|
Post by Wayne on May 18, 2020 16:26:22 GMT -5
So, Joe, we have to assume that BRH was just lucky to pick the one Tuesday in over 123 days to commit the kidnapping. That BRH was just lucky to pick the one window with shutters that couldn't be latched. That BRH was just lucky to pick the hours of 8 to 10 during Charlie's lockdown to break into the nursery. That BRH was just lucky that Wahgoosh didn't bark. That BRH was just lucky that Skean wasn't, maybe for the first ever, not sleeping under Charlie's crib? BRH. One lucky guy. He didn't need to commit a crime, he should just have played the lottery.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 19, 2020 9:32:05 GMT -5
Michael, forget for a minute here how much money Hauptmann was making at the Majestic. The fact is, he was looking for something much greater, a quick $50,000 or $70,000 payday, so he could put the Majestic and every other place he’d worked at, in the past where he felt they belonged. He was looking to give up the relative dog days of working for a living, in exchange for the chance to instantly becoming a full time Wall Street-playing big shot. And you claim his goal would be fulfilled by accepting less? Aren't you the same guy who considers Fisher's "theory" that Hauptmann was about to commit another kidnapping legitimate? So you see, we cannot "forget" any of the facts and I submit we must draw from everything known in order to attempt to see the bigger picture. By being selective in this way you are depriving yourself from learning anything further. Your non-sequitur analogy of the loot bag containing 50K or 51K, (ie. which one would you pick?) astounds me. It misses the point entirely because it entirely overlooks what CJ would have had to do in order to claim Condon’s $1,000. CJ was no idiot and he wasn’t willing to compromise his big payday for the condition that Condon requested, in order for him to claim that $1,000. CJ knew the baby was dead and that he wouldn’t be able to deliver an unharmed CALjr to a Catholic priest, so he blew off Condon’s offer, plain and simple. Instead, you seem to pay more attention to things like Myra Condon's claim that John Condon didn't have the money to offer in the first place, when you really should be asking yourself how on earth could CJ have even considered Condon’s monetary offer, if he couldn’t do what Condon was asking. Non-sequitur? You may feel this way because, perhaps, both hypotheticals expose the weakness in your position. You say " CJ was no idiot..." which is very interesting. Yet, Hauptmann was caught because he passed ransom money, without disguise and driving his very own car. Are you now saying that CJ was not Hauptmann? So you have to be careful with such assertions because it is a two-way street. Next, anyone who turns down money for a crime they risked their life for is an idiot because they have nothing to lose by accepting the full amount. How does taking less show smarts? On top of that, you now seem to be shifting your argument. Before it was because it was a "paltry" sum (!!!) but now its because CJ knew he couldn't "deliver." And yet, he also knew he couldn't deliver to Lindbergh as well - right? And here we have Condon who you're supposing would have been savvy with his own $1000 but was a complete fool after readily handing over Lindbergh's 50K without getting the child in return. Your position gets worse and worse with every post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2020 10:42:37 GMT -5
Mark Falzini and I created that table as a reference guide as to who knew what. We stand by it. Anne could easily be added to the chart. All boxes would be YES except there's a small problem. Lindbergh himself had 2 chances to get Skean to Highfields on Saturday, but left him at Next Day Hill instead. You can see Skean's water bowl underneath the radiator to the left of the fireplace. He always slept under Charlie's crib, whether in Highfields or Next Day Hill. Anne later wrote that the kidnapping would not have happened if Skean had been there. Who decided twice that Skean would not be there? Lindbergh. You are so right that Skean being missing is a key element to the success of this kidnapping. It was Lindbergh who had Skean taken for a walk that Saturday making him unavailable at the time Anne was leaving with Charlie. Lindbergh is the one who told Anne to go without him. Another key element to the success of this kidnapping is the un-repaired nursery room shutter. The kidnapping would not have been possible if that shutter had been latched. Lindbergh never had this shutter tended to. Who bares the responsibility for these things? Lindbergh. Maybe Skean's water bowl did serve a purpose that night. It could have been utilized to hold the water for the person who cleaned the fingerprints from the nursery!
