|
Post by Michael on Apr 14, 2021 7:32:59 GMT -5
What happened? I thought you all were going to discuss this?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 14, 2021 13:52:35 GMT -5
Personally, I think these points have already been covered satisfactorily in your books and on this board.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 15, 2021 8:37:24 GMT -5
Personally, I think these points have already been covered satisfactorily in your books and on this board. I wouldn't exactly say that, as specifically in the Uebel account, you certainly have a dissenter here within any scenario that implies Condon had turned coat and become a willing confederate of the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s). I believe he either paid the ransom to CJ by the hedgerow off Whittemore Avenue as he claimed, or did so further east down East Tremont Ave., in order to allow CJ a better chance of escaping potential capture. To make any claim though that he did this without Lindbergh's knowledge or that he was deceiving Lindbergh, when one considers Condon’s later appearance at St. Raymond’s with Breckinridge, Coleman and possibly Reich, for obvious reasons, I feel carries no validity.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 15, 2021 9:20:18 GMT -5
I wouldn't exactly say that, as specifically in the Uebel account, you certainly have a dissenter here within any scenario that implies Condon had turned coat and become a willing confederate of the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s). I believe he either paid the ransom to CJ by the hedgerow off Whittemore Avenue as he claimed, or did so further east down East Tremont Ave., in order to allow CJ a better chance of escaping potential capture. To make any claim though that he did this without Lindbergh's knowledge or that he was deceiving Lindbergh, when one considers Condon’s later appearance at St. Raymond’s with Breckinridge, Coleman and possibly Reich, for obvious reasons, I feel carries no validity. I don't see the reasoning behind your position. In fact, that walk-thru does just the opposite of what you allege. First and foremost it was Lindbergh who pointed out Condon's deviation by walking down E. Tremont. If not for this fact no one would have ever known about it. Next, why hide the ransom box if Lindbergh was in cahoots with this plan all along? And why lie about it? And why, once asked, did Condon give several different explanations as to the reason he walked down E. Tremont in the first place? One was to say a prayer! The later walk-through involving Breckinridge demonstrates that Condon was lying to him about what actually occurred that night. Unless of course he's showing him what his lies amounted to. Otherwise, he's walking around giving a false narrative of events. Bringing someone back to the scene to see what happened can reveal where someone is lying about what actually did. Police use this tactic and catch people when part of their stunt doesn't make any sense. Here we already know the true version based upon the combination of both Uebel and Lindbergh's accounts. Clearly, Condon pulled a bait & switch with the Ransom Money. Why did he do this? Well, I am in full agreement with you here Joe. He did it to assure its transfer to the criminals without interference, shield them, and maximize their ability to escape with it undetected. It's the question of "why" and/or motive that is that only thing (from my perspective) that can be debated.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 15, 2021 11:04:57 GMT -5
I wouldn't exactly say that, as specifically in the Uebel account, you certainly have a dissenter here within any scenario that implies Condon had turned coat and become a willing confederate of the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s). I believe he either paid the ransom to CJ by the hedgerow off Whittemore Avenue as he claimed, or did so further east down East Tremont Ave., in order to allow CJ a better chance of escaping potential capture. To make any claim though that he did this without Lindbergh's knowledge or that he was deceiving Lindbergh, when one considers Condon’s later appearance at St. Raymond’s with Breckinridge, Coleman and possibly Reich, for obvious reasons, I feel carries no validity. I don't see the reasoning behind your position. In fact, that walk-thru does just the opposite of what you allege. First and foremost it was Lindbergh who pointed out Condon's deviation by walking down E. Tremont. If not for this fact no one would have ever known about it. Next, why hide the ransom box if Lindbergh was in cahoots with this plan all along? And why lie about it? And why, once asked, did Condon give several different explanations as to the reason he walked down E. Tremont in the first place? One was to say a prayer! The later walk-through involving Breckinridge demonstrates that Condon was lying to him about what actually occurred that night. Unless of course he's showing him what his lies amounted to. Otherwise, he's walking around giving a false narrative of events. Bringing someone back to the scene to see what happened can reveal where someone is lying about what actually did. Police use this tactic and catch people when part of their stunt doesn't make any sense. Here we already know the true version based upon the combination of both Uebel and Lindbergh's accounts. Clearly, Condon pulled a bait & switch with the Ransom Money. Why did he do this? Well, I am in full agreement with you here Joe. He did it to assure its transfer to the criminals without interference, shield them, and maximize their ability to escape with it undetected. It's the question of "why" and/or motive that is that only thing (from my perspective) that can be debated. First of all, I'm not convinced the multiple St. Raymond's walkthroughs really had anything to do with what you've concluded. The way I process it, everything you're written indicates these were some type of reenactment and/or evidence gathering exercises, partly for the benefit of Gregory Coleman and his professional news interests. Case in point, how do you explain the presence of at least three of the key players who were allegedly supporting Lindbergh's efforts, if Condon had turned criminal by willfully aligning with the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s)? If Condon is actually doing this and deceiving Lindbergh as you seem to believe, are not Breckinridge, Coleman and possibly Reich, now also drawn in as co-conspirators? And how long does it take to locate what according to Uebel at least, was the actual ransom box in the boxwood bush? Wasn't his observation made on April 11, nine days after the ransom drop? That's a long time to recover what would have been at that point highly incriminating evidence, given Condon's immediate "hedgerow" accounting of the event, isn't it? And Lindbergh's reporting of Condon's walking out of sight down East Tremont Ave., would also indicate he was not aware of any planned alternate ransom drop location, one of the reasons I'm less inclined to believe Condon paid the ransom down E. Tremont. Either way you look at it, your theory has obvious pitfalls and questions that need to be more fully explored. I don't have a transcript of the 1932 Bronx Grand Jury, but have to believe more answers can be had within it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 15, 2021 12:40:10 GMT -5
First of all, I'm not convinced the multiple St. Raymond's walkthroughs really had anything to do with what you've concluded. The way I process it, everything you're written indicates these were some type of reenactment and/or evidence gathering exercises, partly for the benefit of Gregory Coleman and his professional news interests. Case in point, how do you explain the presence of at least three of the key players who were allegedly supporting Lindbergh's efforts, if Condon had turned criminal by willfully aligning with the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s)? If Condon is actually doing this and deceiving Lindbergh as you seem to believe, are not Breckinridge, Coleman and possibly Reich, now also drawn in as co-conspirators? Of course not. There's a lot of combinations to consider. But first one must be willing to accept the facts of the situation. Uebel made three eyewitness accounts. One can be determined to actually be the "walk through" Breckinridge testified to. This proves Uebel was telling the truth because it fully explained one of this sightings. That walk through hardly means that everyone present was guilty of something. The first sighting were people, according to Uebel, " looking for someone." We don't know who they were and can only speculate. The last sighting was of a man going to the bush and retrieving the box. So its pretty obvious those men he saw the first time were looking for the box and not a person. Again, we don't know who he was or who he was with. I've speculated but that's all I can do. The Maroon Car that was later identified by its plates belonging to Coleman. It could have been the same car, but the tags were never taken from it earlier. If so, then obviously Coleman knew a version of events that Condon hadn't shared with anyone else. My guess is that if Coleman assisted in retrieving the box, he did so to protect Condon ... not to assist the kidnappers. God only knows what Condon told him about it. Next are the dates. The "control" for them is that date of the actual walk-thru which also