Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 9, 2021 9:20:27 GMT -5
Without full disclosure of the events contained with the secret Grand Jury hearings, we don’t know for sure that these unidentified men observed by Uebel on April 3, were not government men. While it’s possible they were newsmen associated with Coleman, I can’t believe they would have been at such a potentially-sensitive evidence site, unaccompanied by others officially involved in some capacity with the investigation or ransom payment.
We do know that Irey, who was Chief of the Internal Revenue Service Intelligence Unit, participated in the private Boad Nelly search with Lindbergh, Breckinridge and Condon. At this time, Lindbergh pretty much had personal autonomy on the process in which his son would be returned free of direct law enforcement involvement, and had certainly come around to Irey’s direction.
At the Morrow townhouse meeting on the evening of April 2, Irey pressed Condon for full details on CJ’s description, as well his actions leading up to their meeting at St. Raymond’s. This included the path taken by CJ during their first encounter, how he had first jumped from the wall onto the hard-packed macadam road, crossed it and then jumped from a low rail to the ground below, and what Condon believed to be onto a recently-covered grave.
I think it’s also important to remember this late night meeting was essentially “Irey’s Show” and I don’t believe there were present at that time of Irey’s interview of Condon, any of the other investigative agencies. No, I’m not necessarily concluding that Irey had IRS Investigative men dispatched the following day, but I’m sure there would have been some expectation and pressure here to at least survey the scene of the ransom payment as quickly as possible if the opportunity presented itself. And I wouldn’t at all be surprised if Condon had made sure his friend and confidante Gregory Coleman, the man he had said would receive the inside story, was there to “assist.”
Regarding the level of trust demonstrated by Lindbergh and Breckinridge towards Condon’s assistance, here you categorically state, “They did not trust him.” I can’t understand how you so categorically summarize such a highly-debatable subject with little or no distinction? Did they not trust him to keep his big mouth shut when he needed to? Did they not trust him to be able to repeat the same story details twice? Did they not trust that his expressed intentions to serve the Lindberghs, were in fact sincere? Did they not trust their personally-designated ransom exchange intermediary who carried this responsibility right through and well beyond, with anything at all? That makes little sense to me, given the following:
*Letter received by John Condon, between the time of the ransom payment and discovery of the body of CALjr.
“My Dear Dr. Condon,
Mrs. Lindbergh and I want to thank you for the great assistance you have been to us. We fully realize that you have devoted the major portion of your time and energy to bring about the return of our son. We wish to express to you our sincere appreciation for your courage and co-operation.
Sincerely, Charles A. Lindbergh”
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 9, 2021 9:22:39 GMT -5
I’m not “fond” of Condon, as you continue to declare for your benefit only. And I know this statement probably just continues to roll off you like water off a duck’s back, but I trust you’ll eventually understand this. I do believe that Condon’s words and actions as they relate to his originally-expressed desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return their son to them, and which he never failed to demonstrate, do not warrant the kind of desperate and illogical attacks that attempt to portray him willingly and criminally involved as a confederate of those responsible for this crime, in any way.
Regarding the footprint evidence, yes it’s all there in V2, including the various accounts by those who believed the plaster casting while fabricated reasonably well, was of little actual forensic value. Again, the footprint evidence does not prove Hauptmann made them nor does it prove he did not. It’s called inconclusive evidence.
You’ll be glad to know I’m done with the topic of the muscular development on CJ’s hand and your personal reference to it as a “bogus lump.” I’d swear you’ve been reading Zorn even though you claim you’ve never picked up his book. In any case, I’d at least encourage others to consider the full weight of what Condon was actually communicating here.
