|
Post by rick62 on Apr 20, 2006 6:26:50 GMT -5
Its difficult to imagine that the NYTimes reported 33 messages posted from Jafsie to the kidnap gang in the Bronx News and NYAmerican. Who ever heard of such a long and drawnout negotiation with "no payoff at the end"? Most of the notices claimed "Mony is Redy" but still it goes on and on. What are the stakes? Why the long delay?
BUT the day before the ransom is paid in the Bronx at St. Raymonds the thumbquard miraculously appears in the driveway at Highfields in Hopewell. How can this be and what does it mean? Could it be the sign or signal that CAL has been waiting for??? Does it mean that Charlie has come back home and all CAL needs do is pay up? After all the thumbguard is a more certain token of the existance of Charlie than the sleeping suit mailed to Condon. The thumbguard still has the remnants of original tape? Its Charlie! Jafsie pays the $50K to CJ the very next day! Who asked for the thumbguard? Where did it come from?
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Apr 22, 2006 1:23:57 GMT -5
Lindbergh made a $50,000.00 dollar bet on his sons life with dimestore evidence. This would be a suspicious set of actions for a father of a missing child. If Lindbergh would have accepted the finacial assistance he was offered to pay a larger ransom the case would be more believable. He rejected using the the larger ransom money offered to him, but for what reason, did he expect to teach the kidnappers a lesson, or did he know Charlie was not in their hands?
|
|
|
Post by Visitor on Apr 22, 2006 8:47:03 GMT -5
Lindbergh made a $50,000.00 dollar bet on his sons life with dimestore evidence. This would be a suspicious set of actions for a father of a missing child. If Lindbergh would have accepted the finacial assistance he was offered to pay a larger ransom the case would be more believable. He rejected using the the larger ransom money offered to him, but for what reason, did he expect to teach the kidnappers a lesson, or did he know Charlie was not in their hands? Rita, this is just plain wrong!! The kidnappers asked for $50,000 originally and then asked for another $20,000. CAL came up with just that. Why in God's name would you pay kidnappers more than what you're asked for? And it was Condon that made the decision to leave out that extra $20,000, not CAL's. He was NOT even consulted about it (or at least not in anything I've ever read - if you know of a source that says otherwise, please share it!)! CAL may have been a skunk in a lot of ways, but if you're going to make false accusations against him you are going to lose credibility. If anyone not familiar with the case came here and read this, they would be getting totally false information. And have you ever taken into account that his family might just object if they ever hear about your site? Have you ever heard of libel? I don't expect this post to be here for long - some of the other things I've posted have disappeared. I wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on Apr 22, 2006 9:36:03 GMT -5
Yo Anonymouse--I totally disagree, I think you have all your fax mixed up? Firstly, CAL and Condon assembled $70,000 dollars in recorded ransom and took it to St. Raymonds with the expressed purpose of paying CJ. At the last moment, either Jafsie or CAL/JFC renigged on thier promise that "the mony was redy". Secondly, accepting clothing for the confirmation that Charlie was "alive and well" was patently absurd. It was the lowest form of ID--why not ask for the handmade tshirt with blue threads? Oops, cause they did not have it. If you want to track all your previous posts on this forum then maybe you should consider registering? Lots of folks are called visitor? Do you think the thumb guard triggered the ransom payment? I agree totally, CAL, JFC, CJ all knew that Charlie was already dead.
|
|
|
Post by The Anonymouse on Apr 22, 2006 18:27:42 GMT -5
Yo Anonymouse--I totally disagree, I think you have all your fax mixed up? Firstly, CAL and Condon assembled $70,000 dollars in recorded ransom and took it to St. Raymonds with the expressed purpose of paying CJ. At the last moment, either Jafsie or CAL/JFC renigged on thier promise that "the mony was redy". Do you think the thumb guard triggered the ransom payment? I agree totally, CAL, JFC, CJ all knew that Charlie was already dead. No, I don't think I have my facts mixed up - I took what I said from Waller's book. I said that Rita was wrong for saying that CAL should have given more money, I don't think it's fair to criticize him for following the directions of the "kidnappers". And according to Waller (and many other things I've read) Condon was the one that kept the extra $20,000 out - NOT CAL! The other $50,000 was "redy" and handed over. How can you accuse CAL of renigging? I never really considered the thumbguard as being any kind of signal, but think it could be possible. It's a clever idea, whoever came up with it (referring to how to explain it turning up at such a late date, not using it as a signal back in the '30s). And I don't necessarily think that CAL knew Charlie was dead. There are too many questions surrounding the staff at the Engelwood house (Violet's death, Red) plus the whole issue of the Linberghs not usually being in Hopewell for me to buy that CAL was involved in Charlie's death (or disappearance). As for getting facts straight - I try to deal mostly with facts, not opinions or suppositions, as do many here on this board. And I wasn't tracking my posts - I went to see if anyone had responded to one and it had disappeared. That's all. I have no intention of registering here. I prefer to observe and jump in now and then. I'll continue to be the Anony-mouse, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Apr 22, 2006 20:58:12 GMT -5
To anonymouse If all you can say is wrong this forum doesn't need people with mental blocks, so go somewhere else and anoy your friends on the other board no one reads?
