|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 3, 2020 12:48:39 GMT -5
Not really. All that would've had to have been the case is that one of the extortionists knew Condon as someone who, either through blackmail or manipulation, could be gotten to participate and help them get the $50K-$70K. From there, the suggestion could've been made--once again, probably by Condon--to "establish" contact through the BHN... Nothing terribly complicated here that involves 4-D chess.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jun 3, 2020 13:53:02 GMT -5
First, the extra $20,000 was not ever placed in the box with the additional ransom money. It was separate because there was not room enough for that amount to fit in the original box. Therefore, Condon did not remove any money from the box. He wanted to spare Lindbergh the additional expense, proving again that he could be Big Hero. The kidnappers did not need the additional money since the extra person was a myth, and the request for more money was an attempt to pressure Lindbergh to pay the ransom quickly or the price would still go up. Because of the "myth" the gang did not hesitate to accept Condon's suggestion, to overlook the extra $20,000 since it was not needed anyway, and the gang wanted to get out of the picture as soon as possible. It would not be a good idea for them to continue negotiating since they knew the child was dead and so could not be returned. This all seems quite obvious.
Condon was known to one of the gang. His selection was based on some knowledge of his personality or relationship to the sports world, perhaps boxing.
BTW the "Boad Nelly" note was not included in an envelope since it was written in some haste. Cemetery John had to confer with someone (probably the leader) who was hidden in the cemetery. Writing the note took about ten minutes, and no one had thought to bring an envelope since the writing of this note was not anticipated.
Someone on the board mentioned "Boad Nelly." One of the kidnappers seems to have had a sense of humor, the "gotcha" type. One note claimed that two women had been employed to look after the child, probably for the short time, the three or four days that the kidnappers anticipated would occur before they received the ransom money. If this is true, then the two women would not need to be paid much since the services were not required. It's possible that there was no boat at all. The "boat" was the home or apartment of one of the women. Perhaps her nickname was Nellie or an anagram of the name (eg. Ellen). This would be compatible with the misguided sense of humor that I suspect was characteristic of at least one of the gang leaders.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 3, 2020 20:06:37 GMT -5
First, the extra $20,000 was not ever placed in the box with the additional ransom money. It was separate because there was not room enough for that amount to fit in the original box. Therefore, Condon did not remove any money from the box. He wanted to spare Lindbergh the additional expense, proving again that he could be Big Hero. The kidnappers did not need the additional money since the extra person was a myth, and the request for more money was an attempt to pressure Lindbergh to pay the ransom quickly or the price would still go up. Because of the "myth" the gang did not hesitate to accept Condon's suggestion, to overlook the extra $20,000 since it was not needed anyway, and the gang wanted to get out of the picture as soon as possible. It would not be a good idea for them to continue negotiating since they knew the child was dead and so could not be returned. This all seems quite obvious. Condon was known to one of the gang. His selection was based on some knowledge of his personality or relationship to the sports world, perhaps boxing. BTW the "Boad Nelly" note was not included in an envelope since it was written in some haste. Cemetery John had to confer with someone (probably the leader) who was hidden in the cemetery. Writing the note took about ten minutes, and no one had thought to bring an envelope since the writing of this note was not anticipated. Someone on the board mentioned "Boad Nelly." One of the kidnappers seems to have had a sense of humor, the "gotcha" type. One note claimed that two women had been employed to look after the child, probably for the short time, the three or four days that the kidnappers anticipated would occur before they received the ransom money. If this is true, then the two women would not need to be paid much since the services were not required. It's possible that there was no boat at all. The "boat" was the home or apartment of one of the women. Perhaps her nickname was Nellie or an anagram of the name (eg. Ellen). This would be compatible with the misguided sense of humor that I suspect was characteristic of at least one of the gang leaders. Hi Metje, Your more than welcome to check my math here -- at least 4 people were present to witness the $70,000 put into the ransom box. CAL, Condon, Breckinridge, and Reich. Condon is rather vague (hard to believe) but he seems to say the 2 bundles were put into the box, the box broke, then CAL wrapped string around it. Breckinridge and Reich both testified the entire $70,000 went into the box and was then closed. CAL said this at the trial: Q. At whose suggestion, as between you and Dr. Condon, was the $20,000 omitted? A. At Dr. Condon's. Q. He said all he needed was the fifty? A. Yes. Q. And so, who took the $20,000 out of the box? A. I did. Q. And you gave him then the box with the $50,000? A. With the fifty. And later: Q. Fifty or the seventy? A. Well, it was cracked, really, putting the fifty in, because that was in a different package than the additional twenty. Q. I see. A. The entire seventy was in there originally. I'll be more than glad to send you the statements that all 4 men made regarding the money and box. (FYI-I made a replica of the box. The $70,000 ransom money contained a total of 5,150 bills. If the 2 bundles had not been wrapped separately, the box had enough room for an additional 1,825 bills.) Also, please double-check my math, but the Boad Nelly note was in an envelope. The kidnappers wanted a 6-hour head start before it was to be opened. Jafsie Tells All, page 158-- If you have documents saying otherwise, please share. Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2020 9:26:29 GMT -5