Condon was trying to protect Hauptmann? LOL. So why did Condon give Irey and investigators a description of CJ that essentially would have fit Hauptmann to a tee at that time?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 9, 2021 14:42:18 GMT -5
Without full disclosure of the events contained with the secret Grand Jury hearings, we don’t know for sure that these unidentified men observed by Uebel on April 3, were not government men. While it’s possible they were newsmen associated with Coleman, I can’t believe they would have been at such a potentially-sensitive evidence site, unaccompanied by others officially involved in some capacity with the investigation or ransom payment. This is like saying "without full disclosure of events contained with the secret Grand Jury hearings, we don't know for sure that Lindbergh did not kill his son." See how that works? And besides, what exactly is your point supposed to mean anyway? That I "don't" have everything there is? And how would you know that exactly? You are trying to prove a negative by citing documents you don't even know exist or ever did. We do know that Irey, who was Chief of the Internal Revenue Service Intelligence Unit, participated in the private Boad Nelly search with Lindbergh, Breckinridge and Condon. At this time, Lindbergh pretty much had personal autonomy on the process in which his son would be returned free of direct law enforcement involvement, and had certainly come around to Irey’s direction. So why not doubt it based upon your logic above? See my point? You could use this argument everywhere Joe and "picking and choosing" what to believe or not believe based on some supposed "unknown" source is disingenuous. Yes - we know about this trip. Ask yourself "why" we know. Because there are sources for it from those involved. And who do you think is in possession of most? If you were a betting man, who would you say has more sources for this event than anyone else? Honestly, who would you lay odds on? I think it’s also important to remember this late night meeting was essentially “Irey’s Show” and I don’t believe there were present at that time of Irey’s interview of Condon, any of the other investigative agencies. No, I’m not necessarily concluding that Irey had IRS Investigative men dispatched the following day, but I’m sure there would have been some expectation and pressure here to at least survey the scene of the ransom payment as quickly as possible if the opportunity presented itself. And I wouldn’t at all be surprised if Condon had made sure his friend and confidante Gregory Coleman, the man he had said would receive the inside story, was there to “assist.” And yet, there is no source for this. So while we have sources from all of the above that provide us with all kinds of information, there's nothing from anyone to dispute Uebel's eyewitness accounts. Oh wait, yes there is. Condon, Breckinridge, and Coleman all provide information that gives us an explanation for what we believe occurred on the 4th. Meanwhile, none shared anything about what we suspect occurred on the 3rd. Or the box snatching event. That box similar in dimensions to the ransom box stashed in a bush across the street from where Condon lied (again) about handing over that box to CJ. So let's not consider the facts as they exist? Let's invent a source that no one has ever seen that explains it all away? Regarding the level of trust demonstrated by Lindbergh and Breckinridge towards Condon’s assistance, here you categorically state, “They did not trust him.” I can’t understand how you so categorically summarize such a highly-debatable subject with little or no distinction? Did they not trust him to keep his big mouth shut when he needed to? Did they not trust him to be able to repeat the same story details twice? Did they not trust that his expressed intentions to serve the Lindberghs, were in fact sincere? Did they not trust their personally-designated ransom exchange intermediary who carried this responsibility right through and well beyond, with anything at all? That makes little sense to me, given the following: *Letter received by John Condon, between the time of the ransom payment and discovery of the body of CALjr. “My Dear Dr. Condon, Mrs. Lindbergh and I want to thank you for the great assistance you have been to us. We fully realize that you have devoted the major portion of your time and energy to bring about the return of our son. We wish to express to you our sincere appreciation for your courage and co-operation. Sincerely, Charles A. Lindbergh” Now this is what I am talking about. You've ignored my posts, and the content of an entire book and counter it with this letter? If you bothered to read V2 you'd see a much better source for this. Anyway, neither show Lindbergh's true beliefs. Why? Because he had a secret meeting with Special Agent Larimer. He made him promise what he was about to tell him must be kept confidential. He explained why he stepped in to make the ransom delivery with Condon. He was "suspicious." He also explained that he doubted Condon's sincerity. And when was this interview? 