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on May 19, 2020 18:24:50 GMT -5
Amy
Just in regards to the faulty shutter being a key factor to the kidnapping. Could you clarify why is it so essential? What would stop a determined kidnapper from simply accessing the next lot of rooms, the ones next to the nursery where the shutters were not being used at all?
Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2020 22:09:53 GMT -5
Amy Just in regards to the faulty shutter being a key factor to the kidnapping. Could you clarify why is it so essential? What would stop a determined kidnapper from simply accessing the next lot of rooms, the ones next to the nursery where the shutters were not being used at all? Thanks. Focusing on the nursery room as the target, because it was with this kidnapping, had the faulty shutter been repaired, the nursery room would have been secure. The shutters had slide bolts. There is no way a kidnapper gets into that room through those windows. I think this is best said by a post made on this board by Kevon, a master carpenter, back in April of 2006: There is no evidence that entry was sought through any other window. These kidnappers went to one window only. The one with the faulty shutter. The window that had the shutters that could not be secured. That window was the target window. It wasn't randomly chosen. Those faulty shutters are a key part to this planned kidnapping of Charlie. Kidnapers, even determined ones, don't want to get caught in the act. They want to get in and out quickly and quietly. Unless the interior layout of the house and the use of the rooms inside is known in advance, trying to access one room from another room of a house, in the dark, is definitely more risky. Especially when there is a house full of people up and about. It is not a wise option, in my opinion.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 22, 2020 9:00:53 GMT -5
Michael, forget for a minute here how much money Hauptmann was making at the Majestic. The fact is, he was looking for something much greater, a quick $50,000 or $70,000 payday, so he could put the Majestic and every other place he’d worked at, in the past where he felt they belonged. He was looking to give up the relative dog days of working for a living, in exchange for the chance to instantly becoming a full time Wall Street-playing big shot. And you claim his goal would be fulfilled by accepting less? Aren't you the same guy who considers Fisher's "theory" that Hauptmann was about to commit another kidnapping legitimate? So you see, we cannot "forget" any of the facts and I submit we must draw from everything known in order to attempt to see the bigger picture. By being selective in this way you are depriving yourself from learning anything further. Yes Michael, CJ’s goal would be fulfilled by accepting the original 50K he had demanded. And yes, his goal would be fulfilled by refusing Condon’s offer that he knew he couldn’t deliver on, ie. the delivery of an unharmed CALjr for the 1K. Who is being selective here? I’m just going by the circumstantial physical evidence, and not using it to attempt to manipulate into some rigid position that then appears in a book. I’m open to all possibilities, but the one I mention meets all my own check boxes for now. I have a good idea why you’ve gone non-sequitur again by dragging Fisher’s claim about the ether and Hauptmann’s next kidnapping into the mix, and I’ll play your debate tactic game here for a minute. For the record, I considered the possibility a good one many years ago, but have now come to believe it’s real purpose was for Hauptmann’s recreational (perhaps you might even call it professional) use, to give him the inflated sense of well being and confidence that helped him pass gold notes that had become as hot as Hades, in the summer of 1934. Now that we’re on the subject, what do you think of that possibility? I guess in a way, that type of evolution is similar to your evolved belief about the attic wood and ladder connection.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 22, 2020 9:03:11 GMT -5
Your non-sequitur analogy of the loot bag containing 50K or 51K, (ie. which one would you pick?) astounds me. It misses the point entirely because it entirely overlooks what CJ would have had to do in order to claim Condon’s $1,000. CJ was no idiot and he wasn’t willing to compromise his big payday for the condition that Condon requested, in order for him to claim that $1,000. CJ knew the baby was dead and that he wouldn’t be able to deliver an unharmed CALjr to a Catholic priest, so he blew off Condon’s offer, plain and simple. Instead, you seem to pay more attention to things like Myra Condon's claim that John Condon didn't have the money to offer in the first place, when you really should be asking yourself how on earth could CJ have even considered Condon’s monetary offer, if he couldn’t do what Condon was asking. Non-sequitur? You may feel this way because, perhaps, both hypotheticals expose the weakness in your position. You say " CJ was no idiot..." which is very interesting. Yet, Hauptmann was caught because he passed ransom