Not really. All that would've had to have been the case is that one of the extortionists knew Condon as someone who, either through blackmail or manipulation, could be gotten to participate and help them get the $50K-$70K. From there, the suggestion could've been made--once again, probably by Condon--to "establish" contact through the BHN... Nothing terribly complicated here that involves 4-D chess. I agree. I believe one of them did know Condon. My guess is that Condon had helped either this person or someone in his family at some past point in time. Could this knowledge of Condon's earlier help with something crime related be the reason this extortionist fingered Condon for help? I think your answer lines up with Condon's testimony that he didn't need to use any other newspaper but the Bronx Home News in order for the kidnappers to see his appeal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2020 10:05:43 GMT -5
Also. LJ, it is possible that this extortionist who knew Condon could have helped Condon with some "problem" he had in the past that kept Condon out of trouble and now, using that knowledge as leverage, went to Condon for pay-back of that assistance. Condon now helps them get that ransom money as Jafsie, a name by the way, Condon said to CAL and Breckinridge on March 10 while in Hopewell, these kidnappers would recognize. Just more evidence that Condon was approached before the BHN letter ever appeared.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 4, 2020 10:29:40 GMT -5
I think these are all good, strong possibilities as to how and why Condon was approached by the kidnapper-extortionists. But the bottom line is that I doubt we'll ever be able to prove the exact who, when, why, and how of that. I think one of the kidnapper-extortionsists knew Condon--and knew him well enough to know that Condon would be useful to them--but which one of these guys knew him? And how? No idea. For me, one of the million-dollar questions about the LKC is still who these guys were. Hauptmann was one, but, literally and figuratively, who left that other set of footprints at Highfields? Arndt? Baker? Seiler? Again, I have no clue. But in any case, what I do think is clear is that Condon, one way or another, was approached by the kidnapper-extortionists prior to the appearance of his BHN letter and was pulled into this. Whether he was forced or enticed into it--no telling, and I'm not really sure it even matters all that much.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 4, 2020 11:02:39 GMT -5
Your more than welcome to check my math here -- at least 4 people were present to witness the $70,000 put into the ransom box. CAL, Condon, Breckinridge, and Reich. Condon is rather vague (hard to believe) but he seems to say the 2 bundles were put into the box, the box broke, then CAL wrapped string around it. Breckinridge and Reich both testified the entire $70,000 went into the box and was then closed. (FYI-I made a replica of the box. The $70,000 ransom money contained a total of 5,150 bills. If the 2 bundles had not been wrapped separately, the box had enough room for an additional 1,825 bills.) Really cool that you made your own box Wayne. That's going the extra mile! As I pointed out in V2 on page 199: So in the end, Reich said they simply “put a piece of paper around it” and made do to ensure no money would spill out. Lindbergh, however, said “the box itself was wrapped with cord to hold it together.” Reich said they wrapped it in "paper" and Lindbergh said "cord." Maybe I am splitting hairs but this bothers me a little.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 4, 2020 12:26:07 GMT -5
Your more than welcome to check my math here -- at least 4 people were present to witness the $70,000 put into the ransom box. CAL, Condon, Breckinridge, and Reich. Condon is rather vague (hard to believe) but he seems to say the 2 bundles were put into the box, the box broke, then CAL wrapped string around it. Breckinridge and Reich both testified the entire $70,000 went into the box and was then closed. (FYI-I made a replica of the box. The $70,000 ransom money contained a total of 5,150 bills. If the 2 bundles had not been wrapped separately, the box had enough room for an additional 1,825 bills.) Really cool that you made your own box Wayne. That's going the extra mile! As I pointed out in V2 on page 199: So in the end, Reich said they simply “put a piece of paper around it” and made do to ensure no money would spill out. Lindbergh, however, said “the box itself was wrapped with cord to hold it together.” Reich said they wrapped it in "paper" and Lindbergh said "cord." Maybe I am splitting hairs but this bothers me a little. Hi Michael, I don't think you're splitting hairs at all. Four men saw the money being put into the box and all four give conflicting accounts. Why can't there be one incident in this case without any dispute between the participants! I'll attach the Money Box statements here soon. And that box could have held a LOT more bills. The 2 bundles must have been wrapped with a LOT of "paper" or "cord."