1933. Same when he told Cowie "he had absolutely no confidence in Dr. Condon." But that's okay. Just ignore it all because here's this letter. I wonder why Lindbergh would write this but behind close doors with promises of confidentiality express the exact opposite? Never mind, we're not allowed to ask this. Besides, you'd counter by saying we haven't read "all" of the Grand Jury "ghost" testimony that I do not have and that its probably explained there.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 9, 2021 15:03:43 GMT -5
I’m not “fond” of Condon, as you continue to declare for your benefit only. And I know this statement probably just continues to roll off you like water off a duck’s back, but I trust you’ll eventually understand this. I do believe that Condon’s words and actions as they relate to his originally-expressed desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return their son to them, and which he never failed to demonstrate, do not warrant the kind of desperate and illogical attacks that attempt to portray him willingly and criminally involved as a confederate of those responsible for this crime, in any way. This is hilarious! Just look at what you've written here. "Never failed to demonstrate"... Really? He lied countless times. LIED. So cut to the chase and explain his lies. All of them. Can't can you? So no, lying is not evidence of good faith. Not then, not now, not ever. Calling this position "illogical" is illogical. Regarding the footprint evidence, yes it’s all there in V2, including the various accounts by those who believed the plaster casting while fabricated reasonably well, was of little actual forensic value. Again, the footprint evidence does not prove Hauptmann made them nor does it prove he did not. It’s called inconclusive evidence. Go back and re-read everything. You do not want it to be evidence so (POOF) you call it inconclusive. Breckinridge felt the cast was good evidence. There are some sources that dispute this. Most important was Agent Madden since he was actually there. And what did he say? Well, I posted that before, and its in V2. And yet you choose to ignore it. The NJSP have every pair of shoes Hauptmann owned. They compared it to the prints they had and they did not fit. If the cast was "bad" then they had the measurements. Still didn't fit. If it did, this would have been submitted as evidence. So they have the casts, footprint measurements, and all of Hauptmann's shoes. But according to you - for no reason. There was nothing of value to compare anything to. BTW, they sent Bornmann to the garage to specifically look for a shoe. But that was for no reason too I bet. You’ll be glad to know I’m done with the topic of the muscular development on CJ’s hand and your personal reference to it as a “bogus lump.” I’d swear you’ve been reading Zorn even though you claim you’ve never picked up his book. In any case, I’d at least encourage others to consider the full weight of what Condon was actually communicating here. This invention is all you've got. So - no. You're not done with it by any stretch. The closest I've gotten to the Zorn book is seeing the cover on Amazon. Isn't his theory about the thumb similar to yours? Condon was trying to protect Hauptmann? LOL. So why did Condon give Irey and investigators a description of CJ that essentially would have fit Hauptmann to a tee at that time? He refused to identify him numerous times. He checked his thumb for the lump but it wasn't there. He told Agent Turrou he wasn't John. He took off for parts unknown looking to find a replacement. He's down in Florida interviewing Garelick telling him he was not sure Hauptmann was the guy. The best part is he was hoping to make Garelick the patsy. And here you are pointing to a description he gave police? Did you happen to forget everyone he told cops "looked" like John looked nothing like Hauptmann? Or each other for that matter. Of course you haven't, but again, what else can you do?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jun 5, 2021 8:36:16 GMT -5
