|
Post by Michael on Oct 10, 2018 7:27:41 GMT -5
In V2 on pages 210-12 I wrote about James Bergen and his eyewitness account. He is kind of like Riehl in a sense in that he's a disinterested party that sees something that doesn't match up with what Condon/Lindbergh laid out for police. Was he wrong about the time? If so, did he see Condon/Lindbergh? If so, why didn't either Condon/Lindbergh see him? If not, did he see the Extortionists getting ready/preparing to collect the money?
I know there was a TON of new information in the book so little things like this can get lost in it all. But for the life of me I cannot figure this one out and would like to hear what everyone thinks about this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2018 20:15:44 GMT -5
Volume 2 is certainly full of so much new information. I admit I have been focusing a lot of my attention on the last few chapters and so I haven't really paid enough attention to some of the earlier segments you have written about.
No other book I have read has ever mentioned that James Bergen had been interviewed about the night of April 2, 1932. Thank you for sharing this. What he saw that night is important. It adds another layer to the events of that evening.
Mr. Bergen is certainly describing what would appear to be Lindbergh and Condon with Al Reich's car. But like you say, Michael, the time he is seeing these people is too early for it to be CAL and Condon. The time this man is saying that car is parked there would coincide with the time the note with directions to come to the flower shop would be arriving at Condon's home. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to consider James Bergen might have seen the Extortionists there.
This just adds to the already confusing events of how things were actually occurring that night, especially at Condon's house. Was there a taxi driver or not delivering the note? Who was present in Condon's house that night? Who was where when the door bell rang? Who actually answered the door that night? As your book shows, there are many versions about what happened in Condon's house. Plus all the others who were watching Condon's house that night from different positions have stories too.
What makes no sense is WHY there should be such confusion. Things could only have happened one way. Everyone should have been on the same page if the truth is being told.
I know that Reich drove a coupe. Was it a Ford or a Chevy or something else?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 13, 2018 0:32:34 GMT -5
According to Fisher it was a Ford.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 13, 2018 11:49:18 GMT -5
Mr. Bergen is certainly describing what would appear to be Lindbergh and Condon with Al Reich's car. But like you say, Michael, the time he is seeing these people is too early for it to be CAL and Condon. The time this man is saying that car is parked there would coincide with the time the note with directions to come to the flower shop would be arriving at Condon's home. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to consider James Bergen might have seen the Extortionists there. Thanks Amy. I always try to think about things from many perspectives and angles. For example, thinking about first that Lindbergh had a reason to lie then thinking about it again from the position he did not. If Bergen was wrong about the timing, there's no way Lindbergh and Condon did not see him - most especially with the light going off and on. If it was the Extortionists, then perhaps they were setting where they believed Condon and Reich (they would not have expected Lindbergh) would be parked upon arrival as a way to rehearse the delivery. I really don't know and was hoping to get everyone's ideas or theories about the possibilities. According to Fisher it was a Ford. That's correct. It's in Reich's statement that it was a Ford.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 13, 2018 13:26:32 GMT -5
According to Fisher it was a Ford. That's correct. It's in Reich's statement that it was a Ford. Just to confirm, this is from Reich's trial testimony:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2018 15:43:10 GMT -5
If it was the Extortionists, then perhaps they were setting where they believed Condon and Reich (they would not have expected Lindbergh) would be parked upon arrival as a way to rehearse the delivery. I really am not sure either. Would the extortionists have waited that long to figure this out? The note Condon received around 8 p.m. already had the instructions in it to proceed to Bergen's greenhouse. It seems to me that a place to put that note directing Condon to Whittemore Ave. would have been determined earlier so that the directional note could be written and then delievered. How many other optional places did the extortionists have for a place to put that note for Condon to find? The florist shop had a table outside and they would be closed in the evening and it is not real far from Whittemore Ave. Plus they would not want to place the note there too early and then risk someone walking by and noticing it. Mr. Bergen appearing at his shop unexpectedly must have been a real concern if these persons were there to leave that note for Condon. Rehearse the delivery?? Do you mean they were trying to anticipate what Condon was going to do once he arrived there? Maybe the man leaning into the car was the look-out that Lindbergh saw that night.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 14, 2018 1:27:58 GMT -5
Now there's extortionists! - that's right, with an s. More than one. How many people are involved in the crime now?