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 4, 2020 12:44:05 GMT -5
Also. LJ, it is possible that this extortionist who knew Condon could have helped Condon with some "problem" he had in the past that kept Condon out of trouble and now, using that knowledge as leverage, went to Condon for pay-back of that assistance. Condon now helps them get that ransom money as Jafsie, a name by the way, Condon said to CAL and Breckinridge on March 10 while in Hopewell, these kidnappers would recognize. Just more evidence that Condon was approached before the BHN letter ever appeared. Okay, I see the pieces are falling in place. Question. On May 12, 1932 when Charlie's body is found why doesn't Condon go to the police and tell them that he's been blackmailed by the extortion gang (or helped with some problem) and reveal the person who knew him that got him involved in the first place? Whatever Condon was being blackmailed or helped for, chances are it wasn't worse than murder, right? Since Condon wasn't involve with the actual kidnapping and murder, going to the police would have gotten the country behind him and he would have become America's greatest hero for turning in the gang.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 4, 2020 13:09:03 GMT -5
Had Condon done that, I think, at the very least, he would've been charged with conspiracy. I don't think the country would've gotten behind him if he revealed his true involvement. Rather, I think people would've been furious that he wasn't on the up-and-up, that he lied to the Lindberghs and was apparently stringing them along so he could play the hero and collect some money (so, besides conspiracy, add being a party to extortion). And with CAL Jr. dead, Condon could also have been charged as an accessory to murder. Even if he got involved in this honestly thinking he was going to give CAL Jr. back, I think, had he revealed that, he would've also been universally regarded as a naive fool who allowed his vanity to get the better of him. Finally, he could've feared reprisals from the kidnapper-extortionists had he told what he knew. Given all this, I think Condon had to do the best he could to stick to his guns and keep muddying the waters and BS-ing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 4, 2020 16:11:31 GMT -5
Like I wrote before, all we need to do is read what he told Special Agent Turrou to know where his head was at. After he was forced to identify Hauptmann, he believed he was a dead man.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 4, 2020 20:33:30 GMT -5
Thanks all for your comments and observations! I find the continuing Condon conundrum very interesting.
And to make things even more interesting, I’ve contacted a Voice Stress Analysis company in Wisconsin that has worked on over 1,000 criminal cases. They knew very little about the Lindbergh case. Nothing about Condon.
So I sent them an audio clip with 7 soundbytes – everything I have on Condon, BRH, Mrs. Hauptmann, Perrone, Bornmann, Barr, and Whited.
I watched the software results as the clips were played (and they repeated the results several times). All came back with high False Rate percentages (meaning they were not telling the truth), except for one who came back with a <5% False Rate (meaning he was telling the truth).
I understand the skepticism with Voice Stress Analysis, so I had them test me. I consistently lied throughout a 2-minute monologue – “My name is R2-D2, my father is a carburetor, my favorite food is gravel, my favorite color is Moby Dick, etc.” My False Rate was >95%. The software caught each & every lie and passed me on the truths.
I also asked if a narcissist, sociopath, or psychopath could beat the software. I was told a resounding no, they work with criminals daily and lies are lies on the software.
I’m in the process of contacting several other high profile Voice Stress Analysis companies to verify these results.
But for now, science and technology says our man Condon was completely telling the truth.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 4, 2020 21:24:13 GMT -5
Huh. Which version of Condon's truth did you play for them?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 5, 2020 9:12:33 GMT -5
Huh. Which version of Condon's truth did you play for them? Everything that we have on Condon on film with sound. His trial testimony, the Miami clip, the baseball clip, various interviews, and many more. Here's just one from the trial that came up no False Rate (meaning he was telling the truth) -- www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeqBIIvxeZs
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2020 10:15:48 GMT -5
Here's just one from the trial that came up no False Rate (meaning he was telling the truth) -- I saw this same footage about a week or so ago. I think Condon is a skillful liar whose voice would not react to the stress of lying. It is like an actor. When he speaks his lines to be convincing, he is not lying. He is performing. The stress indicators won't be there. Condon was a true performer. When it comes to this crime, he could say things with as much conviction as if they were true. It is part of his skillset. I am not saying that this new scientific technique doesn't have value. It does. Not everyone gets vocally stressed when they are lying. Some people are quite comfortable with it. I would have liked to have had some tape of Condon while he was being cross-examined, where the stress factor would have played a role in his responses. Wilentz was a walk in the park for Condon. Nothing challenged what he was saying. No stress factor there. He was saying everything expected of him. The jury is still out for me on this, Wayne!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 5, 2020 11:01:13 GMT -5