Without full disclosure of the events contained with the secret Grand Jury hearings, we don’t know for sure that these unidentified men observed by Uebel on April 3, were not government men. While it’s possible they were newsmen associated with Coleman, I can’t believe they would have been at such a potentially-sensitive evidence site, unaccompanied by others officially involved in some capacity with the investigation or ransom payment. This is like saying "without full disclosure of events contained with the secret Grand Jury hearings, we don't know for sure that Lindbergh did not kill his son." See how that works? And besides, what exactly is your point supposed to mean anyway? That I "don't" have everything there is? And how would you know that exactly? You are trying to prove a negative by citing documents you don't even know exist or ever did. There’s no need to reference secret Grand Jury hearings to demonstrate that Lindbergh didn’t kill his son. And no need to tee off on me as if I’ve somehow impugned your research thoroughness and integrity. I would simply like to know more about the initial group of 3 or 4 men who accompanied Coleman, as I’m sure others here are. Just because we can’t identify them, doesn’t mean they don’t exist, unless you have a better idea. And let’s not forget this board is for the generation and open exchange of good ideas to forward the discussion. So who were they and why does their identities seem to have remained a mystery? (Joe)
We do know that Irey, who was Chief of the Internal Revenue Service Intelligence Unit, participated in the private Boad Nelly search with Lindbergh, Breckinridge and Condon. At this time, Lindbergh pretty much had personal autonomy on the process in which his son would be returned free of direct law enforcement involvement, and had certainly come around to Irey’s direction. So why not doubt it based upon your logic above? See my point? You could use this argument everywhere Joe and "picking and choosing" what to believe or not believe based on some supposed "unknown" source is disingenuous. Yes - we know about this trip. Ask yourself "why" we know. Because there are sources for it from those involved. And who do you think is in possession of most? If you were a betting man, who would you say has more sources for this event than anyone else? Honestly, who would you lay odds on? No one’s picking and choosing here so read again carefully. I was referencing the trust and respect that Lindbergh ultimately came to feel in Irey’s judgment and the fact he accompanied Lindbergh in the initial search. By extension, I do consider the possibility that some of Irey’s men may have appeared at St. Raymond’s covertly the very next day on the heels of the Morrow townhouse meeting.
Bottom line here is that given the apparent sum total of all known to date and if Uebel’s observation testimony including dates was correct, it would seem that someone (or persons) appears to have been quite successful in keeping secret the identity of the April 3 visitors. (Joe)
I think it’s also important to remember this late night meeting was essentially “Irey’s Show” and I don’t believe there were present at that time of Irey’s interview of Condon, any of the other investigative agencies. No, I’m not necessarily concluding that Irey had IRS Investigative men dispatched the following day, but I’m sure there would have been some expectation and pressure here to at least survey the scene of the ransom payment as quickly as possible if the opportunity presented itself. And I wouldn’t at all be surprised if Condon had made sure his friend and confidante Gregory Coleman, the man he had said would receive the inside story, was there to “assist.” And yet, there is no source for this. So while we have sources from all of the above that provide us with all kinds of information, there's nothing from anyone to dispute Uebel's eyewitness accounts. Oh wait, yes there is. Condon, Breckinridge, and Coleman all provide information that gives us an explanation for what we believe occurred on the 4th. Meanwhile, none shared anything about what we suspect occurred on the 3rd. Or the box snatching event. That box similar in dimensions to the ransom box stashed in a bush across the street from where Condon lied (again) about handing over that box to CJ. So let's not consider the facts as they exist? Let's invent a source that no one has ever seen that explains it all away? Again, referencing my point above, I’d offer that if we don’t know who the men were accompanying Coleman on April 3, then either someone wanted this kept a secret or Uebel’s memory was faulty and he was actually witnessing another visit to St. Raymond’s, which Coleman, Condon and Breckinridge later corroborated.
