Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 3, 2019 7:46:02 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.
You're right that I haven't commented much on Mueller, and probably for the reason for me anyway, he's not low enough hanging fruit right now relative to other things I've brought up.. unfortunately there's only so many hours in a day! But I'm planning to get back to him. I really do appreciate what you were able to pull out of the archives on him, as there seems to be very little on him even though he seems to have been one of the more slippery characters within this case. Like Fisch, I don't believe there's any way a guy of this ilk would have been able to avoid Hauptmann's aura of involvement and not somehow get himself involved. BTW, I can honestly assure you, I don't get upset about any case details.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Sept 3, 2019 9:21:49 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? There's a difference between "coincidence" and "convenience" The entries on your Lincoln/Kennedy list are at best coincidences. When your kid gets grabbed in a purported kidnapping during the precise two-hour window you decree he should be left alone, rather than later during the night, when the occupants are asleep and their locations in the home more predictable for the kidnapper than if they were awake and moving about, that's convenience...
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 3, 2019 11:00:31 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? There's a difference between "coincidence" and "convenience" The entries on your Lincoln/Kennedy list are at best coincidences. When your kid gets grabbed in a purported kidnapping during the precise two-hour window you decree he should be left alone, rather than later during the night, when the occupants are asleep and their locations in the home more predictable for the kidnapper than if they were awake and moving about, that's convenience... This established "rule of the house" was not orchestrated solely for the night of March 1, 1932 but well before; so that also needs to be considered. Anne didn't abide by it on Monday evening, due to her still being concerned about the child's cold and perhaps because both Betty and Charles were not there. I think you might agree a little balance should also be considered, weighing things in concert with other factors that pertain to that time frame. For example, Charles remarking "What is that?", his reaction to the sudden banging sound, while sitting on the living room sofa with Anne around 9 pm. If he knew what was expected to happen in the nursery, it seems very unlikely he would have raised such a potential alarm where someone in the house might have then felt a quick check of the nursery would be a good idea to make sure it had nothing to do with the child's wellness. Or would Lindbergh possibly have had some symphonic music playing, which he regularly enjoyed at considerable volume, to mask any unwanted noises? I believe he did hear something significant but that it did not register strongly enough in his consciousness at that very moment to elicit investigation, and as a result was quickly forgotten. I have read from a source, (can't recall for now) that he not only bemoaned the fact he felt they were safe in their remote Hopewell surroundings but that he regretted not having immediately investigated the actual source of that noise.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Sept 3, 2019 15:55:07 GMT -5
It's pretty obvious that I'm a fervent member of the “CAL was complicit” camp. Of course, this is based on nothing but speculation and lacks proof; however, so is the notion that BRH was ever anywhere near Highfields, let alone on the property on the fateful night in question but many people believe that such proof exists.
This case is rife with fodder for speculation and innuendo – if every aspect about it was backed with the irrefutable proof you often demand, this site wouldn’t exist and the case would’ve died decades ago. To continue with your earlier analogy, I don’t believe that the Mafia, CIA, Cuba or LBJ had JFK killed but I don’t believe the popular narrative that LHO committed the act as a lone wolf either.
Neither event requires that a conspiracy exist merely to question the popular, accepted narrative...
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 4, 2019 0:44:30 GMT -5
Well said, though, while I didn’t used to, I now think Oswald acted alone.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 4, 2019 5:40:29 GMT -5
BTW, I can honestly assure you, I don't get upset about any case details. Might be the wrong adjective. "Riled" perhaps? IDK. I'll leave that up to you. This established "rule of the house" was not orchestrated solely for the night of March 1, 1932 but well before; so that also needs to be considered. Anne didn't abide by it on Monday evening, due to her still being concerned about the child's cold and perhaps because both Betty and Charles were not there. I think you might agree a little balance should also be considered, weighing things in concert with other factors that pertain to that time frame. For example, Charles remarking "What is that?", his reaction to the sudden banging sound, while sitting on the living room sofa with Anne around 9 pm. If he knew what was expected to happen in the nursery, it seems very unlikely he would have raised such a potential alarm where someone in the house might have then felt a quick check of the nursery would be a good idea to make sure it had nothing to do with the child's wellness. Or would Lindbergh possibly have had some symphonic music playing, which he regularly enjoyed at considerable volume, to mask any unwanted noises? I believe he did hear something significant but that it did not register strongly enough in his consciousness at that very moment to elicit investigation, and as a result was quickly forgotten. I have read from a source, (can't recall for now) that he not only bemoaned the fact he felt they were safe in their remote Hopewell surroundings but that he regretted not having immediately investigated the actual source of that noise. Anne did not abide. But she did once Lindbergh was home. I don't think anyone was afraid of Gow - so throwing her name out there as a possible cause is more of a distraction than anything else. As far as the "noise" Lindbergh heard... I suggest to everyone that they consider it from all angles and not just one of mere acceptance. Look at "who" he told and "when" he told it. Consider "where" he claimed the noise came from in addition to the weather. Next, don't limit yourself to the belief that Lindbergh was always being honest. Could there be another reason to pretend he heard something? Consider everything. Most especially since I firmly believe the child was gone before he came down the driveway blowing his horn. Although Joe won't mention it, Lindbergh allowed for this possibility himself. He even testified to it under oath during the Curtis Trial. (See TDC Chapter 6, pages 48-56). 