|
Post by Michael on Feb 25, 2024 11:02:04 GMT -5
I've read through your lengthy replies and it is all clearly projection. That's all it is Joe. Example after example of your positions bear this out. I evaluate the facts by backing them up with other facts and/or experiences. I speculate at times, just like anyone else, but I believe I am clear about that. You, on the other hand, dish out the most outrageous nonsense I have ever seen but only when it comes to certain situations. Condon and the Lindberghs, for example, get preferential treatment and immunity from you, while anyone else under similar circumstances would be intensely scrutinized -- so you seem lucid and coherent in some places, but a writer of fiction in others. And you now say I'm the one doing exactly and precisely what you do. As a reminder, YOU were the one who said footprints couldn't exist in places where they DID exist and that Anne wore some special kind of boots that magically would not leave prints. Or that when Condon told Turrou Hauptmann was NOT Cemetery John because that somehow is excusable due to there being a "good" reason for it implying it was somehow done in good faith. No Joe, there is no good faith reason to lie to the Cops during a Capital Murder investigation and to even suggest that makes me think you have a screw loose. Here, I suppose, you'll say I am making a "personal interpretation" of a fact so plainly in existence, and take exception to my "villianizing" someone who, by your very own admission, was lying and deceiving Law Enforcement during their official investigation. In light of this nonsense, you have no business lecturing me about what you are obviously guilty of. So take a look in that mirror I've directed you to in the past.
As far as my belief about Condon knowing the child was dead....
Yes, I believe he knew while he was negotiating. He was in their confidence, so I am sure he was so advised. It's certainly debatable, but judging from both this guy's character and actions (both past and during the investigation), it is where I'm at.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Feb 25, 2024 13:56:04 GMT -5
I've read through your lengthy replies and it is all clearly projection. That's all it is Joe. Example after example of your positions bear this out. I evaluate the facts by backing them up with other facts and/or experiences. I speculate at times, just like anyone else, but I believe I am clear about that. You, on the other hand, dish out the most outrageous nonsense I have ever seen but only when it comes to certain situations. Condon and the Lindberghs, for example, get preferential treatment and immunity from you, while anyone else under similar circumstances would be intensely scrutinized -- so you seem lucid and coherent in some places, but a writer of fiction in others. And you now say I'm the one doing exactly and precisely what you do. As a reminder, YOU were the one who said footprints couldn't exist in places where they DID exist and that Anne wore some special kind of boots that magically would not leave prints. Or that when Condon told Turrou Hauptmann was NOT Cemetery John because that somehow is excusable due to there being a "good" reason for it implying it was somehow done in good faith. No Joe, there is no good faith reason to lie to the Cops during a Capital Murder investigation and to even suggest that makes me think you have a screw loose. Here, I suppose, you'll say I am making a "personal interpretation" of a fact so plainly in existence, and take exception to my "villianizing" someone who, by your very own admission, was lying and deceiving Law Enforcement during their official investigation. In light of this nonsense, you have no business lecturing me about what you are obviously guilty of. So take a look in that mirror I've directed you to in the past. As far as my belief about Condon knowing the child was dead.... Yes, I believe he knew while he was negotiating. He was in their confidence, so I am sure he was so advised. It's certainly debatable, but judging from both this guy's character and actions (both past and during the investigation), it is where I'm at. I'll pass on commenting on your rambling, disjointed, and otherwise misleading opening paragraph, in the interests of trying to further positive and helpful discussion. I guess we all have our bad face days.. I understand that you believe Condon was in the confidence of Cemetery John and at least one other individual involved in the kidnapping and/or extortion. Is that correct? Now, my previous question. When do you believe Condon entered into this criminal confidence arrangement, and under what conditions? I know you've offered a number of possibilities, but is there any one in particular that resonates here most strongly with you? And do you believe Lindbergh and Breckinridge were aware of this same criminal confidence arrangement?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2024 18:57:01 GMT -5
I understand that you believe Condon was in the confidence of Cemetery John and at least one other individual involved in the kidnapping and/or extortion. Is that correct? Now, my previous question. When do you believe Condon entered into this criminal confidence arrangement, and under what conditions? I know you've offered a number of possibilities, but is there any one in particular that resonates here most strongly with you? And do you believe Lindbergh and Breckinridge were aware of this same criminal confidence arrangement? Condon was working to assist in the extortion by getting them their money while at the same time obstructing the police by lying to and misleading them to protect these men from arrest. As far as who Condon met at Woodlawn, yes, this man trusted Condon. Was it the same man Condon met at St. Raymond's? Who knows? Whoever he met was on East Tremont where the ransom was actually exchanged. Was it the same man? I have no idea. Did he really meet someone on Whittemore Avenue? Possibly the first time, but during the second trip the money was already handed off so probably not. We know there was a "Look-Out" at both cemeteries. The one at Woodlawn was not Cemetery John according to Condon, and Reich's description supports that because both say he was an Italian... except later after Hauptmann's arrest when Condon suggested it may have been Fisch. All problematic considering Riehl's description of Cemetery John doesn't jibe with Condon's, and, knowing the man was a liar, its hard to rely on anything he ever said. Just before he wrote that silly letter to the paper. It was done for the purposes of legitimizing his entrance into the case. Breckinridge moved into Condon's home because he did not trust him. He created fake notes that were sent to Condon to gauge his reaction. Lindbergh replaced Reich during the ransom drop because he did not trust him. He told Cowie that he had " absolutely no confidence" in Condon and admitted as much to Agent Larimer. All of this information is in my books with full citations for you to review. I suggest you re-read them and take notes, that way you can ask me about specific references.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 9, 2024 9:30:00 GMT -5
I understand that you believe Condon was in the confidence of Cemetery John and at least one other individual involved in the kidnapping and/or extortion. Is that correct? Now, my previous question. When do you believe Condon entered into this criminal confidence arrangement, and under what conditions? I know you've offered a number of possibilities, but is there any one in particular that resonates here most strongly with you? And do you believe Lindbergh and Breckinridge were aware of this same criminal confidence arrangement? Your following personal opinions would all appear to label Condon as being highly unfaithful and his words and actions extremely duplicitous, when gauged against the originally stated oath he made to serve the Lindberghs in their ‘hour of need.’ In other words, he’s now acting diametrically opposed to his professed intentions and his true overall character, forged by his 72 years of positive living presence in the Bronx and a very formidable record of community public and private service. I’d like to present some additional thoughts and explanations to each of your examples, for your and others’ consideration.
Condon was working to assist in the extortion by getting them their money while at the same time obstructing the police by lying to and misleading them to protect these men from arrest. Condon was assisting Lindbergh (and Breckinridge) by serving as go-between, his prescribed intent being the transfer of the money to Cemetery John, in return for information relating to the child’s location and arrangements for his transfer back to his parents. During the period which began with him having been accepted by Lindbergh to act as intermediary, until May 12, 1932, the day of the discovery of the child’s body, Condon was not specifically held accountable to law enforcement for the veracity of his words and actions, most of which agree with each other. And I believe there is a logical and meaningful reason behind each and every one of the instances that do not, that don't out of necessity paint Condon as a criminal confederate.
In his prior discussions with Lindbergh and Breckinridge, Condon had repeatedly insisted upon seeing the unharmed child prior to payment, but each time was overruled by both men. Condon’s initiative here does not indicate some rudimentary desire on his part to aid and abet the extortionist by simply getting him his money, as you imply above. In fact, Condon not only expressed a sincere desire to return the child safely to his mother, he was no doubt astute enough to realize such an arrangement would have provided an extra level of protection for himself and everyone else involved within the ransom negotiations.
As far as who Condon met at Woodlawn, yes, this man trusted Condon. Condon and Cemetery John, throughout the negotiations, both appear to have maintained an adequate level of mutual trust, borne solely out of a need for both to accomplish what they had had individually intended to do.
Was it the same man Condon met at St. Raymond's? Who knows? Whoever he met was on East Tremont where the ransom was actually exchanged. Was it the same man? I have no idea. Condon was fully satisfied that the ‘Cemetery John’ he met at both Woodlawn and St. Raymond’s cemeteries were one and the same man. He offers no deviation within the physical description and voice characteristics he reported to both Lindbergh and Breckinridge, as well as Elmer Irey and his men. CJ also risked a high degree of exposure at St. Raymond’s when he showed himself and shouted out to ensure Condon was aware of his presence among the tombstones. It seems very unlikely that CJ would have been this forward and even brazen unless he was addressing the man he was certain he had previously met at Woodlawn.
Your statement that the ransom was exchanged further east on East Tremont Ave., ie. to give the extortionist a ‘head start,’ requires additional discussion to overcome all objections towards this alleged action having been nefarious in nature. I’ve pointed out a number of these previously on this forum and believe you’re selling yourself short here through prematurely forming such a conclusion that Condon was aiding and abetting the extortionist and by doing so, being deceitful towards Lindbergh.
Did he really meet someone on Whittemore Avenue? Possibly the first time, but during the second trip the money was already handed off so probably not. This is your personal theory, and one which I’ve previously demonstrated is highly contentious due to its deep and even obvious pitfalls. As my rebuttal to this point is not in a book, I’d be happy to further discuss it again here.
