|
Post by Michael on Jun 20, 2022 8:47:54 GMT -5
1. I understand Parker's belief that the vehicle with muddy headlights on the road it traveled, had something to do with the crime, but "nailing down" the time of the kidnapping to 8:00 pm, is sheer speculation, and of course doesn't take into account the tire track evidence that indicated the possibility of two cars at the scene. Parker was essentially working in isolation and not privy to most of the evidence gathered by the NJSP. No question he was a great detective but continually pumping his tires here doesn't make him any better and unfortunately he only had a partial hand of cards to play with. Do you have a location for the Moore house on current-day Province Line Road, before it joins into Hopewell-Amwell Road? I wouldn't call it " sheer speculation." He did the investigations and what we have of them is at the Archives to include his conclusion concerning this. There can be no doubt all of the documentation isn't there. However, shrugging off Parker's conclusion in 1932 about the vehicle Moore saw would, in my opinion, be like doubting Einstein about his mathematics. Once his health started to go that's a different matter but I don't see any evidence of that at this time. However, your point about working in isolation is somewhat correct. I say "somewhat" because he did have people feeding him information and working with him - either publicly alongside, on the sidelines, or secretly. I've mentioned before that he had a "mole" (so to speak) in the NJSP giving him confidential information. Parker was also privy to information that the other authorities were not. Why? Because he conducted investigations/interview they hadn't, and locals trusted him who neither trusted nor liked the NJSP. Some even hated them. I don't have an exact location of the Moore home as I sit here. I will search to see what I can dig up. . Anne probably would have been listening for the sound of Lindbergh's tires on the gravel drive as well as the sound of his horn. Given her location at her writing desk and the other competing indoor and outdoor sounds that night though, leaves little wonder though that she only "thought" she heard the sound of car tires on the the gravel drive at about 8:10 pm. What competing sounds? The wind? She made the distinction because she mentioned hearing that too. Of course the windows should have been rattling because they weren't locked and sealed. And those shutters should have been banging too because they weren't locked by the bolt or secured by the shutter-dogs. Is this what you are talking about? . Like everyone else here, I'm just trying to understand how case-related statements, actions and events mesh, and don't mesh together. It's really no more complicated than that. Positions that address only some of these and omit others for whatever reason and are not discussed, only lead to general stagnation of thought. Sometimes stagnation, sure. But if discussions continuously point to a certain spot - that might represent something else. Most especially if everything has been discussed already. Who's projecting here? Lindbergh "accepted" Curtis's statement that a servant was involved? I don't think so. Lindbergh was willing to accept the possibility of a servant having been involved no matter how much he might have come to doubt it, and he also wasn't willing to overlook the possibility, no matter how slim, that Curtis was in contact with the kidnappers. I'm sure the expression "desperate times call for desperate measures," would have crossed his mind. Simply writing off Lindbergh's ocean search pursuits with Curtis as some kind of extended boondoggle through a simple dirty laundry list and nothing more, is what is silly. See Point 3. You don't think so? Accepting the possibility is just a rose by another name. It demolishes his refusal to lie detect the staff and questions his motivations for protecting them even further than that. There's also what Kelly supposedly overheard when he threatened Gow. Too much here to play semantics with Joe. Desperate times call for desperate measures? The guy vetoed a search by plane. Doesn't sound very desperate to me. The guy stopped looking for his son so he could play cards. Sound desperate? And you are calling me silly?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
V4
Jun 22, 2022 9:48:30 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Jun 22, 2022 9:48:30 GMT -5
1. I understand Parker's belief that the vehicle with muddy headlights on the road it traveled, had something to do with the crime, but "nailing down" the time of the kidnapping to 8:00 pm, is sheer speculation, and of course doesn't take into account the tire track evidence that indicated the possibility of two cars at the scene. Parker was essentially working in isolation and not privy to most of the evidence gathered by the NJSP. No question he was a great detective but continually pumping his tires here doesn't make him any better and unfortunately he only had a partial hand of cards to play with. Do you have a location for the Moore house on current-day Province Line Road, before it joins into Hopewell-Amwell Road? I wouldn't call it " sheer speculation." He did the investigations and what we have of them is at the Archives to include his conclusion concerning this. There can be no doubt all of the documentation isn't there. However, shrugging off Parker's conclusion in 1932 about the vehicle Moore saw would, in my opinion, be like doubting Einstein about his mathematics. Once his health started to go that's a different matter but I don't see any evidence of that at this time. However, your point about working in isolation is somewhat correct. I say "somewhat" because he did have people feeding him information and working with him - either publicly alongside, on the sidelines, or secretly. I've mentioned before that he had a "mole" (so to speak) in the NJSP giving him confidential information. Parker was also privy to information that the other authorities were not. Why? Because he conducted investigations/interview they hadn't, and locals trusted him who neither trusted nor liked the NJSP. Some even hated them. I don't have an exact location of the Moore home as I sit here. I will search to see what I can dig up. Even Einstein made mistakes, the biggest one being his need to apply a “fudge factor” as he developed his Theory of Relativity, and Parker has only assumed CALjr was in the car seen by Wilmer Moore at 8:23 pm. Saying he nailed down the time of the crime because of this and what was witnessed hours earlier, perhaps to more accurately describe it, is theory based on both evidence and speculation. Is there anything else of a conclusive nature that Parker used at his disposal to support this theory at the time, so it doesn’t appear he’s just using his own fudge factor here?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
V4
Jun 22, 2022 10:06:37 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Jun 22, 2022 10:06:37 GMT -5
. Anne probably would have been listening for the sound of Lindbergh's tires on the gravel drive as well as the sound of his horn. Given her location at her writing desk and the other competing indoor and outdoor sounds that night though, leaves little wonder though that she only "thought" she heard the sound of car tires on the the gravel drive at about 8:10 pm. What competing sounds? The wind? She made the distinction because she mentioned hearing that too. Of course the windows should have been rattling because they weren't locked and sealed. And those shutters should have been banging too because they weren't locked by the bolt or secured by the shutter-dogs. Is this what you are talking about? Yes, specifically the sounds of the wind howling through trees to the north of house in the general vicinity of the termination of the gravel drive, as well as those caused by the general aerodynamics of the house itself. Given Anne’s location within the house at the time, voices and sounds coming out of a busy kitchen, I just don’t believe it’s a lock that what she actually heard was the sound of tires on the gravel drive around 8:10 pm. And are you suggesting the kidnapper would have driven right up to a point near the front door, (as Lindbergh would have normally done on his route to the garage) and then circled around there, so close to the house? I believe that is highly unlikely. Again, I’m not saying that’s not what Anne actually heard, but continually making these kinds of preferred assumptions to support a theory already based partly in speculation, only dilutes further the strength of that same conclusion. Given whose house we are talking about here, it is also highly unlikely the windows that were installed in the Lindbergh house by the Watson Company, would have been rattling as you envision. The ground floor windows were generally locked and the second floor windows were not. Assuming these same windows had to be in a closed and locked position to prevent them from rattling, as though you're describing some creaky, century-old farmhouse here, is not representative of the facts. Premium vertical sliding windows from that period were designed not to rattle in the wind when open, or closed and unlocked. The same flexible brass weather stripping along the sliding edge, which effectively resisted gravity in order to keep them in an open position as well, also provided for a quieter window all around. The sash lock position and compression may have improved this latter quality, but to simply say the windows would have rattled without locking them just leads down yet another unnecessary path of confusion. And the shutters did not out of necessity, have to be banging because they weren’t bolted or secured by the shutter dogs. Again, assumption. Are you suggesting that because they were not bolted, they were "banging and flapping" between the hours of 8:00 and 10:00 pm with no one in the house having commented or done anything about it, to ensure Charlie wouldn't wake up because of this?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