And while you’ve seemingly come to hold Uebel as a paragon of acute observation in spite of his apparent contradictions, time between statements and surly attitude about being doubted within his statements, there is good reason to question much of the detail within his statements. About the purported ransom box. From a distance of some 200 feet away, he claimed to have seen a man who was not Condon, pull an object out of a boxwood bush approximately 75 feet west of Whittemore Ave. You state in V2 that he described this object as a box similar in size to that of the original ransom box. How exactly did he come to make that association? Was he cognizant of the actual ransom box measurements on his own accord by the time of his first statement, or could this perhaps been a detail filled in through input from one of the investigating officials? (Joe)
Regarding the level of trust demonstrated by Lindbergh and Breckinridge towards Condon’s assistance, here you categorically state, “They did not trust him.” I can’t understand how you so categorically summarize such a highly-debatable subject with little or no distinction? Did they not trust him to keep his big mouth shut when he needed to? Did they not trust him to be able to repeat the same story details twice? Did they not trust that his expressed intentions to serve the Lindberghs, were in fact sincere? Did they not trust their personally-designated ransom exchange intermediary who carried this responsibility right through and well beyond, with anything at all? That makes little sense to me, given the following: *Letter received by John Condon, between the time of the ransom payment and discovery of the body of CALjr. “My Dear Dr. Condon, Mrs. Lindbergh and I want to thank you for the great assistance you have been to us. We fully realize that you have devoted the major portion of your time and energy to bring about the return of our son. We wish to express to you our sincere appreciation for your courage and co-operation. Sincerely, Charles A. Lindbergh” Now this is what I am talking about. You've ignored my posts, and the content of an entire book and counter it with this letter? If you bothered to read V2 you'd see a much better source for this. Anyway, neither show Lindbergh's true beliefs. Why? Because he had a secret meeting with Special Agent Larimer. He made him promise what he was about to tell him must be kept confidential. He explained why he stepped in to make the ransom delivery with Condon. He was "suspicious." He also explained that he doubted Condon's sincerity. And when was this interview? 1933. Same when he told Cowie "he had absolutely no confidence in Dr. Condon." But that's okay. Just ignore it all because here's this letter. I wonder why Lindbergh would write this but behind close doors with promises of confidentiality express the exact opposite? Never mind, we're not allowed to ask this. Besides, you'd counter by saying we haven't read "all" of the Grand Jury "ghost" testimony that I do not have and that its probably explained there.
That letter I posted is a valuable piece of evidence as it relates to Lindbergh’s gratitude in relation to how Condon provided his services as Lindbergh’s personal go-between. I’m not surprised you’re content to simply dismiss it, as it clearly doesn’t align well with the hand-picked sources you’ve chosen to otherwise paint Condon as a confederate of the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s). Seems a bit odd too that Lindbergh, the guy you’ve essentially pegged as the criminal mastermind behind his own son’s disappearance, is suddenly your standard-bearer of virtue and honest character discernment as it relates to his impressions of Condon. Quite the tangled web you can weave at times there. (Joe)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jun 5, 2021 9:13:34 GMT -5
I’m not “fond” of Condon, as you continue to declare for your benefit only. And I know this statement probably just continues to roll off you like water off a duck’s back, but I trust you’ll eventually understand this. I do believe that Condon’s words and actions as they relate to his originally-expressed desire to serve the Lindberghs and be able to safely return their son to them, and which he never failed to demonstrate, do not warrant the kind of desperate and illogical attacks that attempt to portray him willingly and criminally involved as a confederate of those responsible for this crime, in any way. This is hilarious! Just look at what you've written here. "Never failed to demonstrate"... Really? He lied countless times. LIED. So cut to the chase and explain his lies. All of them. Can't can you? So no, lying is not evidence of good faith. Not then, not now, not ever. Calling this position "illogical" is illogical. Condon’s position from the beginning of his involvement in the case was a potentially perilous one for himself and one that only became worse with protracted negotiations and ultimately cast immense suspicion his way with the failed ransom exchange and discovery of the body. It was a situation with seemingly little in the middle besides massive success and massive failure. With what I believe to be relatively little consideration of the above, Condon sincerely wanted to be able to safely return CALjr to the Lindberghs. That only changed when the child’s body was discovered. From that point on, his mission became one of ensuring the perpetrator(s) was