Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 25, 2019 8:25:29 GMT -5
I also know you believe Condon was some kind of shrewd, calculating criminal mastermind. Shrewd and calculating yes Michael, but can you offer one shred of unassailable proof that he ever knowingly tried to deceive the man he idolized, Charles Lindbergh, other than through the type of thin speculation you offer in your books? I do believe the 72-year-old Condon was suffering from some form of degenerative dementia, (would his children not agree?) and that given his always eccentric, garrulous and histrionic nature, any statements on his part would have become more exaggerated, fragmented or misaligned over time. And his inability to remember whatever deceptions he initiated within the ransom negotiation period would only have been exacerbated by his mental condition when the time came for his to submit to a full police investigation after May 12, 1932. Wrong again. This is merely a straw-man you've created. I've never believed Condon to be "shrewd," "calculating," or a "mastermind." He was a tool - and what he did as such made him a criminal. Condon is exactly as the facts reveal. And they are outlined in a couple hundred pages in my volumes backed by footnotes and citations coming from the Archives. Supposedly the Archives were "cool" back when some looked at about 4% or 5% of what's there. But for me? Not so much. Why? Because I've seen 100% ... so nothing I cite is "speculative." Once again, calling hundreds of facts "thin speculation" doesn't make it so. The man was lying. Was he lying NOT to deceive? Well, that seems to be YOUR position. If that's something you are comfortable with I certainly cannot talk you out of it, but there's so many examples it took almost an entire book for me to relay them.... and it wasn't even the tip of the iceberg because I could write a 2nd Volume just on his obstruction. All I see from you is either making excuses or using a slide-rule to judge his behavior. He says something you "like" then he's telling the truth. Doesn't matter if 3 or 4 previous version were different because that can be attributed to any number of things... Mental condition, age, eccentricities, wanting to "help" his "Hero," etc. etc. etc., just throw it at the wall and if it doesn't stick pretend that it does. Straw man indeed, Michael. I've never said that you've speculated about or misrepresented what is actually in the NJSP archives. I may not always agree with the veracity of any one report in particular, including some of the most critical of information early in the investigation, but I've told you time and time again how much I value and enjoy reading the archive information you have shared over the years and looking forward to your V3. My criticism though, has absolutely everything to do with how you've interpreted the content of many of these reports to arrive at a theory which I believe to be nothing more than a fantastic house of cards. If you're not comfortable with me pointing out glaring weaknesses within your argument, my apologies but I'm just as keen on seeing this thing through in the true light of day as you claim to be.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 25, 2019 10:44:29 GMT -5
Straw man indeed, Michael. I've never said that you've speculated about or misrepresented what is actually in the NJSP archives. I may not always agree with the veracity of any one report in particular, including some of the most critical of information early in the investigation, but I've told you time and time again how much I value and enjoy reading the archive information you have shared over the years and looking forward to your V3. My criticism though, has absolutely everything to do with how you've interpreted the content of those reports to arrive at a theory which I believe to be nothing more than a fantastic house of cards. If you're not comfortable with me pointing out glaring weaknesses within your argument, my apologies but I'm just as keen on seeing this thing through in the true light of day as you claim to be. I'm comfortable with anything you have to say Joe. It seems like you are a little uncomfortable with what I have to say and not the other way around. Regardless, you can say whatever you like ... but I'm sure you knew that already. Of course if I disagree I'll have to counter again. Like for example, I have to point out that so far in this thread you are batting 1000 when it comes to assigning me certain beliefs and positions that I do not hold - and yet that didn't stop you here either. So let's go all the way back to the start. You are not rebutting facts, instead, you assume to know what "I" believe and attack these supposed beliefs as a way to do an end around them. I called it right from Jump-Street and then you went right ahead and have proven it for me.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Sept 25, 2019 12:22:48 GMT -5
I do believe the 72-year-old Condon was suffering from some form of degenerative dementia, (would his children not agree?) and that given his always eccentric, garrulous and histrionic nature, any statements on his part would have become more exaggerated, fragmented or misaligned over time. And his inability to remember whatever deceptions he initiated within the ransom negotiation period would only have been exacerbated by his mental condition when the time came for his to submit to a full police investigation after May 12, 1932. So should Condon's trial testimony identifying BRH as CJ be stricken from the historical records and attributed to his degenerative mental condition? My criticism though, has absolutely everything to do with how you've interpreted the content of many of these reports to arrive at a theory which I believe to be nothing more than a fantastic house of cards. If you're not comfortable with me pointing out glaring weaknesses within your argument, my apologies but I'm just as keen on seeing this thing through in the true light of day as you claim to be. Comparing alternate LKC theories to a "house of cards" is a weak attack; of course there isn't a new "brick house" account of the "real" story - if such an irrefutable and accepted narrative did exist, we wouldn't all be here discussing the interpretations of the evidence 85 years later. Demanding proof to support a theory would no longer make it a theory; at that point it's a matter of fact. Arguably, Michael has, through his research, come as close as possible to offering such proof by citing the source material for the many deviations from the widely accepted narrative that has historically been communicated as fact. Unfortunately, the bulk of evidence still existing for this case in in the form of contemporaneous police reports. Not everything that investigators considered made it into a report. Having worked in law enforcement, I know firsthand that a written report can be a reflection of the professional competency of its author and that just as much information can be left out of a report (sometimes intentionally) compared to what made it in. Police officers are not hired based on their writing skills, and this was certainly just as true back then versus today, though some departments now require at least a two-year college degree as a condition of hire. The time may come when interpretations such as those discussed on this board do become fact, based on some newly discovered documentation; look how much "new" information has been retrieved from the same files that others have missed. Until that time, we're all entitled to the pursuit of our own theories... and to drink our Kool-Aid with other like-minded individuals.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 26, 2019 6:58:19 GMT -5
