Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 10, 2023 10:26:50 GMT -5
By the time Condon was questioned about the ransom box construction and who had ultimately built it, which occurred between a year-and-a-half and two years after the fact, the evidence demonstrates he could not remember and had become confused by the details and the process involved itself from start to finish. (Joe) The evidence of those reports I posted does not support a memory issue with Condon. It shows he was lying. Please see Michael's post above yours. Michael explained Condon's lying behavior very well when he said, "He had to lie about who built the box to protect the other lie he told about it." One lie will often beget the need for another lie. That is just a simple fact. I suppose you could say the same for one flawed conclusion begetting the need for another flawed conclusion during the construction of any formidable house of cards. Amy, for what reason do you believe Condon was as you say, lying? What was his self-perceived gain in doing so? Please don't simply reference me to what someone else said in a book, therefore 'that's the way it is.' I'd like to hear it from you.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 10, 2023 14:28:46 GMT -5
Michael, I was calling yours, a 'house of cards' long before your books came out. And I'm being very honest with you in stating that I've seen nothing within any one of them that would dissuade me from continuing to believe this. All of the the above examples you've given, essentially constitute your specific interpretation of what took place regarding a particular Condon or Lindbergh 'Event.' In them, we find the specific information that you've chosen to present. However, in most cases, you've also added your own editorial efforts, courtesy of the kind of leading questions and assertions, innuendo, overtones, insinuations and intimations, to ensure the reader gets your personal message: Condon was the kind of guy who would jump into bed with kidnappers and extortionists and Lindbergh was the kind of guy who would have had his son killed because he felt he didn't measure up to his personal standards. 'Leading the reader to water,' as you've told me a couple of times. Look, I get it. Every other contemporary author these days, including Fisher, Scaduto, Kennedy, Ahlgren and Monier, Gardner, Cahill and Perlman (am I missing any?) to some extent, does the same thing in order to ultimately express their personal conclusions, which they feel for a number of reasons, the reader cannot do without. And yes, I get that a certain amount of spice is 'Marketing 101' and getting people to buy your book. You do the same theory 'salting' in spades however. Which is why I call your books, one piece of the puzzle. I read and enjoy your research because it is thorough, informative and excellent, and has saved me countless hours of attempting to accomplish the same thing on my own. But I've learned through experience and my own standards of what constitutes conclusive proof, to acknowledge your personal conclusions, as you've clearly stated above, with a grain of salt. You state above that "Each and every point can stand alone." Okay, I've offered my points recently on the Needle Salesman and Scissors Grinder, in an attempt to shed further light on just one of the many Condon contradiction accounts. Having previously tried unsuccessfully to engage you and others here in discussion for the purpose of fully exploring just one Condon or Lindbergh 'Event' at a time, will I get an early Christmas present this year? I realize you will never have enough. It's like those people who believe the Earth is flat. Show them the satellite photos then they claim those aren't real, or if they believe they are, still claim they want more proof. What I've done is report back the facts as they are contained within the source documentation. Some of what I found harmed previous positions that would "assist" in some of my personal conclusions, and yet, there they are nevertheless. And so, lumping me into this biased narrative just isn't supported. Next, I could care less who buys my books. I feel like either they want new and more information or they don't. That's the beauty of it actually. You haven't any idea how many times I've been contacted with opportunities to lecture, podcasts, book signings, radio interviews, and documentaries all of which I declined. Many of which came with payment - sometimes rather sizable. My own publisher offered to assist, free of charge, to publicize and I declined that too. I told the person that these are advanced books and that reaching out would only bring in new people who would need to read somebody else's book first anyway. You see Joe, you are projecting. You believe you know what's going on in my head, and as a result, try to counter what you happen to think would harm what you believe I think. That's no way to debate this case, however, you are certainly free to waste your time regardless. Based on the documentation, Condon was clearly lying and misdirecting the Police. It's indisputable after what I've revealed.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 10, 2023 14:40:04 GMT -5
Michael, for what primary, and tertiary reasons if they apply, do you believe Condon would have wanted to, or felt obliged to consort and conspire with the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s)? And at what point prior to or after the kidnapping, do you believe his involvement with them was initiated by whom? This question exposes the weakness in your position. Since you are emotionally attached to this character, for whatever reason, you cannot bring yourself to accept that he would do what's evidenced by his behavior. The man was a human being. That makes him flawed so he could have gotten involved for any number of reasons. Thinking about what he did to that little girl I'd say blackmailed into it for one. Or to "assist" someone who was "good" but in a bad family, like he told O'Sullivan. Or perhaps he was threatened with death, like he confessed to Agent Turrou. Or just maybe he was just a crook as evidenced by the stolen purse he had possession of. There are multiple possibilities as the source documentation shows.
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Dec 12, 2023 7:47:03 GMT -5
"...the evidence demonstrates [Jafsie] could not remember and had become confused..." Snicker.
"Michael, I was calling yours, a 'house of cards' long before your books came out." Snicker.
"...for what primary, and tertiary reasons if they apply, do you believe Condon would have wanted to, or felt obliged to consort and conspire with the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s)?" Money. Money money money money money. Money. The reason was money. The first, second, third, fourth, and fifth reason was money. $50,000 in 1932 was what, 2500 ounces of gold? At today's prices, that's what, almost $5 million? The reason was money.
Whatever doubts I had about Michael's work have now been entirely erased. The only "critics" of his work are museum-quality morons.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Dec 12, 2023 8:48:59 GMT -5
By the time Condon was questioned about the ransom box construction and who had ultimately built it, which occurred between a year-and-a-half and two years after the fact, the evidence demonstrates he could not remember and had become confused by the details and the process involved itself from start to finish. (Joe) The evidence of those reports I posted does not support a memory issue with Condon. It shows he was lying. Please see Michael's post above yours. Michael explained Condon's lying behavior very well when he said, "He had to lie about who built the box to protect the other lie he told about it." One lie will often beget the need for another lie. That is just a simple fact. I suppose you could say the same for one flawed conclusion begetting the need for another flawed conclusion during the construction of any formidable house of cards. You ought to know. This perfectly describes your idolatrized, saintly obsession with Condon. It leads you to one flawed conclusion after another concerning this man. Your Condon house of cards completely collapsed once Michael's Dark Corners V2 revealed the flawed, darker side of Condon's personality and behavior through his years of researched documentation (facts) that support it.
By the way, don't ever instruction me how to write a post for this board. You have absolutely no right to do that.
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Dec 14, 2023 10:03:47 GMT -5
Not to mention the risk of one flawed brain begetting more flawed brains.
Back to reality: "Jafsie" Condon, a successful educator and real estate manager, never told the same story twice. That's not Alzheimer's. That's lying. So, what? So, LOOK at the ransom notes. See anything rotten? Besides your mind? The notes from the "kidnapper" that send everyone on wild goose chases (Woodlawn Cemetery; "Boad Nelly") are on sheets of paper that do NOT bear the "official signature" holes and stamps. So, you tell us, A Guest With (bleep) For Brains, how does Jafsie's "memory" explain that? The facts explain it very simply--Jafsie switched notes. "Why? Why, oh why, oh why, why would Jafsie do something so silly?" THE MONEY. He did it for the money. Which his long-time accomplice Bruno was helping him launder. But I'd looooooooooooooooooove to hear you blame it on Jafsie's "memory."