proves Uebel's dates were off. You are acting like Condon is tied to specific people like a ball & chain. That he cannot do anything independent of Lindbergh or anyone else. Why do you think this way? You're acting like its normal to walk around like Condon did, and for people to show up retrieving ransom boxes out of bushes across the street from where the ransom box was supposed to have been passed with 50K in it. The only pitfalls that exist are the man-made ones you are creating as a way "out" of this situation. I have copies of everything. It is exactly as I've spelled out in my books. Believe me, no one testified to retrieving the ransom box that Condon stashed in that bush then lied about it. Seriously. He lied about everything and here you are looking for a reasonable explanation? Even its construction and make up was a lie. And yet you are looking for a lily white explanation here? Try considering the obvious and most likely first before coming up with the 1000000 to 1 scenarios. The truth of this situation is obvious. If it was a snake it would bite you in the ass. The only debate now would be the "why" did he do this? Since you are so fond of Condon and can't bring yourself to believe he was capable and any wrong doing then there's a silver patter explanation. He basically spilled it to Agent Turrou when he exclaimed that his life was over because "they" were going to kill him for identifying Hauptmann. This of course proves Hauptmann wasn't a "Lone-Wolf" because if he's in prison who else would Condon be afraid of? Anna?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 20, 2021 12:31:16 GMT -5
First of all, I'm not convinced the multiple St. Raymond's walkthroughs really had anything to do with what you've concluded. The way I process it, everything you're written indicates these were some type of reenactment and/or evidence gathering exercises, partly for the benefit of Gregory Coleman and his professional news interests. Case in point, how do you explain the presence of at least three of the key players who were allegedly supporting Lindbergh's efforts, if Condon had turned criminal by willfully aligning with the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s)? If Condon is actually doing this and deceiving Lindbergh as you seem to believe, are not Breckinridge, Coleman and possibly Reich, now also drawn in as co-conspirators? Of course not. There's a lot of combinations to consider. But first one must be willing to accept the facts of the situation. Uebel made three eyewitness accounts. One can be determined to actually be the "walk through" Breckinridge testified to. This proves Uebel was telling the truth because it fully explained one of this sightings. That walk through hardly means that everyone present was guilty of something. The first sighting were people, according to Uebel, " looking for someone." We don't know who they were and can only speculate. The last sighting was of a man going to the bush and retrieving the box. So its pretty obvious those men he saw the first time were looking for the box and not a person. Again, we don't know who he was or who he was with. I've speculated but that's all I can do. The Maroon Car that was later identified by its plates belonging to Coleman. It could have been the same car, but the tags were never taken from it earlier. If so, then obviously Coleman knew a version of events that Condon hadn't shared with anyone else. My guess is that if Coleman assisted in retrieving the box, he did so to protect Condon ... not to assist the kidnappers. God only knows what Condon told him about it. Next are the dates. The "control" for them is that date of the actual walk-thru which also proves Uebel's dates were off. You are acting like Condon is tied to specific people like a ball & chain. That he cannot do anything independent of Lindbergh or anyone else. Why do you think this way? You're acting like its normal to walk around like Condon did, and for people to show up retrieving ransom boxes out of bushes across the street from where the ransom box was supposed to have been passed with 50K in it. The only pitfalls that exist are the man-made ones you are creating as a way "out" of this situation. I have copies of everything. It is exactly as I've spelled out in my books. Believe me, no one testified to retrieving the ransom box that Condon stashed in that bush then lied about it. Seriously. He lied about everything and here you are looking for a reasonable explanation? Even its construction and make up was a lie. And yet you are looking for a lily white explanation here? Try considering the obvious and most likely first before coming up with the 1000000 to 1 scenarios. The truth of this situation is obvious. If it was a snake it would bite you in the ass. The only debate now would be the "why" did he do this? Since you are so fond of Condon and can't bring yourself to believe he was capable and any wrong doing then there's a silver patter explanation. He basically spilled it to Agent Turrou when he exclaimed that his life was over because "they" were going to kill him for identifying Hauptmann. This of course proves Hauptmann wasn't a "Lone-Wolf" because if he's in prison who else would Condon be afraid of? Anna? The truth of this situation is obvious? Really? Have a look back at the rambling, disjointed discourse you’ve written above leading up to this statement and tell me objectively that your conclusions are not rife with self-admitted personal speculation and guesswork. I don’t believe you can. I am not “fond” of Condon or anyone else in this case for that matter, but I won’t simply throw out the baby with the bathwater as you do time and time again with him, or anyone else for that matter, because you happen to have convinced yourself long ago he was a conspirator. I hear lots of “everything must be considered before one draws a conclusion” from you, which is wonderful and the way it should be. But when it comes time to putting this into practice, you seem to forget this and simply point to the clouds in the sky you happen to like. Even when Condon professed to Agent Turrou that his “life wasn’t worth five cents” you gleefully jump on this as an example of Condon suddenly telling the truth of his involvement, ie. his "cronies in crime" were now going to kill him if he rats out Hauptmann. Condon always believed there were others involved besides Hauptmann, but not being involved in the commission of the crime, he just didn’t know who they were.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2021 13:25:12 GMT -5
The truth of this situation is obvious? Really? Have a look back at the rambling, disjointed discourse you’ve written above leading up to this statement and tell me objectively that your conclusions are not rife with self-admitted personal speculation and guesswork. I don’t believe you can. I am not “fond” of Condon or anyone else in this case for that matter, but I won’t simply throw out the baby with the bathwater as you do time and time again with him, or anyone else for that matter, because you happen to have convinced yourself long ago he was a conspirator. I hear lots of “everything must be considered before one draws a conclusion” from you, which is wonderful and the way it should be. But when it comes time to putting this into practice, you seem to forget this and simply point to the clouds in the sky you happen to like. Even when Condon professed to Agent Turrou that his “life wasn’t worth five cents” you gleefully jump on this as an example of Condon suddenly telling the truth of his involvement, ie. his "cronies in crime" were now going to kill him if he rats out Hauptmann. Condon always believed there were others involved besides Hauptmann, but not being involved in the commission of the crime, he just didn’t know who they were. Gleefully? Where do you get this stuff? Joe, a man pulled up in a car. He got out. And he removed a box concealed in a bush that just happened to be the same dimensions as the ransom box. It just so happened that bush was across the street from where Condon lied about handing over the ransom. Which is where he went just after disappearing down E. Tremont. Do the math. Or, imagine it wasn't connected to Condon in some way - that should help to tear off your blinders. You seem so common sensical and sober UNLESS it involves Lindbergh or Condon. Why not remain consistent concerning how you apply your scrutiny? Now, also consider that Condon lied about the wood making up that box. Remember he said it was "unique" as a way to identify it. Another LIE. Now consider he didn't want the cops anywhere near Samuelsohn. Gee, I wonder why? So you see, if that box being concealed wasn't enough .... there are MANY MANY MANY more reasons and they ALL tie together to show a bigger and more complete picture. Ignore them if you must, but its quite obvious you don't want to believe what's right there in front of you.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 21, 2021 13:18:16 GMT -5
For the record, the words and actions of Condon or Lindbergh get the same cold, grey light of morning treatment from me as do those of any other player in this case. I truly believe you’ve come to adeptly project your own internal questions, based on how you’ve managed to wrestle and force-fit these two guys into your personal theory at the expense of fully considering each and every circumstance on its own merit. Perhaps I can assist with a few stand-alone questions of my own.