brought to justice. He never wavered in his personal desire to serve the Lindberghs. Perhaps too maudlin and emotional a position for you as there’s probably no mention of this at the archives. If you can't clearly see his original and consistent intent throughout, then I believe you're missing or choosing to overlook some of the most intangible but absolutely resonating qualities of human nature and intent that just don’t find their way into investigative reports, or at least not the ones you choose to include in your books. Prove me wrong here. At the risk of sounding like I’m impugning you again, have you ever read “Jafsie Tells All?” Just curious. Despite its lavish and at times overbearing delivery along with some minor errors, it remains a very valuable resource into the mind and heart of John Condon. (Joe)
Regarding the footprint evidence, yes it’s all there in V2, including the various accounts by those who believed the plaster casting while fabricated reasonably well, was of little actual forensic value. Again, the footprint evidence does not prove Hauptmann made them nor does it prove he did not. It’s called inconclusive evidence. Go back and re-read everything. You do not want it to be evidence so (POOF) you call it inconclusive. Breckinridge felt the cast was good evidence. There are some sources that dispute this. Most important was Agent Madden since he was actually there. And what did he say? Well, I posted that before, and its in V2. And yet you choose to ignore it. The NJSP have every pair of shoes Hauptmann owned. They compared it to the prints they had and they did not fit. If the cast was "bad" then they had the measurements. Still didn't fit. If it did, this would have been submitted as evidence. So they have the casts, footprint measurements, and all of Hauptmann's shoes. But according to you - for no reason. There was nothing of value to compare anything to. BTW, they sent Bornmann to the garage to specifically look for a shoe. But that was for no reason too I bet. Breckinridge is suddenly a forensic investigator here? Given the totality of the shoe print evidence, including what you’ve chosen to include in your book, even attempting to portray this as an absolute certainty that Hauptmann either i) made the print or, ii) could not have made the print, is just plain silly. (Joe)
You’ll be glad to know I’m done with the topic of the muscular development on CJ’s hand and your personal reference to it as a “bogus lump.” I’d swear you’ve been reading Zorn even though you claim you’ve never picked up his book. In any case, I’d at least encourage others to consider the full weight of what Condon was actually communicating here. This invention is all you've got. So - no. You're not done with it by any stretch. The closest I've gotten to the Zorn book is seeing the cover on Amazon. Isn't his theory about the thumb similar to yours? No, it's not. I’ve laid out my position on this many times previously, so perhaps you might want to go back and have another read. Or just choose to ignore or view this like it's yet another sealed off room in some magnificent house of cards. (Joe)
Condon was trying to protect Hauptmann? LOL. So why did Condon give Irey and investigators a description of CJ that essentially would have fit Hauptmann to a tee at that time? He refused to identify him numerous times. He checked his thumb for the lump but it wasn't there. He told Agent Turrou he wasn't John. He took off for parts unknown looking to find a replacement. He's down in Florida interviewing Garelick telling him he was not sure Hauptmann was the guy. The best part is he was hoping to make Garelick the patsy. And here you are pointing to a description he gave police? Did you happen to forget everyone he told cops "looked" like John looked nothing like Hauptmann? Or each other for that matter. Of course you haven't, but again, what else can you do? For what they're worth, here are my thoughts.
Condon felt very strongly that Hauptmann was CJ when he saw him at Greenwich Station. He was also convinced there were accomplices and so he felt genuinely concerned for his personal safety and that of his family, as indicated by his lament to Agent Turrou. This was the first time he had ever expressed such concern over an identification process. Two-and-a-half years had elapsed since Condon and CJ had met and he wanted to be absolutely certain, because he was very aware that Hauptmann’s life essentially hung in the balance over what he had to say. If Condon clearly didn’t believe Hauptmann was CJ, as he had concluded in previous requests to identify individuals suspected of being CJ, he would have stated such then and there. He was also genuinely upset by the news interest mayhem the police had allowed to manifest at Greenwich Station, and in large part he rebelled against the enormous pressure to immediately identify Hauptmann as CJ, rightfully believing the process was not being conducted fairly towards either the accused or himself. (Joe)
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Feb 11, 2022 0:01:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 9, 2023 8:45:23 GMT -5
Hello,
I spoke to Ronelle last night, and she would like to know if anyone here is interested in appearing on her YouTube channel to discuss the Lindbergh case.
If you are interested, she would like to hear from you!
Please contact her at: rdelmont@comcast.net
Thank you.
|
|