|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 19, 2020 20:52:41 GMT -5
Sounds like you’ve got a ton of re-thinking to do once applying this philosophy everywhere else. Can’t wait to see your new thoughts on such things as Condon hiding the ransom box, Riehl seeing someone other than Hauptmann, and Lindbergh’s action in the morgue .... just to name a few. I'll certainly post anything I feel is of further value towards advancing the truth in this case, and on any topic. I'll share my current thoughts on your lineup.. i) I don't believe Condon hid the original ransom box in the boxwood bush on the night of March 12, 1932, unless it was with Lindbergh's express agreement for the sake of providing a safer getaway for the extortionists. The presence of Condon, Coleman, Breckinridge and most likely Al Reich together at St. Raymond's in the days following the ransom and the purported retrieval of a wooden box from a boxwood bush, negates any possibility that Lindbergh was in the dark here or that Condon was a confederate of the kidnappers. Condon never broke ranks with Lindbergh's desire to have his son returned. What? Nearly everybody thought Condon was in on it. Lindbergh himself barely trusted him. The whole belief that he wasn't somehow in cahoots is a joke when you factor in all of his conduct and the statements from those involved. From the return of the $20K to Ubel seeing a box (of which he did not know the significance of) retrieved, it's very clear he in it up to his neck.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 21, 2020 12:15:25 GMT -5
I know we're doing a lot of joking back and forth here but honestly, while I do believe you are being inconsistent, there's no "rule" that says you have to be. My only hope is that I've been able to share new material so that it can be considered. Exactly how or where its applied is up to the individual researcher to decide. Whether or not you or anyone else sees it differently and/or gives it more (or less) weight is and always should be up to you/them. The debate here should also allow us to learn and perhaps "clean up" certain positions based upon everything. What? Nearly everybody thought Condon was in on it. Lindbergh himself barely trusted him. The whole belief that he wasn't somehow in cahoots is a joke when you factor in all of his conduct and the statements from those involved. From the return of the $20K to Ubel seeing a box (of which he did not know the significance of) retrieved, it's very clear he in it up to his neck. Exactly. Lindbergh told Cowie that he had " absolutely no confidence in" Condon and said something similar to Special Agent Larimer (V2 pages 200-1). I've noticed over the years that there are certain people (I'm not including Joe in this) that believe whatever was testified to at trial, by anyone on the State's side, means it is the absolute truth. Anything at odds with it both before and after does not matter to them. It's a bizarre philosophy to be sure but they hold it nevertheless. Of course they are free to do so but to me it makes absolutely no sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2020 19:55:38 GMT -5
What? Nearly everybody thought Condon was in on it. Lindbergh himself barely trusted him. The whole belief that he wasn't somehow in cahoots is a joke when you factor in all of his conduct and the statements from those involved. From the return of the $20K to Ubel seeing a box (of which he did not know the significance of) retrieved, it's very clear he in it up to his neck. With the above having been said, I wanted to share something that reflects that Condon's credibility was certainly in question early in this investigation. This can be seen in a letter Col. Schwarzkopf sent to Henry Breckinridge in July of 1932 that I will post here. In Schwarzkopf's efforts to steer the ongoing investigation in a coordinated manor, he was asking everyone involved with the investigation who had contact with Dr. Condon to share with him (Schwarzkopf) everything Condon had told them regarding Condon's contact and actions with the kidnappers. Schwarzkopf needed this input from all sources (from Lindbergh on down) because Condon was making convoluted and contradictive statements and renditions to law enforcement and others about his contacts and negotiations with the kidnappers. Getting the facts straight was vital to the investigative efforts and Condon's behavior was not aiding in doing this. It was doing just the opposite and it was not inspiring trustworthiness in those who needed to be able to trust him the most. In Michael's Volume 2 of his Dark Corners series, this confusing and contradictive behavior of Condon is made especially clear and highlights exactly the predicament that Schwarzkopf found himself in and made it necessary for him to reach out for help about Condon. Please note: The underscoring in the text of the letter was done by me and is not in the original document. imgur.com/5eUCNVI Page One imgur.com/xR1eSZF Page Two
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 26, 2020 12:41:21 GMT -5
I'll certainly post anything I feel is of further value towards advancing the truth in this case, and on any topic. I'll share my current thoughts on your lineup.. i) I don't believe Condon hid the original ransom box in the boxwood bush on the night of March 12, 1932, unless it was with Lindbergh's express agreement for the sake of providing a safer getaway for the extortionists. The presence of Condon, Coleman, Breckinridge and most likely Al Reich together at St. Raymond's in the days following the ransom and the purported retrieval of a wooden box from a boxwood bush, negates any possibility that Lindbergh was in the dark here or that Condon was a confederate of the kidnappers. Condon never broke ranks with Lindbergh's desire to have his son returned. What? Nearly everybody thought Condon was in on it. Lindbergh himself barely trusted him. The whole belief that he wasn't somehow in cahoots is a joke when you factor in all of his conduct and the statements from those involved. From the return of the $20K to Ubel seeing a box (of which he did not know the significance of) retrieved, it's very clear he in it up to his neck. Nearly everyone thought Condon was in on it? That’s a pretty nebulous statement, and I assume you’re talking about someone outside of this discussion board. If so, what was Condon “in on” exactly? Are you suggesting he was a member of the kidnapping gang?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 26, 2020 12:45:53 GMT -5