1. If you believe that the guy who looked like Reich, pulled the actual ransom box out of the boxwood bush on April 11, can you propose why it would have taken him 9 days after the ransom payment to do just that?
2. Why do you believe Condon was specifically acting with intent to deceive law enforcement by describing the ransom box wood selection differently at times, when it’s specific lock was clearly the key identifier he set out to establish and did have included in its construction?
3. Why do you believe that Condon was trying to keep the cops from being “anywhere near Samuelsohn” when by all accounts, Condon appears to have been genuinely confused about who built the box, and ultimately it took Peremi’s chance recollection and Condon’s realization of this, to put law enforcement in the right direction?
4. Have you considered the possibility that the presence of Condon, Breckinridge, Coleman and possibly Reich at St. Raymond’s following the night of April 2, 1932, was nothing more than a series of revisits to the scene of the ransom payment and reenactment attempts to gather additional evidence and understanding about the events which took place?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 21, 2021 19:12:44 GMT -5
Well hello again Joe! Let me try to answer some of these.... I am a little salty right now so if I am short try not to hold it against me. I went out running today and it was around 68 degrees when I started and by the time I finished it was 45 and windy. So yes - I'm none too happy right now. For the record, the words and actions of Condon or Lindbergh get the same cold, grey light of morning treatment from me as do those of any other player in this case. I truly believe you’ve come to adeptly project your own internal questions, based on how you’ve managed to wrestle and force-fit these two guys into your personal theory at the expense of fully considering each and every circumstance on its own merit. Say what? 1. If you believe that the guy who looked like Reich, pulled the actual ransom box out of the boxwood bush on April 11, can you propose why it would have taken him 9 days after the ransom payment to do just that? First, I don't know who this was. It could have been Reich and it makes sense to me if it was for a number of reasons. Next, we don't know the exact dates because I believe we can all agree that Uebel got his dates mixed up. So it could have been sooner, later, or even exact concerning this particular eyewitness account. Next, I believe they were looking to retrieve it on April 3 while Condon was away with the others searching for the "Boad Nelly." It was the perfect time to do so if you think about it. I've also suspected they may have made those footprints as well. If I am right, and I usually am, they couldn't locate the box and were probably looking in the wrong spot for it. After that everyone was back and the situation was probably a little too sticky for them. So they waited and went back once the attention on this particular spot died down. That strategy would have been successful if Uebel hadn't seen it occur. 2. Why do you believe Condon was specifically acting with intent to deceive law enforcement by describing the ransom box wood selection differently at times, when it’s specific lock was clearly the key identifier he set out to establish and did have included in its construction? Now this just isn't right. You've given me a question with a string attached. Do you think I'm stupid or something? I will call this 2A & 2B. 2A. It's in the book. Condon said it himself multiple times. And he obviously said it to others, who either believed him or repeated it to back him up regardless. And it was a LIE. That means its not true Joe. He said he specifically had it constructed with different pieces of wood so that if it was ever recovered he could identify it. Sound familiar? It should, because he did the same thing with the lump on the thumb of John. People who do this in one place do it in others. There's no innocent explanation for why someone does it. None. One can't be so gullible that they miss it or ignore it once they do see it. 2B. You just made that up. I should scoop up my marbles and go home right now - just on principle. Now, after all the lies and misdirection, authorities came upon Samuelsohn's shop. Here is where Condon got caught with his pants down. Samuelsohn ran out of the store and remembered that he built the box for Condon. Not only wasn't it made out of all these different woods, it was a simply constructed box of 5 ply veneer tongue and groove made of all maple. As far as a "key hole" Samuelsohn could NOT remember if he put one in the box. And here you are asserting it was this supposed key hole which was "clearly" the main identifying attribute? The dude who built it couldn't even remember if it had one! That's one helluva identifier. 3. Why do you believe that Condon was trying to keep the cops from being “anywhere near Samuelsohn” when by all accounts, Condon appears to have been genuinely confused about who built the box, and ultimately it took Peremi’s chance recollection and Condon’s realization of this, to put law enforcement in the right direction? Well I'll be damned. Are you serious? When the guy spoke every other sentence was either a half-truth or a full blown lie and you are giving him the benefit of the doubt? Seriously? Especially once considering he was lying about its "special" construction of the different wood? Again - seriously? Every cop involved echoed the belief that he lied about who built it. But not you. Nope, you've got to be Mr. Nice Guy over here. Pah-leeze! And yes, thank God he lied about Peremi or we'd still never know any of this. 4. Have you considered the possibility that the presence of Condon, Breckinridge, Coleman and possibly Reich at St. Raymond’s following the night of April 2, 1932, was nothing more than a series of revisits to the scene of the ransom payment and reenactment attempts to gather additional evidence and understanding about the events which took place? April 3 could not have included Condon or Breckinridge. So not that one. We do know there was the walk-thru and that fits with Uebel's 2nd eyewitness account. I believe that was for all to see so as to exemplify the official version. I do not believe Breckinridge was involved with any of the BS Condon was pulling. Like I mentioned earlier, I believe if the car seen each time was Coleman's he was assisting his friend - not the Extortionists. If you recall, when Wilentz ordered Condon to Flemington he brought Coleman with him - who pretty much was a party crasher. That's when the heat was on him the worst. To me that's telling and shows a tremendous amount of trust in his friend. The final eyewitness account that Uebel made was the man retrieving that box concealed in the bush. Was that part of a re-enactment too Joe? I'll bet not as far as you're concerned. It harms your narrative so your wheels are probably spinning trying to come up with some bogus reason to excuse it away. You have to take a step back and look at ALL the facts Joe. Just look at what he told Agent Seykora. Condon gave him a tour and spotted a fresh grave. He pointed this out and suggested the ransom box was possibly buried there. Who in the hell would suggest something like this out of thin air? Seykora must have been scratching his head over that one. But not us. Why? Because we know the box and money had become separated the night Condon was supposed to have turned it over - and so did HE. It's almost like a Fruedian Slip of sorts, but if you study him long enough you begin to understand his thought process. Again, its why I wrote the books. One may offer a counter-argument for an individual piece here or there but there's just too many. They are everywhere. So one either ignores them, or in the alternative, snaps them together. Once that occurs its clear that Condon is toast.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 23, 2021 9:47:19 GMT -5
Michael, I really ought to be more careful when reading your replies while drinking a hot cup of tea first thing in the morning, especially when I get to parts claiming things like you’re usually right about this case. When I started this response, it was Earth Day and not April Fool’s Day. Anyway, I’ll just assume you were a bit late with that statement!