Take all the time you need.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Dec 14, 2023 15:17:34 GMT -5
Yikes!!! Don't confused me with Joe. He is the one who blames Condon's lies on a faculty memory not me.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Dec 14, 2023 15:19:06 GMT -5
Correction. Don't confuse me with Joe. He is the one who blames Condon's lies on a faulty memory, not me.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 15, 2023 9:20:01 GMT -5
Michael, I was calling yours, a 'house of cards' long before your books came out. And I'm being very honest with you in stating that I've seen nothing within any one of them that would dissuade me from continuing to believe this. All of the the above examples you've given, essentially constitute your specific interpretation of what took place regarding a particular Condon or Lindbergh 'Event.' In them, we find the specific information that you've chosen to present. However, in most cases, you've also added your own editorial efforts, courtesy of the kind of leading questions and assertions, innuendo, overtones, insinuations and intimations, to ensure the reader gets your personal message: Condon was the kind of guy who would jump into bed with kidnappers and extortionists and Lindbergh was the kind of guy who would have had his son killed because he felt he didn't measure up to his personal standards. 'Leading the reader to water,' as you've told me a couple of times. Look, I get it. Every other contemporary author these days, including Fisher, Scaduto, Kennedy, Ahlgren and Monier, Gardner, Cahill and Perlman (am I missing any?) to some extent, does the same thing in order to ultimately express their personal conclusions, which they feel for a number of reasons, the reader cannot do without. And yes, I get that a certain amount of spice is 'Marketing 101' and getting people to buy your book. You do the same theory 'salting' in spades however. Which is why I call your books, one piece of the puzzle. I read and enjoy your research because it is thorough, informative and excellent, and has saved me countless hours of attempting to accomplish the same thing on my own. But I've learned through experience and my own standards of what constitutes conclusive proof, to acknowledge your personal conclusions, as you've clearly stated above, with a grain of salt. You state above that "Each and every point can stand alone." Okay, I've offered my points recently on the Needle Salesman and Scissors Grinder, in an attempt to shed further light on just one of the many Condon contradiction accounts. Having previously tried unsuccessfully to engage you and others here in discussion for the purpose of fully exploring just one Condon or Lindbergh 'Event' at a time, will I get an early Christmas present this year? I realize you will never have enough. It's like those people who believe the Earth is flat. Show them the satellite photos then they claim those aren't real, or if they believe they are, still claim they want more proof. What I've done is report back the facts as they are contained within the source documentation. Some of what I found harmed previous positions that would "assist" in some of my personal conclusions, and yet, there they are nevertheless. And so, lumping me into this biased narrative just isn't supported. Next, I could care less who buys my books. I feel like either they want new and more information or they don't. That's the beauty of it actually. You haven't any idea how many times I've been contacted with opportunities to lecture, podcasts, book signings, radio interviews, and documentaries all of which I declined. Many of which came with payment - sometimes rather sizable. My own publisher offered to assist, free of charge, to publicize and I declined that too. I told the person that these are advanced books and that reaching out would only bring in new people who would need to read somebody else's book first anyway. You see Joe, you are projecting. You believe you know what's going on in my head, and as a result, try to counter what you happen to think would harm what you believe I think. That's no way to debate this case, however, you are certainly free to waste your time regardless. Based on the documentation, Condon was clearly lying and misdirecting the Police. It's indisputable after what I've revealed. Don’t flatter yourself, Michael. You are not showing the equivalent of satellite photos of the earth taken from outer space through your biased rationale, flawed conclusions and conspiratorial tones. Not by a long shot. I can see from your response that you’re currently not up to debating with me in good faith and or even attempting to wring the truth out of half-baked conclusions.
Have you 'called it a day' then, standing fast behind what you've put into print within your Dark Corners series? Are you essentially saying you're not open to any further discussion that might well expose the weaknesses readily apparent within your conclusions? This is the kind of stuff cults are made of.
Witness the arrival of one of your recent recruits, 'stonesunturned.' In his pitch for sucker subscribers at $19.95 per month, he calls himself a 'dictator' and clearly expresses that his opinions and conclusions are not the subject of debate with his 'fans.' This guy sounds a bit like you wearing the mask Stanley Ipkiss found in the river.. and I'm sure you're thrilled to have him aboard.
All of the above banter aside and at the end of the day, I remain entirely open to examining with you and anyone else here, each of the events you've used to demonstrate your general antithesis to the historical narrative. The Needle Salesman and Scissors Grinder events, which I previously posted on, are excellent places to begin.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 15, 2023 9:35:27 GMT -5
Michael, for what primary, and tertiary reasons if they apply, do you believe Condon would have wanted to, or felt obliged to consort and conspire with the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s)? And at what point prior to or after the kidnapping, do you believe his involvement with them was initiated by whom? This question exposes the weakness in your position. Since you are emotionally attached to this character, for whatever reason, you cannot bring yourself to accept that he would do what's evidenced by his behavior. The man was a human being. That makes him flawed so he could have gotten involved for any number of reasons. Thinking about what he did to that little girl I'd say blackmailed into it for one. Or to "assist" someone who was "good" but in a bad family, like he told O'Sullivan. Or perhaps he was threatened with death, like he confessed to Agent Turrou. Or just maybe he was just a crook as evidenced by the stolen purse he had possession of. There are multiple possibilities as the source documentation shows. One of your biggest Achilles Heels, and it’s one shared by Amy and some others here as well, is this silly, immature notion that I have an emotional attachment to John Condon and Charles Lindbergh as well. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Is this just a cheap debate tactic? Yes. But can’t you see how this puts you at an immediate disadvantage within any attempt to debate in good faith, through your perception having been skewed from the start? It’s little wonder you can’t seem to get off your rock to be able to explore well beyond the position you find yourself stuck in at present.
You present four inference scenarios here as to why you appear to believe Condon entered into an agreement with the kidnapper(s) and/or extortionist(s), beginning with ‘that little girl.’ Are you interested in and open to discussing each one in isolation, further?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 15, 2023 9:43:09 GMT -5
Not to mention the risk of one flawed brain begetting more flawed brains. Back to reality: "Jafsie" Condon, a successful educator and real estate manager, never told the same story twice. That's not Alzheimer's. That's lying. So, what? So, LOOK at the ransom notes. See anything rotten? Besides your mind? The notes from the "kidnapper" that send everyone on wild goose chases (Woodlawn Cemetery; "Boad Nelly") are on sheets of paper that do NOT bear the "official signature" holes and stamps. So, you tell us, A Guest With (bleep) For Brains, how does Jafsie's "memory" explain that? The facts explain it very simply--Jafsie switched notes. "Why? Why, oh why, oh why, why would Jafsie do something so silly?" THE MONEY. He did it for the money. Which his long-time accomplice Bruno was helping him launder. But I'd looooooooooooooooooove to hear you blame it on Jafsie's "memory." Take all the time you need. Oh bugger off, you silly twit. But before you do, think about Condon, on his own initiative, saving Lindbergh $20,000 by negotiating with Cemetery John. If he was sooooooooooo interested in money and a willing part of the extortion, why wouldn't he have just pocketed this huge amount of cash for himself, when he had the perfect opportunity to do so?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 15, 2023 9:53:59 GMT -5
I suppose you could say the same for one flawed conclusion begetting the need for another flawed conclusion during the construction of any formidable house of cards. You ought to know. This perfectly describes your idolatrized, saintly obsession with Condon. It leads you to one flawed conclusion after another concerning this man. Your Condon house of cards completely collapsed once Michael's Dark Corners V2 revealed the flawed, darker side of Condon's personality and behavior through his years of researched documentation (facts) that support it.