money, without disguise and driving his very own car. Are you now saying that CJ was not Hauptmann? So you have to be careful with such assertions because it is a two-way street. Next, anyone who turns down money for a crime they risked their life for is an idiot because they have nothing to lose by accepting the full amount. How does taking less show smarts? On top of that, you now seem to be shifting your argument. Before it was because it was a "paltry" sum (!!!) but now its because CJ knew he couldn't "deliver." And yet, he also knew he couldn't deliver to Lindbergh as well - right? And here we have Condon who you're supposing would have been savvy with his own $1000 but was a complete fool after readily handing over Lindbergh's 50K without getting the child in return. Your position gets worse and worse with every post. From your career in law enforcement, I can’t help but venture that you’ve come to understand most criminals believed they would get away with their crimes, but generally did something stupid enough to get caught. Criminals aren’t stupid all the time, and some are extremely intelligent, but ultimately they seem to go stupid just before they are caught. Otherwise, you would have been guarding empty cells. Assuming for a minute, that the ransom note writer and CJ are one and the same person, how would you propose CJ would have been able to claim Condon’s $1,000?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 22, 2020 10:16:33 GMT -5
Yes Michael, CJ’s goal would be fulfilled by accepting the original 50K he had demanded. And yes, his goal would be fulfilled by refusing Condon’s offer that he knew he couldn’t deliver on, ie. the delivery of an unharmed CALjr for the 1K. Who is being selective here? I’m just going by the circumstantial physical evidence, and not using it to attempt to manipulate into some rigid position that then appears in a book. I’m open to all possibilities, but the one I mention meets all my own check boxes for now. Well let's play a game shall we? Supposedly, their original goal was to kidnap then quickly collect 50K. Didn't happen did it? So with the delay, this became even more complicated. Therefore, they had to "bring in" another man and the fee went up to 70K. Makes sense right? So no, their goal was not fulfilled. Unless of course Condon was that other man and refused his cut. Or perhaps, because Condon was protecting them and warned them the T-Men were counting on those larger bills leading to their eventual arrest - and they followed his advice to give those back. I have no idea what "rigidity" has to do with anything. It's basic common sense we're talking about here. Criminals don't commit a crime because they want to be charitable. This isn't an alternate version of Robin Hood where someone was robbing the rich in order to give some back to the Sheriff of Nottingham as gesture of good will or because he felt sorry for him. Giving back or forgiving any amount makes absolutely no sense under any circumstance except as I've outlined above. I have a good idea why you’ve gone non-sequitur again by dragging Fisher’s claim about the ether and Hauptmann’s next kidnapping into the mix, and I’ll play your debate tactic game here for a minute. For the record, I considered the possibility a good one many years ago, but have now come to believe it’s real purpose was for Hauptmann’s recreational (perhaps you might even call it professional) use, to give him the inflated sense of well being and confidence that helped him pass gold notes that had become as hot as Hades, in the summer of 1934. Now that we’re on the subject, what do you think of that possibility? I guess in a way, that type of evolution is similar to your evolved belief about the attic wood and ladder connection. WTF? Pardon my french (sorry Laurence). It wasn't a tactic, believe me, I was simply trying to make a point. If you've changed your mind about that then I'll have to find another one. Shouldn't be very hard. As far as the ether goes ... there's nothing in the record to indicate drug usage so I don't consider this possibility. And, I am quite sure there would be because its mentioned when it comes to other people - like Reich, Elisabeth, and Dwight Jr. so I see no reason why it would be omitted once it came to Hauptmann. Of course that's just where I'm at so it's not an attempt to shut down your consideration of it - its just that I don't believe its the case. He smoked tobacco, and he drank but there's nothing else there. My beliefs concerning the attic & ladder haven't "evolved" at all. It's an opinion based on misunderstanding on your part. Back when I first started researching I claimed I did not know if they matched. Sometimes, when those argued for or against I played Devil's advocate. In the meantime I continued to research and reach out to Experts. They all told me a conclusive match could not occur without invasive study. That supported my original position and since those invasive tests would not be allowed I felt we may never know the truth. But I kept going. I collected and kept every scrap of information from all sources. Eventually, I was able to pull everything together and draw my own conclusions based upon everything I had. It's all there for everyone to see and I think I got it right. Why didn't anyone else open up the sales slips? Perhaps because they drew a conclusion already and didn't find it necessary? So you see, it wasn't "evolution" it was research. It's a foreign concept to those who sometimes think that isn't necessary but I am (thankfully) not among them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 22, 2020 10:41:24 GMT -5