V4
Jun 22, 2022 10:18:43 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Jun 22, 2022 10:18:43 GMT -5
Like everyone else here, I'm just trying to understand how case-related statements, actions and events mesh, and don't mesh together. It's really no more complicated than that. Positions that address only some of these and omit others for whatever reason and are not discussed, only lead to general stagnation of thought. Sometimes stagnation, sure. But if discussions continuously point to a certain spot - that might represent something else. Most especially if everything has been discussed already. At times, for a number of reasons, things aren’t truly brought to ground in the way we might believe. Books, and even reports, are sometimes made to be rewritten. And unless valid points and counterpoints are put forth and considered accordingly, the overall discussion will stagnate.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
V4
Jun 22, 2022 10:31:48 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Jun 22, 2022 10:31:48 GMT -5
Who's projecting here? Lindbergh "accepted" Curtis's statement that a servant was involved? I don't think so. Lindbergh was willing to accept the possibility of a servant having been involved no matter how much he might have come to doubt it, and he also wasn't willing to overlook the possibility, no matter how slim, that Curtis was in contact with the kidnappers. I'm sure the expression "desperate times call for desperate measures," would have crossed his mind. Simply writing off Lindbergh's ocean search pursuits with Curtis as some kind of extended boondoggle through a simple dirty laundry list and nothing more, is what is silly. See Point 3. You don't think so? Accepting the possibility is just a rose by another name. It demolishes his refusal to lie detect the staff and questions his motivations for protecting them even further than that. There's also what Kelly supposedly overheard when he threatened Gow. Too much here to play semantics with Joe. Desperate times call for desperate measures? The guy vetoed a search by plane. Doesn't sound very desperate to me. The guy stopped looking for his son so he could play cards. Sound desperate? And you are calling me silly? I believe you’re playing a kind of distorted semantics here within both the actual evidence and your personally-inspired score carding of a preferred listing of Lindbergh’s actions and statements. Refusing to insist that his staff be lie detected is not out of necessity a sign of Lindbergh’s guilt, but could more accurately represent an indication of the level of trust he placed in those people, despite listening in part, to what Curtis had to say and putting some trust in him. And do you know the specific intent and nature of any and all factors behind what Kelly alleges was a threatening statement made by Lindbergh towards Gow, or would you be interested in looking any further here? Could it perhaps have more accurately represented something which would only have brought personal embarrassment or muddied the waters of what he felt was pertinent to the investigation? I don't know really and I would question whether anyone else here does either, but on the strength of what you've put forth, I would absolutely not conclude these were indications of Lindbergh's desire to "destroy" his son.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 23, 2022 10:24:12 GMT -5
I believe you’re playing a kind of distorted semantics here within both the actual evidence and your personally-inspired score carding of a preferred listing of Lindbergh’s actions and statements. Refusing to insist that his staff be lie detected is not out of necessity a sign of Lindbergh’s guilt, but could more accurately represent an indication of the level of trust he placed in those people, despite listening in part, to what Curtis had to say and putting some trust in him. And do you know the specific intent and nature of any and all factors behind what Kelly alleges was a threatening statement made by Lindbergh towards Gow, or would you be interested in looking any further here? Could it perhaps have more accurately represented something which would only have brought personal embarrassment or muddied the waters of what he felt was pertinent to the investigation? I don't know really and I would question whether anyone else here does either, but on the strength of what you've put forth, I would absolutely not conclude these were indications of Lindbergh's desire to "destroy" his son. What you are doing Joe, is pretending to be Lindbergh's lawyer. You look at the facts, evidence, or circumstances and the first thing you consider is whether or not they "harm" Lindbergh. If there's the slightest possibility that he could even look bad because of something you kick it into high gear to explain away or dismiss it. That appears to be your primary goal. Any solution that would include a possibility concerning Lindbergh, in any way, will be flatly rejected by you. Whether or not it is valid is of no consequence. Of course what Kelly overheard could have been Lindbergh threatening Gow for another reason. So that calls for its immediate dismissal in light of all the other circumstances? Of course not. It needs to be considered, and yet, you refuse to. You guide book for what is to be considered and what is not will prevent you from allowing for it. Lindbergh refusing to use a plane to search for Curtis... Do you deny this? Or instead, do you invent some absurd explanation about "feelings" or some other such nonsense in hopes it gets ignored? Planes cover more ground. But instead, he wants the boat ride to play cards, and entertain himself with jokes and abuse on those who were there, as far as he was "supposed" to know, to help him get his son back. Try as you might, there's no reasonable explanation other than he didn't care or already knew what happened to his son. Let's look at the Moore account and Parker's conclusion... So the idea that there were two cars involved is a real possibility. An absolute fact? Probably not, but very possible. It's my position despite also having the position that Parker was correct. You see, I can't (and won't) do what you are doing. Next, you refuse to believe the child was in that car. Why? Because that harms Lindbergh in some way. No other reason. If it proved Lindbergh couldn't have been involved or made him look good you'd be shouting it from the rooftops as your proof. But here we assume that even Einstein got things wrong - and for what? To protect against any possible position that may point to Lindbergh in some way. There's no other reason for it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
V4
Jun 29, 2022 9:22:37 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Jun 29, 2022 9:22:37 GMT -5
I believe you’re playing a kind of distorted semantics here within both the actual evidence and your personally-inspired score carding of a preferred listing of Lindbergh’s actions and statements. Refusing to insist that his staff be lie detected is not out of necessity a sign of Lindbergh’s guilt, but could more accurately represent an indication of the level of trust he placed in those people, despite listening in part, to what Curtis had to say and putting some trust in him. And do you know the specific intent and nature of any and all factors behind what Kelly alleges was a threatening statement made by Lindbergh towards Gow, or would you be interested in looking any further here? Could it perhaps have more accurately represented something which would only have brought personal embarrassment or muddied the waters of what he felt was pertinent to the investigation? I don't know really and I would question whether anyone else here does either, but on the strength of what you've put forth, I would absolutely not conclude these were indications of Lindbergh's desire to "destroy" his son. What you are doing Joe, is pretending to be Lindbergh's lawyer. You look at the facts, evidence, or circumstances and the first thing you consider is whether or not they "harm" Lindbergh. If there's the slightest possibility that he could even look bad because of something you kick it into high gear to explain away or dismiss it. That appears to be your primary goal. Any solution that would include a possibility concerning Lindbergh, in any way, will be flatly rejected by you. Whether or not it is valid is of no consequence. Of course what Kelly overheard could have been Lindbergh threatening Gow for another reason. So that calls for its immediate dismissal in light of all the other circumstances? Of course not. It needs to be considered, and yet, you refuse to. You guide book for what is to be considered and what is not will prevent you from allowing for it. Lindbergh refusing to use a plane to search for Curtis... Do you deny this? Or instead, do you invent some absurd explanation about "feelings" or some other such nonsense in hopes it gets ignored? Planes cover more ground. But instead, he wants the boat ride to play cards, and entertain