By the way, don't ever instruction me how to write a post for this board. You have absolutely no right to do that. Amy, I have no allegiance towards Lindbergh or Condon and I’ve made this clear to you many times before. We can only hope that at some point, this sinks in. And certainly not in the way you routinely express your allegiance on this discussion forum.
Most importantly, I would not think of casting anyone as a criminal based entirely on something as suggestive and flawed as the arguments you appear to support here.
Also, I wasn't aware I was instructioning you how to write a post. You're clearly able to do that on your own.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 15, 2023 21:31:04 GMT -5
Don’t flatter yourself, Michael. You are not showing the equivalent of satellite photos of the earth taken from outer space through your biased rationale, flawed conclusions and conspiratorial tones. Not by a long shot. I can see from your response that you’re currently not up to debating with me in good faith and or even attempting to wring the truth out of half-baked conclusions. Have you 'called it a day' then, standing fast behind what you've put into print within your Dark Corners series? Are you essentially saying you're not open to any further discussion that might well expose the weaknesses readily apparent within your conclusions? This is the kind of stuff cults are made of. Witness the arrival of one of your recent recruits, 'stonesunturned.' In his pitch for sucker subscribers at $19.95 per month, he calls himself a 'dictator' and clearly expresses that his opinions and conclusions are not the subject of debate with his 'fans.' This guy sounds a bit like you wearing the mask Stanley Ipkiss found in the river.. and I'm sure you're thrilled to have him aboard. All of the above banter aside and at the end of the day, I remain entirely open to examining with you and anyone else here, each of the events you've used to demonstrate your general antithesis to the historical narrative. The Needle Salesman and Scissors Grinder events, which I previously posted on, are excellent places to begin. I'd say it is the equivalent. I wasn't trying to "flatter" myself, just doing what the young men nowadays call " keeping it real." Bottom line is someone was constantly lying and you are either in denial or pretending to be. What's to debate from there? I will take another look at your positions on the Vendors and respond but it's not gonna be another "round and round" like always because once you reject the facts you do not like, I'm just going to stop the discussion from my end. Everyone else are free to do whatever they like. Next, are you seriously accusing me of bringing in those who want to discuss the case? Listen, I can't even afford groceries so there's no way I'm paying anyone to appear on the Board. "Stoneunturned" is a new(er) Member who came here of his own free will. If there is a podcast he is certainly free to post the link in the "link" section whether he agrees with me or not. From what I've read of his posts, there are places he does and other places he does not. What he charges or doesn't charge for membership to listen to the podcast is his business. I would like to tone down the name calling a bit, but that's not directed at any one person and for everyone to think about. Sometimes things can get heated, and I'm cool with that, but I don't want people hesitating to post because they are afraid it will lead to a venomous attack One of your biggest Achilles Heels, and it’s one shared by Amy and some others here as well, is this silly, immature notion that I have an emotional attachment to John Condon and Charles Lindbergh as well. Nothing could be further from the truth. Is this just a cheap debate tactic? Yes. But can’t you see how this puts you at an immediate disadvantage within any attempt to debate in good faith, through your perception having been skewed from the start? It’s little wonder you can’t seem to get off your rock to be able to explore well beyond the position you find yourself stuck in at present. You present four inference scenarios here as to why you appear to believe Condon entered into an agreement with the kidnapper(s) and/or extortionist(s), beginning with ‘that little girl.’ Are you interested in and open to discussing each one in isolation, further? I'm not sure who Amy is. Did I miss something? Update me please. Otherwise, I would agree with everyone. It's quite obvious and your denying it is hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Dec 16, 2023 9:19:22 GMT -5
I can't tell one anonymous (bleep) for brains from another. So, I'll try to dumb this question down to a level even Joe's Guest can understand: IF "Hauptmann" (you people tickle me) went to aaallll that trouble to make aaaallll those sheets of paper with aaaallll those special "signatures" on them, and even repeatedly reminded "Dear Sir" that any note that does NOT have said "signature" is NOT from "him," then WHY would ANYONE believe that the "Woodlawn Cemetery" note and the "Boad Nelly" note ARE from "him?" Unless they have (bleep) for brains? It wasn't because he "ran out" of previously prepared sheets of paper. He used two more of them "later."
Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...WHY would anyone who doesn't have (bleep) for brains, think for one second that the two blatantly obvious wild goose chase notes are from the kidnapper? On the other hand, why would Jafsie be tempted to swindle everyone out of $50,000?
Wait. That's too complicated for A Guest. Let me try again. Jafsie had 50,000 reasons to lie. We have zero reasons for believing him, OR the phony notes. Please explain that. Without jumping topics. Just explain why anyone would believe those two notes are "real." Just that.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Dec 16, 2023 16:35:22 GMT -5
I can't tell one anonymous (bleep) for brains from another. So, I'll try to dumb this question down to a level even A Guest can understand: IF "Hauptmann" (you people tickle me) went to aaallll that trouble to make aaaallll those sheets of paper with aaaallll those special "signatures" on them, and even repeatedly reminded "Dear Sir" that any note that does NOT have said "signature" is NOT from "him," then WHY would ANYONE believe that the "Woodlawn Cemetery" note and the "Boad Nelly" note ARE from "him?" Unless they have (bleep) for brains? It wasn't because he "ran out" of previously prepared sheets of paper. He used two more of them "later." Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...WHY would anyone who doesn't have (bleep) for brains, think for one second that the two blatantly obvious wild goose chase notes are from the kidnapper? On the other hand, why would Jafsie be tempted to swindle everyone out of $50,000? Wait. That's too complicated for A Guest. Let me try again. Jafsie had 50,000 reasons to lie. We have zero reasons for believing him, OR the phony notes. Please explain that. Without jumping topics. Just explain why anyone would believe those two notes are "real." Just that. Stop insulting members. Concentrate on your own podcast.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 16, 2023 20:21:47 GMT -5
I can't tell one anonymous (bleep) for brains from another. So, I'll try to dumb this question down to a level even A Guest can understand: IF "Hauptmann" (you people tickle me) went to aaallll that trouble to make aaaallll those sheets of paper with aaaallll those special "signatures" on them, and even repeatedly reminded "Dear Sir" that any note that does NOT have said "signature" is NOT from "him," then WHY would ANYONE believe that the "Woodlawn Cemetery" note and the "Boad Nelly" note ARE from "him?" Unless they have (bleep) for brains? It wasn't because he "ran out" of previously prepared sheets of paper. He used two more of them "later." Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...WHY would anyone who doesn't have (bleep) for brains, think for one second that the two blatantly obvious wild goose chase notes are from the kidnapper? On the other hand, why would Jafsie be tempted to swindle everyone out of $50,000? Wait. That's too complicated for A Guest. Let me try again. Jafsie had 50,000 reasons to lie. We have zero reasons for believing him, OR the phony notes. Please explain that. Without jumping topics. Just explain why anyone would believe those two notes are "real." Just that. Stop insulting members. Concentrate on your own podcast. Perhaps things are running a bit slow at thestonesunturned podcast, which is why he's hanging out here like a dirty, foul-mouthed shirt.