From your career in law enforcement, I can’t help but venture that you’ve come to understand most criminals believed they would get away with their crimes, but generally did something stupid enough to get caught. Criminals aren’t stupid all the time, and some are extremely intelligent, but ultimately they seem to go stupid just before they are caught. Otherwise, you would have been guarding empty cells. It's been my experience that most guys who commit these types of crime are far from stupid. Honestly, if most had a normal degree of self discipline they would be very successful in the legitimate world. Unfortunately, what they do is find something that "works" then continue to use that system until it fails. Very few consider the consequences then stop the conduct. Once caught the majority figure out what they did wrong, then make adjustments so next time, in their minds, it won't happen again. I've got a million stories about how smart these guys are but instead use their talents for all the wrong reasons. In my experiences, they were also very good at analyzing people too. They posted lookouts, created a coded warning system, watched, listened, and observed every action and tendency then attempted to use what they learned against staff every chance they could. Sound stupid to you? Assuming for a minute, that the ransom note writer and CJ are one and the same person, how would you propose CJ would have been able to claim Condon’s $1,000? Instead of telling Condon they didn't want his money tell him they did. Then it comes the exact same way the rest of the ransom made its way to the St. Raymond's. Frankly, I don't even know why they had to say anything and that money should have been handed over. So of course its clear to me that Condon made up that part in order to explain away the fact he didn't have to surrender his own money.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 23, 2020 8:17:43 GMT -5
Yes Michael, CJ’s goal would be fulfilled by accepting the original 50K he had demanded. And yes, his goal would be fulfilled by refusing Condon’s offer that he knew he couldn’t deliver on, ie. the delivery of an unharmed CALjr for the 1K. Who is being selective here? I’m just going by the circumstantial physical evidence, and not using it to attempt to manipulate into some rigid position that then appears in a book. I’m open to all possibilities, but the one I mention meets all my own check boxes for now. Well let's play a game shall we? Supposedly, their original goal was to kidnap then quickly collect 50K. Didn't happen did it? So with the delay, this became even more complicated. Therefore, they had to "bring in" another man and the fee went up to 70K. Makes sense right? So no, their goal was not fulfilled. Unless of course Condon was that other man and refused his cut. Or perhaps, because Condon was protecting them and warned them the T-Men were counting on those larger bills leading to their eventual arrest - and they followed his advice to give those back. I have no idea what "rigidity" has to do with anything. It's basic common sense we're talking about here. Criminals don't commit a crime because they want to be charitable. This isn't an alternate version of Robin Hood where someone was robbing the rich in order to give some back to the Sheriff of Nottingham as gesture of good will or because he felt sorry for him. Giving back or forgiving any amount makes absolutely no sense under any circumstance except as I've outlined above. I believe you’re simply mistaking CJ’s basic human greed and remorse, at not having initially demanding a larger amount, (ie. the press bandying about larger amounts up to 250K) as a kind of pat, connect-the-dots way of explaining the injection of another person (supposedly Condon) into the scheme, so therefore 20K more. Right. But wait a tick here. Doesn't your theory also include Condon having been previously targeted and engaged by the kidnappers and all of this nonsense about a letter in the papers just being some kind of ruse? So why wouldn’t the initial ransom amount have been more to begin with, to make sure he was paid? Now I’ll tell you my impressions of a stupid criminal.. one who advertises the need to bring in another person as a means of explaining the added 20K amount, and actually does bring in that person. I mean why wouldn't they just turn over their whole hand of cards at the same time, including the nonsense about all of these other half dozen or so people actively engaged in the scheme? This is just Hauptmann being greedy. Not to make a joke out of this, but does this mean they would have needed another person-and-a-half, if they had actually carried through on their threat to raise the ransom demand from 70K to 100K?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 23, 2020 8:27:15 GMT -5