Addressing your “Say What?”: My point being that I believe you’re continually projecting the shaky foundations of the theory you’ve been fabricating for the past fifteen years or so, and that clearly incriminates both Lindbergh and Condon, onto me, by claiming I can only see these guys with halos around their heads, or something to that effect. Which is nonsense.
Anyway, my apologies for the time it’s taken to get back, but I never shoot from the hip in this case. I’ll post my takes on those numbered points for what they’re worth, in a bit.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 23, 2021 10:27:18 GMT -5
1. If you believe that the guy who looked like Reich, pulled the actual ransom box out of the boxwood bush on April 11, can you propose why it would have taken him 9 days after the ransom payment to do just that? First, I don't know who this was. It could have been Reich and it makes sense to me if it was for a number of reasons. Next, we don't know the exact dates because I believe we can all agree that Uebel got his dates mixed up. So it could have been sooner, later, or even exact concerning this particular eyewitness account. Next, I believe they were looking to retrieve it on April 3 while Condon was away with the others searching for the "Boad Nelly." It was the perfect time to do so if you think about it. I've also suspected they may have made those footprints as well. If I am right, and I usually am, they couldn't locate the box and were probably looking in the wrong spot for it. After that everyone was back and the situation was probably a little too sticky for them. So they waited and went back once the attention on this particular spot died down. That strategy would have been successful if Uebel hadn't seen it occur. 1. Clearly Uebel was off on his initial dates. I’ll agree with you on that account, as first noted by him claiming the maroon vehicle was at St. Raymond’s on April 1, a full day before CJ advised Condon where to meet him. If this vehicle was the same one later identified as the maroon 1928 Hupmobile (Mulberry Maroon pictured) belonging to Coleman, which does seem likely, it makes sense that the actual date was Sunday April 3, and Coleman was in the company of undisclosed acquaintances or perhaps investigators. 1928 Mulberry Maroon Hupmobile As Lindbergh, Condon, Breckinridge and Irey were all searching for the Boad Nelly on the same day, it seems reasonable the dark-complexioned man might have been Al Reich. Recognizing that Al had been requested by Lindbergh to drive his car from Bridgeport, Connecticut to the Hempstead Aviation Club so he could pick up Condon and him later that evening, Reich would have driven right through the Bronx to get there. Perhaps Al had pre-arranged with Coleman to meet up with him and the other men, while leaving Lindbergh’s car at an undisclosed location so it did not draw attention at the cemetery. Nowhere does Uebel say anything to suggest these unidentified men were looking for something in particular, and he is certainly clear they were not beating boxwood bushes. It also seems reasonable that these men were simply looking for clues on the day following the ransom payment, having been informed through Condon and Lindbergh’s first hand accounting as to where the transaction occurred. This would have been a prudent move in the event anything that was inadvertently dropped by CJ or footprints made, could be retrieved or protected immediately before being picked up or altered by cemetery maintenance staff / visitors. Condon then appears with Coleman on Monday, April 4, meeting Breckinridge, driving his circa green 1930 Ford touring car, and who was accompanied by the dark-complexioned man. Coleman testifies to this being the date of the first time he went to St. Raymond’s with Condon following the ransom payment. Again, there is nothing to suggest in Uebel’s accounting of this event that any of these men were looking for something in a boxwood bush. Rather, Condon paces the equivalent of four city blocks east of Section 8 of the cemetery and alongside the marsh that borders Westchester Creek, and reappears about 20 minutes later, finally returning to the car by walking parallel to the hedge bordering Whittemore Ave. These appear to be the actions of someone looking to retrace what might well have been the path taken by CJ during the time he claimed to have fetched the Boad Nelly note. If Condon had actually stashed the ransom box in the boxwood bush, why is he and everyone else ignoring that in favour of doing something entirely different? And it seems highly unlikely that Uebel could have been off by nine days when he testified to having seen the purported ransom box being removed from the boxwood bush on April 11, a full week plus after his first sightings. Attachment DeletedYour conclusive position of a “bait and switch”, relative to Uebel’s observations, become increasingly filled with pitfalls and questions you don’t seem to consider, or want to. And yet you also are able to retain the imaginative desperation to point out that because the ransom box was not found in Hauptmann’s possession after his arrest, then this is further proof that it was recovered by Condon and company at St. Raymond’s.. as if Hauptmann would not have had the intelligence to rid himself of a piece of highly-incriminating evidence over the span of two-and-a-half years. Unbelievable.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 23, 2021 10:42:21 GMT -5
2. Why do you believe Condon was specifically acting with intent to deceive law enforcement by describing the ransom box wood selection differently at times, when it’s specific lock was clearly the key identifier he set out to establish and did have included in its construction? Now this just isn't right. You've given me a question with a string attached. Do you think I'm stupid or something? I will call this 2A & 2B. 2A. It's in the book. Condon said it himself multiple times. And he obviously said it to others, who either believed him or repeated it to back him up regardless. And it was a LIE. That means its not true Joe. He said he specifically had it constructed with different pieces of wood so that if it was ever recovered he could identify it. Sound familiar? It should, because he did the same thing with the lump on the thumb of John. People who do this in one place do it in others. There's no innocent explanation for why someone does it. None. One can't be so gullible that they miss it or ignore it once they do see it. 2B. You just made that up. I should scoop up my marbles and go home right now - just on principle. Now, after all the lies and misdirection, authorities came upon Samuelsohn's shop. Here is where Condon got caught with his pants down. Samuelsohn ran out of the store and remembered that he built the box for Condon. Not only wasn't it made out of all these different woods, it was a simply constructed box of 5 ply veneer tongue and groove made of all maple. As far as a "key hole" Samuelsohn could NOT remember if he put one in the box. And here you are asserting it was this supposed key hole which was "clearly" the main identifying attribute? The dude who built it couldn't even remember if it had one! That's one helluva identifier. 