Remember, extortionists can be rats too, but nobody was.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 14, 2018 7:50:21 GMT -5
Now there's extortionists! - that's right, with an s. More than one. How many people are involved in the crime now? Remember, extortionists can be rats too, but nobody was. So you don't think anyone ever collected the ransom? There were a lot of different characters that I think we can only keep track of by referring to specific terms as it related to specific events. So yes those involved at the Cemeteries would be "Extortionists" because they were there for that purpose. At Woodlawn there were at least TWO of them, or depending on what version we believe as true or do not dismiss as lies - perhaps more. At St. Raymond's we have a Look-Out as well. So despite all the years of being "told" by people who did not do enough research that there was not now we absolutely know there was. There might also be Cemetery John where Condon said he was although I doubt that. I believe he was waiting for the money East Tremont to complete the bait and switch which occurred. Now the question becomes: Were these people involved with the Kidnappers? Odds are yes since due to the secret symbol and that Hauptmann appears to be the nexus between the two if one considers he built the ladder. But was, for example, the Lookout at both Cemeteries the same guy? Perhaps. Was he in Hopewell for the Kidnapping? Or was he recruited later on? With this in mind, how would you like me to refer to him? How about Perrone? He was merely a dupe, however, his actions assisted them correct? So I'd call him a "tool." What about the Needle Salesman? Breckinridge believed he was a "Look-Out." What shall we call him? How about the woman at Tuckahoe? If you have any faith in Condon at all she was real. In that case what do we call her? If not, was she a "ghost?" And then there's the shape-shifting that went on. Condon turning into Myra, and Reich turning into Kay. What do we call this? Which leads me to Condon. What do we call him? Since I see no evidence he had anything to do the the actual Kidnapping and that his goal was to protect the people collecting the ransom while assisting in facilitating it he's part of the "Extortion." This idea that conspiracies do not exist is merely a debate tactic. I often refer to the St. Valentine's Day Massacre where a score of people were involved yet no one ever talked. My own personal experiences prove it as well because, as just one example, I've seen 15 to 20 work together like a well oiled machine to smuggle cell phones into a prison. One gets caught red handed and does he implicate anyone? No, he continues to say he wasn't really caught red handed and wasn't involved. It was only through the hard work of those doing the investigation where the scope of the matter was revealed. These things happen Jack. I can only imagine how much goes on that we do not know about because it was never discovered because no one talked. Let's keep this going. Look at the "Mafia." There are still guys in prison doing time from 3 decades ago because they would not and never will talk. If they did how many people do you think would go down?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 14, 2018 8:11:48 GMT -5
Rehearse the delivery?? Do you mean they were trying to anticipate what Condon was going to do once he arrived there? Maybe the man leaning into the car was the look-out that Lindbergh saw that night. My "guess" is they were rehearsing by being where they thought they'd be and planning for the steps necessary to complete the process. Kind of like a quick walk-thru just before the actual event. It's merely a guess because no scenario is without it's issues.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 14, 2018 12:46:17 GMT -5
Who cares what you call 'em. it's the numbers - they'd be bumping into each other at the cemeteries! And as far as rats go - remember there was a big reward. There'd be twenty people involved scrambling to get it, and that never happened at all! No rats, simple crime, no others involved but Hauptmann. Way too insane of an idea, the crime was to get any other participants - If as you say there were so many involved, it's funny one of those that turned him down when this group was forming didn't turn him in. As it was - no suspicion of him or anybody.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 14, 2018 13:14:40 GMT -5
Who cares what you call 'em. it's the numbers - they'd be bumping into each other at the cemeteries! And as far as rats go - remember there was a big reward. There'd be twenty people involved scrambling to get it, and that never happened at all! No rats, simple crime, no others involved but Hauptmann. Way too insane of an idea, the crime was to get any other participants - If as you say there were so many involved, it's funny one of those that turned him down when this group was forming didn't turn him in. As it was - no suspicion of him or anybody. So let's evaluate what you say.... First, I care what to call them because its important to get it right when referring to the events which occurred. Next, "I" never said anything. I am simply telling you what the source material reveals. What the people who were involved actually said. Next you say they would be "bumping into each other..." Really? No account has that occurring so what causes you to conclude this? You are exaggerating in order to minimize what you do not "like." We have information concerning what happened. What is it based on? Reich, Condon, Lindbergh, Breckinridge, Coleman, Riehl, Uebel, and Bergen. Not just individually but collectively. Since Condon was not truthful about anything and told about 20 different stories then we can cross-reference with the Reich and Lindbergh accounts to see what matches up. Of course if you believe they all lied about everything then there is no counter-argument to be made except to say you do not believe them. But you can't say that can you? So who do you believe? Lindbergh who saw a Look-Out. Reich who saw a Look-Out. Condon who saw a Look-Out. Did they describe this person? Did they explain his actions? Was it ever concluded this person was or was not CJ? No matter what the evidence or who says it there are multiple people involved up until the trial in Flemington where this notion gets buried in order to secure a Murder conviction. Prior to that - multiple people. You see there is nothing simple about this and trying to make it seem that way sort of complicates things - doesn't it?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 15, 2018 6:39:21 GMT -5