himself with jokes and abuse on those who were there, as far as he was "supposed" to know, to help him get his son back. Try as you might, there's no reasonable explanation other than he didn't care or already knew what happened to his son. Let's look at the Moore account and Parker's conclusion... So the idea that there were two cars involved is a real possibility. An absolute fact? Probably not, but very possible. It's my position despite also having the position that Parker was correct. You see, I can't (and won't) do what you are doing. Next, you refuse to believe the child was in that car. Why? Because that harms Lindbergh in some way. No other reason. If it proved Lindbergh couldn't have been involved or made him look good you'd be shouting it from the rooftops as your proof. But here we assume that even Einstein got things wrong - and for what? To protect against any possible position that may point to Lindbergh in some way. There's no other reason for it. No Michael, I’m not pretending to be Lindbergh’s lawyer and you know that I’m not a Lindbergh “supporter.” I don’t belong to any of his fan clubs, wear a beanie with buttons honouring his flight, have never communicated with Pat Ranfranz and I do not automatically resist and counter any perceived efforts to “harm” Lindbergh as you seem to insist I do. I have no horse in this race and if Lindbergh’s sincerely deserving of any kind of honest reporting or press that puts him in a negative light, then so be it. Lindbergh was a very complex and flawed personality, one who spoke and acted out both to a self-perceived high moral standard as well as in ways that were immature, stunningly-inappropriate and ill-conceived. His famous flight and what then became his eternal frustration over a life experienced with little or no privacy, only seemed to exacerbate the polar opposite nature of his base behaviors. It wasn’t until much later in his life that he was finally able to relax the rigidity and tension within his being and demonstrate more suitably his true inner desire to be of service to mankind and the planet. Whenever I can though and when I feel it helps to further this case, I will offer factual information, a different perspective, or perhaps some insight that might serve to throw an alternate light on some aspect of it. I do believe you’ve simply sensitized yourself to the point of confusing these actions with some kind of default defensive position on my part, for someone you’ve clearly established in your own mind, was a murderer. This is little more than skewed perspective on your part, and I also believe you’ve been overthinking this case far too long without a pause for any kind of meaningful reflection. Regarding what Kelly alleges was Lindbergh threatening Gow, I only ask anyone to consider the possibility that his reaction does not out of necessity signify a certain red flag towards some kind of guilt on his part within the kidnapping and death of his son. I don’t know for certain what led to the extended sea voyages aboard the Marcon and Cachelot, although you seem to feel you’re in some position of authority to attribute this to Lindbergh acting out the boorish elements of his personality and nothing more. Perhaps it had something to do with the general and specific locations that Curtis was regularly relaying to Lindbergh and that a boat rendezvous would have made more sense if and when they found the Nelly within one of these areas. And what about Curtis? What reason did he give to justify a sea search only? Did he perhaps have any issues with flying? Was this all Lindbergh’s call? As for the Parker/Moore scenario, your saying I refuse to believe the child was in the car seen at 8:23 pm is simply untrue. Why don’t you go back and re-read what I said? With reference to the other points I raised to promote further discussion around your “rattling windows” and “banging shutters” beliefs, do you have any additional comments on these?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2022 11:49:11 GMT -5
No Michael, I’m not pretending to be Lindbergh’s lawyer and you know that I’m not a Lindbergh “supporter.” I don’t belong to any of his fan clubs, wear a beanie with buttons honouring his flight, have never communicated with Pat Ranfranz and I do not automatically resist and counter any perceived efforts to “harm” Lindbergh as you seem to insist I do. I have no horse in this race and if Lindbergh’s sincerely deserving of any kind of honest reporting or press that puts him in a negative light, then so be it. I'm calling it as I see it. You counter-argue against anything, real or imagined, that you believe points toward Lindbergh. In fact, as soon as I read one I sometimes have to go back to see what you think harms Lindbergh to better understand your position. Of course you are free to do whatever you like but I'm surprised to see you deny this. Lindbergh was a very complex and flawed personality, one who spoke and acted out both to a self-perceived high moral standard as well as in ways that were immature, stunningly-inappropriate and ill-conceived. His famous flight and what then became his eternal frustration over a life experienced with little or no privacy, only seemed to exacerbate the polar opposite nature of his base behaviors. It wasn’t until much later in his life that he was finally able to relax the rigidity and tension within his being and demonstrate more suitably his true inner desire to be of service to mankind and the planet. LOL. Need I say more? Whenever I can though and when I feel it helps to further this case, I will offer factual information, a different perspective, or perhaps some insight that might serve to throw an alternate light on some aspect of it. I do believe you’ve simply sensitized yourself to the point of confusing these actions with some kind of default defensive position on my part, for someone you’ve clearly established in your own mind, was a murderer. This is little more than skewed perspective on your part, and I also believe you’ve been overthinking this case far too long without a pause for any kind of meaningful reflection. I wouldn't want it any other way. And your criticism of my positions are welcomed. They may be incorrect at times, but that's part of the process. It helps better understand things as the discussions unfold. Or not. But without the discourse we'd never know. Regarding what Kelly alleges was Lindbergh threatening Gow, I only ask anyone to consider the possibility that his reaction does not out of necessity signify a certain red flag towards some kind of guilt on his part within the kidnapping and death of his son. Sure. That conversation may have had to do with something else, of course. One could be about the belief the Reporters had that something was going on between the two. Could be many things. But to skip over the obvious would be a mistake. I don't see you claiming it should be among these various considerations. Ask yourself "why not" and it might allow you to get to the answer if you happen to be interested in one. I don’t know for certain what led to the extended sea voyages aboard the Marcon and Cachelot, although you seem to feel you’re in some position of authority to attribute this to Lindbergh acting out the boorish elements of his personality and nothing more. Perhaps it had something to do with the general and specific locations that Curtis was regularly relaying to Lindbergh and that a boat rendezvous would have made more sense if and when they found the Nelly within one of these areas. And what about Curtis? What reason did he give to justify a sea search only? Did he perhaps have any issues with flying? Was this all Lindbergh’s call? The original plan was for Lindbergh to pilot an amphibious plane because it would cover MUCH more ground and could land on the ocean. Once Lindbergh heard about it, he vetoed that plan because HE called the shots. Do you really think Curtis could overrule Lindbergh and make him pilot a plane instead? You see, it would have been awful hard to sleep, play cards, and throw buckets of water on people in a plane - wouldn't it? With reference to the other points I raised to promote further discussion around your “rattling windows” and “banging shutters” beliefs, do you have any additional comments on these? It has nothing to do with what you are imagining about a creaky old farmhouse. It's the type of windows. The lock sealed them from the weather. I consulted Kevin, a Master Carpenter, who told me as I quoted him in the book (V2, Page 4). Next, I used what Gow told police concerning those shutters. That is they were locked to keep them closed, and that one had been " flapping in the wind" as a reason why they were locked (V1, Page 35 & V2, Page 3). So this seems to lay to rest your claim that they wouldn't have been blowing around in the wind. And it was windy that night was it not?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
V4
Jul 8, 2022 8:22:53 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Jul 8, 2022 8:22:53 GMT -5
It’s self-explanatory that you automatically look to see what I think harms Lindbergh to better understand my position. And not surprising at all to see this perception in print, given your previously-stated attempts to lead myself and others “to water” here. You intrinsically resist alternative viewpoints which might upset your seemingly now cemented beliefs that Lindbergh sought to destroy his son and that Condon was a “confederate” of the kidnappers. Try at least to remove the first bias point and watch the discussion flourish.