2A. Condon, in his inimitable and grandiose style, which probably had as much to do with showing off his knowledge of the properties of wood, originally claimed he would have the box made of different wood veneers. And yes, he also originally did this with the intent that the box would less likely to be confused in later identification. When Condon went to Peremi for an estimate, he denied the cabinetmaker the job, because he felt the estimate was too high. He then went to Samuelsohn, who did the job. I see no evidence from the information I’m aware of and that you’ve presented to suggest Condon was trying to avoid Samuelsohn, other than the typical level of mental confusion and memory loss he often demonstrated. Regardless of the type of wood that ultimately made up the box, there was a lock in the box and Condon retained the key for it. 2B. Regarding Condon’s claim about CJ’s thumb and your summary denial of its validity, let me try to explain this to you for the umpteenth, and last time. Please do not pick up your nearby blinders. Condon claimed CJ had a muscular development at the ball of his thumb. What he was referring to is known as the Thenar Eminence, a band of muscles adjacent to the second joint of the thumb, on the PALM of the hand. Development of this band of muscles is seen on the hands of those who work primarily through the grasping of tools with their hands, ie. plumber, carpenter, ironworker, painter, etc. Condon detected this development when he shook CJ’s hand at Woodlawn Cemetery and again when he shook Hauptmann’s hand at the Greenwich Police Station. When Condon was at the Lindbergh home on the morning of March 10, 1932, he pointed out to Lindbergh, a distinct feature of muscular development on the BACK of his own hand, the round lump of muscle between the base of the thumb and index finger, a means of demonstrating the result of “50 years of pushing chalk.” Condon didn’t have the same feature as CJ on the palm of his hand because he didn’t wield tools all day long. He was simply demonstrating the occupational trait and muscular development he himself possessed.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 23, 2021 10:52:45 GMT -5
3. Why do you believe that Condon was trying to keep the cops from being “anywhere near Samuelsohn” when by all accounts, Condon appears to have been genuinely confused about who built the box, and ultimately it took Peremi’s chance recollection and Condon’s realization of this, to put law enforcement in the right direction? Well I'll be damned. Are you serious? When the guy spoke every other sentence was either a half-truth or a full blown lie and you are giving him the benefit of the doubt? Seriously? Especially once considering he was lying about its "special" construction of the different wood? Again - seriously? Every cop involved echoed the belief that he lied about who built it. But not you. Nope, you've got to be Mr. Nice Guy over here. Pah-leeze! And yes, thank God he lied about Peremi or we'd still never know any of this. 3. Here, you could not possibly sound more like Harry Walsh at the time he confronted, physically abused Condon and accused him of being a criminal at Alpine, after first tricking him into believing he was there to review photographs. I believe you continuously show an ever-clearer picture as to how you tend to personify certain characters that seem to most inspire you in this case, despite how they ultimately failed to realistically demonstrate even tremors within the proven bedrock foundation of this case.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 23, 2021 10:54:28 GMT -5
4. Have you considered the possibility that the presence of Condon, Breckinridge, Coleman and possibly Reich at St. Raymond’s following the night of April 2, 1932, was nothing more than a series of revisits to the scene of the ransom payment and reenactment attempts to gather additional evidence and understanding about the events which took place? April 3 could not have included Condon or Breckinridge. So not that one. We do know there was the walk-thru and that fits with Uebel's 2nd eyewitness account. I believe that was for all to see so as to exemplify the official version. I do not believe Breckinridge was involved with any of the BS Condon was pulling. Like I mentioned earlier, I believe if the car seen each time was Coleman's he was assisting his friend - not the Extortionists. If you recall, when Wilentz ordered Condon to Flemington he brought Coleman with him - who pretty much was a party crasher. That's when the heat was on him the worst. To me that's telling and shows a tremendous amount of trust in his friend. The final eyewitness account that Uebel made was the man retrieving that box concealed in the bush. Was that part of a re-enactment too Joe? I'll bet not as far as you're concerned. It harms your narrative so your wheels are probably spinning trying to come up with some bogus reason to excuse it away. You have to take a step back and look at ALL the facts Joe. Just look at what he told Agent Seykora. Condon gave him a tour and spotted a fresh grave. He pointed this out and suggested the ransom box was possibly buried there. Who in the hell would suggest something like this out of thin air? Seykora must have been scratching his head over that one. But not us. Why? Because we know the box and money had become separated the night Condon was supposed to have turned it over - and so did HE. It's almost like a Fruedian Slip of sorts, but if you study him long enough you begin to understand his thought process. Again, its why I wrote the books. One may offer a counter-argument for an individual piece here or there but there's just too many. They are everywhere. So one either ignores them, or in the alternative, snaps them together. Once that occurs its clear that Condon is toast. 4. See 1. Above
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2021 11:13:25 GMT -5
As Lindbergh, Condon, Breckinridge and Irey were all searching for the Boad Nelly on the same day, it seems reasonable the dark-complexioned man might have been Al Reich. Recognizing that Al had been requested by Lindbergh to drive his car from Bridgeport, Connecticut to the Hempstead Aviation Club so he could pick up Condon and him later that evening, Reich would have driven right through the Bronx to get there. Perhaps Al had pre-arranged with Coleman to meet up with him and the other men, while leaving Lindbergh’s car at an undisclosed location so it did not draw attention at the cemetery. Nowhere does Uebel say anything to suggest these unidentified men were looking for something in particular, and he is certainly clear they were not beating boxwood bushes. It also seems reasonable that these men were simply looking for clues on the day following the ransom payment, having been informed through Condon and Lindbergh’s first hand accounting as to where the transaction occurred. This would have been a prudent move in the event anything that was inadvertently dropped by CJ or footprints made, could be retrieved or protected immediately before being picked up or altered by cemetery maintenance staff / visitors. Perhaps they did have a "pre-arranged" meet up together. But you're explanation lacks merit. Maybe in a crime novel, but in the reality of this case it would be nutz. Your attempt to put a positive spin on this knows no bounds. These two had no authority to scout for clues, or trample a crime scene. They weren't cops. If they were thinking like you assume they were, they would have informed the police about what they knew and brought them to the scene. Instead, as we can clearly see, police didn't have a clue about this visit. If it wasn't for Uebel neither would we. Condon then appears with Coleman on Monday, April 4, meeting Breckinridge, driving his circa green 1930 Ford touring car, and who was accompanied by the dark-complexioned man. Coleman testifies to this being the date of the first time he went to St. Raymond’s with Condon following the ransom payment. Again, there is nothing to suggest in Uebel’s accounting of this event that any of these men were looking for something in a boxwood bush. Rather, Condon paces the equivalent of four city blocks east of Section 8 of the cemetery and alongside the marsh that borders Westchester Creek, and reappears about 20 minutes later, finally returning to the car by walking parallel to the hedge bordering Whittemore Ave. These appear to be the actions of someone looking to retrace