We know there was a "Look-Out" at both cemeteries. The one at Woodlawn was not Cemetery John according to Condon, and Reich's description supports that because both say he was an Italian... except later after Hauptmann's arrest when Condon suggested it may have been Fisch. All problematic considering Riehl's description of Cemetery John doesn't jibe with Condon's, and, knowing the man was a liar, its hard to rely on anything he ever said. What we don’t know, is whether the alleged lookout at either cemetery was involved in the extortion, or was perhaps sent there by interests other than that of the extortionist. As I’ve previously theorized, there may be a very good reason for the direct similarities within the eyewitness descriptions of the street vendors who visited Condon’s home and the two individuals observed at the beginning of each cemetery encounter. At the time of the Woodlawn meeting, reporters would have been keenly aware of the possibility that the man who penned his letter of appeal to the kidnappers and whose initials were J.F.C., might well be the elusive ‘Jafsie’ of the newspaper. Therefore, it seems reasonable they would have 'tested the waters' to confirm this one way or the other.
I believe both the needle salesman and scissors grinder, as well as Our Lady of Tuckahoe were probably 'plants' sent in by reporters looking for accurate information on this potential relationship, but realizing at the same time they would have been playing upon very hazardous ground, should anything sour within the ransom negotiations due to this type of interference. There is a very reasonable motive on the part of news interests as well as significant reported similarities within the physical descriptions and mannerisms of the street vendors and alleged lookouts, to warrant further investigation here.
Just before he wrote that silly letter to the paper. It was done for the purposes of legitimizing his entrance into the case. Condon’s letter to the Bronx Home News was overly sentimental, stoutly patriotic and even patronizing, but nothing within it goes against the grain of Condon’s overall character and the values he routinely demonstrated. It naturally reflects the man he was, born at the beginning of the Civil War and his ‘old fashioned’ values which he felt were sadly lacking within the his beloved and current day America so afflicted by criminal elements. Like it or not, we have to deal with the characters in this case as they were and not as we would prefer or imagine they were.
Do you currently believe that he wrote the letter after having been drawn into the ransom negotiations by the extortionist, who somehow convinced him to participate as a confederate within such an abhorrent, major crime? And if so, why would Condon have agreed to do this, as opposed to immediately having the opportunity and satisfaction of personally alerting Lindbergh or the police that the kidnapper of his national hero's son had reached out to him personally? The notion that Condon would have immediately kowtowed to the criminal element he so vehemently despised here, makes little more sense to me than a pat answer and convenient answer on your part.
Breckinridge moved into Condon's home because he did not trust him. He created fake notes that were sent to Condon to gauge his reaction. Lindbergh replaced Reich during the ransom drop because he did not trust him. He told Cowie that he had "absolutely no confidence" in Condon and admitted as much to Agent Larimer. All of this information is in my books with full citations for you to review. I suggest you re-read them and take notes, that way you can ask me about specific references. You’ve oversimplified the matter of Breckinridge moving into Condon’s home, through a highly speculative conclusion lacking a full appreciation of the facts. In fact, Condon was not only in full agreement with the plan to have Breckinridge as his guest, he was highly pleased and proud to have his home serve as a base for the ransom negotiations, knowing it would be frequented by both Henry Breckinridge and his national hero, Charles Lindbergh. His ongoing relationship with Breckinridge, and even Lindbergh throughout the process, was little short of the type reserved and demonstrated by close friends or acquaintances. Naturally, Breckinridge, in collaboration with Lindbergh, and given Condon’s large and demonstrative personality, would have been on constant alert alert to any of the latter’s words and actions which might prove detrimental to the success of the negotiations. It would have been wholly unnatural for them to throw their complete and unequivocal trust behind Condon, given the seriousness of the negotiations, and that neither man had even heard of Condon before the evening of March 8, 1932.
Michael, I sincerely appreciate all of the information you’ve chosen to include in your books. They are more often than not, ‘one stop shops’ for verifiable fact. However, you quite often stretch the significance of certain facts into misshapen pieces of your own personal puzzle that don't truly fit under required scrutiny. And of that, you really should take note.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2024 13:26:04 GMT -5
Your following personal opinions would all appear to label Condon as being highly unfaithful and his words and actions extremely duplicitous, when gauged against the originally stated oath he made to serve the Lindberghs in their ‘hour of need.’ In other words, he’s now acting diametrically opposed to his professed intentions and his true overall character, forged by his 72 years of positive living presence in the Bronx and a very formidable record of community public and private service. I’d like to present some additional thoughts and explanations to each of your examples, for your and others’ consideration. There you go again Joe. Even after admitting yourself that the man LIED and DECEIVED Investigators during their investigation, you act as though he would never do either. It's irrational. Your opinions are at cross purposes, and yet, you act as though they perfectly line up. They do not. Condon was no saint, as my books prove. So repeating this mantra that he was is just not true. Eccentric, Child molester, Thief, and labeled a "nut" by his neighbors and mailmen. I believe all things, both positive and negative, need to be considered -- the most important of which occurred during this case. This idea you have, that anyone who swears an oath or did some good things in their community should never have their integrity questioned is just plain silly. I remember giving you an example once upon a time about a fireman who had a great reputation for putting out fires. Until one day he was caught setting them so he could be viewed as that Hero for putting them out. By your argument, he was innocent and/or set the fires in good faith. This is all borne from the Harlequin Romance novels you've clearly been reading. When someone lies and deceives the FBI, the NJSP, and the NYPD, there can be no good faith attached to it. It's hard to continue the dabate when I see you leaving your common sense at the door. Condon was fully satisfied that the ‘Cemetery John’ he met at both Woodlawn and St. Raymond’s cemeteries were one and the same man. He offers no deviation within the physical description and voice characteristics he reported to both Lindbergh and Breckinridge, as well as Elmer Irey and his men. CJ also risked a high degree of exposure at St. Raymond’s when he showed himself and shouted out to ensure Condon was aware of his presence among the tombstones. It seems very unlikely that CJ would have been this forward and even brazen unless he was addressing the man he was certain he had previously met at Woodlawn.
Your statement that the ransom was exchanged further east on East Tremont Ave., ie. to give the extortionist a ‘head start,’ requires additional discussion to overcome all objections towards this alleged action having been nefarious in nature. I’ve pointed out a number of these previously on this forum and believe you’re selling yourself short here through prematurely forming such a conclusion that Condon was aiding and abetting the extortionist and by doing so, being deceitful towards Lindbergh.
BS. He gave several descriptions over the years and they weren't always the same. Next, he was identifying people who looked nothing like the descriptions he gave. Furthermore, Condon told a yarn about CJ having to convince him he was the same man. Heck, the man and the girl who were standing on the corner at St. Raymond's ... Or was it a woman? Condon said both at different times. And, of course, we have him telling Agent Turrou that Hauptmann was NOT CJ. So if he testified truthfully, there's that to consider as well. This is your personal theory, and one which I’ve previously demonstrated is highly contentious due to its deep and even obvious pitfalls. As my rebuttal to this point is not in a book, I’d be happy to further discuss it again here. It's something supported by the evidence... Uebel's eyewitness account of someone retrieving the Ransom Box from the boxwood bush. Lindbergh's account of Condon's "detour." Condon's admission that he did detour and multiple different silly explanations for such. The fact this detour was in the direction the Lookout was last seen heading. The fact Condon stupidly admitted he went back to look for the ransom box despite claiming he saw CJ depart with it. The fact that the box was never found in Hauptmann's possession. There's too much smoke. Despite this, you swallow whole and totally believe Condon's version concerning the Ransom transfer without any hesitation.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 10, 2024 9:41:38 GMT -5
Your following personal opinions would all appear to label Condon as being highly unfaithful and his words and actions extremely duplicitous, when gauged against the originally stated oath he made to serve the Lindberghs in their ‘hour of need.’ In other words, he’s now acting diametrically opposed to his professed intentions and his true overall character, forged by his 72 years of positive living presence in the Bronx and a very formidable record of community public and private service. I’d like to present some additional thoughts and explanations to each of your examples, for your and others’ consideration. There you go again Joe. Even after admitting yourself that the man LIED and DECEIVED Investigators during their investigation, you act as though he would never do either. It's irrational. Your opinions are at cross purposes, and yet, you act as though they perfectly line up. They do not. Condon was no saint, as my books prove. So repeating this mantra that he was is just not true. Eccentric, Child molester, Thief, and labeled a "nut" by his neighbors and mailmen. I believe all things, both positive and negative, need to be considered -- the most important of which occurred during this case. This idea you have, that anyone who swears an oath or did some good things in their community should never have their integrity questioned is just plain silly. I remember giving you an example once upon a time about a fireman who had a great reputation for putting out fires. Until one day he was caught setting them so he could be viewed as that Hero for putting them out. By your argument, he was innocent and/or set the fires in good faith. This is all borne from the Harlequin Romance novels you've clearly been reading. When someone lies and deceives the FBI, the NJSP, and the NYPD, there can be no good faith attached to it. It's hard to continue the dabate when I see you leaving your common sense at the door. I’ve never stated that Condon was a ‘saint,’ or any of the other inaccurate descriptors you routinely throw around here, so please reserve this type of misleading debate tactic for your puppet collection. As we all align ourselves closer to the absolute truth in this case and in a universal sense, there will naturally be less need for this kind of thing.