Could this be a last ditch effort to drum up more subscribers before any more drop like flies because of his general issues?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 17, 2023 8:16:11 GMT -5
Don’t flatter yourself, Michael. You are not showing the equivalent of satellite photos of the earth taken from outer space through your biased rationale, flawed conclusions and conspiratorial tones. Not by a long shot. I can see from your response that you’re currently not up to debating with me in good faith and or even attempting to wring the truth out of half-baked conclusions. Have you 'called it a day' then, standing fast behind what you've put into print within your Dark Corners series? Are you essentially saying you're not open to any further discussion that might well expose the weaknesses readily apparent within your conclusions? This is the kind of stuff cults are made of. Witness the arrival of one of your recent recruits, 'stonesunturned.' In his pitch for sucker subscribers at $19.95 per month, he calls himself a 'dictator' and clearly expresses that his opinions and conclusions are not the subject of debate with his 'fans.' This guy sounds a bit like you wearing the mask Stanley Ipkiss found in the river.. and I'm sure you're thrilled to have him aboard. All of the above banter aside and at the end of the day, I remain entirely open to examining with you and anyone else here, each of the events you've used to demonstrate your general antithesis to the historical narrative. The Needle Salesman and Scissors Grinder events, which I previously posted on, are excellent places to begin. I'd say it is the equivalent. I wasn't trying to "flatter" myself, just doing what the young men nowadays call " keeping it real." Bottom line is someone was constantly lying and you are either in denial or pretending to be. What's to debate from there? I will take another look at your positions on the Vendors and respond but it's not gonna be another "round and round" like always because once you reject the facts you do not like, I'm just going to stop the discussion from my end. Everyone else are free to do whatever they like. Showing the earth as a sphere from a satellite, is called objective evidence of proof of a theory. You’ve yet to provide any objective evidence that Condon was lying, obfuscating, misdirecting or contradicting himself with the intent of abetting or concealing what you consider to be, his direct criminal involvement with the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s) in this case. Your case is entirely suggestive and speculative, and each component of that case is not a valid one until objectively and conclusively demonstrated. Show me the round earth.Next, are you seriously accusing me of bringing in those who want to discuss the case? Listen, I can't even afford groceries so there's no way I'm paying anyone to appear on the Board. "Stoneunturned" is a new(er) Member who came here of his own free will. If there is a podcast he is certainly free to post the link in the "link" section whether he agrees with me or not. From what I've read of his posts, there are places he does and other places he does not. What he charges or doesn't charge for membership to listen to the podcast is his business. I would like to tone down the name calling a bit, but that's not directed at any one person and for everyone to think about. Sometimes things can get heated, and I'm cool with that, but I don't want people hesitating to post because they are afraid it will lead to a venomous attack. I didn’t intend to imply that you recruited ‘thestonesunturned’ to your discussion board. I was thinking of his member status, which I thought was listed as ‘Recruit.’ For what it’s worth, it’s now listed as ‘Trooper II.’ In any case, I know you wouldn’t have willingly canvassed for this member’s participation here. As for the name calling and foul language, I agree that while things can escalate quickly within this case, there is no place for either here.
One of your biggest Achilles Heels, and it’s one shared by Amy and some others here as well, is this silly, immature notion that I have an emotional attachment to John Condon and Charles Lindbergh as well. Nothing could be further from the truth. Is this just a cheap debate tactic? Yes. But can’t you see how this puts you at an immediate disadvantage within any attempt to debate in good faith, through your perception having been skewed from the start? It’s little wonder you can’t seem to get off your rock to be able to explore well beyond the position you find yourself stuck in at present. You present four inference scenarios here as to why you appear to believe Condon entered into an agreement with the kidnapper(s) and/or extortionist(s), beginning with ‘that little girl.’ Are you interested in and open to discussing each one in isolation, further? I'm not sure who Amy is. Did I miss something? Update me please. Otherwise, I would agree with everyone. It's quite obvious and your denying it is hilarious. Really? Maybe I missed something here, but Guest and Amy sound one and the same in terms of their post content. And all of her previous posts now carry the 'Guest' name. I wouldn't want to say unequivocally that they match up like Rail 16 and S-226, but I'd be very surprised otherwise. If they are not one and same person, please let me know and I'll refrain from using her name. Please demonstrate conclusively to me and everyone else why you believe I have some form of allegiance and emotional attachment to John Condon. This kind of debate tactic comes out of a primary school playground. I have no questions at all about the fact he gets a very raw deal from many here who are much too quick to judge without all of the information, but that's about the extent of my feelings for the man. As for my belief towards the question of any criminal involvement on his part within this case, he had none.
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Dec 17, 2023 23:54:49 GMT -5
So much for discussing the evidence:
1. The hilariously obvious fake ransom notes that passed EXCLUSIVELY though Jafsie's hands.
2. Out of the hundreds of fingerprints found on the "ladder," including specific places like, the area of each rung where it was nailed to the ladder, where ONLY the person who made the ladder could have left his prints, ZERO resemble Hauptmann's. Zero.
3. Bruno and his athletic friends spent a LOT of time doing very athletic things on City Island. Jafsie, who devoted his life helping athletic young men develop their manly bodies, conducted most of his real estate business on City Island.
4. Hans Mueller was crewman and live-on-board caretaker of Thomas LaMont's yacht moored at City Island. Most, if not all, of Jafsie's clients owned yachts. BOTH of his alma maters, Fordham and Columbia, HQ'd their sailing teams on City Island. You can imagine how much time Jafsie spent hanging around all those gorgeous, rich, young sailors.
5. You can stop imagining it, and recall that Thomas LaMont was close friend--and PARTNER--of Dwight Morrow at JP Morgan. Red Johnson, Betty Gow's long-time non-boyfriend, was a sailor on Dwight Morrow's yacht. Moored next to LaMont's. On City Island.
6. Hans Mueller lived literally around the corner from Jafsie.
7. Jafsie's address and phone number were written inside a closet in Bruno's apartment. The serial numbers of several large bills (remember, in 1932, $100.00 was a LOT of money. 5 ounces of gold. That's almost $10,000 in today's "money") were also written there. But--NONE of those serial numbers were part of the "ransom."
8. Bruno was clearly laundering money for his other criminal friends, including, but not limited to, Donahue. BEFORE the phony "kidnapping."
9. Jafsie never once, not once ever, told the same story twice.
10. To the extent that we can check ANYTHING Jafsie EVER said, he lied. To the extent that we HAVE to take his word for ANYTHING, you can plainly see the phony notes he switcherooed.
