they have some choice words about it to be frank. Once again - I "get" that. But what I wrote is true. What does it mean? It's up to the reader to decide. For me, that fact Mueller had the same "alibi" as to "why" Hauptmann had possession of the gold note is telling. And at the same time I've never seen any objection coming from you about it - right? So I'm guessing you see value here while not seeing value in these other things you seem upset about.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Sept 3, 2019 7:30:10 GMT -5
[Where did I suggest you've "produced a small amount"? Don't look now folks, but I believe I've just been been "straw-manned.." You think I'm taking a "more general approach" regarding the extra $1,000 offered by Condon. It's the opposite here, Michael. Let's not just be concerned about your 26 years working with criminals. That's being general and not one of them was CJ in his personal situation. Let's deal with the specifics as they pertain to this case scenario, after all isn't that what we're studying? CJ is being offered an extra $1,000 of Condon's hard-earned money. And you think he'd be crazy for turning it down? What though were the conditions that went with obtaining that extra cash? What were the kinds of things that Condon was insisting upon in effect before he would hand it over? Knowing who he was dealing with, do you really feel CJ would really want to (or could) take Condon with him to see the child, or arrange delivery into the confidence of a Catholic priest, etc.? CJ wanted the ransom payment post haste and didn't want a long list of conditions to acquire an extra measly 2% of the $50,000 ransom demand. He was blowing Condon off, plain and simple and wanting nothing to do with his offer because of the strings attached. Really Michael, I'm surprised you don't see that, and it's just one example of why your ceiling high list, with a little bit of unbiased examination, doesn't actually come anywhere near the ceiling. Regarding Condon's impetus in having the 70K turn into 50K, it kind of blows a hole in the argument that he was brought in for another 20K, doesn't it? After all, if he really was a confederate or emissary of the kidnappers, wouldn't he have just pocketed the 20K instead of putting it back in Lindbergh's pocket? Kind of puts Condon in a more favorable light, but I don't think you've ever mentioned that. This is kind of getting silly. I'm not "just" concerned with my experience with felons, some of whom were involved in murder, kidnapping, criminal conspiracies, and extortion. I mentioned it because of its relevancy. It's like, for example, the Epstein suicide. I see all of these wild accusations about "murder" coming from people who never set foot in a prison in entire their lives. I've personally worked in SHU in two different institutions over the course of many years. So I have a degree of knowledge others who haven't do not. And yet - I've never worked SHU in MCC NY so I would defer to someone who has. But I'd still be in a better position to question what those who have may or may not reveal. So my point to all of this is that experience matters and is a factor. It's certainly not the be all end all but rather a consideration which needs to be made. Now the idea that this $1,000 was "Condon's hard-earned money" is based upon your perception of exactly "how" you "think" CJ would view it. Do you see any problem at all with that? Most people look at things like "they" would look at it. Trying looking at it as if you had just murdered a toddler. Can't can you? We've got a dead baby, a middle man who cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything, and you'd have everyone believe the perpetrators care about peoples feelings and therefore do not want to maximize their gain out of this.
Silly is right.. it's not nearly as complicated as you're making it by referencing other criminals and cases. CJ wanted nothing to do with the BS of Condon's offer, so he blew him off, plain and simple. That's my point and it's right there in the ransom note telling Condon to keep his money.
|
|