You are obviously entranced by other novelists claims, which can be just as wrong as your claims of wrong. Novelists write with embelishments that can be considered half truths, and by that fact alone I can tell you have never studied writing to any extent.
If you read well you can see All Lindbergh Novels have changes of context to some degree, differences of opinion, and emphasis on issues they personaly like, and that is even evident in the court evidence. If you read Reily's summation above you will see all the deceptions we write about were factual, and only the author you have read has been the one to taint your miss-conceptions on this case.
If you wish to post on ths forum you will honor others opinion by not making outragious claims of some fiction writers evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymouse sic on Apr 23, 2006 9:27:26 GMT -5
You are obviously entranced by other novelists claims, which can be just as wrong as your claims of wrong. Novelists write with embelishments that can be considered half truths, and by that fact alone I can tell you have never studied writing to any extent. Well, I didn't think Waller's book as "fiction" and it isn't the only place I've read about the handing over of the money. I have a whole shelf of books regarding the Lindbergh's and the kidnapping and have read every one. But that's beside the point. Are you saying that you don't believe $50,000 was handed over to Cemetery John? And I'm sorry you think I'm bothering you. In the past I've only offered information that I knew to be true (like my experience with changing hair color in babies and the blanket thing); information that I thought would be helpful to what was being said. I'll go away for now, but I will continue to read here and I will challenge you if you say something blantantly wrong or try to represent your opinion as fact if only to help any newcomers who don't know about the case to get the whole picture. I think it's a shame that you only want to hear from people that agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on Apr 23, 2006 11:21:35 GMT -5
Anonymouse--dont go away mad!
It had been oft stated that although Wallers book "Kidnap" is technically accurate, it misses the mark by a mile in any so-called interpretation of events. Waller just acted as a robot reporter and did not comment or question any controversial issue no matter how unbeleivable and absurd. I can see where you would get off track taking his book as the LKC Bible. Many more recent books have broken alot of new ground--Waller is ancient history now. Akin to the Dead Sea Scrolls.
|
|
|
Post by The Anonymouse on Apr 23, 2006 11:45:33 GMT -5
Anonymouse--dont go away mad! It had been oft stated that although Wallers book "Kidnap" is technically accurate, it misses the mark by a mile in any so-called interpretation of events. Waller just acted as a robot reporter and did not comment or question any controversial issue no matter how unbeleivable and absurd. I can see where you would get off track taking his book as the LKC Bible. Many more recent books have broken alot of new ground--Waller is ancient history now. Akin to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Rick, I don't look at any book as "the LKC Bible". I try to take into account that a book will tend to be slanted toward the author's beliefs. Are you saying that both Scaduto (in Scapegoat) and Fisher (in The Lindbergh Case) have the account of the transfer of the ransom money incorrect in their books? I chose each of those to reference because of their opposite stands on the guilt of BRH. Both of them back what Waller stated happened that night (and I was under the impression that they were all getting their info from what both Condon and CAL had stated happened that night. Do you have information to dispute those authors? If so, I would love to know about it. I am always trying to find out more about the case and am always open to new information, but I have this thing about liking to read it for myself. I'm not trying to cause problems here - just trying to keep things on an even keel and keep people on track. I'm afraid that when some people start going off on a tangent with their hypotheses that it will taint the facts that have already been uncovered. I am also eager to find out what really happened and would like nothing better than to see Richard's name cleared! But I wouldn't want that at the expense of CAL's reputation if he wasn't really guilty of anything (and I truly don't believe that, dispite his faults, he was involved). Not going away, mad or otherwise and am eagerly waiting to see what you say about the above mentioned references. Do you really think that Lindbergh sold his child out and should have paid more money than what he was asked for? Or do you have a different scenario for that night in the cemetery? I've always thought Fisch was CJ - what are your takes on that?
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on Apr 23, 2006 19:20:19 GMT -5
Ransom notes 2,3,4,5,6 raised the ante to $70,000. Condon may have been too thingyy withholding the extra $20K and got Charlie offed? Score Jafsie one dead body.
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Apr 23, 2006 23:09:02 GMT -5
To Anonymouse I realize that I erased your posts by mistake when erasing posts someone else had asked me to erase their posts. I am sorry for erasing those posts by accident, and hope you do not hold that against other forum members, who have joined this forum that does not allow VD'r heckling. I appreciate You may have much Lindbergh book knowledge, but hope you will not let my erasure error cause controversy with other members, and wouldn't it be better to add your knowledge to topics than detract from topics. If you have topic information you would like to start that will add to this forums general direction I will glady post it as long as it doesn't detract from what others have posted.