Regarding Condon's apparent lies, deceptions, attempts to mislead, mental confusion, obfuscations, and any of the above, either intentional or not. Michael, I’m being very upfront with you in stating that to date, I’ve seen no conclusive evidence that any of these prove him a willing confederate to the kidnapping and/or extortion interests, or that even suggests any degree of unwillingness to deviate from his expressed intentions to serve the Lindberghs during their distress.
Condon was fully satisfied that the ‘Cemetery John’ he met at both Woodlawn and St. Raymond’s cemeteries were one and the same man. He offers no deviation within the physical description and voice characteristics he reported to both Lindbergh and Breckinridge, as well as Elmer Irey and his men. CJ also risked a high degree of exposure at St. Raymond’s when he showed himself and shouted out to ensure Condon was aware of his presence among the tombstones. It seems very unlikely that CJ would have been this forward and even brazen unless he was addressing the man he was certain he had previously met at Woodlawn.
Your statement that the ransom was exchanged further east on East Tremont Ave., ie. to give the extortionist a ‘head start,’ requires additional discussion to overcome all objections towards this alleged action having been nefarious in nature. I’ve pointed out a number of these previously on this forum and believe you’re selling yourself short here through prematurely forming such a conclusion that Condon was aiding and abetting the extortionist and by doing so, being deceitful towards Lindbergh.
BS. He gave several descriptions over the years and they weren't always the same. Next, he was identifying people who looked nothing like the descriptions he gave. Furthermore, Condon told a yarn about CJ having to convince him he was the same man. Heck, the man and the girl who were standing on the corner at St. Raymond's ... Or was it a woman? Condon said both at different times. And, of course, we have him telling Agent Turrou that Hauptmann was NOT CJ. So if he testified truthfully, there's that to consider as well. Both Condon and Perrone provided descriptions that first connected the man who gave Perrone the letter addressed to Condon with the man described as CJ by Condon during his two cemetery encounters. Accordingly, Condon’s description firmly draws Richard Hauptmann into the web. And I don’t put full value or credence within the Greenwich Station identification process in terms of its circus-like disorganization and ultimately the veracity of 74-year-old Condon’s mental processes and abilities on that particular day, including his statements to Agent Turrou.This is your personal theory, and one which I’ve previously demonstrated is highly contentious due to its deep and even obvious pitfalls. As my rebuttal to this point is not in a book, I’d be happy to further discuss it again here. It's something supported by the evidence... Uebel's eyewitness account of someone retrieving the Ransom Box from the boxwood bush. Lindbergh's account of Condon's "detour." Condon's admission that he did detour and multiple different silly explanations for such. The fact this detour was in the direction the Lookout was last seen heading. The fact Condon stupidly admitted he went back to look for the ransom box despite claiming he saw CJ depart with it. The fact that the box was never found in Hauptmann's possession. There's too much smoke. Despite this, you swallow whole and totally believe Condon's version concerning the Ransom transfer without any hesitation. We don't know for a fact if the object Uebel, from a great distance away, alleged to have witnessed a man removing from the boxwood bush over a week after the ransom payment, was the original ransom box. It hasn't stopped you from routinely lobbying for this and attempting to press it into fact.. a simple desire to put a nice ribbon and bow on things. Of course, you haven't chosen to deal with the major connective issues in your explanation that defy logic and credibility, not the least of which revolves around all of the people you would now have to have associated with what would amount to pulling the wool over Lindbergh's eyes and being a very serious ‘crime within a crime.’
Regarding Condon’s ‘detour,’ I'm currently not certain when it took place and I see credible evidence to suggest he could have walked down East Tremont Ave. with, or without the ransom payment. On your last point, although it may represent a satisfying ticky box check for you, we both know that Hauptmann would have had to have been a complete moron to keep the ransom box as opposed to getting rid of it immediately after getting the 50K.
Currently, I have mixed thoughts about Condon's payment of the ransom to CJ, but put more credence within Condon's account of what took place down Whittemore Avenue. If, in the event he did arrange with CJ to make the payment further down East Tremont Ave., I believe this would only have been done at the least with Lindbergh’s knowledge and possibly his agreement, the intention being to provide the extortionist with a head start for his protection from potential law enforcement interference. On the other hand though, the fact that Lindbergh made a note of pointing out Condon’s detour with what can be perceived as some suspicion, tends to point to this detour not having been planned ahead of time by both men.
But again, I see credible evidence that supports both scenarios.. Condon detouring at St. Raymond’s without the ransom box during his first encounter with CJ. And also after he left the car with the ransom payment.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 10, 2024 13:35:25 GMT -5
I’ve never stated that Condon was a ‘saint,’ or any of the other inaccurate descriptors you routinely throw around here, so please reserve this type of misleading debate tactic for your puppet collection. As we all align ourselves closer to the absolute truth in this case and in a universal sense, there will naturally be less need for this kind of thing.
Regarding Condon's apparent lies, deceptions, attempts to mislead, mental confusion, obfuscations, and any of the above, either intentional or not. Michael, I’m being very upfront with you in stating that to date, I’ve seen no conclusive evidence that any of these prove him a willing confederate to the kidnapping and/or extortion interests, or that even suggests any degree of unwillingness to deviate from his expressed intentions to serve the Lindberghs during their distress. Call it what you will, but you are showing deliberate indifference to all the negative and seem eager to highlight a general and very untruthful description of the man. Again, there can be no good faith reason attached to lying and deceiving Law Enforcement. These lies benefited the criminals. They certainly didn't benefit the police who wasted their time trying to make heads or tails of it while also running down fake and false leads. Then we get to the trial and see perjury like that story about "Coal Barge John" ( The Dark Corners, Volume II, Pages 395-99) and the denial that he told a story about being blindfolded and brought a board a boat ( TDC, V2, P 390-3) . The man was a criminal and broke the law so many times during this whole fiasco that I could fill yet another book with them. So this lovely ending about a " degree of unwilligness to deviate from his expressed intentions to serve the Lindberghs during their distress" nonsense might sound good in your head, but it makes little sense in light of the facts. Again, this evaluation lacks basic common sense and its hard to debate against anything without it. Both Condon and Perrone provided descriptions that first connected the man who gave Perrone the letter addressed to Condon with the man described as CJ by Condon during his two cemetery encounters. Accordingly, Condon’s description firmly draws Richard Hauptmann into the web. And I don’t put full value or credence within the Greenwich Station identification process in terms of its circus-like disorganization and ultimately the veracity of 74-year-old Condon’s mental processes and abilities on that particular day, including his statements to Agent Turrou. Negative. The descriptions were not as you are framing them to be. Next, of course you don't put any "credence" on what Condon told Turrou. That's because you don't "like" it. You dislike Hauptmann but have some sort of emotional connection to Condon. And so, you turn off your common sense when it comes to Condon, but switch it back on when Hauptmann's actions are evaluated. Again, its hard to debate with someone who does this sort of thing. Also, look at the description Condon gave of the Lookout at Woodlawn. And yet, after Hauptmann's arrest, he's telling cops the Lookout "strongly resembled" Isidor Fisch! ( TDC, Volume II, P 316) No, no, nothing to see here....Next thing you know, you are going to tell me that Fisch looks Italian. We don't know for a fact if the object Uebel, from a great distance away, alleged to have witnessed a man removing from the boxwood bush over a week after the ransom payment, was the original ransom box. It hasn't stopped you from routinely lobbying for this and attempting to press it into fact.. a simple desire to put a nice ribbon and bow on things. Of course, you haven't chosen to deal with the major connective issues in your explanation that defy logic and credibility, not the least of which revolves around all of the people you would now have to have associated with what would amount to pulling the wool over Lindbergh's eyes and being a very serious ‘crime within a crime.’
Regarding Condon’s ‘detour,’ I'm currently not certain when it took place and I see credible evidence to suggest he could have walked down East Tremont Ave. with, or without the ransom payment. On your last point, although it may represent a satisfying ticky box check for you, we both know that Hauptmann would have had to have been a complete moron to keep the ransom box as opposed to getting rid of it immediately after getting the 50K.
Currently, I have mixed thoughts about Condon's payment of the ransom to CJ, but put more credence within Condon's account of what took place down Whittemore Avenue. If, in the event he did arrange with CJ to make the payment further down East Tremont Ave., I believe this would only have been done at the least with Lindbergh’s knowledge and possibly his agreement, the intention being to provide the extortionist with a head start for his protection from potential law enforcement interference. On the other hand though, the fact that Lindbergh made a note of pointing out Condon’s detour with what can be perceived as some suspicion, tends to point to this detour not having been planned ahead of time by both men.
But again, I see credible evidence that supports both scenarios.. Condon detouring at St. Raymond’s without the ransom box during his first encounter with CJ. and also after he left the car with the ransom payment.