I agree. Jury's still out for me on Condon as well. I also think the technique has value, but I too believe that Condon was a performer, and someone who very well may have also genuinely believed what he was saying, so the stressors or indicators of lying wouldn't necessarily appear. I'd be curious what the readings would be on, say, a skilled perfomer doing a monologue, on something like this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxnXgYPnKg
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 5, 2020 11:07:59 GMT -5
Here's just one from the trial that came up no False Rate (meaning he was telling the truth) -- I saw this same footage about a week or so ago. I think Condon is a skillful liar whose voice would not react to the stress of lying. It is like an actor. When he speaks his lines to be convincing, he is not lying. He is performing. The stress indicators won't be there. Condon was a true performer. When it comes to this crime, he could say things with as much conviction as if they were true. It is part of his skillset. I am not saying that this new scientific technic doesn't have value. It does. Not everyone gets vocally stressed when they are lying. Some people are quite comfortable with it. I would have liked to have had some tape of Condon while he was being cross-examined, where the stress factor would have played a role in his responses. Wilentz was a walk in the park for Condon. Nothing challenged what he was saying. No stress factor there. He was saying everything expected of him. The jury is still out for me on this, Wayne! Hi Amy, I completely understand you reluctance. All I can do is encourage you to reach out and contact any of the hundreds of Voice Stress Analysis companies yourself. I was hesitant to put too much faith in it at the beginning, but after talking over a two year period with the various software engineers who coded the software, they have shown me over and over examples of narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths lying and each time the software catches them in provable lies. The software is not confused by a skilled liar. Condon's statements are not confused by the software. There is nothing subjective about it. It's not anything like a lie-detector test which can be easily fooled. Trust me, I was amazed by their findings. Please, contact any of them and you will see what I mean. I know the gut feeling that Condon was telling the truth the whole time is hard to accept. I seriously wanted Fisch to be involved in the kidnapping with BRH, but the fact is they didn't meet until August 1932. It's the facts that matter. By the way, it's the results of the other characters they analyzed that is rather baffling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2020 11:40:53 GMT -5
Condon is performing, Wayne, just like the man in the video LJ posted. All the drama with the hand gestures of flipping through the money and reaching out. He is having the time of his life performing for the crowded courtroom and that jury. Did you watch his crowning moment in that performance when he is going to ID Hauptmann? He sets himself up perfectly with that moment of hesitation before his says who John is: "Bruno Richard Hauptmann". That is theater dramatics all the way.
Condon lies. He was caught in lies numerous times. Condon gives the performance of his life for Wilentz in that courtroom.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 5, 2020 19:20:07 GMT -5
I saw this same footage about a week or so ago. I think Condon is a skillful liar whose voice would not react to the stress of lying. It is like an actor. When he speaks his lines to be convincing, he is not lying. He is performing. The stress indicators won't be there. Condon was a true performer. When it comes to this crime, he could say things with as much conviction as if they were true. It is part of his skillset. I am not saying that this new scientific technic doesn't have value. It does. Not everyone gets vocally stressed when they are lying. Some people are quite comfortable with it. I would have liked to have had some tape of Condon while he was being cross-examined, where the stress factor would have played a role in his responses. Wilentz was a walk in the park for Condon. Nothing challenged what he was saying. No stress factor there. He was saying everything expected of him. The jury is still out for me on this, Wayne! Hi Amy, I completely understand you reluctance. All I can do is encourage you to reach out and contact any of the hundreds of Voice Stress Analysis companies yourself. I was hesitant to put too much faith in it at the beginning, but after talking over a two year period with the various software engineers who coded the software, they have shown me over and over examples of narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths lying and each time the software catches them in provable lies. The software is not confused by a skilled liar. Condon's statements are not confused by the software. There is nothing subjective about it. It's not anything like a lie-detector test which can be easily fooled. Trust me, I was amazed by their findings. Please, contact any of them and you will see what I mean. I know the gut feeling that Condon was telling the truth the whole time is hard to accept. I seriously wanted Fisch to be involved in the kidnapping with BRH, but the fact is they didn't meet until August 1932. It's the facts that matter. By the way, it's the results of the other characters they analyzed that is rather baffling. While this "science" is indeed fascinating, there is no way to look at Condon's history of changing his story and conclude anything other than he was a serial, pathological liar. If you haven't read the "Egoist" by Ho-age, it's worth a read.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2020 9:42:35 GMT -5