I offer my personal observations on Lindbergh’s personality and character to underscore the importance of being able to truly understand the nature and personalities of each of the players involved in this case relative to their resulting actions and statements. I don’t consider Lindbergh a hero or a villain and I see his many positive and negative attributes. This continual judgment of him based on how you would have reacted in his shoes as you do time and time again, doesn’t get you very far.
Of course I’d like to fully understand what inspired the alleged reaction on the part of Lindbergh towards Gow. In order to do that though it’s important to try and determine the overall veracity of this account by Kelly, a guy you’ve previously ripped for his ulterior, financially-based motives and less-than-honorable handling of state evidence. Let’s also consider who he was relating this alleged evidence to and the timing of this testimony, which I understand took place during the Hoffman re-investigation, correct?
The points you’ve raised about Lindbergh’s decision to use a boat instead of a plane for the searches, seem a bit one-sided, and I’d counter that there was probably more to this decision than personal relaxation time, card playing and brown hats thrown into the ocean. Please guide me to the Volumes and Pages for the references you’ve chosen to include here and I’ll have a close re-read. And as I’ve raised previously, what do you know about Curtis’s fear, or lack of fear of flying?
Regarding your assertion that the upper floor windows by their design, had to be locked to prevent them from rattling, I’d suggest you seek a second opinion here. It’s difficult for me to imagine that in the calibre of home built for Charles Lindbergh, the occupants would have been expected to put up with rattling windows without the sash lock having been engaged. Or that on a warm breezy day with the windows open, they would have been expected to put up with such an annoyance. Talk to some home building experts familiar with upscale century homes, as I did. They will no doubt tell you about the purpose of the flexible brass weather stripping installed within the window frames to seal out the weather and also hold the window firmly in place. And possibly window stops, which allowed the owner to adjust for seasonal expansion and contraction of the wooden windows within their frames. It seems a bit limited in scope to keep pointing to one source only which coincidentally aligns so nicely with your own position.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 8, 2022 11:47:36 GMT -5
It’s self-explanatory that you automatically look to see what I think harms Lindbergh to better understand my position. It is. Unfortunately, its something you do just as you've done in this response as I will show. I offer my personal observations on Lindbergh’s personality and character to underscore the importance of being able to truly understand the nature and personalities of each of the players involved in this case relative to their resulting actions and statements. And so there goes your proof. Your personal opinions about someone's personality. Whether or not they are supported by the facts is of no consequence. Of course I’d like to fully understand what inspired the alleged reaction on the part of Lindbergh towards Gow. In order to do that though it’s important to try and determine the overall veracity of this account by Kelly, a guy you’ve previously ripped for his ulterior, financially-based motives and less-than-honorable handling of state evidence. Let’s also consider who he was relating this alleged evidence to and the timing of this testimony, which I understand took place during the Hoffman re-investigation, correct? There's lots to consider. The most important, from my perspective, is this was a "behind the scenes" situation. One that wasn't public, and one that wasn't in the interest of Lindbergh. These were the type of things the cops were afraid to say out loud for fear of the repercussions. So, since Kelly didn't dispute the account, one has to ask themselves whether or not it indicates it was true. Next, since it was attributed to Kelly, what could be the motive to invent it? Whether or not he arranged for the sale of the nursery pictures, does one thing equal another? Or one could do as you do, automatically look for anything that looks bad for Lindbergh and quickly dismiss it for just about ANY reason. No consideration necessary. Lindbergh didn't do anything nefarious - move on. The points you’ve raised about Lindbergh’s decision to use a boat instead of a plane for the searches, seem a bit one-sided, and I’d counter that there was probably more to this decision than personal relaxation time, card playing and brown hats thrown into the ocean. Please guide me to the Volumes and Pages for the references you’ve chosen to include here and I’ll have a close re-read. And as I’ve raised previously, what do you know about Curtis’s fear, or lack of fear of flying? What Curtis wanted or did not want made no difference. The plane was the plan. Lindbergh said "no" and they changed their plans based on what he wanted. You are trying to find an excuse, don't have one, so I'm sure you'll come up with something sooner or later because it doesn't look good for Lindbergh. If it did, you'd be all smiles and embrace it fully. Regarding your assertion that the upper floor windows by their design, had to be locked to prevent them from rattling, I’d suggest you seek a second opinion here. It’s difficult for me to imagine that in the calibre of home built for Charles Lindbergh, the occupants would have been expected to put up with rattling windows without the sash lock having been engaged. Or that on a warm breezy day with the windows open, they would have been expected to put up with such an annoyance. Talk to some home building experts familiar with upscale century homes, as I did. They will no doubt tell you about the purpose of the flexible brass weather stripping installed within the window frames to seal out the weather and also hold the window firmly in place. And possibly window stops, which allowed the owner to adjust for seasonal expansion and contraction of the wooden windows within their frames. It seems a bit limited in scope to keep pointing to one source only which coincidentally aligns so nicely with your own position. The locks on those windows had two purposes. One was security. The other, which was the main purpose, was to "seal" the window from the weather. Like it or not, that is a fact. If it was windy, and the lock was not deployed, the windows would have moved around and made some noise. All this other stuff is grasping at straws. Window stops? Where? What source includes this stuff? Flexible brass? Who installed that? I'm all ears. Tell me and I will look them up for you. In the end, what you believe Lindbergh should have equipped his house with concerning those windows makes perfect sense if your goal is to defend him. And yet, the shutter was warped. Ask your guy about that one. He's installing warped shutters? And, even worse, he's not getting it fixed? And we know from Gow what occurred when the shutters weren't closed. Annoyance anyone? Hello! I've saved the best for last... Are you seriously telling me to do more research? Good lord man, that's all I do. Just yesterday I was at the New Jersey State Archives combing through Governor Moore's material. There isn't a day that goes by that I am not researching this case.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
V4
Jul 13, 2022 10:50:25 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Jul 13, 2022 10:50:25 GMT -5
You’re confusing understanding with bias. I have absolutely no qualms about seeking to understand more of the base makeup and personalities of each of the significant players, irrespective of their actual roles in the case. I believe it helps to establish a kind of working baseline for their motivational intent and to come away with a better appreciation as to when they were or were not, acting out of character or even being truthful within the case. By viewing them as mechanical bots and assessing their statements and actions through the filter of one’s own personal mores and standards only, I feel is counter-productive to furthering discussion and ultimately, the truth. And you certainly do seem to have challenges in acknowledging and appreciating my own relatively-neutral stance towards these same players.
It’s important to view all of those things in addition to the timing of Kelly’s claim. This appears to be a factor you’ve chosen not to jump all over because that might then make it appear he came forward to aid his injection back into the case and any potential rewards this move offered him.