Again, this conclusion requires one to leave their common sense at the door. The totality of the evidence clearly points to everything I've stated. Next, the timing of the "detour" was witnessed by Lindbergh and acknowledged by Condon to be true. Now here you are making up excuses out of whole cloth then say my reasoning "defies logic?" It's the height of hypocrisy. How about explaining why Condon couldn't get his story straight about "why" he made this detour? Also ask yourself why Condon lied about that Box in the first place, originally claiming it was made from several different types of wood so it could be easily identified... Turns out it was constructed of ordinary Maple. Its one ruse after another with this guy. And then, lo and behold, he lies to the Cops about who made it and brings them to a dead guy's store when they were searching for him. I'm guessing you'll claim I am being illogical when I suggest this was done as a way to keep his LIE about that Box from being exposed? Again, its common sense. ( TDC, V2, P 284-293).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 15, 2024 13:13:37 GMT -5
Both Condon and Perrone provided descriptions that first connected the man who gave Perrone the letter addressed to Condon with the man described as CJ by Condon during his two cemetery encounters. Accordingly, Condon’s description firmly draws Richard Hauptmann into the web. And I don’t put full value or credence within the Greenwich Station identification process in terms of its circus-like disorganization and ultimately the veracity of 74-year-old Condon’s mental processes and abilities on that particular day, including his statements to Agent Turrou. Let's consider your assertion above that BOTH Condon and Perrone gave descriptions that "connected" the men they claimed to have encountered. Meaning, I suppose, that they were one in the same. First, I think most people who have researched this case even a little bit are in the camp that there were multiple people involved. That means the Lookouts, The Needle Salesman, both people at the Cemetery who Condon claimed to have spoken to, and anyone else aren't all the same person. Heck, "Cemetery John" may have been two different people for all we know because Condon was such a liar its hard to know. The bottom line is there was more than one person. So, I believe Perrone did receive this note from a man to deliver to Condon. He certainly could have been someone different especially considering that he claimed the man was, in his opinion, faking his accent, and had a "full face." We know ultimately that he was heavily influence by the police to pick out Hauptmann out of the lineup. That influence, by the way, included every trick in the book... Threat of arrest, the "Christian Burial" tactic they employed as they drove him to the station to see Hauptmann, the 3 man lineup one of which was Hauptmann, the "pep talk," and the promise of reward. Agent Sisk, who was there, wrote that " Inspector Lyons practically coerced Joseph Perrone into identifying Hauptmann."( TDC, V4, page 320) And so, considering the possibility that the identification was bogus, what does that mean? Well it could be, among other things, that Perrone saw somebody else. However, if it was Hauptmann, as you seem to be so sure of, then how can you ignore what he told Sgt. Zapolsky? You know, that while on City Island he saw a man speaking to Condon who " he thought was the man that gave him the note." Next, studying the case allowed me to see all the various mug shots that Perrone was shown. He picked many out. Many. One was this guy, who Perrone believed was his man: postimg.cc/5X7Dc9RJ
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 17, 2024 8:26:48 GMT -5
Both Condon and Perrone provided descriptions that first connected the man who gave Perrone the letter addressed to Condon with the man described as CJ by Condon during his two cemetery encounters. Accordingly, Condon’s description firmly draws Richard Hauptmann into the web. And I don’t put full value or credence within the Greenwich Station identification process in terms of its circus-like disorganization and ultimately the veracity of 74-year-old Condon’s mental processes and abilities on that particular day, including his statements to Agent Turrou. Let's consider your assertion above that BOTH Condon and Perrone gave descriptions that "connected" the men they claimed to have encountered. Meaning, I suppose, that they were one in the same. First, I think most people who have researched this case even a little bit are in the camp that there were multiple people involved. That means the Lookouts, The Needle Salesman, both people at the Cemetery who Condon claimed to have spoken to, and anyone else aren't all the same person. Heck, "Cemetery John" may have been two different people for all we know because Condon was such a liar its hard to know. The bottom line is there was more than one person. So, I believe Perrone did receive this note from a man to deliver to Condon. He certainly could have been someone different especially considering that he claimed the man was, in his opinion, faking his accent, and had a "full face." We know ultimately that he was heavily influence by the police to pick out Hauptmann out of the lineup. That influence, by the way, included every trick in the book... Threat of arrest, the "Christian Burial" tactic they employed as they drove him to the station to see Hauptmann, the 3 man lineup one of which was Hauptmann, the "pep talk," and the promise of reward. Agent Sisk, who was there, wrote that " Inspector Lyons practically coerced Joseph Perrone into identifying Hauptmann."( TDC, V4, page 320) And so, considering the possibility that the identification was bogus, what does that mean? Well it could be, among other things, that Perrone saw somebody else. However, if it was Hauptmann, as you seem to be so sure of, then how can you ignore what he told Sgt. Zapolsky? You know, that while on City Island he saw a man speaking to Condon who " he thought was the man that gave him the note." Next, studying the case allowed me to see all the various mug shots that Perrone was shown. He picked many out. Many. One was this guy, who Perrone believed was his man: postimg.cc/5X7Dc9RJLet's consider your assertion above that BOTH Condon and Perrone gave descriptions that "connected" the men they claimed to have encountered. Meaning, I suppose, that they were one in the same. First, I think most people who have researched this case even a little bit are in the camp that there were multiple people involved. That means the Lookouts, The Needle Salesman, both people at the Cemetery who Condon claimed to have spoken to, and anyone else aren't all the same person. Heck, "Cemetery John" may have been two different people for all we know because Condon was such a liar its hard to know. The bottom line is there was more than one person. So, I believe Perrone did receive this note from a man to deliver to Condon. He certainly could have been someone different especially considering that he claimed the man was, in his opinion, faking his accent, and had a "full face." We know ultimately that he was heavily influence by the police to pick out Hauptmann out of the lineup. That influence, by the way, included every trick in the book... Threat of arrest, the "Christian Burial" tactic they employed as they drove him to the station to see Hauptmann, the 3 man lineup one of which was Hauptmann, the "pep talk," and the promise of reward. Agent Sisk, who was there, wrote that "Inspector Lyons practically coerced Joseph Perrone into identifying Hauptmann."(TDC, V4, page 320) It's a fair statement that most people studying this case believe more than one person was involved. Of course, that could mean anything from a temporary accomplice joining Richard Hauptmann on any given date, all the way up to an alleged organized 'gang of six' and well beyond into the realm of shadowy, never-revealed criminal collaborator hierarchies beginning with Lindbergh and trickling all the way down to Richard Hauptmann.
At the same time, I think you'll agree there are probably very few individuals who believe this crime was essentially engineered and carried out by one man, who are not well seasoned within this case's specifics that as a result, point clearly to this being a very high likelihood.
Do you then believe that the two street vendors that visited Condon's house and the alleged lookouts at Woodlawn and St. Raymond's were accomplices within the crime, beyond any doubt? I've theorized that they were sent by reporters looking for information and confirmation that John Condon was indeed the 'Jafsie' who posted in the newspapers, and I believe there is good evidence to support this theory, most notably within the physical descriptions offered by Condon, Breckinridge, Reich and Lindbergh. The mysterious 'Our Lady of Tuckahoe' could also have been an easy 'plant' courtesy of these same news interests, designed to elicit Condon to expose himself as Jafsie. At this very time, Condon's house was being seriously cased by reporters and photographers and the aforementioned events basically happened one on the heels of the last. It would have been a very straightforward exercise for the right news interest parties within their highly resourceful ranks to organize and carry out such ruses for the benefit of potential headline stories.
Threats to and cajoling of Perrone by authorities to have him ID Hauptmann notwithstanding, Perrone's potential identification choices at Greenwich Station that day, included one in which he recognized Hauptmann as having features similar enough to those he stated in testimony long prior to Hauptmann's arrest, to warrant him stating this was the man. Of course, authorities should never have exercised this type of coercion and in doing so, unwittingly provided Hauptmann with a kind of misplaced future moral support by now placing Joseph Perrone under the light of suspicion for his positive identification of Hauptmann.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 17, 2024 8:50:30 GMT -5
Perrone’s May 1932 Bronx Grand Jury testimony regarding the description of the man who gave him the envelope, aligns very well with a general description of Richard Hauptmann. I wouldn’t state unequivocally that this man was Hauptmann, but there’s great evidence to support and enough striking similarities here to stimulate further discussion. Here’s what you state in Dark Corners II, page 32:
“According to Perrone, the man was wearing a brown overcoat and fedora, about 35 years old, had a “very fair complexion and light hair” while weighing about 175 or 180 lbs. and standing about 5’9” tall.“
In addition, Perrone testified that the man spoke with a German or Scandinavian accent. Your previous statement that Perrone was of the opinion the man was faking his accent is not forthcoming and misleading as you didn't include Perrone's other assertion the man was of foreign extraction attempting to speak in an English dialect. Perrone also stated the man was erect and of a good muscular build, good looking, with a full face and blue eyes, clean shaven. And yes Hauptmann did have a full face, albeit Perrone did not specifically mention it was hatchet shaped. He was also dressed in a fashion similar to that stated by Condon, and believed the man might be a mechanic or carpenter. Here. I'm pretty certain Perrone was using his innate cabbie abilities to size up the man and potential fare.
This testimony is very important because it represents Perrone’s initial recollection at a time it would most accurately represent his actual eyewitnessing of the man. It’s quite apparent that both his and Condon’s initial descriptions exist very well together.
From the time of their separate March 12 encounters and the arrest of Hauptmann, both Condon and Perrone tentatively identified a number of suspects that in some cases did not match their initial descriptions of the men they met, some not even close to the casual eye. It’s not unusual for eyewitnesses to err this way as a result of memory fade and temporary mental saturation-confusion and this appears to have happened to both Perrone and Condon over the two-and-a-half-year period they were routinely tasked to identify potential suspects.