I was hesitant to put too much faith in it at the beginning, but after talking over a two year period with the various software engineers who coded the software, they have shown me over and over examples of narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths lying and each time the software catches them in provable lies. I don't want to throw cold water on this "science" but I've looked into it before, and spent quite a bit of time on it actually. It existed before software, just like handwriting analysis. In fact, and I think I mentioned this prior, I have three separate reports concerning Hauptmann's voice and all three said he was telling the truth. As far as software not being "fooled".... There's software for handwriting analysis too so what's going on with all cases concerning that? Do they all find everything the exact same way? For example, has this software determined whether or not Patsy Ramsey wrote that ransom note in that case? Since QDEs seem to be split on this, with some saying she did while others saying she did not - wouldn't the software solve this dilemma? How about voice stress analysis? There's plenty of samples out there of her voice so where's this rock solid conclusion? Why hasn't the mystery been solved by this technology? If everyone here is like me, my favorite channel is ID Discovery. Just watching this channel can show where both the lie detector AND the voice stress analysis can get it wrong. In some cases detect lies from innocent people and conclude as truthful from some of those who are guilty. Next, some people have an ability to control themselves and pass when they're lying. Sociopaths can pass. People who believe they are telling the truth can pass. And some people simply have the ability to control their voice by not " leaking cues." I saw one study that concluded " extroverts" were more likely to beat the voice stress analysis test, etc. etc. etc. There's a whole host of reasons actually. I'm no expert but simply know this because its in the research on the subject. There have been several studies which concluded this "science" is simply not reliable. Frankly, here we have the one person we absolutely know was lying and he is the guy who passed? For me, this is an advertisement for exactly why this technology cannot be trusted. You should be commended on your approach though Wayne. You never cease to amaze me by hitting this case from all possible angles. In this angle you obviously have some investment and see things differently than I do so I think consideration of these results should be made. I hope no one thinks I am trying to shut this conversation down because I'm not. I actually hate to disagree, but for me I think what I've written above just about covers where I'm at.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 6, 2020 13:21:30 GMT -5
Wayne,
I see on this thread where you first start discussing that company that does voice stress analysis, and that Condon would be the subject of the voice analysis.
I recall that there was a voice analysis of Hauptmann done in either the late 70s or early 80s. The story was from either the National Enquirer (please dont shoot the messenger!) or another one of those tabloids.
I posted it many years ago on the other board. The problem is I can't even tell you where to find it or even the results of the test!
I believe the magazine was being sold on ebay at the time. The magazine may be difficult to locate. Too bad there is not an online index of tabloid magazine articles!
I will try to find the source. I think it would add another dimension to the discussion.
I'm sure voice analysis has come a long way since the early 1980s!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 6, 2020 13:36:28 GMT -5
I was hesitant to put too much faith in it at the beginning, but after talking over a two year period with the various software engineers who coded the software, they have shown me over and over examples of narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths lying and each time the software catches them in provable lies. I don't want to throw cold water on this "science" but I've looked into it before, and spent quite a bit of time on it actually. It existed before software, just like handwriting analysis. In fact, and I think I mentioned this prior, I have three separate reports concerning Hauptmann's voice and all three said he was telling the truth. As far as software not being "fooled".... There's software for handwriting analysis too so what's going on with all cases concerning that? Do they all find everything the exact same way? For example, has this software determined whether or not Patsy Ramsey wrote that ransom note in that case? Since QDEs seem to be split on this, with some saying she did while others saying she did not - wouldn't the software solve this dilemma? How about voice stress analysis? There's plenty of samples out there of her voice so where's this rock solid conclusion? Why hasn't the mystery been solved by this technology? If everyone here is like me, my favorite channel is ID Discovery. Just watching this channel can show where both the lie detector AND the voice stress analysis can get it wrong. In some cases detect lies from innocent people and conclude as truthful from some of those who are guilty. Next, some people have an ability to control themselves and pass when they're lying. Sociopaths can pass. People who believe they are telling the truth can pass. And some people simply have the ability to control their voice by not " leaking cues." I saw one study that concluded " extroverts" were more likely to beat the voice stress analysis test, etc. etc. etc. There's a whole host of reasons actually. I'm no expert but simply know this because its in the research on the subject. There have been several studies which concluded this "science" is simply not reliable. Frankly, here we have the one person we absolutely know was lying and he is the guy who passed? For me, this is an advertisement for exactly why