Who cares what you call 'em. it's the numbers - they'd be bumping into each other at the cemeteries! And as far as rats go - remember there was a big reward. There'd be twenty people involved scrambling to get it, and that never happened at all! No rats, simple crime, no others involved but Hauptmann. Way too insane of an idea, the crime was to get any other participants - If as you say there were so many involved, it's funny one of those that turned him down when this group was forming didn't turn him in. As it was - no suspicion of him or anybody. So let's evaluate what you say.... First, I care what to call them because its important to get it right when referring to the events which occurred. Next, "I" never said anything. I am simply telling you what the source material reveals. What the people who were involved actually said. Next you say they would be "bumping into each other..." Really? No account has that occurring so what causes you to conclude this? You are exaggerating in order to minimize what you do not "like." We have information concerning what happened. What is it based on? Reich, Condon, Lindbergh, Breckinridge, Coleman, Riehl, Uebel, and Bergen. Not just individually but collectively. Since Condon was not truthful about anything and told about 20 different stories then we can cross-reference with the Reich and Lindbergh accounts to see what matches up. Of course if you believe they all lied about everything then there is no counter-argument to be made except to say you do not believe them. But you can't say that can you? So who do you believe? Lindbergh who saw a Look-Out. Reich who saw a Look-Out. Condon who saw a Look-Out. Did they describe this person? Did they explain his actions? Was it ever concluded this person was or was not CJ? No matter what the evidence or who says it there are multiple people involved up until the trial in Flemington where this notion gets buried in order to secure a Murder conviction. Prior to that - multiple people. You see there is nothing simple about this and trying to make it seem that way sort of complicates things - doesn't it? I believe what Jack is saying is that if multiple people, in addition to Hauptmann had have been involved deeply within a plot to kidnap CALjr, there would have been others who originally would have been drawn close enough to recognize what the scheme's intent was, rejected it and that they would have then come forward. Possibly.. but I'm not sure they would have even done that, given the enormous stigma and potential repercussions this case carried with it, ie. for someone just to be drawn into a conversation or coincidence related to the Lindbergh Kidnapping, eg. the Geisslers. You've already stated that a number of the above people were complicit within the crime and it's fallout, either by initial design to eliminate CALjr, assist or be a confederate of the kidnappers, witness re-enactments of events that did or did not take place, and possibly just diminishing into simple knowledge of the crime. Due to the constant repetition of speculation that's grown from appears to me a biased perception of a selection of facts, these people now appear to be somehow trapped within an ever-growing and ever-shifting bubble of criminal complicity and influence, that it seems unlikely anyone will ever be able to define, due to it's grand and amazing complexity. I don't believe the crime was quite as simple as Jack or Dave or Allen might imply, but it was a whole lot more straightforward than it's being made out here at large. There's great new information and discussion, no character's seamy underbelly is left hidden, and as always entirely enjoyable, but much of this is becoming irrelevant, running farther and farther away from its source, rather than back to it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 15, 2018 7:08:57 GMT -5
I believe what Jack is saying is that if multiple people, in addition to Hauptmann had have been involved deeply within a plot to kidnap CALjr, there would have been others who originally would have been drawn close enough to recognize what the scheme's intent was, rejected it and that they would have then come forward. Possibly.. but I'm not sure they would have even done that, given the enormous stigma and potential repercussions this case carried with it, ie. for someone just to be drawn into a conversation or coincidence related to the Lindbergh Kidnapping, eg. the Geisslers. What you suggest may apply to "some" people. But do we have a situation where 'random' people were approached for assistance? Well Perrone fits that bill doesn't he? Were others chosen in this manner as well? We do not know... Why? Because no one did as you suggest. So that's supposed to answer the question for us? Next, those who were involved would they be the type to run to the Cops? Take Fisch for example, do you think had Hauptmann taken him into his confidence he'd assist with money laundering, scam Hauptmann, or run to the police? I'll tell you what Joe (and I mean this) you have a big heart and I hope you never change. Let's address both your point (and Jack's) with one true example from this case: J. J. Faulkner. There is no person