Now my question to you. Given Perrone’s seemingly erratic identification issues which appear akin to Condon's, are you perhaps suggesting here that Perrone may also have been part of a larger criminal conspiracy and was demonstrating the same kind of deceitful behaviour you openly accuse Condon of demonstrating, ie. to ‘protect’ the man who gave him the envelope? Would you not agree Perrone’s identification disparities here are very similar in nature to those of Condon's? Yet, you’d nail Condon to the wall as some kind of willing, collaborating criminal conspirator, while doing little more than implying Perrone but erred within his eyewitness capabilities to a very important event.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 17, 2024 9:04:13 GMT -5
I did not state that I put “no credence” in what Condon told Turro, as you yourself stated. I wrote, “I don’t put full value or credence within the Greenwich Station identification process in terms of its circus-like disorganization and ultimately the veracity of 74-year-old Condon’s mental processes and abilities on that particular day, including his statements to Agent Turrou.” Unlike one of the black-or-white emojis of your own making that you routinely turn my statements into and then simply roll off into a dark corner with some typically non sequitur reply, mine was a highly qualified statement that offered stimulus for further discussion in attempting to unravel Condon’s feelings and motivations on that given day. Dealing with this subject should not include only a strict, evangelical type of devotion to what has been recorded as historical narrative in dusty reports, as you portray things for the most part. All of the primary characters in this case were unique individuals with both group and highly personalized motivations and it's imperative to have a good, working feel and understanding for who they were and what made them tick within the framework of known case events. As an aside, you probably don’t even realize how often you employ the above unfair and misleading debate tactic through your responses, it's essential effect being an override of constructive thought and attempt to press half baked notions within their place. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if often times, you’re doing this strictly at a semi-conscious level. You really should at least try making a conscious effort to eliminate this for the benefit of continuous, positive group discussion here, because it's just not happening here these days. And it wouldn't hurt your overall credibility as an objective researcher at the same time.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 17, 2024 10:02:39 GMT -5
We don't know for a fact if the object Uebel, from a great distance away, alleged to have witnessed a man removing from the boxwood bush over a week after the ransom payment, was the original ransom box. It hasn't stopped you from routinely lobbying for this and attempting to press it into fact.. a simple desire to put a nice ribbon and bow on things. Of course, you haven't chosen to deal with the major connective issues in your explanation that defy logic and credibility, not the least of which revolves around all of the people you would now have to have associated with what would amount to pulling the wool over Lindbergh's eyes and being a very serious ‘crime within a crime.’
Regarding Condon’s ‘detour,’ I'm currently not certain when it took place and I see credible evidence to suggest he could have walked down East Tremont Ave. with, or without the ransom payment. On your last point, although it may represent a satisfying ticky box check for you, we both know that Hauptmann would have had to have been a complete moron to keep the ransom box as opposed to getting rid of it immediately after getting the 50K.
Currently, I have mixed thoughts about Condon's payment of the ransom to CJ, but put more credence within Condon's account of what took place down Whittemore Avenue. If, in the event he did arrange with CJ to make the payment further down East Tremont Ave., I believe this would only have been done at the least with Lindbergh’s knowledge and possibly his agreement, the intention being to provide the extortionist with a head start for his protection from potential law enforcement interference. On the other hand though, the fact that Lindbergh made a note of pointing out Condon’s detour with what can be perceived as some suspicion, tends to point to this detour not having been planned ahead of time by both men.
But again, I see credible evidence that supports both scenarios.. Condon detouring at St. Raymond’s without the ransom box during his first encounter with CJ. and also after he left the car with the ransom payment.
Again, this conclusion requires one to leave their common sense at the door. The totality of the evidence clearly points to everything I've stated. Next, the timing of the "detour" was witnessed by Lindbergh and acknowledged by Condon to be true. Now here you are making up excuses out of whole cloth then say my reasoning "defies logic?" It's the height of hypocrisy. How about explaining why Condon couldn't get his story straight about "why" he made this detour? Also ask yourself why Condon lied about that Box in the first place, originally claiming it was made from several different types of wood so it could be easily identified... Turns out it was constructed of ordinary Maple. Its one ruse after another with this guy. And then, lo and behold, he lies to the Cops about who made it and brings them to a dead guy's store when they were searching for him. I'm guessing you'll claim I am being illogical when I suggest this was done as a way to keep his LIE about that Box from being exposed? Again, its common sense. ( TDC, V2, P 284-293). A strict definition of the 'timing of the detour' one way or the other, is something I'm not convinced of. Your Dark Corners theory that Condon criminally conspired with CJ and/or someone else to receive the ransom payment approximately 100 yards east of the St. Raymond's main gates, has support in some areas, but also runs into potential pitfall territory that you’ve artfully avoided to now.
I don't preclude the possibility that within whatever changing dynamics presented themselves at St. Raymond’s on the night of April 2, 1932, it was agreed upon that Condon would hand over the ransom payment in a kind of covert fashion to avoid any potential law enforcement interference, thus giving the receiver a 'head start.'
If he did so though, why would he not have ensured Lindbergh was also aware of this deception of sorts? After all, I though you also believed Lindbergh wanted the ransom to be paid in order to make the extortionist(s) effectively ‘go away.’ What reason then would Condon have had in effectively going behind Lindbergh’s back here? And even if Lindbergh was aware of the plan to covertly pay the ransom, why would he have brought his suspicion of Condon’s alleged detour to the forefront?
Do you see how the pitfalls begin to present themselves here?
True, Lindbergh reported that Condon made his detour with the box and Condon, on one later occasion, essentially agreed with Lindbergh. For the most part though, Condon testified that he was concerned about being ambushed should he walk unknowingly down darkened Whittemore Ave., prior to his first encounter with CJ, and that this is why he walked down East Tremont Ave., beyond Lindbergh’s sight.
I question if Lindbergh, despite the infallibly reliable human being many consider him to have been, may simply have been mistaken about the timing of the detour and that Condon simply supported this error for the sake of not having Lindbergh’s credibility questioned.
Regarding the ransom box design and origin, I believe you’ve overthought both scenarios here and in doing so provided only more speculation towards your conviction that Condon was somehow acting nefariously here.
Condon had absolutely no reason to deliberately mislead investigators about what the box was made of or who ultimately built it for him. He simply forgot about his original intention to uniquely design and then have the box made by a cabinetmaker, and ultimately who that cabinetmaker was. His flowing description to Breckinridge about using individual veneers was not only for the purpose of unique identification, it also gave himself some personal recognition and satisfaction as a self-professed expert on woods and their properties, as if he might have been discussing the construction of a fine violin. This is Condon at his well meaning, but also grandiose best, mercurial memory fully intact. And even Samuelsohn had no immediate recollection of the events that precipitated Condon's request for him to build the box. This is clearly shown within the report evidence, without even delving into personal motivation of any of the participants.
What actually happened here was that Condon underestimated the final cost he was willing to pay for such a specialized job, was unwilling to pay Peremi $3.50 and eventually settled for a simpler maple box made by Samuelsohn, with a unique lock and key, the latter which would be immediately recognizable, if ever re-discovered.