this technology cannot be trusted. You should be commended on your approach though Wayne. You never cease to amaze me by hitting this case from all possible angles. In this angle you obviously have some investment and see things differently than I do so I think consideration of these results should be made. I hope no one thinks I am trying to shut this conversation down because I'm not. I actually hate to disagree, but for me I think what I've written above just about covers where I'm at. Hi Michael, I completely understand why you don’t trust the results of VSA. When I first contacted the president of a very prominent VSA company it was with the idea of “You’re going to have to prove it to me.” But after sitting down with them for hours over two years and seeing their demonstrations with hundreds of cases, they proved it to me. I once took a lie detector test and lied throughout. I passed with flying colors. I lied throughout more than 6 VSA sessions and the software caught everyone of my lies. Again, a narcissist, a sociopath, or a psychopath cannot “fool” the latest software. Nor can John Condon. Again, I know I’m not going to convince you here. I’m not even going to try. I can only urge you to call one of the many VSA companies and sit down with them. (I’m in the process of contacting 5 additional VSA companies around the country to confirm the original Condon finding.) Likewise, I’ve also worked with Parabon DNA for years on this case. At first, I thought what they were doing was too good to be true. In the last year alone, they have identified 119 cold case criminals based on the DNA that the criminals left behind. One more thing. Over the last five years, I’ve become very good friends with John Coleman, Gregory Coleman’s father. Before Gregory’s death, John and his father talked about the Lindbergh case repeatedly over the years. Gregory wanted John to be a sort of repository of his account of his Lindbergh involvement (at one time John’s sister had the two crib safety pins – Condon had given them to Gregory). John and I have spent hours discussing Gregory’s relationship with Condon and I’ve asked many times if Gregory thought Condon was part of the extortion gang and if Condon was purposely lying throughout the case. Coleman, one of the few people who knew Condon well, went to his grave saying that Condon’s account of the case (JTA) was what happened, that no way would Condon have given the extortionists the time of day if they first approached him to join them. This was a man who knew Condon better than any of us, who was living with him over a three week period during the ransom negotiation, and who stayed friends for the rest of their lives. John even told me that Condon gave Gregory a parakeet that talked continuously so that Gregory named him "Jafsie." As for lying, Gregory gave numerous examples of Condon repeating a story to him that he had related earlier in the day and getting many of the details wrong. He thought it was a sign of declining age, not consciously lying. Simply short term memory loss. This does happen with age. Anyway, bottom line, feel free to be disregard the VSA results. No problem. But I do encourage you to contact a VSA firm and see, like Parabon DNA, what they’re actually capable of. By the way, this is why I’m trying so hard to get the audio of CAL’s trial testimony. To run it though the VSA software. Funny, but if VSA shows that CAL was lying on the witness stand, I guess folks here would have a hard time believing that too, huh?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 6, 2020 13:53:54 GMT -5
Wayne, I see on this thread where you first start discussing that company that does voice stress analysis, and that Condon would be the subject of the voice analysis. I recall that there was a voice analysis of Hauptmann done in either the late 70s or early 80s. The story was from either the National Enquirer (please dont shoot the messenger!) or another one of those tabloids. I posted it many years ago on the other board. The problem is I can't even tell you where to find it or even the results of the test! I believe the magazine was being sold on ebay at the time. The magazine may be difficult to locate. Too bad there is not an online index of tabloid magazine articles! I will try to find the source. I think it would add another dimension to the discussion. I'm sure voice analysis has come a long way since the early 1980s! Hi Sue, You are too good, so this time I won't shoot you! Maybe next time Please confirm if this is the article that you are thinking of -- Attachment DeletedBack in 1977, VSA was called PSE and as you pointed out, I can assure you - having talked for hours with the software developers - VSA has progressed exponentially since then. As for Charles R. McQuiston, he is one of many VSA/PSE folks that I have been trying to get in touch with. In addition to every audio clip of Condon that I had analyzed, I've also tested every audio clip that I could find of BRH, Mrs. Hauptmann, Perrone, Bornmann, and Barr. I just found one of Osborn Sr., but having tested that one yet. If you run across any other soundbytes, please share? I contacted the Managing Director of Fox Movietone last week and he sent me every trial clip they have in their archive, but there was no audio from Anne, CAL, or Betty. I'm checking with the USC archive this week. If the original footage, with sound, still exists they should have it. In the meantime, if you find other soundbytes, like I said please share and I will tell you the results.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 6, 2020 14:09:53 GMT -5
I'm sorry, Wayne, put I can't see that article clearly either.
I think I can get the gist of it, though.
The story about the analysis of Hauptmann's voice was reported in one of those tabloids.
Maybe there was only ONE company that analyzed Hauptmann's voice years ago?