I have a good idea why you’ve gone non-sequitur again by dragging Fisher’s claim about the ether and Hauptmann’s next kidnapping into the mix, and I’ll play your debate tactic game here for a minute. For the record, I considered the possibility a good one many years ago, but have now come to believe it’s real purpose was for Hauptmann’s recreational (perhaps you might even call it professional) use, to give him the inflated sense of well being and confidence that helped him pass gold notes that had become as hot as Hades, in the summer of 1934. Now that we’re on the subject, what do you think of that possibility? I guess in a way, that type of evolution is similar to your evolved belief about the attic wood and ladder connection. WTF? Pardon my french (sorry Laurence). It wasn't a tactic, believe me, I was simply trying to make a point. If you've changed your mind about that then I'll have to find another one. Shouldn't be very hard. As far as the ether goes ... there's nothing in the record to indicate drug usage so I don't consider this possibility. And, I am quite sure there would be because its mentioned when it comes to other people - like Reich, Elisabeth, and Dwight Jr. so I see no reason why it would be omitted once it came to Hauptmann. Of course that's just where I'm at so it's not an attempt to shut down your consideration of it - its just that I don't believe its the case. He smoked tobacco, and he drank but there's nothing else there. My beliefs concerning the attic & ladder haven't "evolved" at all. It's an opinion based on misunderstanding on your part. Back when I first started researching I claimed I did not know if they matched. Sometimes, when those argued for or against I played Devil's advocate. In the meantime I continued to research and reach out to Experts. They all told me a conclusive match could not occur without invasive study. That supported my original position and since those invasive tests would not be allowed I felt we may never know the truth. But I kept going. I collected and kept every scrap of information from all sources. Eventually, I was able to pull everything together and draw my own conclusions based upon everything I had. It's all there for everyone to see and I think I got it right. Why didn't anyone else open up the sales slips? Perhaps because they drew a conclusion already and didn't find it necessary? So you see, it wasn't "evolution" it was research. It's a foreign concept to those who sometimes think that isn't necessary but I am (thankfully) not among them. I see. So the ether found in Hauptmann’s garage means nothing in particular to you then and therefore unworthy of further development, yet you’re able to state in print without a doubt to you, things like: 1. Condon having delivered the ransom amount down E. Tremont Ave., unbeknownst to Lindbergh; 2. CJ shouting out a warning to Condon at the sight of Guard Riehl to protect him because they were working together; 3. Condon making up the story about CJ having a well developed thenar eminence muscle group on the palm of his hand at the base of his thumb? I have absolutely no qualms with the depth and quality of research you do Michael, and I’ve learned a lot from you, but I really don't understand how you can turn individual facts into solid conclusion through such a debatable filter of speculation.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 23, 2020 8:29:10 GMT -5
From your career in law enforcement, I can’t help but venture that you’ve come to understand most criminals believed they would get away with their crimes, but generally did something stupid enough to get caught. Criminals aren’t stupid all the time, and some are extremely intelligent, but ultimately they seem to go stupid just before they are caught. Otherwise, you would have been guarding empty cells. It's been my experience that most guys who commit these types of crime are far from stupid. Honestly, if most had a normal degree of self discipline they would be very successful in the legitimate world. Unfortunately, what they do is find something that "works" then continue to use that system until it fails. Very few consider the consequences then stop the conduct. Once caught the majority figure out what they did wrong, then make adjustments so next time, in their minds, it won't happen again. I've got a million stories about how smart these guys are but instead use their talents for all the wrong reasons. In my experiences, they were also very good at analyzing people too. They posted lookouts, created a coded warning system, watched, listened, and observed every action and tendency then attempted to use what they learned against staff every chance they could. Sound stupid to you? Not all all, and the same basic principles apply to good people evolving in the perceived normal world. Learning from past mistakes and making positive correction.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 23, 2020 8:32:10 GMT -5