A broad wave of your hand here does nothing to convince me there is little more to your “search-gate” than Lindbergh simply wanting to enjoy a boondoggle on the high seas. I know you will probably continue to lobby for this position though. Research day and night without any pause for reflection, if you feel you must. I’m just recommending you resist the urge to cherry pick sources and explanations, just because they appear to be in accordance with your pre-conceived notions and now-fixed beliefs.
About the windows, yes the sash lock provided security. Yes, it would also assist in sealing the lower sash from drafts when the upper and lower ones were closed. The primary all-season weather sealing device for this style of window though is the flexible brass weather stripping which would have been installed on the inside of the vertical window jambs. I don’t know if the Lindbergh windows had window stops to adjust for seasonal expansion and contraction, but they might have. Your stance that the windows in a new home of this stature would be rattling if the sash lock was not engaged, and by extension of this, that Lindbergh must have nefariously been ignoring all of this noise in order to encourage intruders, is nonsensical at best. What window noise are you referring to? Nobody was complaining about rattling windows and all of them on the upstairs were kept unlocked as a rule. And do you really imagine the whole upper floor would have been abuzz with vibrating windows on a warm, breezy day when they would have been in opened positions? Better a reality check than more research here.
About the shutters, implying here that Lindbergh himself had warped shutters installed, I believe means you’re off to the races again. Seriously though, can we just stick to the facts? The south-east corner shutters would not lock properly due to a misalignment issue that prevented each side of the bolting mechanism to mate with the other and engage correctly. This apparently was the case from the outset of their first visit to Highfields the previous October. Whether the wood in the shutters themselves was “warped” or not, we will never know for sure. Let’s drill down a bit here, shall we? We have an accurate depiction of what happened when the shutters weren’t locked from Betty Gow, do we? And what is the annoyance you’re so seemingly convinced about with respect to the shutters on the southeast corner of the nursery?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 13, 2022 12:57:26 GMT -5
You’re confusing understanding with bias. I have absolutely no qualms about seeking to understand more of the base makeup and personalities of each of the significant players, irrespective of their actual roles in the case. I believe it helps to establish a kind of working baseline for their motivational intent and to come away with a better appreciation as to when they were or were not, acting out of character or even being truthful within the case. By viewing them as mechanical bots and assessing their statements and actions through the filter of one’s own personal mores and standards only, I feel is counter-productive to furthering discussion and ultimately, the truth. And you certainly do seem to have challenges in acknowledging and appreciating my own relatively-neutral stance towards these same players. I'm not confusing anything at all. In fact, I think this is, once again, projection. You ignore what's available to consider then assign certain emotions behind their actions in order to explain away the most obvious observations to be made. Of course sometimes the obvious isn't always the case, but I'd say 9 times out of 10 it is. You search for that 10% in anything you think goes against your overall position. The other 90% is ignored. As far as how I evaluate, its hard not to rely on my 26+ years experience of dealing with criminals of every stripe. So that does factor in. As I've stated before, ordinary people sometimes place themselves in the shoes of criminals then conclude based on how "they" themselves would have acted and/or proceeded. That's not how it works because criminals or those with criminal tendencies do not think like ordinary people. Ordinary people have straight line tendencies or are guided by certain norms or emotions. Applying them to those who do not think like this is counter-productive and leads one further away from the truth - not closer. It's important to view all of those things in addition to the timing of Kelly’s claim. This appears to be a factor you’ve chosen not to jump all over because that might then make it appear he came forward to aid his injection back into the case and any potential rewards this move offered him. Again, you are much too worried about what you think "I" think. It clouds your judgement. broad wave of your hand here does nothing to convince me there is little more to your “search-gate” than Lindbergh simply wanting to enjoy a boondoggle on the high seas. I know you will probably continue to lobby for this position though. Research day and night without any pause for reflection, if you feel you must. I’m just recommending you resist the urge to cherry pick sources and explanations, just because they appear to be in accordance with your pre-conceived notions and now-fixed beliefs. Again with worrying about what I believe... I encourage all considerations, as I have myself. Coming to a personal conclusion after that is done is not "cherry-picking" ... quite the contrary. About the windows, yes the sash lock provided security. Yes, it would also assist in sealing the lower sash from drafts when the upper and lower ones were closed. The primary all-season weather sealing device for this style of window though is the flexible brass weather stripping which would have been installed on the inside of the vertical window jambs. I don’t know if the Lindbergh windows had window stops to adjust for seasonal expansion and contraction, but they might have. Your stance that the windows in a new home of this stature would be rattling if the sash lock was not engaged, and by extension of this, that Lindbergh must have nefariously been ignoring all of this noise in order to encourage intruders, is nonsensical at best. What window noise are you referring to? Nobody was complaining about rattling windows and all of them on the upstairs were kept unlocked as a rule. And do you really imagine the whole upper floor would have been abuzz with vibrating windows on a warm, breezy day when they would have been in opened positions? Better a reality check than more research here. I stand by what I've written in the book and Kevin's quote. Kevin, by the way, who actually was at Highfields. They would have moved and made some noise. The issue might be how "much" noise but not that they wouldn't have made any. You also assume about the brass weather striping based on what was considered "appropriate" for a house of this size. But there isn't any proof of it other than its what you "like" because you seem to think it would eliminate the noise. Bias? Next, we know the shutters "flapped" in the wind, according to Gow's own words. When shutters "flap" in the wind do they make noise? Of course they would. And yet, this problem was never remedied. So there goes your argument about the wind making sound through the windows. If one issue is ignored, we can reasonably assume a similar one could be ignored as well. It's common sense. Was it windy that night? Were the warped set of shutters locked? No. Do the math. Or not, that's up to you. Again, just look at Rauch's house. The man held back payment until he checked everything. If something wasn't "right," he complained to Graves and it wasn't until everything was fixed to his satisfaction that everyone got the full amount of their contracts. But no, Lindbergh had all high end materials that he didn't care whether he got what he paid for or if they were installed properly? Why are you ignoring this? About the shutters, implying here that Lindbergh himself had warped shutters installed, I believe means you’re off to the races again. Seriously though, can we just stick to the facts? The south-east corner shutters would not lock properly due to a misalignment issue that prevented each side of the bolting mechanism to mate with the other and engage correctly. This apparently was the case from the outset of their first visit to Highfields the previous October. Whether the wood in the shutters themselves was “warped” or not, we will never know for sure. Let’s drill down a bit here, shall we? We have an accurate depiction of what happened when the shutters weren’t locked from Betty Gow, do we? And what is the annoyance you’re so seemingly convinced about with respect to the shutters on the southeast corner of the nursery? There you go again Joe. Worrying about what I'm "implying" rather than taking a neutral look at the facts and circumstances. It's a straw man argument because I've never said anything of the sort. We do know the shutter was warped so I'm not sure what you are talking about that we'll never know for sure. We do know. I guess one could argue since the shutters are now missing, we may never know, but the documentation is clear. And, once again, Gow specifically said they didn't lock the shutters for security, but rather, to keep them from flapping in the wind.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 21, 2022 10:25:13 GMT -5