There’s little more to this event than simple and straightforward explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 17, 2024 17:24:38 GMT -5
It's a fair statement that most people studying this case believe more than one person was involved. Of course, that could mean anything from a temporary accomplice joining Richard Hauptmann on any given date, all the way up to an alleged organized 'gang of six' and well beyond into the realm of shadowy, never-revealed criminal collaborator hierarchies beginning with Lindbergh and trickling all the way down to Richard Hauptmann. More than one means exactly that. There are many combinations to consider. Next, this idea that people do not hire others to commit crimes on their behalf is disproven by the many other crimes we know about. Just people hiring a "hitman" to take out their wife, husband, significant other, family member, or love interest of someone they want themselves should be enough. Heck, I even gave a perfect example in Volume 4. Nosovitsky was hired by someone who was hired by someone who claimed he was hired by several powerful Wall Street people. ( V4, Pages 259-63). Now consider an ego driven Eugenicist who believed his namesake was a defective - then do the math. So yes, that needs to be considered as well. At the same time, I think you'll agree there are probably very few individuals who believe this crime was essentially engineered and carried out by one man, who are not well seasoned within this case's specifics that as a result, point clearly to this being a very high likelihood. You lost me. Not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you then believe that the two street vendors that visited Condon's house and the alleged lookouts at Woodlawn and St. Raymond's were accomplices within the crime, beyond any doubt? I've theorized that they were sent by reporters looking for information and confirmation that John Condon was indeed the 'Jafsie' who posted in the newspapers, and I believe there is good evidence to support this theory, most notably within the physical descriptions offered by Condon, Breckinridge, Reich and Lindbergh. The mysterious 'Our Lady of Tuckahoe' could also have been an easy 'plant' courtesy of these same news interests, designed to elicit Condon to expose himself as Jafsie. At this very time, Condon's house was being seriously cased by reporters and photographers and the aforementioned events basically happened one on the heels of the last. It would have been a very straightforward exercise for the right news interest parties within their highly resourceful ranks to organize and carry out such ruses for the benefit of potential headline stories. If Reich and Condon's accounts about the Lookout at Woodlawn was true, then yes, he was involved in the extortion. If Lindbergh's account at St. Raymond's was true, then HELL YES, that man was clearly involved. ( V2 Chapter 4). As far as the Needle Salesman, yes, I believe he was. Most likely similar to Perrone where someone involved paid him to report back or do something that gave Condon a predetermined message. So, for me, he was just a guy on the street used as a tool who probably made a buck. The Scissors Grinder I'm not so sure of, but it could have been a similar situation there too. If you are suggesting a Reporter sent them in, how in the hell can you write off what I've written above? Next, during Hoffman's re-investigation, he learned of many things the Reporters did during the investigation. If what you suggested happened, he would have known about it and, since I've done the research, so would I. Clarke, Conway, O'Sullivan, etc. etc. etc. would have let him know what they knew or heard. Besides, the Reporters all knew Condon and Breckinridge were in the home already and I've never seen a "headline story" that could connect up with what you are considering. If you have I'd like to read it, but I already know you haven't because the Reporters had nothing to do with it. The Lady from Tuckahoe, well, this comes from Condon ( V2, Pages 136-148). He claimed he met someone there, claimed he did not under oath during his Grand Jury testimony, then claimed he did again. He claimed he was with Al Reich when he went to Tuckahoe, then morphed Big Al into little Kay. So your guess is as good as mine. My money is on it being a lie, similar to the 2nd Taxi Driver, and that no one he described ever came to the Bazaar in the first place. I do believe that he made contact there with one or more participants but kept that and the actual facts to himself. Threats to and cajoling of Perrone by authorities to have him ID Hauptmann notwithstanding, Perrone's potential identification choices at Greenwich Station that day, included one in which he recognized Hauptmann as having features similar enough to those he stated in testimony long prior to Hauptmann's arrest, to warrant him stating this was the man. Of course, authorities should never have exercised this type of coercion and in doing so, unwittingly provided Hauptmann with a kind of misplaced future moral support by now placing Joseph Perrone under the light of suspicion for his positive identification of Hauptmann. Notwithstanding? Dude, what are you smoking? The photo I posted is the face that Perrone said matched the man who gave him the note, and the police coerced his identification of Hauptmann according to the facts which include what Agent Sisk wrote in his memo.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 23, 2024 8:38:30 GMT -5
It's a fair statement that most people studying this case believe more than one person was involved. Of course, that could mean anything from a temporary accomplice joining Richard Hauptmann on any given date, all the way up to an alleged organized 'gang of six' and well beyond into the realm of shadowy, never-revealed criminal collaborator hierarchies beginning with Lindbergh and trickling all the way down to Richard Hauptmann. More than one means exactly that. There are many combinations to consider. I think your math is a bit off here. Here what the Law Insider and majority of sources on this subject, says on the definition of criminal gang:
Criminal gang means an ongoing organization, association or group of 3 or more persons, whether formal or informal, that has as one of its primary activities the commission of one or more of the criminal acts, or acts that would be criminal if the actor were an adult, specified in s. 939.22 (21) (a) to (s); that has a common name or a common identifying sign or symbol; and whose members individually or collectively engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity.
Your Dept. of Justice and the Canadian Govt. essentially agree.. 3 or more persons.
So you can see, that even if Hauptmann were working with a willing accomplice, this does not qualify his group of two co-collaborators as ‘criminal gang.’ Think of it more as a chief with one subordinate helper, or two equally invested partners.
Next, this idea that people do not hire others to commit crimes on their behalf is disproven by the many other crimes we know about. Just people hiring a "hitman" to take out their wife, husband, significant other, family member, or love interest of someone they want themselves should be enough. Heck, I even gave a perfect example in Volume 4. Nosovitsky was hired by someone who was hired by someone who claimed he was hired by several powerful Wall Street people. (V4, Pages 259-63). Now consider an ego driven Eugenicist who believed his namesake was a defective - then do the math. So yes, that needs to be considered as well. Again, the quality of your math is suspect here. There is absolutely no credible evidence to even suggest Charles Lindbergh would go to the extreme you’re implying here. This is simply your speculation. And even if he was totally bereft of all semblance of morals and human decency, which he was not, I can guarantee you he would have planned for and come up with something far more creative and suitable, than a kidnapping, which would effectively bring the world to his very doorstep, a place we all know he so jealously guarded. A kidnapping would have essentially been scraping the bottom of any preference list he could possibly have put together during such a hypothetical and involved planning process. Every one of the noted factors which ‘conspiracists’ point to as a means of demonstrating Lindbergh’s guilt, has its potentially more valid antithesis, which tends to only poke sizeable holes in such hurried conclusions. At the same time, I think you'll agree there are probably very few individuals who believe this crime was essentially engineered and carried out by one man, who are not well seasoned within this case's specifics that as a result, point clearly to this being a very high likelihood. You lost me. Not sure what you are trying to say here. Anyone who has invested the necessary time and energy into seriously researching this case will find much, if not most value in the theory that this crime was essentially planned, executed by one man who successfully kept things 'under wraps,' and who may have had some assistance by another at some point(s) along the way.
Do you then believe that the two street vendors that visited Condon's house and the alleged lookouts at Woodlawn and St. Raymond's were accomplices within the crime, beyond any doubt? I've theorized that they were sent by reporters looking for information and confirmation that John Condon was indeed the 'Jafsie' who posted in the newspapers, and I believe there is good evidence to support this theory, most notably within the physical descriptions offered by Condon, Breckinridge, Reich and Lindbergh. The mysterious 'Our Lady of Tuckahoe' could also have been an easy 'plant' courtesy of these same news interests, designed to elicit Condon to expose himself as Jafsie. At this very time, Condon's house was being seriously cased by reporters and photographers and the aforementioned events basically happened one on the heels of the last. It would have been a very straightforward exercise for the right news interest parties within their highly resourceful ranks to organize and carry out such ruses for the benefit of potential headline stories. If Reich and Condon's accounts about the Lookout at Woodlawn was true, then yes, he was involved in the extortion. If Lindbergh's account at St. Raymond's was true, then HELL YES, that man was clearly involved. ( V2 Chapter 4). As far as the Needle Salesman, yes, I believe he was. Most likely similar to Perrone where someone involved paid him to report back or do something that gave Condon a predetermined message. So, for me, he was just a guy on the street used as a tool who probably made a buck. The Scissors Grinder I'm not so sure of, but it could have been a similar situation there too. Your examples and their inferences are all highly speculative and would not hold up to presenting evidence for a criminal charge or even warrant. As such, you can’t just attempt to add or multiply each of them and into some imagined substantial cloth of legitimate evidence. I understand though that this does not stop you from doing so.If you are suggesting a Reporter sent them in, how in the hell can you write off what I've written above? Next, during Hoffman's re-investigation, he learned of many things the Reporters did during the investigation. If what you suggested happened, he would have known about it and, since I've done the research, so would I. Clarke, Conway, O'Sullivan, etc. etc. etc. would have let him know what they knew or heard. Besides, the Reporters all knew Condon and Breckinridge were in the home already and I've never seen a "headline story" that could connect up with what you are considering. If you have I'd like to read it, but I already know you haven't because the Reporters had nothing to do with it. I’m not discrediting your research into the subject of Hoffman’s re-investigation. I’m just not convinced Gov. Hoffman would have been forthcoming enough to essentially expose a group of reporters for having done something like this even if he did become aware of it, especially when he would have been looking for this extremely close knit brotherhood to continue to say positive things about him in press. I’m also quite confident no reporter would ever want to admit to such a thing, given the tragic outcome of the negotiations they would have been potentially interfering with. At the same time, I remain unconvinced of this personal theory that that some news interests were behind the two lookouts, street vendors and Lady of Tuckahoe, although there are some quite interesting commonalities within physical descriptions offered by independent witnesses within the first two events.
The Lady from Tuckahoe, well, this comes from Condon ( V2, Pages 136-148). He claimed he met someone there, claimed he did not under oath during his Grand Jury testimony, then claimed he did again. He claimed he was with Al Reich when he went to Tuckahoe, then morphed Big Al into little Kay. So your guess is as good as mine. My money is on it being a lie, similar to the 2nd Taxi Driver, and that no one he described ever came to the Bazaar in the first place. I do believe that he made contact there with one or more participants but kept that and the actual facts to himself. So you believe this mysterious lady never even came up to Condon at his violin charity sale with her cryptically suggestive remarks? I do find that a bit hard to process. After all, didn’t he tell Breckinridge about the event, and even go as far as conscripting his daughter-in-law to drive him to Tuckahoe Station in Al’s absence? Yes, there are the usual Condon contradictions involved here, but the basis of the account remains pretty solid in my estimation, and none of it out of necessity, casts him in the role as some kind of criminal conspirator.
Threats to and cajoling of Perrone by authorities to have him ID Hauptmann notwithstanding, Perrone's potential identification choices at Greenwich Station that day, included one in which he recognized Hauptmann as having features similar enough to those he stated in testimony long prior to Hauptmann's arrest, to warrant him stating this was the man. Of course, authorities should never have exercised this type of coercion and in doing so, unwittingly provided Hauptmann with a kind of misplaced future moral support by now placing Joseph Perrone under the light of suspicion for his positive identification of Hauptmann. Notwithstanding? Dude, what are you smoking? The photo I posted is the face that Perrone said matched the man who gave him the note, and the police coerced his identification of Hauptmann according to the facts which include what Agent Sisk wrote in his memo. Can you please post the Sisk details you're referring to or reference the part within your book?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 23, 2024 12:30:26 GMT -5
I think your math is a bit off here. Here what the Law Insider and majority of sources on this subject, says on the definition of criminal gang:
Criminal gang means an ongoing organization, association or group of 3 or more persons, whether formal or informal, that has as one of its primary activities the commission of one or more of the criminal acts, or acts that would be criminal if the actor were an adult, specified in s. 939.22 (21) (a) to (s); that has a common name or a common identifying sign or symbol; and whose members individually or collectively engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity.