I want to try to find that tabloid article that I have in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 6, 2020 14:24:09 GMT -5
I'm sorry, Wayne, put I can't see that article clearly either. I think I can get the gist of it, though. The story about the analysis of Hauptmann's voice was reported in one of those tabloids. Maybe there was only ONE company that analyzed Hauptmann's voice years ago? I want to try to find that tabloid article that I have in mind. Sue, It's only a guess, but I think the article I posted came from the Spring 1977 issue of The American Mercury magazine. Can I vague that up anymore for you?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 6, 2020 22:51:22 GMT -5
I don't want to throw cold water on this "science" but I've looked into it before, and spent quite a bit of time on it actually. It existed before software, just like handwriting analysis. In fact, and I think I mentioned this prior, I have three separate reports concerning Hauptmann's voice and all three said he was telling the truth. As far as software not being "fooled".... There's software for handwriting analysis too so what's going on with all cases concerning that? Do they all find everything the exact same way? For example, has this software determined whether or not Patsy Ramsey wrote that ransom note in that case? Since QDEs seem to be split on this, with some saying she did while others saying she did not - wouldn't the software solve this dilemma? How about voice stress analysis? There's plenty of samples out there of her voice so where's this rock solid conclusion? Why hasn't the mystery been solved by this technology? If everyone here is like me, my favorite channel is ID Discovery. Just watching this channel can show where both the lie detector AND the voice stress analysis can get it wrong. In some cases detect lies from innocent people and conclude as truthful from some of those who are guilty. Next, some people have an ability to control themselves and pass when they're lying. Sociopaths can pass. People who believe they are telling the truth can pass. And some people simply have the ability to control their voice by not " leaking cues." I saw one study that concluded " extroverts" were more likely to beat the voice stress analysis test, etc. etc. etc. There's a whole host of reasons actually. I'm no expert but simply know this because its in the research on the subject. There have been several studies which concluded this "science" is simply not reliable. Frankly, here we have the one person we absolutely know was lying and he is the guy who passed? For me, this is an advertisement for exactly why this technology cannot be trusted. You should be commended on your approach though Wayne. You never cease to amaze me by hitting this case from all possible angles. In this angle you obviously have some investment and see things differently than I do so I think consideration of these results should be made. I hope no one thinks I am trying to shut this conversation down because I'm not. I actually hate to disagree, but for me I think what I've written above just about covers where I'm at. Hi Michael, I completely understand why you don’t trust the results of VSA. When I first contacted the president of a very prominent VSA company it was with the idea of “You’re going to have to prove it to me.” But after sitting down with them for hours over two years and seeing their demonstrations with hundreds of cases, they proved it to me. I once took a lie detector test and lied throughout. I passed with flying colors. I lied throughout more than 6 VSA sessions and the software caught everyone of my lies. Again, a narcissist, a sociopath, or a psychopath cannot “fool” the latest software. Nor can John Condon. Again, I know I’m not going to convince you here. I’m not even going to try. I can only urge you to call one of the many VSA companies and sit down with them. (I’m in the process of contacting 5 additional VSA companies around the country to confirm the original Condon finding.) Likewise, I’ve also worked with Parabon DNA for years on this case. At first, I thought what they were doing was too good to be true. In the last year alone, they have identified 119 cold case criminals based on the DNA that the criminals left behind. One more thing. Over the last five years, I’ve become very good friends with John Coleman, Gregory Coleman’s father. Before Gregory’s death, John and his father talked about the Lindbergh case repeatedly over the years. Gregory wanted John to be a sort of repository of his account of his Lindbergh involvement (at one time John’s sister had the two crib safety pins – Condon had given them to Gregory). John and I have spent hours discussing Gregory’s relationship with Condon and I’ve asked many times if Gregory thought Condon was part of the extortion gang and if Condon was purposely lying throughout the case. Coleman, one of the few people who knew Condon well, went to his grave saying that Condon’s account of the case (JTA) was what happened, that no way would Condon have given the extortionists the time of day if they first approached him to join them. This was a man who knew Condon better than any of us, who was living with him over a three week period during the ransom negotiation, and who stayed friends for the rest of their lives. John even told me that Condon gave Gregory a parakeet that talked continuously so that Gregory named him "Jafsie." As for lying, Gregory gave numerous examples of Condon repeating a story to him that he had related earlier in the day and getting many of the details wrong. He thought it was a sign of declining age, not consciously lying. Simply short term memory loss. This does happen with age. Anyway, bottom line, feel free to be disregard the VSA results. No problem. But I do encourage you to contact a VSA firm and see, like Parabon DNA, what they’re actually capable of. By the way, this is why I’m trying so hard to get the audio of CAL’s trial testimony. To run it though the VSA software. Funny, but if VSA shows that CAL was lying on the witness stand, I guess folks here would have a hard time believing that too, huh? Condon's "mistruths" veer far from someone who is misremembering some details. As mentioned, Ho-age spent more time on this case than most realize and his "Egoist" paper really does a good, if verbose, job at explaining his lies. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/egoist.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 7, 2020 10:46:17 GMT -5