what might well have been the path taken by CJ during the time he claimed to have fetched the Boad Nelly note. If Condon had actually stashed the ransom box in the boxwood bush, why is he and everyone else ignoring that in favour of doing something entirely different? Never said anyone was searching in the bush on this day. That's what makes everything else all the more suspicious. If somehow the box being stashed there wasn't an issue it should have been grabbed on this day - shouldn't have it? The answer to your question is because someone is there who isn't aware of the ruse. I'd also submit that Condon was aware of Uebel's presence on this day as well. And it seems highly unlikely that Uebel could have been off by nine days when he testified to having seen the purported ransom box being removed from the boxwood bush on April 11, a full week plus after his first sightings. Really? You are going to talk about what's "highly unlikely?" It's hard to know as I've stated previously. If one gets their days mixed up the rest seem to follow suit. While I wouldn't say it wasn't the 11th, I'd be an idiot to suggest he got that absolutely right when he was wrong about the previous two. Your conclusive position of a “bait and switch”, relative to Uebel’s observations, become increasingly filled with pitfalls and questions you don’t seem to consider, or want to. And yet you also are able to retain the imaginative desperation to point out that because the ransom box was not found in Hauptmann’s possession after his arrest, then this is further proof that it was recovered by Condon and company at St. Raymond’s.. as if Hauptmann would not have had the intelligence to rid himself of a piece of highly-incriminating evidence over the span of two-and-a-half years. Unbelievable. Okay, well, whatever. You've ignored everything I've written then. How many lies does it take for you to accept what was going on here? Apparently no amount is enough. Just look at the Silken exchange. Condon tried the old "confused" routine but got caught. Just look at his reaction once he realized it. This alone all by itself exposed him just as much as anywhere else.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2021 11:21:59 GMT -5
2A. Condon, in his inimitable and grandiose style, which probably had as much to do with showing off his knowledge of the properties of wood, originally claimed he would have the box made of different wood veneers. And yes, he also originally did this with the intent that the box would less likely to be confused in later identification. When Condon went to Peremi for an estimate, he denied the cabinetmaker the job, because he felt the estimate was too high. He then went to Samuelsohn, who did the job. I see no evidence from the information I’m aware of and that you’ve presented to suggest Condon was trying to avoid Samuelsohn, other than the typical level of mental confusion and memory loss he often demonstrated. Regardless of the type of wood that ultimately made up the box, there was a lock in the box and Condon retained the key for it. So you concede I'm correct while simultaneously concluding you were right? Now I've seen it all! And no, Condon lied. Grandiose or not, he was misleading and lying to investigators. 2B. Regarding Condon’s claim about CJ’s thumb and your summary denial of its validity, let me try to explain this to you for the umpteenth, and last time. Please do not pick up your nearby blinders. Condon claimed CJ had a muscular development at the ball of his thumb. What he was referring to is known as the Thenar Eminence, a band of muscles adjacent to the second joint of the thumb, on the PALM of the hand. Development of this band of muscles is seen on the hands of those who work primarily through the grasping of tools with their hands, ie. plumber, carpenter, ironworker, painter, etc. Condon detected this development when he shook CJ’s hand at Woodlawn Cemetery and again when he shook Hauptmann’s hand at the Greenwich Police Station. When Condon was at the Lindbergh home on the morning of March 10, 1932, he pointed out to Lindbergh, a distinct feature of muscular development on the BACK of his own hand, the round lump of muscle between the base of the thumb and index finger, a means of demonstrating the result of “50 years of pushing chalk.” Condon didn’t have the same feature as CJ on the palm of his hand because he didn’t wield tools all day long. He was simply demonstrating the occupational trait and muscular development he himself possessed. Go back to the source material Joe. He claimed "John" had a lump on his thumb. Not originally. This feature came later. Next it moved around. Left thumb, right thumb, both thumbs, etc. It all depended on the day he was interviewed. And its also funny that he tried to eliminate Hauptmann based on the LACK of this so-called feature. Forget blinders, get your head out of y... the sand.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2021 11:23:47 GMT -5
3. Here, you could not possibly sound more like Harry Walsh at the time he confronted, physically abused Condon and accused him of being a criminal at Alpine, after first tricking him into believing he was there to review photographs. I believe you continuously show an ever-clearer picture as to how you tend to personify certain characters that seem to most inspire you in this case, despite how they ultimately failed to realistically demonstrate even tremors within the proven bedrock foundation of this case. What are you a psychologist now? Oops! Looks like someone either ran out of gas or can't answer the question. Go back to the drawing board Joe. I'll wait - I'm not going anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2021 11:37:12 GMT -5
Your conclusive position of a “bait and switch”, relative to Uebel’s observations, become increasingly filled with pitfalls and questions you don’t seem to consider, or want to. And yet you also are able to retain the imaginative desperation to point out that because the ransom box was not found in Hauptmann’s possession after his arrest, then this is further proof that it was recovered by Condon and company at St. Raymond’s.. as if Hauptmann would not have had the intelligence to rid himself of a piece of highly-incriminating evidence over the span of two-and-a-half years. Unbelievable. What in God's name are you talking about? The box was used as a bait and switch because it was associated with the money it contained. So when Condon, for absolutely no legitimate reason he could invent, chose to deviate and venture down E. Tremont (the same direction the Look-Out was last seen heading), upon return Lindbergh seeing that box believed it still contained the money. It did not. The money was gone. It's a criminal tactic that's been used before and used since so its nothing new. Now for the ruse to be completed, Condon had to return empty handed. So he obviously stashed the box in that bush to hide it. You seem to believe Hauptmann wrote incriminating evidence on the inside of his closet, and hide the ransom money in a wall safe in his garage but would not have the confidence to hide anything else? Besides, there was nothing incriminating about a 5 ply veneer maple box because police were looking for one made up 5 different types of wood. That is until they learned Condon had lied to them.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 23, 2021 12:05:50 GMT -5
Right.. I forgot your answers are "in the book." So are the conclusions of Scaduto, Kennedy, Behn, Ahlgren and Monier, Zorn and Pearlman and they're all right as well, right? Regardless, I appreciate your responses despite how you routinely defer to a standard position of automatic gainsay it seems to anything I say. Anyway, I'm always hopeful others will add their own thoughts here with the intent of making more sense of the events we've discussed.