Assuming for a minute, that the ransom note writer and CJ are one and the same person, how would you propose CJ would have been able to claim Condon’s $1,000? Instead of telling Condon they didn't want his money tell him they did. Then it comes the exact same way the rest of the ransom made its way to the St. Raymond's. Frankly, I don't even know why they had to say anything and that money should have been handed over. So of course its clear to me that Condon made up that part in order to explain away the fact he didn't have to surrender his own money. Okay, so hypothetically if they told Condon to include his offered 1K, do you really think Condon would have done that without assurance the child was turned over to a Catholic priest unharmed? For heaven’s sake, they’re willing to reduce the ransom amount by 20K on the spot, so why would they even consider or quibble over 1K with an attached condition they knew they couldn’t meet?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 23, 2020 9:31:26 GMT -5
So, Joe, we have to assume that BRH was just lucky to pick the one Tuesday in over 123 days to commit the kidnapping. That BRH was just lucky to pick the one window with shutters that couldn't be latched. That BRH was just lucky to pick the hours of 8 to 10 during Charlie's lockdown to break into the nursery. That BRH was just lucky that Wahgoosh didn't bark. That BRH was just lucky that Skean wasn't, maybe for the first ever, not sleeping under Charlie's crib? BRH. One lucky guy. He didn't need to commit a crime, he should just have played the lottery. Wayne, I've never discounted the possibility that Hauptmann had some level of inside information, but I think there is always a danger of rushing to include all coincidental information under one umbrella of suspicion. For example, what if he (or they) had made one previous attempt or even surveillance to make final arrangements or even ensure the correct ladder height? I believe this could explain the hurried last minute addition of Rail 16. Could he not then have noticed the shutters were not closed fully at the same time? With Wahgoosh out of the loop, are you suggesting the Whateleys then arranged this? Why specifically would he have had to have known about the 8 - 10 no disturb time? Babies are usually put to bed at a time prior to the time CALjr was taken, and the time the kidnapper struck makes good sense considering everyone else would have appeared to be on the main level. Skean's absence is real low hanging fruit, but does it really apply? The information here has always been a bit lightweight on that account, ie. Lindbergh fully intended Skean to be left behind, and I am unconvinced. Convince me. This was an enormously risky criminal endeavour to begin with, with a huge payoff if successful. The kidnapper knew full well if he was caught in the nursery or anywhere near the house, it was game over. But that risk was taken, was it not? I believe it's clear to all of us here that there was one man who was involved in the ladder construction to kidnap the child, was caught with ransom money paid to have the child returned, possessed penmanship identical to the person who wrote the ransom notes, and who basically no intention of ever working again for a living. How does one do that with only a 1/6 part of 50K? And how many other coincidences can we rack up to include Hauptmann within the same type of umbrella of suspicion you spell out above? I venture there would be no shortage.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2020 12:06:54 GMT -5
Not all all, and the same basic principles apply to good people evolving in the perceived normal world. Learning from past mistakes and making positive correction. Not even close to being the same thing Joe. I don't expect anyone to understand which is probably why I shouldn't have gone into it, albeit briefly, in this way. The only reason I was successful in this environment was because I could think like they thought and do exactly what I believed they would expect. Then I'd reverse course out of nowhere. For them, there's no way to solve that except to watch me every second of the day - which believe me they did. And I was still able to get around it. I won't reveal "how" so that I don't undermine my co-workers who may be doing the same thing right now. My point is that (for most but never all) there's no regret for the acts, only regret about getting caught. The adjustments are made to continue the illegal activity with a better prospect of getting away with it next time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2020 12:20:06 GMT -5