And that's just barely scratching the surface. Allllll of this means nothing, nothing at all--if, of course, you have (bleep) for brains.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 26, 2023 14:33:26 GMT -5
Needle SalesmanMan complained of hard times. Was he a real vendor or perhaps unemployed and hired by reporters to assume the role of needle salesman, which would have gained him a buck or two? Had only one pack of needles available, and appeared to not know what to do when asked for change. Very nervous, appeared furtive and looked around a lot. Abnormal behaviour for a door-to-door salesman, who’s main intent is to be friendly, remain focused on and develop empathy with his potential customer. Was nervousness due to his role as suspected accomplice in the kidnapping or being put up to posing as a salesman for the purpose of acquiring information for reporters or newsmen? Would the kidnappers actually risk sending someone to Condon’s door in broad daylight? That seems so unlikely to me as to be almost non-existent. Man did not stop at any other houses and left the neighbourhood immediately. Breckinridge was suspicious of the man’s motives and associated him with the description of the potential lookout at Woodlawn Cemetery. Condon’s recollection and statement to Agent Seykora, comes two years after the event took place, Breck’s statement a year-and-a-half afterwards. Plenty of time for inconsistency in recollection especially when statements were not taken at the time of the events. Condon states the man was about 27 as opposed to Breck’s estimate of early 40’s. I can buy this difference due to the reddish, ruddy and veiny complexion which may have disguised his true age. Believed he may have been the same man as the WC lookout. Condon and his wife both told Sisk and O’Leary that he was not home at the time of the needle salesman visit, and that Myra answered the door, with Breck not being part of the interaction. Myra’s statement says she answered the door and enlisted Breck to appraise the situation. She claims Breck suggested she ask the man for change with a larger amount given. Myra’s claim the man was well dressed is at odds with the original accounts by Condon and Breck. Suggests they missed that detail in any attempt to shift responsibility of who was actually there for whatever reason. Also, she claims he didn’t look like a normal peddler, was not Italian but Austrian or German and had no accent. Said he was about fifty years of age and one arm was pressed against his side as if a wooden arm. Could she had confused him with some other man who came to the door around this same time for another reason? Was ownership of the event essentially shifted from Condon to Myra at some point? And for what reason? Just one pack of needles suggests it was his last one or that’s all he was given to effect his ruse as a needle salesman. The idea that Reporters hired him to scope out the situation is an option to consider and one I've done myself. But to include this as an option but suggest its unlikely the actual Kidnappers would do it too reveals bias in my opinion. We already know they would do this based upon Perrone's employment to deliver the note. No one that I know of has ever questioned his account. And so, proceeding with his narrative, its proof positive those involved not only could have done such a thing, they actually did it previously. Next, there was some time between the descriptions. But how does that square with your belief Condon was (later) telling the truth about Hauptmann? If employing this argument in good faith then its inconsistent at best. Next, its one thing to get certain details confused, but quite another to recall being somewhere but very shortly after that claiming not to have been there at all. These accounts were only a less than a month apart. How does your theory work when applying it here? Furthermore, you seem to evade some really important facts so as not to properly attempt to explain them. For example, "stress" cannot account for Myra and Condon switching places nor for his claim that a man, he later claimed to have never seen, looked like the Lookout at Woodlawn. Condon was giving a detailed description. He offered up the possibility this man was the Lookout. Then, less than four weeks later, claims he wasn't even there and never laid eyes on him. That cannot be explained away other than to call it what it is: He was LYING. The real issue is to figure out why. Next, why did Myra insert herself here, just as she did with the 2nd Taxi Driver lie? See the pattern? I sure do. I bet you do too, but it harms your position so you'll just ignore it or shrug it off.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 27, 2023 8:23:28 GMT -5
Needle SalesmanMan complained of hard times. Was he a real vendor or perhaps unemployed and hired by reporters to assume the role of needle salesman, which would have gained him a buck or two? Had only one pack of needles available, and appeared to not know what to do when asked for change. Very nervous, appeared furtive and looked around a lot. Abnormal behaviour for a door-to-door salesman, who’s main intent is to be friendly, remain focused on and develop empathy with his potential customer. Was nervousness due to his role as suspected accomplice in the kidnapping or being put up to posing as a salesman for the purpose of acquiring information for reporters or newsmen? Would the kidnappers actually risk sending someone to Condon’s door in broad daylight? That seems so unlikely to me as to be almost non-existent. Man did not stop at any other houses and left the neighbourhood immediately. Breckinridge was suspicious of the man’s motives and associated him with the description of the potential lookout at Woodlawn Cemetery. Condon’s recollection and statement to Agent Seykora, comes two years after the event took place, Breck’s statement a year-and-a-half afterwards. Plenty of time for inconsistency in recollection especially when statements were not taken at the time of the events. Condon states the man was about 27 as opposed to Breck’s estimate of early 40’s. I can buy this difference due to the reddish, ruddy and veiny complexion which may have disguised his true age. Believed he may have been the same man as the WC lookout. Condon and his wife both told Sisk and O’Leary that he was not home at the time of the needle salesman visit, and that Myra answered the door, with Breck not being part of the interaction. Myra’s statement says she answered the door and enlisted Breck to appraise the situation. She claims Breck suggested she ask the man for change with a larger amount given. Myra’s claim the man was well dressed is at odds with the original accounts by Condon and Breck. Suggests they missed that detail in any attempt to shift responsibility of who was actually there for whatever reason. Also, she claims he didn’t look like a normal peddler, was not Italian but Austrian or German and had no accent. Said he was about fifty years of age and one arm was pressed against his side as if a wooden arm. Could she had confused him with some other man who came to the door around this same time for another reason? Was ownership of the event essentially shifted from Condon to Myra at some point? And for what reason? Just one pack of needles suggests it was his last one or that’s all he was given to effect his ruse as a needle salesman. The idea that Reporters hired him to scope out the situation is an option to consider and one I've done myself. But to include this as an option but suggest its unlikely the actual Kidnappers would do it too reveals bias in my opinion. We already know they would do this based upon Perrone's employment to deliver the note. No one that I know of has ever questioned his account. And so, proceeding with his narrative, its proof positive those involved not only could have done such a thing, they actually did it previously. I don’t recall you previously mentioning the possibility of the appearance of the two peddlers having been a ruse set up by reporters, looking for story information. As this area of the case interests me very much, can you please direct me to any prior discussion?
If you’re somehow equating the significance of Joseph Perrone having been contacted by kidnapping interests and the potential that the Needles Salesman and/or Scissors Grinder were emissaries of the same person or group, I don’t believe you’re evaluating this with the degree of insight and rigour such a potential comparison demands.
Perrone was approached in person, after dark by the extortion interests, for the purpose of delivering a very time-sensitive communication pertaining to the ransom negotiations. By design and to the extortionist’s advantage, a taxicab delivery would effectively present only a minimal amount of time between Condon being alerted, and the Woodlawn Cemetery meeting where he was to meet up with CJ. Direct communication via the flagging down of a random cabby by the extortionist, was imperative in this event. Not only to ensure delivery but that it was done in a relatively anonymous way, and immediately. What other method, short of delivering the note personally and risking his personal exposure and safety, would have been possible for the extortionist to achieve this end?
In the case of the two peddlars who came to Condon’s door, had they been emissaries of the kidnapping / extortion interests, the risk would have been a totally unnecessary one. Where was the urgency to cavalierly pose two separate, laconic and seemingly bovine individuals on Condon’s front doorstep in broad daylight for the purpose of gaining information? What would they have been able to gain towards furthering their hand within the ransom negotiations?