Michael, are you suggesting that this was Lindbergh’s central and overriding belief about Condon from their first introduction and throughout the following years of this case’s prominence? I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if he expressed this opinion at least once during or after the ransom negotiations, given Condon’s erratic nature and the inconsistency of information he often provided. You seem to like to “hang off” this account, and I believe you’re magnifying its in order to lend credence to and bolster a larger agenda. It’s a bit of a back door approach if you ask me and what comes across as trying to chalk up points doesn’t work here, if in fact this was little more than an offhand remark expressed at a specific time. Given your depth in archival research, I’m curious if you’re able to cite just one instance where Lindbergh believed or even suspected that Condon, whose intentions to serve his hero until his son was returned were so clearly expressed from the beginning, and then later until the kidnappers were brought to justice, had failed to deliver on the promise of providing only the best of his intentions?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 26, 2020 12:48:20 GMT -5
I consider everything you’ve written and I’ve read Michael, but if it really is your intention to “clean up” positions, then everything must be considered. I know if may sound like I’m echoing your own beliefs, but dark corners alone don’t necessarily do that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2020 15:43:10 GMT -5
Michael, are you suggesting that this was Lindbergh’s central and overriding belief about Condon from their first introduction and throughout the following years of this case’s prominence? I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if he expressed this opinion at least once during or after the ransom negotiations, given Condon’s erratic nature and the inconsistency of information he often provided. You seem to like to “hang off” this account, and I believe you’re magnifying its in order to lend credence to and bolster a larger agenda. It’s a bit of a back door approach if you ask me and what comes across as trying to chalk up points doesn’t work here, if in fact this was little more than an offhand remark expressed at a specific time. Given your depth in archival research, I’m curious if you’re able to cite just one instance where Lindbergh believed or even suspected that Condon, whose intentions to serve his hero until his son was returned were so clearly expressed from the beginning, and then later until the kidnappers were brought to justice, had failed to deliver on the promise of providing only the best of his intentions? Yes. That is exactly what the source documents prove. From the beginning which caused Breckinridge to move in with him and create fake letters with the secret symbol on them to see how Condon would react to them - to the point when Lindbergh substituted himself for Reich because he didn't trust either, to his one on one sit down interview with Special Agent Larimer in 1933 as well as his discussions with then Asst. U.S. Attorney Dan Cowie. These are just some examples, and in fact, most of V2 covers everything there is to know about Condon. It's unfortunate many people have based their opinions on Condon with only a limited amount of resources at their disposal to consider. But at least now they do have the information - whether or not its "liked" is irrelevant. I don't know Joe, maybe its me, but you seem to be projecting again. You're giving great weight to a unique recollection made what - 20 to 30 years earlier as it concerned Fisher, but say that I am "magnifying" what a Special Agent wrote in his report immediately after his sit down with Lindbergh? Or a U.S. Attorney relaying what Lindbergh told him to the Governor of New Jersey? Do you see what I meant when I credited you with being inconsistent? Nothing personal but I think its quite clear. Again - you have every right to do so, and there's no rule governing what anyone personally decides to consider important ... but hey let's be honest here. The other thing is your use of the word "agenda." My only "agenda" is to reveal facts that were missed or omitted by previous authors and to put them in writing within their proper context. This is so they can be properly considered and referred to if necessary. That's my only agenda. I believe you are merely attempting to neutralize certain new facts you do not like by trying to devalue them as if I am somehow making them up or giving them improper value. This tactic is holding back your own research. You are limiting yourself by rejecting anything you believe supports a position you do not want to accept under any circumstance. Just let those limitations go and look at it as though you have no bias or hold no theories. Don't "test" new information by deciding to accept them IF they help your theories or flatly reject them if they help one you detest.
I consider everything you’ve written and I’ve read Michael, but if it really is your intention to “clean up” positions, then everything must be considered. I know if may sound like I’m echoing your own beliefs, but dark corners alone don’t necessarily do that. Yes everything must be Joe. Absolutely. That includes a 20-30 year old unique recollection vs. an Official FBI report written by a Special Agent within days of his interview, and the discussions between Lindbergh and an Asst. U.S. Attorney revealed in a letter, written by him to the Governor of New Jersey - neither of which were unique. My use of "clean up" means to each individual by and through all of our discussions about the case. Nothing more. In the end its up to you and everyone else to choose what to consider or not and what to believe or not believe.
|
|