I believe you’re simply mistaking CJ’s basic human greed and remorse, at not having initially demanding a larger amount, (ie. the press bandying about larger amounts up to 250K) as a kind of pat, connect-the-dots way of explaining the injection of another person (supposedly Condon) into the scheme, so therefore 20K more. Right. Again, this type of logic makes no sense to me Joe. We can only consider what's in front of us. After that, what makes the most amount of sense. Next, the least. And finally what makes no sense at all. So one could argue the note lied about bringing in another. That's certainly a position available to take. But there are other circumstances that support it being true because its after this that Condon appears. But it doesn't stop there does it? Walsh believed it. Keaten believed it too. It's that extra 20K full of fifties that Irey was counting on to catch these people that is suspiciously rejected. Next, true to form, Condon is blabbering out some BS excuse for why it occurred. Look, I might understand a position coming in against it with some sort of substance behind it but pretending there's nothing to consider isn't worthy of debate honestly. But wait a tick here. Doesn't your theory also include Condon having been previously targeted and engaged by the kidnappers and all of this nonsense about a letter in the papers just being some kind of ruse? So why wouldn’t the initial ransom amount have been more to begin with, to make sure he was paid? Now I’ll tell you my impressions of a stupid criminal.. one who advertises the need to bring in another person as a means of explaining the added 20K amount, and actually does bring in that person. I mean why wouldn't they just turn over their whole hand of cards at the same time, including the nonsense about all of these other half dozen or so people actively engaged in the scheme? This is just Hauptmann being greedy. Not to make a joke out of this, but does this mean they would have needed another person-and-a-half, if they had actually carried through on their threat to raise the ransom demand from 70K to 100K? I've considered that based upon Condon's own words concerning "one" of the reasons he was brought in. Seems to me to be possible given his history. But this idea that someone brought in this way wouldn't also be offered compensation shows me you watch too much TV. There's leverage (blackmail), pressure/threat of violence, and reward. Sometimes one, two, or all three are used to bring someone in. Again, there's always counter arguments to be made but you have to make them instead of pretending something like this could not have occurred. By your own argument, you have now contradicted yourself. If it was Hauptmann being "greedy" why did he surrender 21K again?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2020 12:35:48 GMT -5
I see. So the ether found in Hauptmann’s garage means nothing in particular to you then and therefore unworthy of further development, yet you’re able to state in print without a doubt to you, things like: 1. Condon having delivered the ransom amount down E. Tremont Ave., unbeknownst to Lindbergh; 2. CJ shouting out a warning to Condon at the sight of Guard Riehl to protect him because they were working together; 3. Condon making up the story about CJ having a well developed thenar eminence muscle group on the palm of his hand at the base of his thumb? I have absolutely no qualms with the depth and quality of research you do Michael, and I’ve learned a lot from you, but I really don't understand how you can turn individual facts into solid conclusion through such a debatable filter of speculation. Here you are doing it again Joe. It's like going to the store for someone and asked to pick up a bag of apples but come home with oranges instead. Not the same is it? In fact, this is a poor analogy because you're not even come home with fruit of any kind. First and foremost, I personally don't consider that ether to be suspicious. Could he have possessed it for a nefarious purpose or to use as an intoxicant? Sure, anything is possible. But is there proof of such a position? No, at least I've never found one. In fact, if I died today and someone cleaned out my house they'd find all kinds of stuff under my sink, in my junk drawer, or in my tool chest that would cause them to scratch their heads. I've even got nail polish remover under my bathroom sink. To some that might imply I wear nail polish? But I bought it 10 years ago to remove super glue from my fingers and never felt the need to dispose of it - just in case I could use it along similar lines in the future. So a carpenter or a car owner having this bottle among their items in that garage do not send up a red flag without further evidence - of which there is none. Now again, there is no comparison to be made between the mere presence of ether versus all of the evidence which surrounds the events above. It took pages & pages of facts and footnotes for me to present. How many could I write about that ether? A sentence? Two maybe? Perhaps a paragraph if I wanted to BS everyone? Just look at how you attempt to undermine the actual facts that exist ... Again, after consideration of the facts one draws a different conclusion then I have no qualms. But to immediately dismiss them as if they do not exist is something I will never accept. Obviously, I've learned from you too (as well as everyone here) but I think that fact can sometimes get lost in our disagreements. Right? It seems our discussions are always rooted in differences of opinions while our agreements don't need to be mentioned. So its not like I think you are always wrong about everything or that your ideas should never be considered.
|
|