I completely understand why you don’t trust the results of VSA. When I first contacted the president of a very prominent VSA company it was with the idea of “You’re going to have to prove it to me.” But after sitting down with them for hours over two years and seeing their demonstrations with hundreds of cases, they proved it to me. I once took a lie detector test and lied throughout. I passed with flying colors. I lied throughout more than 6 VSA sessions and the software caught everyone of my lies. Again, a narcissist, a sociopath, or a psychopath cannot “fool” the latest software. Nor can John Condon. Sounds familiar Wayne. I think anyone who believes in their product is going to sell it - just as was done in the past and will concerning the "improvements" made to it in the future. The problem is these tests aren't even admissible in court. Once considering that even the dubious "science" of handwriting analysis is, then where does this fact place the VSA technology on the totem pole of reliability? Next, there have been so many studies on this. So many that it would be impossible to touch on them all. One of the most recent that I've read placed their reliability at chance levels. Another talked about cultural/regional differences among speech and yet its these specific patterns that are targeted by the software. Ever hear someone from Hawaii speak? So the various cues of deception from voice can be very different depending on the individual. Regardless, its still used as a tool in among many LE communities. I think the CIA uses both the lie detector and the VSA but even when they agree its still not considered conclusive proof of anything. And so I think if they were as good as has been explained to you they'd be admissible in court and all crimes would be immediately solved by their use - but that's just not happening. Coleman, one of the few people who knew Condon well, went to his grave saying that Condon’s account of the case (JTA) was what happened, that no way would Condon have given the extortionists the time of day if they first approached him to join them. This was a man who knew Condon better than any of us, who was living with him over a three week period during the ransom negotiation, and who stayed friends for the rest of their lives. John even told me that Condon gave Gregory a parakeet that talked continuously so that Gregory named him "Jafsie." As for lying, Gregory gave numerous examples of Condon repeating a story to him that he had related earlier in the day and getting many of the details wrong. He thought it was a sign of declining age, not consciously lying. Simply short term memory loss. This does happen with age. First thing is that I don't expect anything less just as I expect most of Condon's descendants probably believe he was a hero or something. Now as to JTA! being "what happened" that's pretty strange. Especially since Coleman's Vigil doesn't always line up. Does this mean we cannot rely on Vigil or could it just mean he didn't expect Vigil would find its way into the public domain? As to his lies... Remember what I wrote about in V2 concerning the Needle Vendor (as just one of many examples)? He tells one Agent he was there, interacted with him, and gave a detailed description. The next Agent shows up and Myra claims she was there - not her father. Strange that simultaneously Condon admits he wasn't there. And yet it was Breckinridge who also asserted Condon was there too. Was Breckinridge suffering the same malady as Condon? And if Condon was forgetful due to age, by this very argument, he's completely dishonest by getting on the stand and testifying to anything he couldn't possibly be sure about under these circumstances. Pick your poison. Funny, but if VSA shows that CAL was lying on the witness stand, I guess folks here would have a hard time believing that too, huh? For me personally, it wouldn't matter to me either way, and in fact, I wouldn't even mention it no matter what the conclusions were. It's really just a can of worms as far as I'm concerned. That's how little I think about this. When the FBI conduct lie detector tests I think the percentages are a much higher indication, but even still, they can be wrong and/or beaten too.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 7, 2020 16:00:04 GMT -5
Wayne,
You are right.
I was able to view the 1977 American Mercury article online.
At the time that article was written, the film sound track from one of the hidden cameras at the trial had just been found.
That's the film that was used to get the read-out of Hauptmann's voice.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 7, 2020 17:12:07 GMT -5
Wayne,
I do remember that the tabloid article from the early 80s (1981?) DISCUSSED the findings of Hauptmann's voice stress test.
It would be interesting to once again read what that author had to say about Hauptmann's PSE.
Some times one little sentence can be quite thought-provoking.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 7, 2020 21:37:39 GMT -5
Wayne, You are right. I was able to view the 1977 American Mercury article online. At the time that article was written, the film sound track from one of the hidden cameras at the trial had just been found. That's the film that was used to get the read-out of Hauptmann's voice. Hi Sue, Was the 1977 American Mercury article the one you were thinking of? FYI, the technology for VSA has improved by quantum leaps over the years. I was a complete skeptic at first, but after sitting down with the programmers and CEOs over a 2-year period and being shown court cases after court cases of what their software can do, it is amazing. It's fine for skeptics to disagree, they should. I did. But they should sit down and see the software work before they nix it. Reading a few outdated articles about it is one thing, actually seeing it work is another. Also you bring up an interesting point about the camera in the court. Supposedly, Judge Trenchard was unaware that a camera had been set up in the balcony and that filming was taking place during the trial. The judge angrily closed down the operation two-thirds of the way through the trial when newsreels of testimony were shown in most of the country's first-run theaters. (Trenchard's comments should be in the trial transcript.) What I find strange about this is that I have footage of Wilentz delivering his closing statement right in front of the jury box. He delivered his closing argument on February 12, the day before the trial was over. So, was the camera removed?
|
|