I believe you are entertaining an inordinate level of risk here on the part of the extortionist for very little potential payoff.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 27, 2023 9:26:18 GMT -5
Needle SalesmanMan complained of hard times. Was he a real vendor or perhaps unemployed and hired by reporters to assume the role of needle salesman, which would have gained him a buck or two? Had only one pack of needles available, and appeared to not know what to do when asked for change. Very nervous, appeared furtive and looked around a lot. Abnormal behaviour for a door-to-door salesman, who’s main intent is to be friendly, remain focused on and develop empathy with his potential customer. Was nervousness due to his role as suspected accomplice in the kidnapping or being put up to posing as a salesman for the purpose of acquiring information for reporters or newsmen? Would the kidnappers actually risk sending someone to Condon’s door in broad daylight? That seems so unlikely to me as to be almost non-existent. Man did not stop at any other houses and left the neighbourhood immediately. Breckinridge was suspicious of the man’s motives and associated him with the description of the potential lookout at Woodlawn Cemetery. Condon’s recollection and statement to Agent Seykora, comes two years after the event took place, Breck’s statement a year-and-a-half afterwards. Plenty of time for inconsistency in recollection especially when statements were not taken at the time of the events. Condon states the man was about 27 as opposed to Breck’s estimate of early 40’s. I can buy this difference due to the reddish, ruddy and veiny complexion which may have disguised his true age. Believed he may have been the same man as the WC lookout. Condon and his wife both told Sisk and O’Leary that he was not home at the time of the needle salesman visit, and that Myra answered the door, with Breck not being part of the interaction. Myra’s statement says she answered the door and enlisted Breck to appraise the situation. She claims Breck suggested she ask the man for change with a larger amount given. Myra’s claim the man was well dressed is at odds with the original accounts by Condon and Breck. Suggests they missed that detail in any attempt to shift responsibility of who was actually there for whatever reason. Also, she claims he didn’t look like a normal peddler, was not Italian but Austrian or German and had no accent. Said he was about fifty years of age and one arm was pressed against his side as if a wooden arm. Could she had confused him with some other man who came to the door around this same time for another reason? Was ownership of the event essentially shifted from Condon to Myra at some point? And for what reason? Just one pack of needles suggests it was his last one or that’s all he was given to effect his ruse as a needle salesman. Next, there was some time between the descriptions. But how does that square with your belief Condon was (later) telling the truth about Hauptmann? If employing this argument in good faith then its inconsistent at best. Next, its one thing to get certain details confused, but quite another to recall being somewhere but very shortly after that claiming not to have been there at all. These accounts were only a less than a month apart. How does your theory work when applying it here? Furthermore, you seem to evade some really important facts so as not to properly attempt to explain them. For example, "stress" cannot account for Myra and Condon switching places nor for his claim that a man, he later claimed to have never seen, looked like the Lookout at Woodlawn. I understand the conflict within Condon’s accounting of events relating to the peddler visits, but clearly it was not only he who was a source of variation within the separate testimonies. We also have Henry Breckinridge and Myra Hacker inter-twined within and providing varying degrees of inconsistencies. If one wants to villainize Condon here for his contradictions and even go so far as to then cast him as confederate of the kidnapping interests as a result, then Lindbergh’s trusted advisor and Condon’s own daughter-in-law must be also be considered for complicity alongside him in the peddler events. It's within these kinds of situations and events where the tough questions are seemingly ignored and in the absence of good answers, that beliefs by some appear to become stretched to new levels.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 27, 2023 9:42:46 GMT -5
Needle SalesmanMan complained of hard times. Was he a real vendor or perhaps unemployed and hired by reporters to assume the role of needle salesman, which would have gained him a buck or two? Had only one pack of needles available, and appeared to not know what to do when asked for change. Very nervous, appeared furtive and looked around a lot. Abnormal behaviour for a door-to-door salesman, who’s main intent is to be friendly, remain focused on and develop empathy with his potential customer. Was nervousness due to his role as suspected accomplice in the kidnapping or being put up to posing as a salesman for the purpose of acquiring information for reporters or newsmen? Would the kidnappers actually risk sending someone to Condon’s door in broad daylight? That seems so unlikely to me as to be almost non-existent. Man did not stop at any other houses and left the neighbourhood immediately. Breckinridge was suspicious of the man’s motives and associated him with the description of the potential lookout at Woodlawn Cemetery. Condon’s recollection and statement to Agent Seykora, comes two years after the event took place, Breck’s statement a year-and-a-half afterwards. Plenty of time for inconsistency in recollection especially when statements were not taken at the time of the events. Condon states the man was about 27 as opposed to Breck’s estimate of early 40’s. I can buy this difference due to the reddish, ruddy and veiny complexion which may have disguised his true age. Believed he may have been the same man as the WC lookout. Condon and his wife both told Sisk and O’Leary that he was not home at the time of the needle salesman visit, and that Myra answered the door, with Breck not being part of the interaction. Myra’s statement says she answered the door and enlisted Breck to appraise the situation. She claims Breck suggested she ask the man for change with a larger amount given. Myra’s claim the man was well dressed is at odds with the original accounts by Condon and Breck. Suggests they missed that detail in any attempt to shift responsibility of who was actually there for whatever reason. Also, she claims he didn’t look like a normal peddler, was not Italian but Austrian or German and had no accent. Said he was about fifty years of age and one arm was pressed against his side as if a wooden arm. Could she had confused him with some other man who came to the door around this same time for another reason? Was ownership of the event essentially shifted from Condon to Myra at some point? And for what reason? Just one pack of needles suggests it was his last one or that’s all he was given to effect his ruse as a needle salesman. Condon was giving a detailed description. He offered up the possibility this man was the Lookout. Then, less than four weeks later, claims he wasn't even there and never laid eyes on him. That cannot be explained away other than to call it what it is: He was LYING. The real issue is to figure out why. Next, why did Myra insert herself here, just as she did with the 2nd Taxi Driver lie? See the pattern? I sure do. I bet you do too, but it harms your position so you'll just ignore it or shrug it off. Do you feel all of these contradictions arose at Condon's request and directions and had nothing to do with Breckinridge or Myra? Is that what you're trying to say here? Do you consider the possibility that Breckinridge and/or Myra was involved or Condon's mental state were factors as well?
With Condon's description of the Scissors Grinder as having been 'stoop-shouldered' as a result of his many years in the trade, it certainly does call to mind Lindbergh's description of the possible lookout in the same way and similar physical description, does it not?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 27, 2023 13:29:28 GMT -5
I don’t recall you previously mentioning the possibility of the appearance of the two peddlers having been a ruse set up by reporters, looking for story information. As this area of the case interests me very much, can you please direct me to any prior discussion?
If you’re somehow equating the significance of Joseph Perrone having been contacted by kidnapping interests and the potential that the Needles Salesman and/or Scissors Grinder were emissaries of the same person or group, I don’t believe you’re evaluating this with the degree of insight and rigour such a potential comparison demands.
Perrone was approached in person, after dark by the extortion interests, for the purpose of delivering a very time-sensitive communication pertaining to the ransom negotiations. By design and to the extortionist’s advantage, a taxicab delivery would effectively present only a minimal amount of time between Condon being alerted, and the Woodlawn Cemetery meeting where he was to meet up with CJ. Direct communication via the flagging down of a random cabby by the extortionist, was imperative in this event. Not only to ensure delivery but that it was done in a relatively anonymous way, and immediately. What other method, short of delivering the note personally and risking his personal exposure and safety, would have been possible for the extortionist to achieve this end?
In the case of the two peddlars who came to Condon’s door, had they been emissaries of the kidnapping / extortion interests, the risk would have been a totally unnecessary one. Where was the urgency to cavalierly pose two separate, laconic and seemingly bovine individuals on Condon’s front doorstep in broad daylight for the purpose of gaining information? What would they have been able to gain towards furthering their hand within the ransom negotiations?