No, I'm not a psychologist Michael, and I don't really need to be.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2021 12:22:25 GMT -5
Right.. I forgot your answers are "in the book." So are the conclusions of Scaduto, Kennedy, Behn, Ahlgren and Monier, Zorn and Pearlman and they're all right as well, right? Regardless, I appreciate your responses despite how you routinely defer to a standard position of automatic gainsay. Anyway, I'm always hopeful others will add their own thoughts here with the intent of making more sense of the events we've discussed. What's the difference if they're in my books or not? You seem to forgotten what you've read when convenient. Glad to help out in the other instances though. As far as other authors go? I agree in some places, and disagree in others. With all due respect to them, no one has done the research I have. I don't blame them at all either. You've got to be crazy to do what I've done over a 21 year period of time. No, I'm not a psychologist Michael, and I don't really need to be. No, you don't. But I do believe you need to deal with certain personalities first hand before drawing conclusions. My early years were learning experiences, but once I understood completely what was going on around me I was pretty darn good at what I did.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 23, 2021 16:24:35 GMT -5
Right.. I forgot your answers are "in the book." So are the conclusions of Scaduto, Kennedy, Behn, Ahlgren and Monier, Zorn and Pearlman and they're all right as well, right? Regardless, I appreciate your responses despite how you routinely defer to a standard position of automatic gainsay. Anyway, I'm always hopeful others will add their own thoughts here with the intent of making more sense of the events we've discussed. What's the difference if they're in my books or not? You seem to forgotten what you've read when convenient. Glad to help out in the other instances though. As far as other authors go? I agree in some places, and disagree in others. With all due respect to them, no one has done the research I have. I don't blame them at all either. You've got to be crazy to do what I've done over a 21 year period of time. No, I'm not a psychologist Michael, and I don't really need to be. No, you don't. But I do believe you need to deal with certain personalities first hand before drawing conclusions. My early years were learning experiences, but once I understood completely what was going on around me I was pretty darn good at what I did. Michael, you've done more systematic research on this case than probably anyone else on this planet, and I'll never run out of superlatives and gratitude for your dedication and perseverance, while you've never hesitated to share it with others. I also believe strongly that inspiration and breakthroughs can also come when one lets go of this case at times, as a means of surrendering all psychological attachment. While we've both been at the LKC for almost the exact same timeframe, it's fascinating to me how we're both able to develop markedly different jigsaw pictures of what took place. Personally speaking, I can assure you the pieces to my own jigsaw picture will not fit into place until they are the right ones.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2021 18:42:59 GMT -5
Michael, you've done more systematic research on this case than probably anyone else on this planet, and I'll never run out of superlatives and gratitude for your dedication and perseverance, while you've never hesitated to share it with others. I also believe strongly that inspiration and breakthroughs can also come when one lets go of this case at times, as a means of surrendering all psychological attachment. While we've both been at the LKC for almost the exact same timeframe, it's fascinating to me how we're both able to develop markedly different jigsaw pictures of what took place. Personally speaking, I can assure you the pieces to my own jigsaw picture will not fit into place until they are the right ones.
We have been at it for about the same time and I know if you lived near me you’d probably have been down at the archives with Mark almost as much as I have. But it’s the comparison of me to others that just doesn’t “work.” For example, I would never use the NYT as the source for a statement when the actual statement itself is sitting at the archives. If it’s not there then I’d have no choice. Same with books. Many “facts” in books are wrong. So I’ll use them to make a point or to complement something. They only stand alone if there’s no other source at the archives. I get why people do that though. No one wants to spend all the time it takes, because if one is normal, they will won’t have that amount of time at their disposal and ultimately their book would never get written. Also, just to be clear, I’ve never read Zorn and don’t plan on it. I stopped reading Judge Pearlman’s book at page 215. I do plan to finish it one day but honestly I’m in no hurry. V4 is my priority at the moment. I predict V4 will really affect you. In fact, you may want to avoid it otherwise you might find yourself curling up in a ball and crying yourself to sleep every night. As far as our positions... I think in reality you secretly agree more than you are letting on. It’s just that you don’t personally “like” certain things so your not willing to stop searching or concede - yet. There’s no harm in that. You’ll get there one day though. Might come when you’re building a snow man, or when your sitting in a hot tub, or at a hockey game (what else you guys do up there?) but when it does it will hit you like a ton of bricks.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Apr 24, 2021 2:13:23 GMT -5
Right.. I forgot your answers are "in the book." So are the conclusions of Scaduto, Kennedy, Behn, Ahlgren and Monier, Zorn and Pearlman and they're all right as well, right? Regardless, I appreciate your responses despite how you routinely defer to a standard position of automatic gainsay it seems to anything I say. Anyway, I'm always hopeful others will add their own thoughts here with the intent of making more sense of the events we've discussed. No, I'm not a psychologist Michael, and I don't really need to be. Honestly I think comparing Michael's books to any of the others you mention is pretty disingenuous. His books are literally half footnotes, because he is adamant about ensuring every single thing in it is sourced and cited back to a piece of primary source material. If you don't like the facts Michael is sharing, that frustration should lie in the way in which history has whitewashed many of the characters in this case, while the reality is often much more complex and, in this case, nefarious.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 24, 2021 7:36:26 GMT -5
Honestly His books are literally half footnotes, because he is adamant about ensuring every single thing in it is sourced and cited back to a piece of primary source material. You've hit on something that's really important to me. What I've found early in life is that any debate is usually followed up by someone saying " what's your source?" And that's a very important item to know isn't it? So I've always been personally frustrated when I read something in a book but find no documentation to support it. Not to pick on Milton but that just happened to me recently while trying to figure out where something unique to her book was coming from. I've also been criticized by some who say there's "too many" footnotes, or that by adding the subject heading is "too much." For me, sometimes the subject itself is information I'd want to know because what's written there gives clues or may not even be contained within the body of the report. In places where that doesn't qualify, well, I don't want to omit because then it appears that I am picking and choosing. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I want whoever reads it to make their own decisions about what's there. So there's a lot to consider when reading a book: First its the source itself. If my source is Waller, then this is important because there's places he's been wrong. If its a NJSP Report that's important too. But as I've previously shared or written about, there could be other reports that contradict it.... Sometime written by the EXACT same officer. Next is the author themselves. People look at me and compare what I've done. For instance, Fisher was in the FBI. He went to Quantico, and I went to Glynco. There's no comparison there. So one might simply shrug me off choosing instead to rely on his qualifications. This because two people can read the same report and interpret it differently. The issue here really should be whether or not he spent enough time at the Archives. Also, one might say to me "you're no John Douglas" and they'd be right. But my experiences do assist me here. I've been immersed in the criminal mind (at various levels) for decades. One on one, in rooms of 12 to 1, surrounded by hundreds on the compound - always interacting. And honestly by choice most of the time. It was something I wanted to do and enjoyed it. In the end almost too much. To walking into any area and being able to "read" what was going on. Finding (most) anything that was hidden, not because someone "told" me, but