Michael, I don’t worry about what you have to say. But if I disagree with what you say and feel I have good reason to in the interests of the discussion and that it will help to advance the truth, I’ll certainly point it out. After all, I believe this is a discussion and debate forum, not a supporters’ fist-bump rally though I'm pretty sure LJ would disagree. Considering your direct association with criminals through previous employment, I understand how this presents a unique window of opportunity into the workings of the criminal mind. Certainly there are characters like Rosner, Bitz, Spitale, Capone and Means, whose actions and statements can be more clearly understood based on who they were before they entered the case. In most instances, it’s not too difficult to see how their predispositions led to subsequent actions and statements within the LKC. This is exactly my point. It’s called understanding and appreciating, for better or worse, who we’re dealing with. The problem I see within your general approach though, is your tendency to evaluate all of the players, regardless of their past level of criminal involvement, by first applying a kind of broad brush stroke of suspicion towards them, without consideration of a balanced understanding of who each individual player was, and applying this in isolation to their actions and statements. I absolutely get why you’re so taken by the investigative approaches of Murray Garsson and Harry Walsh, and “My God in heaven,” at times you even sound like the latter! I’m not going to belabor my previous observations and points on the windows and shutters. Unfortunately, like many other subjects before it, this one has just become a non-productive debate. Of course you can just point to and stand by what you've said and put in print, but that in itself doesn't make it right, does it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 22, 2022 12:26:38 GMT -5
Michael, I don’t worry about what you have to say. But if I disagree with what you say and feel I have good reason to in the interests of the discussion and that it will help to advance the truth, I’ll certainly point it out. After all, I believe this is a discussion and debate forum, not a supporters’ fist-bump rally though I'm pretty sure LJ would disagree. It just seems to me, based on the previous examples, that you base your positions on what you think I think. You're free to do that, of course, but you seem so caught up in it that you sometimes counter positions I don't even hold. For me, I consider another's point, then either agree, disagree, or a little bit of both. I'd never counter-argue regardless, or formulate a rebuttal based on "where" I think it might eventually lead. That seems a bit like playing a game of dirty pool and definitely seems disingenuous to a certain degree. Considering your direct association with criminals through previous employment, I understand how this presents a unique window of opportunity into the workings of the criminal mind. Certainly there are characters like Rosner, Bitz, Spitale, Capone and Means, whose actions and statements can be more clearly understood based on who they were before they entered the case. In most instances, it’s not too difficult to see how their predispositions led to subsequent actions and statements within the LKC. Here's the thing ... one should look at the facts not the accepted character of anyone associated with this case. If someone did or said something that wasn't right, their supposed station in life shouldn't have a neutralizing effect. I've seen Officers who never did anything wrong in their lives terminated for doing things you could never believe, and had certain Inmates, who did some pretty terrible things on the street, provide me with information that always turned out to be true. As I tried to show throughout my books, everyone associated with this case did something wrong to various degrees. Some more than others. Some of it one might consider justifiable, while others would never consider any of it in those terms. There are no easy outs here. is exactly my point. It’s called understanding and appreciating, for better or worse, who we’re dealing with. The problem I see within your general approach though, is your tendency to evaluate all of the players, regardless of their past level of criminal involvement, by first applying a kind of broad brush stroke of suspicion towards them, without consideration of a balanced understanding of who each individual player was, and applying this in isolation to their actions and statements. I absolutely get why you’re so taken by the investigative approaches of Murray Garsson and Harry Walsh, and “My God in heaven,” at times you even sound like the latter! I'd call it more of a common sense approach. Don't believe anyone until there's something to prove it. Get your information first, then evaluate. If someone lied, like Condon about the Needle Salesman, it doesn't make sense to ignore it because he was an "old man" or because he was a teacher or something. To me that makes no sense. I look at the lie then ask myself what's going on. If he gave a reasonable explanation, it might be easier to swallow based on those things but he never did. It leads one to dig deeper, and sure enough, there's a suspicious past to consider as well. If I used your guidelines we never learn about any of it. We simply believe him and move on. I'm not going to belabor my previous observations and points on the windows and shutters. Unfortunately, like many other subjects before it, this one has just become a non-productive debate. Of course you can just point to and stand by what you've said and put in print, but that in itself doesn't make it right, does it? Is that a serious question?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
V4
Jul 24, 2022 9:46:10 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Jul 24, 2022 9:46:10 GMT -5
In reality Michael, I base my personal position on what I think and I’ve studied this case for as long as you have. I’ve come to understand, as I’m sure you have, that we disagree, at times 180 degrees on its almost-countless aspects. And this is basically from the same evidence pool, which in itself is quite interesting. If you’re referring to the warped shutters in your claim that I sometimes counter positions you don’t even hold, here’s what you said a couple of posts ago: “And yet, the shutter was warped. Ask your guy about that one. He's (Lindbergh I presume) installing warped shutters? And, even worse, he's not getting it fixed?” Perhaps you’re not exactly saying that Lindbergh conspired to have a dud shutter installed, but this is a great example of what I would call full bore innuendo based on half-baked process. Political lobbyists use this approach very effectively to imply something while utilizing just enough truth and wiggle room for their statement to be taken another way, thus lessening the potential impact of any push back. Condon supposedly lying about his recollection of who made the ransom box is another great example, as is the implication that he had the same muscular development on his hand that CJ had. When you add enough of these distorted statements together, the optics often appear tantalizing to the unwary. After analyzing each of them in isolation without bias, the actual results are often far from it. It’s important to know and understand as much as possible about each and every character who played a role in this case. And I’d submit there is a very valid reason behind any of the above seemingly-polar opposite instances you’re provided. Nothing in life happens without a good reason, and you can take that to the bank, my friend. Call it the quintessential law of universal human consciousness. You are absolutely correct that there are no easy outs here. And by extension, it’s not only important to consider a character’s proven and alleged current and past negative attributes, which you do in spades whenever inferring the potential involvement of Lindbergh, Condon, Gow and others relative towards something you consider nefarious, but also their positive attributes, which you have categorically ignored for the past twenty-two plus years. Why is that and who’s being disingenuous here? Regardless of who is reporting their experiences with the Needle Salesman and Knife Sharpener, be it Breckinridge or Condon, I believe we also need to understand here that these two almost-simultaneous events occurred during the ransom negotiations period. There were no in-house detectives reporting each and every move, no notes being taken, high levels of personal stress and a lot of other activities going on at the same time, including a number which demonstrate Condon was suffering from some form of dementia. His family knew this last point better than anyone. The conflicting testimonies as well, occurred well after both facts. On another note, I used to think these accounts were significant but don’t anymore. All things considered here, ie. the two men looked and played their parts, appear to have come only to 2974 Decatur Ave., were behaviourally awkward within their normally-assumed roles and would not have walked up to Condon’s door in broad daylight if they had anything to do with this case. I chalk up these two men to very authentic street vendors simply looking to make a little extra money at the enticement of some inquisitive and creative newsmen on Condon’s trail as potentially being Jafsie, or wanting to more fully understand if he had indeed been contacted by the kidnapper(s). I could be wrong but would submit there’s little to get truly excited about here. Yes. You’ve made some very questionable comments in print, things you might well regard as “reckless” considering their potential import, if only they’d come from anyone who disagrees with you. I’ve pointed these out and offered alternative well-founded scenarios that you’ve subsequently resisted considering because you might find yourself on a path of retraction here. And that’s my serious comment to go along with my serious question.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 26, 2022 14:15:36 GMT -5