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. Plain and simple huh? Blew him off? LOL. There's honest people, even today, who would accept a $1000 gift. Now you've got kidnappers & murderers more concerned about Condon's financial welfare than they do about themselves. Think of all they did for merely the "potential" of a 50K payoff and you have them tossing aside 1K? On top of that, " it's right there in the ransom note..." So I guess I can pencil your name on the list of those who believe what's written in the ransom notes? So when do you think the child was taken off of the Nelly?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 7, 2019 18:27:07 GMT -5
I think it would be a little shortsighted to believe Anne did not in a way, defer to Betty's input and child rearing standards given that she was the main caregiver, so I don't buy your argument that her mention here is nothing more than a distraction. And yes, Lindbergh mentioned "the noise" to Anne, which from where they were sitting, he might well have thought came from the kitchen given the location of the opening which essentially led to the kitchen. (Check the floorplan) Like you say Michael, all of the information must be considered. If I'm limiting myself to a belief as you put it, I'd like to know what you're hinting at here. Sure, Lindbergh allowed for the possibility that the child was abducted shortly after 8 pm but I kinda doubt he would have expressed that if he himself was involved. Does that make sense? And just for clarity, Lindbergh didn't announce his presence by blowing his horn coming down the driveway, so I'm not even sure what your point is here. He would blow his horn coming into the promenade in front of the house as a sign for Whateley to open the garage door.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 7, 2019 18:36:57 GMT -5
CJ blew off getting an extra $20,000 (29% of the $70,000) on the spot at St. Raymond's and you're making a big deal about him refusing Condon's publicized personal offer of $1000 (just 2% of the original $50,000), with all of the attached conditions we all know Condon would have insisted upon. I know you've hitched your wagon to this ancient conspiracy star, but can you possibly see beyond your own sliding scale of economics and logic here?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 8, 2019 20:03:02 GMT -5
I think it would be a little shortsighted to believe Anne did not in a way, defer to Betty's input and child rearing standards given that she was the main caregiver, so I don't buy your argument that her mention here is nothing more than a distraction. And yes, Lindbergh mentioned "the noise" to Anne, which from where they were sitting, he might well have thought came from the kitchen given the location of the opening which essentially led to the kitchen. (Check the floorplan) Like you say Michael, all of the information must be considered. If I'm limiting myself to a belief as you put it, I'd like to know what you're hinting at here. Sure, Lindbergh allowed for the possibility that the child was abducted shortly after 8 pm but I kinda doubt he would have expressed that if he himself was involved. Does that make sense? And just for clarity, Lindbergh didn't announce his presence by blowing his horn coming down the driveway, so I'm not even sure what your point is here. He would blow his horn coming into the promenade in front of the house as a sign for Whateley to open the garage door. Betty worked for Anne. If someone was going to defy Lindbergh's instructions it would be her - not Gow. Copin ignored him and was let go despite the fact the child was improving under her care. So if you think Gow was telling Anne what to do in direct defiance of Lindbergh, and she was listening, then we're at a cross-roads because that makes little sense to me. I'm not "hinting" at anything. Did Lindbergh hear a sound that no one else heard? When? Where was it coming from? Was it related to the kidnapping? Did Lindbergh believe it was? These are all of the things that must be answered. So testimony in two different trials should help us better understand it. Yet, no one likes to consider something that disputes the idea that this supposed sound had anything to do with it. Lindbergh's very own testimony in the Curtis trial seems pretty important here. Again, I see you trying to counter a particular theory you do not like instead of just considering all of the facts. You also are again considering what someone would or would not do if they were involved. As I've tried to impress upon you once before, normal everyday people cannot put themselves in the shoes of someone committing a crime like this. What you or anyone else might have done "usually" does not apply. It's the old " if I robbed a bank I'd..." well if you never robbed one and never would then - no - you'd do nothing of the sort. So sure consider it but etching it in stone is a really bad idea. I know why Lindbergh blew his horn. I'm not sure why you are seem disturbed by what I wrote. The kidnapping was over before Lindbergh drove down that driveway and blew his horn.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 8, 2019 20:11:55 GMT -5
CJ blew off getting an extra $20,000 (29% of the $70,000) on the spot at St. Raymond's and you're making a big deal about him refusing Condon's publicized personal offer of $1000 (just 2% of the original $50,000), with all of the attached conditions we all know Condon would have insisted upon. I know you've hitched your wagon to this ancient conspiracy star, but can you possibly see beyond your own sliding scale of economics and logic here? Labeling something a conspiracy doesn't bother me. Two or more people who conspire to commit a crime are guilty of a conspiracy - they don't even have to act on it. Doesn't sound that bad once considering it that way does it? I stand by my original point. There's no way they would have turned down money for the mere sake of their good nature. Futhermore, turning down the extra 20K also benefits Condon. First, it was raised by that extra 20K because they said they had to bring someone else in. If that was Condon then it was his take. If not, he obviously explained that the higher denomination would ultimately lead to their arrest. Pick your poison. No economics necessary - just common sense.
|
|