Your Dept. of Justice and the Canadian Govt. essentially agree.. 3 or more persons.
So you can see, that even if Hauptmann were working with a willing accomplice, this does not qualify his group of two co-collaborators as ‘criminal gang.’ Think of it more as a chief with one subordinate helper, or two equally invested partners.
This is probably your worst reply yet and you're kinda wasting my time with this nonsense. What you've done is create a Straw Man argument to knock down. Where did I ever say this involved a Criminal Gang as defined by the modern day law enforcement definition? What I remember saying is " more than one" and " multiple people" being involved. Besides, most people use the dictionary version of the word "gang" when talking normally and we all understand what's meant by it. In that sense, it could even be a "gang of misfits" which would clearly be using it properly if they did. Anyway, I worked with Criminal Gangs and Security Threat Groups over half of my life, so what you are attempting to accomplish with this doesn't make much sense at all and is quite absurd since I could teach a college course on the subject. Now, I'm sure there are people who may believe this official definition, as you outlined above, applies to their own personal theories. The Table Confession, for example, implies an organized Criminal Gang was involved. Those who are fond of Condon might, for example, actually believe Capone was involved since he liked bringing him up after Hauptmann was arrested in order to assist him. Again, there was more than one person involved with this crime. I have, in the past, suggested that everyone involved may or may not have been known to each other prior thereto. For example, if the Needle Vendor was a random man hired for a buck, it's unlikely he'd know who the Lookout at St. Raymond's was. Again, any combination should be considered. Again, the quality of your math is suspect here. There is absolutely no credible evidence to even suggest Charles Lindbergh would go to the extreme you’re implying here. This is simply your speculation. And even if he was totally bereft of all semblance of morals and human decency, which he was not, I can guarantee you he would have planned for and come up with something far more creative and suitable, than a kidnapping, which would effectively bring the world to his very doorstep, a place we all know he so jealously guarded. A kidnapping would have essentially been scraping the bottom of any preference list he could possibly have put together during such a hypothetical and involved planning process. Every one of the noted factors which ‘conspiracists’ point to as a means of demonstrating Lindbergh’s guilt, has its potentially more valid antithesis, which tends to only poke sizeable holes in such hurried conclusions.
Nothing to do with math. I think you need to start reading my replies a little more closely. Again, this idea that people do not hire others to commit crimes on their behalf is disproven by the many other crimes we know about. The position that you supposedly know how Lindbergh would have done it himself here is based on your personal beliefs and/or fantasies. Word salads do not add anything to them - in the least. Anyone who has invested the necessary time and energy into seriously researching this case will find much, if not most value in the theory that this crime was essentially planned, executed by one man who successfully kept things 'under wraps,' and who may have had some assistance by another at some point(s) along the way.
This is nothing more than speculation isn't it? I think I qualify as someone who has put in the "necessary time and energy" having gone to the NJSP Archives for 24 straight years now. Three times this year already. So, obviously, I have a problem with those who have never been telling me what's there -- and what to believe or not believe. I've had similar conversations with people who have never stepped foot in a prison tell me all about prisons too. Even had one recently about Epstein with the person insisting he was "murdered." And yet, they've never been inside one, certainly never saw a Special Housing Unit, or worked there, or studied the policies governing their operation. Meanwhile, I've been OIC and SHU #2 numerous times over the course of my career and have been inside SHUs at Philly, Fairton, Schuylkill, Fort Dix, Allenwood, Lewisburg, and I even slept in one at USP Canaan. But, of course, they know all there is to know while I know absolutely nothing. Your examples and their inferences are all highly speculative and would not hold up to presenting evidence for a criminal charge or even warrant. As such, you can’t just attempt to add or multiply each of them and into some imagined substantial cloth of legitimate evidence. I understand though that this does not stop you from doing so.WTF are you even talking about? A warrant for what? If a police officer had been a witness to what this man was doing, as described, they would have had reasonable suspicion at the very least. He would have been arrested at that time beyond all doubt and booked as a material witness if not as a party to the extortion. Things were different back then and you also have to remember that you cannot look at it through a modern day lens before the Supreme Court made the decisions that established what exists today. I’m not discrediting your research into the subject of Hoffman’s re-investigation. I’m just not convinced Gov. Hoffman would have been forthcoming enough to essentially expose a group of reporters for having done something like this even if he did become aware of it, especially when he would have been looking for this extremely close knit brotherhood to continue to say positive things about him in press. I’m also quite confident no reporter would ever want to admit to such a thing, given the tragic outcome of the negotiations they would have been potentially interfering with. At the same time, I remain unconvinced of this personal theory that that some news interests were behind the two lookouts, street vendors and Lady of Tuckahoe, although there are some quite interesting commonalities within physical descriptions offered by independent witnesses within the first two events.We will have to disagree on this point. I think if you had gone thru all of the Hoffman material, like I have, you would hold a different opinion. He knew about the guy who wrote Condon's phone number, and while he did not name him publicly, he made sure to mention that he knew who it was in his memos/letters ( TDC, V2, Chapter 9). So you believe this mysterious lady never even came up to Condon at his violin charity sale with her cryptically suggestive remarks? I do find that a bit hard to process. After all, didn’t he tell Breckinridge about the event, and even go as far as conscripting his daughter-in-law to drive him to Tuckahoe Station in Al’s absence? Yes, there are the usual Condon contradictions involved here, but the basis of the account remains pretty solid in my estimation, and none of it out of necessity, casts him in the role as some kind of criminal conspirator.
I do not believe this story. I do believe he had private and secret conversations with those involved at this venue, but the story about this woman was the usual Condon misdirection type. Remember, again, that he testified under oath during the Grand Jury that he never met anyone or went to meet anyone at Tuckahoe. However, we have documented proof that he told Breckinridge, Coleman, Agent Seykora, Agent O'Leary, Agent Sisk, etc. that he DID go to Tuckahoe for the purposes of meeting with this woman. This clearly indicates that he either committed perjury or obstructed justice. Both felonies so pick your poison. Why are you ignoring this? Finally, I am still waiting for an answer to my question which, so far, you have evaded: Considering the possibility that the identification of Hauptmann was bogus, what does that mean? Well it could be, among other things, that Perrone saw somebody else. However, if it was Hauptmann, as you seem to be so sure of, then how can you ignore what he told Sgt. Zapolsky? You know, that while on City Island he saw a man speaking to Condon who " he thought was the man that gave him the note."