In reality Michael, I base my personal position on what I think and I’ve studied this case for as long as you have. I’ve come to understand, as I’m sure you have, that we disagree, at times 180 degrees on its almost-countless aspects. And this is basically from the same evidence pool, which in itself is quite interesting. If you’re referring to the warped shutters in your claim that I sometimes counter positions you don’t even hold, here’s what you said a couple of posts ago: “And yet, the shutter was warped. Ask your guy about that one. He's (Lindbergh I presume) installing warped shutters? And, even worse, he's not getting it fixed?” Perhaps you’re not exactly saying that Lindbergh conspired to have a dud shutter installed, but this is a great example of what I would call full bore innuendo based on half-baked process. Political lobbyists use this approach very effectively to imply something while utilizing just enough truth and wiggle room for their statement to be taken another way, thus lessening the potential impact of any push back. Condon supposedly lying about his recollection of who made the ransom box is another great example, as is the implication that he had the same muscular development on his hand that CJ had. When you add enough of these distorted statements together, the optics often appear tantalizing to the unwary. After analyzing each of them in isolation without bias, the actual results are often far from it. I'm referring to many things Joe. It's my observation that you look at the facts I present concerning anything, ask yourself where it could lead, and if you believe it will eventually reflect poorly on Condon or Lindbergh you counter it in just about any way possible. Doesn't matter how outlandish. If not, then you usually consider what I've written and make a rather sound contribution whether it be in agreement or not. It's why I sometimes read your reaction then have to try to figure out why you think its an attack on either of these two men to better understand your post. You may not want to admit it, but for me its so plain to see and any reply I make bears this out. Next, it has nothing to do with political lobbying to point out when someone is contradicting themselves or lying. These are both things anyone should want to know about. For you, it depends on "who." That's not only a red flag its a huge mistake. When it comes to Condon, its impossible for me to believe that you accept both of his stories. One where he describes an event, gives a description, then says the man might be the Cemetery Look-out, but only a matter of weeks later tells a different investigator he didn't know anything because he wasn't there when the man came to his house. And what's worse, you act like this happened in a vacuum. It didn't. Why? Because he was disingenuous in multiple places as I demonstrated by countless source documents mentioned in several hundred pages outlining the events. These things need to be looked at under a microscope and once they are, lead one to the answer. The totality of his actions show there was a reason, pattern, and method behind what was going on. To suggest someone may have been a Boy scout at one time has no bearing for the actions of someone that's going on during the actual event itself. Look at Hauptmann for example. The man loved animals - especially dogs. He loved to sing too. So let's ignore everything that occurred after February 29? I don't think so. No. We look at the facts as they actually exist then consider the possibilities that stem from those facts. It's important to know and understand as much as possible about each and every character who played a role in this case. And I’d submit there is a very valid reason behind any of the above seemingly-polar opposite instances you’re provided. Nothing in life happens without a good reason, and you can take that to the bank, my friend. Call it the quintessential law of universal human consciousness. You are absolutely correct that there are no easy outs here. And by extension, it’s not only important to consider a character’s proven and alleged current and past negative attributes, which you do in spades whenever inferring the potential involvement of Lindbergh, Condon, Gow and others relative towards something you consider nefarious, but also their positive attributes, which you have categorically ignored for the past twenty-two plus years. Why is that and who’s being disingenuous here? I don't know who? Again, what occurred during this period of time is the most important. Searching for positives about someone from their past as an attempt to neutralize a negative from their present isn't a valid technique. These acts cannot be neutralized. The question should be "why" instead of searching for a distraction. Sometimes their past actually leads to that motive. For example, Condon's indiscretion with at least one female student. That might be submitted as possible blackmail fodder. But to ignore it all seems almost silly. There's too much and no valid explanation for it all. Also, if you re-read my books, you'll see I often addressed the "idea" that certain things "never" happened by using examples from the past to show they did. Reporters fabricating evidence to get stories as one example. So I look at past, present (during the event) and future (now) when evaluating everything. And not only that, if I believe there's something to be found somewhere then I go look for it or talk to someone who may know about it. It's a no stone left unturned philosophy. No apologies and no excuses. Whether I am right about something is always up for debate. But when you find yourself coming up with excuses in one place, that you would never make in another that is exactly the same, then I think a step back is in order. Regardless of who is reporting their experiences with the Needle Salesman and Knife Sharpener, be it Breckinridge or Condon, I believe we also need to understand here that these two almost-simultaneous events occurred during the ransom negotiations period. There were no in-house detectives reporting each and every move, no notes being taken, high levels of personal stress and a lot of other activities going on at the same time, including a number which demonstrate Condon was suffering from some form of dementia. His family knew this last point better than anyone. The conflicting testimonies as well, occurred well after both facts. On another note, I used to think these accounts were significant but don’t anymore. All things considered here, ie. the two men looked and played their parts, appear to have come only to 2974 Decatur Ave., were behaviourally awkward within their normally-assumed roles and would not have walked up to Condon’s door in broad daylight if they had anything to do with this case. I chalk up these two men to very authentic street vendors simply looking to make a little extra money at the enticement of some inquisitive and creative newsmen on Condon’s trail as potentially being Jafsie, or wanting to more fully understand if he had indeed been contacted by the kidnapper(s). I could be wrong but would submit there’s little to get truly excited about here. Your point about whether or not these two men were emissaries is a valid position. It's certainly worthy of consideration. But this idea that Condon was suffering from dementia comes out of nowhere and isn't based on anything besides necessity. It's disproven by other facts. Breckinridge was there. What was he suffering from? Condon's Florida trip before the trial also disproves it. Who goes looking for a Scapegoat after denying Hauptmann was Cemetery John? And once he can't find anyone reverses course because he was being threatened. This is just a little snippet of all that exists. It's all right there but you are too busy trying to make excuses for the guy. Yes. You’ve made some very questionable comments in print, things you might well regard as “reckless” considering their potential import, if only they’d come from anyone who disagrees with you. I’ve pointed these out and offered alternative well-founded scenarios that you’ve subsequently resisted considering because you might find yourself on a path of retraction here. And that’s my serious comment to go along with my serious question. I've backed up all of my information with footnotes, many of which, are from sources no one else has laid eyes on. I'm not sure what else I can do. My ideas about them are limited in most places, and in fact, you seem to be the only one who doesn't like when I share. Many people criticize that I don't share more about what I think. One thing for sure, I will never start making up attributes and assigning them to the principals as a way to explain certain things away.
|
|
|
V4
Jul 27, 2022 10:06:24 GMT -5
Post by Wayne on Jul 27, 2022 10:06:24 GMT -5
Michael,
I'm trying to wrap my head around this.