because I knew their tactics through my experience. And even walking into an area and listen to these guys talk about life in general. Which leads me to my next point. There was a teacher on the message boards once accuse me of not knowing how to properly "evaluate" certain documents. That by being a teacher allowed him to have this ability while supposedly I did not. This sort of thing happens a lot, and there's possible merit in the argument but it depends on certain variables and circumstances. For example, if this teacher never worked in a LE environment they may not have a clue. Next, as in this case, the guy hadn't even read the report himself. So the accusation was that he knew better, based on his profession alone, and didn't even need to read the document before passing judgement on it. Let me briefly bring up Doherty's book. I read a section and was asking myself what the hell he was talking about. So I saw that he had sources I've never seen. I can't evaluate what I haven't seen, so all I can do is re-read what I have. So, for me, I'm certain that what I have (to include manuscripts written by a lawyer who was actually there) can give me the confidence that I know what I'm talking about. And yet, one might see his creds and say since he's a Professor he knows better. Anyway, what's most important to me is having the document in hand. For example, a newspaper report may contain something the actual document on the subject refutes. Then there might be yet another document in the archives that takes everything in yet another direction. But if one isn't in the archives researching and (most importantly) searching, they will never know about any of it. For example, one might go to West Trenton to research Violet Sharp. They go through the index cards and other indexes on the shelves. After about a month they might think they're finished. But they'd be wrong. There is information "scattered" throughout the files that is not in the indexes. Now ask yourself how many authors spent months at the archives? How many can say they went through "everything?" If not, they missed something. And even so, like me, they probably still missed something. (*I've been told was the only one to do it even once.) I've been through the entire archive several times and still find things I didn't appreciate at the time that is valuable to me now. As I sit here right now I need to go back and get some things in order to finish V4. Getting to the nefarious behavior that went on just about everywhere concerning this entire matter... It's mind blowing. There's various degrees just about everywhere. It's all relevant and all interesting. I'm still baffled that no one seems to view the bribed juror as important as I do. One of the things I often heard over the years was that Hauptmann was guilty because he was convicted by a jury of his peers. All appeals were heard and denied. So that's that. But a closer look shows us what happened was completely outrages. Whether or not he's guilty matters less than if he actually got a fair trial. At least to me anyway. For a reporter to get to a juror through the Sheriff shows nothing mattered. A man went to the electric chair, and we have a juror basing his verdict on money.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 24, 2021 9:00:30 GMT -5
Michael, you've done more systematic research on this case than probably anyone else on this planet, and I'll never run out of superlatives and gratitude for your dedication and perseverance, while you've never hesitated to share it with others. I also believe strongly that inspiration and breakthroughs can also come when one lets go of this case at times, as a means of surrendering all psychological attachment. While we've both been at the LKC for almost the exact same timeframe, it's fascinating to me how we're both able to develop markedly different jigsaw pictures of what took place. Personally speaking, I can assure you the pieces to my own jigsaw picture will not fit into place until they are the right ones. We have been at it for about the same time and I know if you lived near me you’d probably have been down at the archives with Mark almost as much as I have. But it’s the comparison of me to others that just doesn’t “work.” For example, I would never use the NYT as the source for a statement when the actual statement itself is sitting at the archives. If it’s not there then I’d have no choice. Same with books. Many “facts” in books are wrong. So I’ll use them to make a point or to complement something. They only stand alone if there’s no other source at the archives. I get why people do that though. No one wants to spend all the time it takes, because if one is normal, they will won’t have that amount of time at their disposal and ultimately their book would never get written. Also, just to be clear, I’ve never read Zorn and don’t plan on it. I stopped reading Judge Pearlman’s book at page 215. I do plan to finish it one day but honestly I’m in no hurry. V4 is my priority at the moment. I predict V4 will really affect you. In fact, you may want to avoid it otherwise you might find yourself curling up in a ball and crying yourself to sleep every night. As far as our positions... I think in reality you secretly agree more than you are letting on. It’s just that you don’t personally “like” certain things so your not willing to stop searching or concede - yet. There’s no harm in that. You’ll get there one day though. Might come when you’re building a snow man, or when your sitting in a hot tub, or at a hockey game (what else you guys do up there?) but when it does it will hit you like a ton of bricks. Once again, I have no issues at all with the amount and depth of research you've done and put into print through your books or on discussion boards. I know that you know, I’ve never deviated from that message. And I really wasn't attempting to compare your works with those of other authors who through their great disparity in conclusions, never seem to agree with one another on just about anything. I know you’ve done far more research than they have, but the simple truth remains that everyone sees the evidence in a different light with differing conclusions, however slight or not-so-slight. You and I have seen things very differently here from essentially the same raw data for a long time. And sorry but no, I do not secretly agree with your overall position, and can’t say that I’ve been “led to water,” as you once expressed was your intent. I can understand that you’ve probably come to perceive my viewpoint as coming from some fair-skinned northern hockey player sailing around a pristine, frozen mountain lake dotted with igloos, poutine stands and polar bears, wearing a rose-coloured visor while yodeling praises to Lindbergh and Condon, as you grimly hammer out sweaty truths on a grimy steel mill forge, groaning and lamenting the grave injustices heaped upon all those who so gallantly stood up to proclaim this sad chapter in history, a hoax of granfalloon proportions. No worries Michael, as I’m sure you will eventually come around. However, in the tradition of your fellow authors who no doubt began to see the hairline cracks within their own tottering house-of-cards theories growing into very troublesome fissures over the years, it might be best to just keeping adding new sections.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 24, 2021 12:58:22 GMT -5
Right.. I forgot your answers are "in the book." So are the conclusions of Scaduto, Kennedy, Behn, Ahlgren and Monier, Zorn and Pearlman and they're all right as well, right? Regardless, I appreciate your responses despite how you routinely defer to a standard position of automatic gainsay it seems to anything I say. Anyway, I'm always hopeful others will add their own thoughts here with the intent of making more sense of the events we've discussed. No, I'm not a psychologist Michael, and I don't really need to be. Honestly I think comparing Michael's books to any of the others you mention is pretty disingenuous. His books are literally half footnotes, because he is adamant about ensuring every single thing in it is sourced and cited back to a piece of primary source material. If you don't like the facts Michael is sharing, that frustration should lie in the way in which history has whitewashed many of the characters in this case, while the reality is often much more complex and, in this case, nefarious. Sources, no matter how many are presented, are only useful if they are accurate and unimpeachable. And a theory is only as sound as its ability to successfully withstand counterpoints which demonstrate it to be among other things, little more than a desperate house of cards. Now let's talk not only about nefarious but also sick, inhumane, twisted and bizarre. How about the devious actions and lying words of one mentally ill, German carpenter from the Bronx who had it in his mind to devastate the lives of a family and so many others for his pathetic personal and financial gain, who built the kidnap ladder, wrote the ransom note found in the child's nursery and a series afterwards, willfully extorted $50,000 from the family in exchange for the corpse of their kidnapped son, and finally went to his death professing total innocence? Does this mean anything to you?
|
|