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 23, 2024 14:51:40 GMT -5
Let's say Lindbergh was behind it. Just hypothetically. I don't know that he would've been scraping the bottom of the barrel to use a kidnapping as a cover for something else. If--'if' being the operative word here--the bottom line was the child needed to go, his disappearance or absence would have to be explained and would bring the world to Lindbergh's doorstep under any circumstances. If this happened by way of an apparent kidnapping, that takes the focus off anyone in the house, makes Lindbergh and the household seem like victims (as opposed to a suspects), and best of all (for Lindbergh), it would make him seem a victim of circumstances he really couldn't control. If the child was gotten out of the way by means of a simple household "accident" or something, of course that's less complicated, but that might've reflected badly on Lindbergh's image (hiring careless servants, that kind of thing), and he was all about image--the toughest, smartest, most superior, etc.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 23, 2024 20:07:03 GMT -5
Let's say Lindbergh was behind it. Just hypothetically. I don't know that he would've been scraping the bottom of the barrel to use a kidnapping as a cover for something else. If--'if' being the operative word here--the bottom line was the child needed to go, his disappearance or absence would have to be explained and would bring the world to Lindbergh's doorstep under any circumstances. If this happened by way of an apparent kidnapping, that takes the focus off anyone in the house, makes Lindbergh and the household seem like a victims (as opposed to a suspects), and best of all (for Lindbergh), it would make him seem a victim of circumstances he really couldn't control. If the child was gotten out of the way by means of a simple household "accident" or something, of course that's less complicated, but that might've reflected badly on Lindbergh's image (hiring careless servants, that kind of thing), and he was all about image--the toughest, smartest, most superior, etc. So as I understand it then, you're suggesting Lindbergh, due to his unhappiness with Charlie's big head and crossed toes, would have engaged essentially unknown external forces to manipulate the demise of his first-born son by way of a staged kidnapping, as a preferred option? If you're unfamiliar with just how precise, fastidious and conscientious Lindbergh was when it came to even every day life things, all you have to do is read among other sources, Berg's "Lindbergh." From this alone, I believe you'd understand quite clearly that he would never have done anything so reckless, unstructured and simply stupid, even if he was bent of the mind you might imagine he was.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 24, 2024 17:56:02 GMT -5
Yes, I have read Berg’s book and Lindbergh was indeed very fastidious and organized, making his absence at NYU on the night of the kidnapping very strange. And you’re probably right: crossed toes and a big head wouldn’t, on their own, be a problem. Only if they were indicative of larger issues. Added to which, Lindbergh could be very reckless. So one more time: If, hypothetically, the child needed to go in Lindbergh’s mind, what else besides a kidnapping would get the job done without reflecting badly on him?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2024 21:04:34 GMT -5
Yes, I have read Berg’s book and Lindbergh was indeed very fastidious and organized, making his absence at NYU on the night of the kidnapping very strange. Bingo! And what about the fact Lindbergh claimed not to remember where he was before he got home on March 1? Nobody believes that. Of course Joe will pretend to because he has no choice. But in doing so he undermines his own argument. He's in a Catch-22.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 26, 2024 1:01:07 GMT -5
Or the fact that Lindbergh seemed to have called home that night from a location much closer to Hopewell than NYC? Or his behavior afterwards (pulling pranks, his treatment of CAL Jr.’s body, etc.). All of these individual things could have potentially innocent explanations—that’s just how he was, it’s not for anyone to criticize how someone shows grief, and so on—but when you look at everything altogether, it gets harder and harder to not see at least something suspicious. I don’t want him to be involved; I don’t “want” anything to be true or not true. It’s not an agenda, it’s just that after a while, the totality of things becomes pretty overwhelming.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 26, 2024 9:09:54 GMT -5
Given the fact there’s not one shred of evidence to conclude Charles Lindbergh had ever undertaken such a depraved agenda, I really haven’t spent a lot of time trying to conjure up hypothetical scenarios that would accomplish this, or even ‘best’ a faked kidnapping for overall effectiveness. Any scheme involved within an intentional infanticide would have carried with it an extremely high level of risk for starters no matter what its nature, only compounding higher with each individual required between Lindbergh and the ‘boots on the ground’ perpetrator(s). It’s little wonder the criminal underworld came up blanks when hard pressed for information as to who might have pulled the kidnapping. Their response was essentially ‘no one in our ranks’ for very good reason. Bad publicity and too much intrusion by law enforcement into their overall activities. Regardless of the ultimate hypothetical scheme chosen, each and every one, from a simple ‘Oops-one-on-one accident,' all the way up to the shadowy, chain of command gang conspiracy, popular because its participants can exist entirely vaporous, would have carried with it, unavoidable and very intense scrutiny on the part of law enforcement agencies, family, friends and the public. Every one of them would be looking for some evidence of any perceived, general or specific lack of parental controls which may have contributed towards the fate of the child.
One has to consider the basic intent of those living at Highfields, who it appears more than anything, desired only to be able to live a peaceful, loving and private family existence away from the ever present press and public intrusion. Normally unlocked upper floor windows, a pair of shutters that wouldn’t lock, absence of a dog that would normally have slept under the crib, lack of 24/7 security measures and even an uncharacteristic weekend stayover until the Tuesday evening must also be considered. But if one were to plan a faked kidnapping against the backdrop of all of the unusual elements listed above, one would also have to be almost painfully aware that the finger of suspicion would have immediately been pointed their way. Someone as meticulous, attentive to detail, forward thinking and as excruciatingly good a planner as Charles Lindbergh, if he had chosen to engage in such a scheme, would have realized all of these potential and very obvious pitfalls immediately. In short, he would have planned around what usually happened, not what didn't usually happen. While he was no criminal, he was also no idiot. And that’s only one of the primary reasons he didn’t do it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 26, 2024 11:13:48 GMT -5
Or the fact that Lindbergh seemed to have called home that night from a location much closer to Hopewell than NYC? Or his behavior afterwards (pulling pranks, his treatment of CAL Jr.’s body, etc.). All of these individual things could have potentially innocent explanations—that’s just how he was, it’s not for anyone to criticize how someone shows grief, and so on—but when you look at everything altogether, it gets harder and harder to not see at least something suspicious. I don’t want him to be involved; I don’t “want” anything to be true or not true. It’s not an agenda, it’s just that after a while, the totality of things becomes pretty overwhelming. In a case as high profile and under the microscope as this one with so much information having come to light, you can't help but have all kinds of apparent indicators leading a number of ways. At the end of the day though, which are the ones which hold up as conclusively pertinent within the commission of the crime itself?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 26, 2024 12:09:29 GMT -5
I agree with some of what you say, particularly the most recent post. And when it comes to the finger of suspicion being pointed, I think it’s important to remember that Lindbergh was suspected, but who’d dare say anything? Small conspiracies happen all the time, and if he could use his personal clout to control the investigation, as he did, he’s pretty much covered from every angle. That being said, I freely admit there’s no smoking gun here. I’m simply looking at the totality of the evidence, old and stuff that’s more recently come to light.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 26, 2024 21:03:47 GMT -5
I agree with some of what you say, particularly the most recent post. And when it comes to the finger of suspicion being pointed, I think it’s important to remember that Lindbergh was suspected, but who’d dare say anything? Small conspiracies happen all the time, and if he could use his personal clout to control the investigation, as he did, he’s pretty much covered from every angle. That being said, I freely admit there’s no smoking gun here. I’m simply looking at the totality of the evidence, old and stuff that’s more recently come to light. Imagine if Hauptmann was asked where he was the night of the kidnapping and instead of providing a relatively concrete answer about picking up his wife (complete with witnesses) he shrugged and said "I don't know." Then, it was discovered he missed his own birthday party (or some other important engagement) and just didn't show - Joe would never let us hear the end of it. It would be one of the biggest pieces of evidence there is.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 26, 2024 22:49:50 GMT -5
Well, to be clear, I agree with Joe that Hauptmann was no angel and was in this up to his neck. I’m just not so sure on what his exact role was. Personally, I think he was either part of a group, or had some connection to that group, and just happened to be the unlucky one who got caught and railroaded with the whole thing because he was all the authorities had.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 27, 2024 8:52:18 GMT -5
thanks mike
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 27, 2024 11:11:56 GMT -5
Well, to be clear, I agree with Joe that Hauptmann was no angel and was in this up to his neck. I’m just not so sure on what his exact role was. Personally, I think he was either part of a group, or had some connection to that group, and just happened to be the unlucky one who got caught and railroaded with the whole thing because he was all the authorities had. I agree Hauptmann was involved (not at all convinced he was at Hopewell) but if I was someone who was a "lone wolf" believer and the reality was that on the night of the kidnapping Hauptmann had no real accounting of his whereabouts and missed an important engagement without an explanation, we'd never hear the end of it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 27, 2024 11:27:27 GMT -5
Well, to be clear, I agree with Joe that Hauptmann was no angel and was in this up to his neck. I’m just not so sure on what his exact role was. Personally, I think he was either part of a group, or had some connection to that group, and just happened to be the unlucky one who got caught and railroaded with the whole thing because he was all the authorities had. There's a very compelling trail of custody demonstrated within the primary circumstantial physical evidence and in consideration of Dudley Schoenfeld's psychological profile of the kidnapper which identifies Hauptmann alone throughout the kidnapping and ransom negotiations. $50,000 is a low amount for a gang of kidnappers charged with abducting the son of the most famous man in the world. By most accounts, Hauptmann accounted for well over 80% of the proceeds by way of his actual expenditures over the two-and-a-half years he was at large. Why would the rest of a 'gang' have settled for scraps during this time, or were they working free of charge? Cemetery John claimed to be nothing more than an intermediary within a gang, yet sat on a park bench and talked with Condon for well over an hour. Intermediaries are assigned to go in, give and receive directions, and get out quickly. CJ also demonstrated he was in charge when he spontaneously accepted Condon's request to reduce the ransom amount by $20,000. There's a very good reason no one else ever came forward or was seriously suspected of involvement alongside Richard Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 27, 2024 17:05:13 GMT -5
We’re in agreement on a good bit here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 28, 2024 12:18:45 GMT -5
I agree with some of what you say, particularly the most recent post. And when it comes to the finger of suspicion being pointed, I think it’s important to remember that Lindbergh was suspected, but who’d dare say anything? Small conspiracies happen all the time, and if he could use his personal clout to control the investigation, as he did, he’s pretty much covered from every angle. That being said, I freely admit there’s no smoking gun here. I’m simply looking at the totality of the evidence, old and stuff that’s more recently come to light. Imagine if Hauptmann was asked where he was the night of the kidnapping and instead of providing a relatively concrete answer about picking up his wife (complete with witnesses) he shrugged and said "I don't know." Then, it was discovered he missed his own birthday party (or some other important engagement) and just didn't show - Joe would never let us hear the end of it. It would be one of the biggest pieces of evidence there is. Actually, I would be far more impressed with Hauptmann claiming he couldn't remember where he was on a random evening two-and-a-half years previous. Instead, he and Anna quite remarkably came to insist that he picked up her up at Frederickson's Bakery and they drove home together, arriving about 9:30 pm. That's a pretty detailed recollection to swear by, considering the fact that the owner of the bakery, Christian Frederickson, was unable to swear that either Hauptmann was even at the bakery that night, period. Then you have an assortment of potential eyewitnesses who claim to have seen Hauptmann at the bakery on the night of March 1, when each and every one of them provided testimony that was dubious at best and even false. Apparently, Frederickson's Bakery was a very popular place for acutely observing patrons that evening.
|
|