Comparing alternate LKC theories to a "house of cards" is a weak attack; of course there isn't a new "brick house" account of the "real" story - if such an irrefutable and accepted narrative did exist, we wouldn't all be here discussing the interpretations of the evidence 85 years later. Demanding proof to support a theory would no longer make it a theory; at that point it's a matter of fact. Arguably, Michael has, through his research, come as close as possible to offering such proof by citing the source material for the many deviations from the widely accepted narrative that has historically been communicated as fact. A lot of it is perspective. What do certain facts mean to the individual considering them? We're all different, and have different experiences in life. So that is going to be a factor. There's also certain strategies and/or tactics of debate. If it gets one closer to the truth then I say go for it. Whatever works right? But there are times when people become emotionally attached to certain people - and even certain narratives that can now be challenged by new facts. And I believe it happens to all of us at times. I can remember having a certain theory in my mind which I was attempting to develop as it related to Rail 16. However, after something specific was discovered, it revealed it couldn't be true ... and I caught myself saying out loud: " damn it." But I accepted what that was and allowed the facts to lead me where I am today. That's the important part. Of course that doesn't mean everything I believe or write or say cannot be challenged, but to resist certain facts because they aren't "acceptable" is beyond counterproductive. A form of this comes by attacking a theory born from a fact as a way to get around the fact itself. I don't know why anyone thinks this tactic works. For example, at the NJSP Archives there is the HRO collection. (Its actually just half of it and the other half is somewhere else). There's a couple of boxes in the closet and the entire right wall on top of the cabinet is covered by this collection. I'd guess there are a couple of thousand documents and other things like tapes, and I even think a reel-to-reel. I went through it all about three times now. In the end, I found about 20 or so things that were valuable to my research. Now - there are "those" who would attempt to discredit the sources, no matter what they were, by saying something like " HRO thought he was the Lindbergh Baby!" Meaning I'm an idiot or something and believe that too. So I'm supposed to disregard a Michigan State Police report because it happened to be HRO who found it? Or a document written by Irey from the Treasury Department that I've never seen before because its in HRO's collection? Or correspondence between HRO and former Special Agent Turrou because it was HRO who he was corresponding with? Apparently to some - yes. Don't fall for this. About 18 years or so ago Bob Aldinger posted a picture, and he identified those in it. Most of us knew some of those he claimed were in it and it wasn't them. So we disregarded the photo. BUT if it WAS them should we have? Anyway, I am rambling but I think everyone gets my point.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 30, 2019 7:29:22 GMT -5
From the Dan B. Cowie Letter: From Special Agent Larimer's report:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2020 21:30:49 GMT -5
Would anyone care to offer an opinion as to what Condon might be up to when he took a long walk around the cemetery grounds as described by Uedel? I think Condon believed that CJ, after receiving the ransom payment at the hedgerow down Whittemore Ave., may have made his escape via Westchester Creek. It was the smart move. Agents could have followed and staked out every area around the cemetery except Westchester Creek. Once he pushed off, no one could catch him - except with a gun. Once he got to his parked car, he was home free. He didn't even have to own a boat. Just steal one from a dock and return it in an hour. Or buy a cheap one and abandon it.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 10, 2020 10:50:16 GMT -5
its not that long of a walk
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 10, 2020 12:01:35 GMT -5
I think Condon believed that CJ, after receiving the ransom payment at the hedgerow down Whittemore Ave., may have made his escape via Westchester Creek. It was the smart move. Agents could have followed and staked out every area around the cemetery except Westchester Creek. Once he pushed off, no one could catch him - except with a gun. Once he got to his parked car, he was home free. He didn't even have to own a boat. Just steal one from a dock and return it in an hour. Or buy a cheap one and abandon it. Condon may well have believed in the possibility of a water getaway via Westchester Creek. As Michael points out in his book, Condon was observed walking in that area by Uebel in the days following the ransom drop, so perhaps he was looking for clues that pointed towards CJ having taken that route. I also recall that a small section of one of the banks of Westchester Creek was dug up after the ransom drop, so perhaps this was also determined to be a possibility by investigators. Would a getaway by boat have made sense though, if as is believed by some here that the ransom payment had actually occurred when Condon had walked down E. Tremont Ave., to a point out of Lindbergh’s line of sight? Due to the relative geography, Westchester Creek, at its nearest point then would have been a full 800 metres away. Perhaps any belief on Condon’s part that CJ took Westchester Creek, was shaped by him having paid the ransom at Whittemore Ave. and the cemetery offshoot road as he claimed, which would then put Westchester Creek closer by 400 metres. Personally, I’ve never considered there to have been any perceived advantage on the part of CJ towards a getaway by boat in the interests of pulling a fast one on law enforcement who might have been staking out St. Raymond’s. CJ had already conversed with Condon for over an hour out in the open at Woodlawn Cemetery, even after facing the risk of arrest or detention when Guard Riehl happened along for his regular check-in at the gate. It would appear from all accounts leading up to April 2, 1932, that CJ having chosen to deal directly with Condon, was now comfortable enough with the process to believe he would not be accosted then or afterwards. Basically, he had come to trust that Condon, and more importantly, Lindbergh, would honour their word, which they did. Of course, if Lindbergh had decided to involve law enforcement at St. Raymond's, you can be certain CJ would have been a sitting duck before he got anywhere near a body of water. Because Lindbergh did not do that and CJ felt sure of that, he would have had no reason to leave St. Raymond’s in anything other than his 1930 Dodge Sedan.
|
|