If Condon was part of the extortion gang from the time he wrote the letter to the BHN, then what was the point of the needle seller, the scissor grinder, and the Tuckahoe Lady coming to his house (if they were part of the extortion gang)?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 27, 2022 11:14:22 GMT -5
Michael, I'm trying to wrap my head around this. If Condon was part of the extortion gang from the time he wrote the letter to the BHN, then what was the point of the needle seller, the scissor grinder, and the Tuckahoe Lady coming to his house (if they were part of the extortion gang)? Condon was in league with those collecting the ransom. His actions and words prove this beyond all doubt. Exactly "why" is a matter for debate. One might consider what he told Special Agent Turrou as a possibility for his involvement. That, for some, might make it an easier pill to swallow. What he told O'Sullivan is another. There's the possibility he's being blackmailed. Or he was a crook. Lots to consider. Since Condon was away from Authorities at times, there was ample opportunity to meet with others outside of any supervision. That leads us to his Bazaar... The Lady of Tuckahoe supposedly visited Condon at that Bazaar. Since there was no one else around, we are at Condon's mercy. This especially because he gave several different versions of it, to include what she looked like, who brought him there, whether or not she even showed up at the 2nd meeting, and even denying under oath that he never met this woman in the first place. If this doesn't cause a fan of his to pause and reconsider their position I don't know what else will. While it does make sense for an emissary to meet with Condon out of sight at the Bazaar, there's no way to know if it occurred in this instance. It could have been another attempt at misdirection, or there could be a grain of truth to it as a means of protection from prosecution later on down the road. As far as the Scissors Grinder and Needle Salesman situation... Breckinridge was at the house. This could be the explanation you seek. It was his position these men were associated with the Extortionists. There are several possible explanations. One would be to reinforce the belief of an attempt at gleaning information. So as to give Breckinridge the impression there was a need for it. These men could have been like Perrone in this regard and not directly tied to these people. They could also have been checking up on Condon, a test to see if they would be stopped, or it was used as a signal of some sort. Next, they weren't involved as Joe suggested. What we do know is that Condon told two very different stories concerning the Needle Salesman. During his first, he indicated it may have been the Look-Out. That's important. Why? Because his next version is that he was not home and never saw the man. So if his later story is true, there is your obstruction on a silver platter. But then again, if that 2nd story is a lie, there again is your obstruction. What we see is that he changed his story because his daughter, Myra, injected herself and took his place there to protect him. Protect him from what exactly? If he's done nothing wrong there's no need for this. And yet, Condon lied about the 2nd Taxi Driver and Myra did the same thing there too. It's impossible to ignore.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
V4
Aug 1, 2022 9:49:29 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Aug 1, 2022 9:49:29 GMT -5
Michael, I'm trying to wrap my head around this. If Condon was part of the extortion gang from the time he wrote the letter to the BHN, then what was the point of the needle seller, the scissor grinder, and the Tuckahoe Lady coming to his house (if they were part of the extortion gang)? Condon was in league with those collecting the ransom. His actions and words prove this beyond all doubt. Exactly "why" is a matter for debate. One might consider what he told Special Agent Turrou as a possibility for his involvement. That, for some, might make it an easier pill to swallow. What he told O'Sullivan is another. There's the possibility he's being blackmailed. Or he was a crook. Lots to consider. Since Condon was away from Authorities at times, there was ample opportunity to meet with others outside of any supervision. That leads us to his Bazaar... The Lady of Tuckahoe supposedly visited Condon at that Bazaar. Since there was no one else around, we are at Condon's mercy. This especially because he gave several different versions of it, to include what she looked like, who brought him there, whether or not she even showed up at the 2nd meeting, and even denying under oath that he never met this woman in the first place. If this doesn't cause a fan of his to pause and reconsider their position I don't know what else will. While it does make sense for an emissary to meet with Condon out of sight at the Bazaar, there's no way to know if it occurred in this instance. It could have been another attempt at misdirection, or there could be a grain of truth to it as a means of protection from prosecution later on down the road. As far as the Scissors Grinder and Needle Salesman situation... Breckinridge was at the house. This could be the explanation you seek. It was his position these men were associated with the Extortionists. There are several possible explanations. One would be to reinforce the belief of an attempt at gleaning information. So as to give Breckinridge the impression there was a need for it. These men could have been like Perrone in this regard and not directly tied to these people. They could also have been checking up on Condon, a test to see if they would be stopped, or it was used as a signal of some sort. Next, they weren't involved as Joe suggested. What we do know is that Condon told two very different stories concerning the Needle Salesman. During his first, he indicated it may have been the Look-Out. That's important. Why? Because his next version is that he was not home and never saw the man. So if his later story is true, there is your obstruction on a silver platter. But then again, if that 2nd story is a lie, there again is your obstruction. What we see is that he changed his story because his daughter, Myra, injected herself and took his place there to protect him. Protect him from what exactly? If he's done nothing wrong there's no need for this. And yet, Condon lied about the 2nd Taxi Driver and Myra did the same thing there too. It's impossible to ignore. Michael, can I ask you to clarify just how deeply "in league" you believe Condon was with the extortion gang for you to conclude this "beyond all doubt?" In a universal sense, this could mean anything along the gamut of Condon having to associate at a fringe level with the extortionists out of necessity to ensure he was able to safely return CALjr to his parents, where opposingly, you would appear to have him well down a path of debauchery and treachery that ultimately, would have had his intentions fully aligned with those of the extortionists, in other words a true "confederate" within this crime. Your above examples don't really offer anything close to the conclusive airtightness of a ladder rail scientifically demonstrated to have originated from a specific attic floorboard. Condon's comments and questions to Agent Turrou are a perfect example of how one individual's true thoughts, feelings and intentions can be correctly read or misread, and I believe this is really just the tip of the iceberg here. Can you please explain how Condon is "in league" with the extortion gang "beyond all doubt," without the apparent need to rely only on layer upon layer of personally-inspired allegation, which has been based upon evidence capable of being viewed a number of ways so subjectively?
|
|
|
V4
Aug 1, 2022 14:53:55 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Aug 1, 2022 14:53:55 GMT -5
Michael, can I ask you to clarify just how deeply "in league" you believe Condon was with the extortion gang for you to conclude this "beyond all doubt?" In a universal sense, this could mean anything along the gamut of Condon having to associate at a fringe level with the extortionists out of necessity to ensure he was able to safely return CALjr to his parents, where opposingly, you would appear to have him well down a path of debauchery and treachery that ultimately, would have had his intentions fully aligned with those of the extortionists, in other words a true "confederate" within this crime. Your above examples don't really offer anything close to the conclusive airtightness of a ladder rail scientifically demonstrated to have originated from a specific attic floorboard. Condon's comments and questions to Agent Turrou are a perfect example of how one individual's true thoughts, feelings and intentions can be correctly read or misread, and I believe this is really just the tip of the iceberg here. Can you please explain how Condon is "in league" with the extortion gang "beyond all doubt," without the apparent need to rely only on layer upon layer of personally-inspired allegation, which has been based upon evidence capable of being viewed a number of ways so subjectively? What's to "clarify?" I've laid out a series of facts which prove the conclusions I've made. I've also stated there are many possible reasons for this to consider. Right? So one could argue Condon was afraid for his and his family's life as a possible for reason for what we can clearly see he was doing. That would mean he's in league but under duress. I'm not saying that's true, only a possible option to consider. But, try as you might Joe, parsing words in order to somehow get Condon out from under his very own words and actions makes no sense. Instead it smacks of desperation. Here's why .... If he's lying and misdirecting police in hopes of getting the child back, that motivation no longer exists AFTER the child turns up dead. However, I'd argue that's when Condon does his best work. He's helping them get the ransom, protecting them before, during, and after. He's obstructing police and an accessory to the extortion.
|
|