I believe you are entertaining an inordinate level of risk here on the part of the extortionist for very little potential payoff. First, I've posted thousands of times. Perhaps I mentioned it in one of them and perhaps I didn't. Knowing what I do about the Reporters, I consider them almost always concerning just about everything. This idea that if you hadn't read it somewhere means I never thought about or considered it is silly don't you think? I've been seriously studying this case for 23 years now. Do you honestly believe I never have? And so, why are you challenging me on this point? By your position, this means you haven't considered it up to and until you posted about it? Next, if you read my books you'll see all over the place where I've mentioned the dirty tricks the newspaper men pulled to get stories for their editors/papers. In fact, it was you who resisted some of that information was it not? Anyway, this is insulting and I'm not going to entertain it a second more. What are you talking about? The Perrone situation was even "worse." He was contacted by what many believe was an actual participant, face to face, spoke to him and was handed him the Ransom Note. It's not even close on the scale of importance, so take a look in the mirror before telling me about "insight." This idea that they would do this, but not enlist the Needle Vendor or Scissor's Grinder is silly and shows the degree of bias you possess when looking at the facts of the case. Now you are telling me this was the only way to get Condon the note? And yet, he got other notes that didn't come from this method. Even got one from a "2nd Taxi Driver" that did NOT exist according to everyone watching that house so Condon LIED about that one too. And Myra injected herself later here too, but the cops casing the house proved she already left the house by the time of the delivery. Condon lied, and Myra later injects herself to try to save him. Sound familiar? I appreciate your position about what was unnecessary and what was not. However, there was a lot of things we, as everyday people, would deem as either fantastic and/or unnecessary. And yet, that is what happened. I'll put you down as someone, if they ever decided to commit an extortion, that would never use someone in this manner. However, it looks like it was successful to me. Neither was stopped or questioned, and if they had been, how could anyone accuse them of not soliciting for a sale or service that people were known to solicit for? Or if they cracked and claimed some man in a fedora asked if he wanted to make a dollar? Again, Perrone saw one of them face to face already.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 27, 2023 13:40:49 GMT -5
I understand the conflict within Condon’s accounting of events relating to the peddler visits, but clearly it was not only he who was a source of variation within the separate testimonies. We also have Henry Breckinridge and Myra Hacker inter-twined within and providing varying degrees of inconsistencies. If one wants to villainize Condon here for his contradictions and even go so far as to then cast him as confederate of the kidnapping interests as a result, then Lindbergh’s trusted advisor and Condon’s own daughter-in-law must be also be considered for complicity alongside him in the peddler events. It's within these kinds of situations and events where the tough questions are seemingly ignored and in the absence of good answers, that beliefs by some appear to become stretched to new levels. Dude, he said he was there, gave a detailed description, then insinuated this man may have been the Lookout was Woodlawn. Then, about four weeks later, claims he was not there and never saw the man. There's no way around this one, and your ridiculous attempts to make it seem any other way puts an exclamation point on this fact.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 27, 2023 13:50:51 GMT -5
Do you feel all of these contradictions arose at Condon's request and directions and had nothing to do with Breckinridge or Myra? Is that what you're trying to say here? Do you consider the possibility that Breckinridge and/or Myra was involved or Condon's mental state were factors as well?
With Condon's description of the Scissors Grinder as having been 'stoop-shouldered' as a result of his many years in the trade, it certainly does call to mind Lindbergh's description of the possible lookout in the same way and similar physical description, does it not? No, I am letting the facts speak for themselves. You are free to draw whatever conclusions you like about "why" Myra injected herself into situations she had absolutely nothing to do with. According to Breckinridge, it was CONDON who was there when the Needle Salesman called. Stop making excuses and start accepting the facts. Start there.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 27, 2023 17:02:36 GMT -5
I don’t recall you previously mentioning the possibility of the appearance of the two peddlers having been a ruse set up by reporters, looking for story information. As this area of the case interests me very much, can you please direct me to any prior discussion?
If you’re somehow equating the significance of Joseph Perrone having been contacted by kidnapping interests and the potential that the Needles Salesman and/or Scissors Grinder were emissaries of the same person or group, I don’t believe you’re evaluating this with the degree of insight and rigour such a potential comparison demands.
Perrone was approached in person, after dark by the extortion interests, for the purpose of delivering a very time-sensitive communication pertaining to the ransom negotiations. By design and to the extortionist’s advantage, a taxicab delivery would effectively present only a minimal amount of time between Condon being alerted, and the Woodlawn Cemetery meeting where he was to meet up with CJ. Direct communication via the flagging down of a random cabby by the extortionist, was imperative in this event. Not only to ensure delivery but that it was done in a relatively anonymous way, and immediately. What other method, short of delivering the note personally and risking his personal exposure and safety, would have been possible for the extortionist to achieve this end?
In the case of the two peddlars who came to Condon’s door, had they been emissaries of the kidnapping / extortion interests, the risk would have been a totally unnecessary one. Where was the urgency to cavalierly pose two separate, laconic and seemingly bovine individuals on Condon’s front doorstep in broad daylight for the purpose of gaining information? What would they have been able to gain towards furthering their hand within the ransom negotiations?
I believe you are entertaining an inordinate level of risk here on the part of the extortionist for very little potential payoff. First, I've posted thousands of times. Perhaps I mentioned it in one of them and perhaps I didn't. Knowing what I do about the Reporters, I consider them almost always concerning just about everything. This idea that if you hadn't read it somewhere means I never thought about or considered it is silly don't you think? I've been seriously studying this case for 23 years now. Do you honestly believe I never have? And so, why are you challenging me on this point? By your position, this means you haven't considered it up to and until you posted about it? Next, if you read my books you'll see all over the place where I've mentioned the dirty tricks the newspaper men pulled to get stories for their editors/papers. In fact, it was you who resisted some of that information was it not? Anyway, this is insulting and I'm not going to entertain it a second more. I believe you've misread my intent here in favour of your 'shoot first and think later' tendency. I'm curious about your thoughts on the possibility of reporters and their associates having been involved within the peddler events, and related descriptions of the alleged lookouts. Apparently though, you didn't seem to feel it important enough a consideration to include in DCII in your chapter on the two peddler events. Why not, if your intent is to truly portray an expose of this case's untold, dark corners? What are you talking about? The Perrone situation was even "worse." He was contacted by what many believe was an actual participant, face to face, spoke to him and was handed him the Ransom Note. It's not even close on the scale of importance, so take a look in the mirror before telling me about "insight." This idea that they would do this, but not enlist the Needle Vendor or Scissor's Grinder is silly and shows the degree of bias you possess when looking at the facts of the case. Perrone, or some other non-descript cab driver, had to be contacted directly to deliver the time-sensitive note. What other choice did the extortionist have of meeting his communication requirements for that evening, ie. direct and trusted delivery within a tight time frame? To send any emissary of the kidnapping interest to Condon's front doorstep in broad daylight would have been stupid and even Keaten rejected this having happened in the peddler accounts. It would have represented a whole lot of potential pain for no gain. I'm assuming anyone else who read my original post understood what I was saying, before you got out your hatchet in response.Now you are telling me this was the only way to get Condon the note? And yet, he got other notes that didn't come from this method. Even got one from a "2nd Taxi Driver" that did NOT exist according to everyone watching that house so Condon LIED about that one too. And Myra injected herself later here too, but the cops casing the house proved she already left the house by the time of the delivery. Condon lied, and Myra later injects herself to try to save him. Sound familiar? Sure, the extortionist could have mailed the ransom money instructional note or hand delivered it himself to Condon, but both approaches wouldn't have been very smart, would they? What better way would there have been than flagging down a cab? Can you think of a better of accomplishing the instructional note delivery? I appreciate your position about what was unnecessary and what was not. However, there was a lot of things we, as everyday people, would deem as either fantastic and/or unnecessary. And yet, that is what happened. I'll put you down as someone, if they ever decided to commit an extortion, that would never use someone in this manner. However, it looks like it was successful to me. Neither was stopped or questioned, and if they had been, how could anyone accuse them of not soliciting for a sale or service that people were known to solicit for? Or if they cracked and claimed some man in a fedora asked if he wanted to make a dollar? Again, Perrone saw one of them face to face already. Yes, that is what happened, but I think you're shutting yourself off from a wider scope of consideration that makes a whole lot of logical sense. For now, I'll put you down as someone who once again shrugs, yet points his finger at others for the same thing.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 27, 2023 17:11:56 GMT -5
Do you feel all of these contradictions arose at Condon's request and directions and had nothing to do with Breckinridge or Myra? Is that what you're trying to say here? Do you consider the possibility that Breckinridge and/or Myra was involved or Condon's mental state were factors as well?