I have ever seen in the 18 years of research that said Hauptmann wrote that slip. No Handwriting Expert (then or now), no Researcher, no Graphologist, no Scientist, no Author, no Amateur Sleuth, or Curious Student. Most important to me is what I personally see, and I would feel very comfortable by agreeing. So that solves it doesn't it? The Lone-Wolf position is finally dead. But no! They say Hauptmann pretended to be illiterate and asked an innocent by-stander to write it for him. Makes perfect sense right? So I'm sure both you and Jack would agree this unknown person would immediately go to the police because of the "enormous stigma and potential repercussions" or to collect on the Reward. But it never happened. So let's shrug it off or sweep it under the rug and keep on moving....? So you see these positions cannot be used on a slide-rule. This "one size fits all" theory isn't the norm we'd all hope were true. Now, if we're talking Disney World perhaps. You've already stated that a number of the above people were complicit within the crime and it's fallout, either by initial design to eliminate CALjr, assist or be a confederate of the kidnappers, witness re-enactments of events that did or did not take place, and possibly just diminishing into simple knowledge of the crime. Due to the constant repetition of speculation that's grown from appears to me a biased perception of a selection of facts, these people now appear to be somehow trapped within an ever-growing and ever-shifting bubble of criminal complicity and influence, that it seems unlikely anyone will ever be able to define, due to it's grand and amazing complexity. What you describe is called life. It's complicated. We look at the facts then talk ourselves out of what we see based upon emotion and/or false narrative about how things really work. There is evidence of at least (2) people at the crime scene. There is evidence of at least (2) people at the Cemeteries. There is money laundering activity that can in no way be accomplished by one person watching the board on Wall Street all day 5 days a week. How do we figure it out? We go over all of the evidence, reports, memos, and words of those who were there or privy to the information we need. I don't believe the crime was quite as simple as Jack or Dave or Allen might imply, but it was a whole lot more straightforward than it's being made out here at large. There's great new information and discussion, no character's seamy underbelly is left hidden, and as always entirely enjoyable, but much of this is becoming irrelevant, running farther and farther away from its source, rather than back to it. Suggestions aren't facts are they? But they sometimes become necessary to consider in the face of the evidence. Whether they turn out to be true or not isn't important, rather, it is whether or not they assist in bringing us closer to the truth. That can happen simply because we did consider them in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 15, 2018 9:24:19 GMT -5
Has anybody considered the possibility that James Bergen may have been in on the extortion plot himself in some manner? Choosing his property as the location to place the note directing Condon to the cemetery: could that be an indication that Mr. Bergen could be trusted with that note, so that there would be no interception of it before Condon's arrival to pick it up? In addition, Mr. Bergen stated that he did know Condon before this event occurred, and many have justifiable suspicions, for numerous reasons, regarding Jafsie's possible participation in the plot.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 15, 2018 10:36:46 GMT -5
Has anybody considered the possibility that James Bergen may have been in on the extortion plot himself in some manner? Choosing his property as the location to place the note directing Condon to the cemetery: could that be an indication that Mr. Bergen could be trusted with that note, so that there would be no interception of it before Condon's arrival to pick it up? In addition, Mr. Bergen stated that he did know Condon before this event occurred, and many have justifiable suspicions, for numerous reasons, regarding Jafsie's possible participation in the plot. Seems pretty far-fetched. At that point you have to start inculpating all kinds of places, was the Frankfurter stand's owner involved too?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 16, 2018 17:46:16 GMT -5
Just for the record, that frankfurter stand, IIRC, had been abandoned. So it had NO owner at the time, it would seem.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 17, 2018 12:38:51 GMT -5
Well it takes one to keep a secret and I don't believe with all these people who are around and all involved in TLC that somebody wouldn't have talked over the years. And I mean a lot more than "Ollie's deathbed confession," which was really an unsubstantiated snitch on BG, rather than a confession. Hope the Death Bed Confession sold some books, but lets start being correct here!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 18, 2018 7:00:10 GMT -5
Well it takes one to keep a secret and I don't believe with all these people who are around and all involved in TLC that somebody wouldn't have talked over the years. And I mean a lot more than "Ollie's deathbed confession," which was really an unsubstantiated snitch on BG, rather than a confession. Hope the Death Bed Confession sold some books, but lets start being correct here! Whoa. What? I am starting to see a pattern - is it an unconscious one or intentional? I'll spare everyone my response since they've seen it as many times as you've posted your go to "default" position. This position made despite having nothing to do with the topic we were discussing. You've seen it too yet here we are. How did we get here again? Oh right, all paths for you lead here when your side of the debate falls apart.
|
|