With Condon's description of the Scissors Grinder as having been 'stoop-shouldered' as a result of his many years in the trade, it certainly does call to mind Lindbergh's description of the possible lookout in the same way and similar physical description, does it not? No, I am letting the facts speak for themselves. You are free to draw whatever conclusions you like about "why" Myra injected herself into situations she had absolutely nothing to do with. According to Breckinridge, it was CONDON who was there when the Needle Salesman called. Stop making excuses and start accepting the facts. Start there. How about we try this? I'll try helping to guide you through each of the many events within this case, in which you employ your standard rush to judgment for the scapegoat of your choice, without fully considering and understanding all of the integral nuts and bolts within each one.
After this one, perhaps we can tackle your 'leading to water' version of the Lindberghs' trips to Highfields on the weekend before the kidnapping, or what you conclude in no uncertain terms was Condon's attempt to hide the original ransom box thereby deceiving Lindbergh, and then have someone else retrieve it out of a boxwood bush a week-and-a-half later.
In any event, I'll continue to consider with anyone else interested here, the growing body of evidence which is very suggestive that both the needle salesman and scissors grinders, as well as the two lookouts at both cemeteries were not emissaries of the kidnapping interests, but simply a couple of peddlers keen on making an extra buck, placed there by enterprising reporters or their associates. No conclusions yet of course.. just a lot of curiosity about this one.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 27, 2023 17:15:07 GMT -5
I understand the conflict within Condon’s accounting of events relating to the peddler visits, but clearly it was not only he who was a source of variation within the separate testimonies. We also have Henry Breckinridge and Myra Hacker inter-twined within and providing varying degrees of inconsistencies. If one wants to villainize Condon here for his contradictions and even go so far as to then cast him as confederate of the kidnapping interests as a result, then Lindbergh’s trusted advisor and Condon’s own daughter-in-law must be also be considered for complicity alongside him in the peddler events. It's within these kinds of situations and events where the tough questions are seemingly ignored and in the absence of good answers, that beliefs by some appear to become stretched to new levels. Dude, he said he was there, gave a detailed description, then insinuated this man may have been the Lookout was Woodlawn. Then, about four weeks later, claims he was not there and never saw the man. There's no way around this one, and your ridiculous attempts to make it seem any other way puts an exclamation point on this fact. Explain "no way around this one," as you seem to be so certain of your convictions. Which statement is correct or contains elements of truth and why were they changed? Frankly, at times I just don't think your able to process these kinds of contradictions and would rather just throw up your hands so you can shout, "LIAR!" (caps required) and then just walk away. Everything in this case carries with it the potential for being fully explained in the light of truth if you'd stop derailing efforts by morphing into Grandpa Simpson on demand every time you can't seem to handle it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 27, 2023 22:05:28 GMT -5
Dude, he said he was there, gave a detailed description, then insinuated this man may have been the Lookout was Woodlawn. Then, about four weeks later, claims he was not there and never saw the man. There's no way around this one, and your ridiculous attempts to make it seem any other way puts an exclamation point on this fact. Explain "no way around this one," as you seem to be so certain of your convictions. Which statement is correct or contains elements of truth and why were they changed? Frankly, at times I just don't think your able to process these kinds of contradictions and would rather just throw up your hands so you can shout, "LIAR!" (caps required) and then just walk away. Everything in this case carries with it the potential for being fully explained in the light of truth if you'd stop derailing efforts by morphing into Grandpa Simpson on demand every time you can't seem to handle it.It is self explanatory. He told two completely different stories about the EXACT same event ... FOUR WEEKS APART. I feel like I'm in the Looney Bin trying to reason with a patient. Breckinridge said Condon was there. Condon's first version claimed he was there. During this version he gave a DETAILED description and even claimed the man might have been the Lookout at Woodlawn. Only four weeks later, he claimed he knew nothing about the man because he wasn't there. Next thing you know, Myra claimed to have been there replacing her father as the witness. This is tiresome. Either you want to accept the facts or you do not. Playing stupid isn't a good debate strategy and one I don't have time for.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 27, 2023 22:19:49 GMT -5
I believe you've misread my intent here in favour of your 'shoot first and think later' tendency. I'm curious about your thoughts on the possibility of reporters and their associates having been involved within the peddler events, and related descriptions of the alleged lookouts. Apparently though, you didn't seem to feel it important enough a consideration to include in DCII in your chapter on the two peddler events. Why not, if your intent is to truly portray an expose of this case's untold, dark corners? Joe, I was trying to throw you a bone and encourage a coherent approach that you sometimes employ. Suggesting a Reporter sending these men to the house was something I considered along with many other scenarios. So, you see, I want to encourage rational things while also pointing out the idiotic stuff you sometimes also engage in. As far as claiming "why" I did not include this theory in my book, it proves to me that you just didn't read, or remember much of it if you did. Let me ask you this.... How did I discover Paynter was the reporter who wrote Condon's phone number in the closet? How did I know reporters made footprints for pictures claiming they were made by the Kidnappers? How did I know about the fact they paid someone to plant the shovel at the gravesite? How did I find out about the fact a Juror was bribed? How did I know that Reporters was allowed into the Morgue to take the photo of the corpse? It's called research. If the Needle Salesman was paid by a Reporter, a Reporter would have told Hoffman, and I would have known about it because I've read all of the material referring to what the reporters were revealing to him. And so, almost positive that this did not occur, I chose not to mention it. If I did what you are suggesting, I could write pages and pages about how I worked through each and every possibility. Maybe someone will write a book like that, but it is not something I find worthy. Of course, my 1st Chapters sometimes include things I failed to mention in previous volumes but this isn't something that I would add even in a 1st chapter. That said, I don't want to tell people "not" to consider it, but if they go to the Archives and see what I have for themselves, they will quickly learn that I know what I am talking about.
|
|