|
|
|
Post by The Anonymouse on Apr 24, 2006 9:16:20 GMT -5
To Anonymouse ...I am sorry for erasing those posts by accident, and hope you do not hold that against other forum members, who have joined this forum that does not allow VD'r heckling. I appreciate You may have much Lindbergh book knowledge, but hope you will not let my erasure error cause controversy with other members, and wouldn't it be better to add your knowledge to topics than detract from topics. If you have topic information you would like to start that will add to this forums general direction I will glady post it as long as it doesn't detract from what others have posted. Rita, I accept your apology. It was very unsettling to find the post gone (and I realize I had posted twice on the same subject in error) and then read your post, which I have to say I found kind of insulting. I don't profess to be well read (I want to be honest about that) but am not totally ignorant on the subject either - I ate, drank and breathed nothing but the Lindberghs and the kidnapping for many years. I've been to the house in Hopewell, have some kidnapping memorabilia and a few books. I know I have a lot to learn, but had to stop the kidnapping from being a driving force in my life or risk losing my home and family! <wink> Have to shut down the computer right now (lightening), but before I do, can we at least find common ground? And can you please tell me what you mean by "... I will glady post it as long as it doesn't detract from what others have posted." Not sure what "detract", means. Thanks again for the apology!
|
|
|
Post by The Anonymouse on Apr 24, 2006 10:17:18 GMT -5
If you have topic information you would like to start that will add to this forums general direction I will glady post it as long as it doesn't detract from what others have posted. Rita, Looks like the storms have passed - for a while at least. One of the things that I'm not sure you've a heading for is evidence and witnesses that weren't used (or hardly ever get mentioned anywhere) in Richard's defense. Off the top of my head are Richard's shoes - I seem to remember reading that the police took them from him when they arrested him but were they ever compared to the footprints from the cemetary (weren't they cast by police?). And what about the people that were supposedly at the bakery the night of the kidnapping (when Anna says Richard picked her up)? It seems that the only evidence that ever generates any conversation on the other board has to do with the ladder and that attic floor board (which is another thing that I have a really hard time buying into) and the second of those contrary IDs by Condon and Lindbergh. I apologize if this has already been covered by you or anyone else here. And I'm sorry if the incidents I mentioned were kind of vague - it's been a long time since I've had those books off the shelf and I've forgotten a lot. The one thing that always comes back in a rush, though, is my sadness of the loss of Charlie and my anger at how BRH was railroaded.
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Apr 24, 2006 18:11:49 GMT -5
To Anonymouse Thanks for the suggestion, and I will start that for you, and i'm sure the regulars will give you a lot of replies. We don't have that subjecty yet, but i'm in agreement a lot of good evidence was deliberatly left out.
detract Meaning not heckling others posts as some people on other boards do.
I appologize for any harsh tone, but I thought we were being invaded by the VD'rs at first look, but then I realized I had erased you post.
|
|
|
Post by The Anonymouse on Apr 24, 2006 22:12:17 GMT -5
To Anonymouse Thanks for the suggestion, and I will start that for you, and i'm sure the regulars will give you a lot of replies. We don't have that subjecty yet, but i'm in agreement a lot of good evidence was deliberatly left out. Cool! I got out some of my books and will have to start rereading!
|
|
|
Post by The Anonymouse on Apr 24, 2006 22:16:45 GMT -5
detract Meaning not heckling others posts as some people on other boards do. I appologize for any harsh tone, but I thought we were being invaded by the VD'rs at first look, but then I realized I had erased you post. As long as you don't get upset when I disagree with something someone says. I will never do it to heckle, but neither will I agree with something just for the sake of being agreeable! If I don't think it's right, I have to say so. <grin> No verdict defense here! I think the trial was a shambles, Wilentz heartless and Judge Trenchard a disgrace to the judicial system!!
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Apr 25, 2006 3:17:49 GMT -5
It is doubtful, but If there actually was a kidnap the larger amount of money offered to increase the ransom could in itself wield pressure within any kidnap gang to produce the child on Lindbergh's terms. The logical use of larger or different sums of money in a kidnap case in itself can disrupt the gangs plans, or even cause gang members to double cross the others by pulling out of the gang for a deal. This is the same psychological means that government disrupts gang activity, by offering a deal that cannot be refused, and that prays on individual gang members greed.
|
|
|
Post by The Anonymouse on Apr 25, 2006 10:19:03 GMT -5
It is doubtful, but If there actually was a kidnap the larger amount of money offered to increase the ransom could in itself wield pressure within any kidnap gang to produce the child on Lindbergh's terms. The logical use of larger or different sums of money in a kidnap case in itself can disrupt the gangs plans, or even cause gang members to double cross the others by pulling out of the gang for a deal. This is the same psychological means that government disrupts gang activity, by offering a deal that cannot be refused, and that prays on individual gang members greed. Whew - you had me going for a minute there, Rita! I forgot what we were talking about before! LOL OK, here's my take on what you said - your theory makes perfect sense, but for these times. You have to remember, kidnapping was more or less a new thing back in the 30s (I know there were maybe alot that were going on at the time, but things weren't publicized like they are today) and I don't know that they would have had the insight into the gangs that the authorities have today. Remember the State Police was in it's infacy, the FBI was fairly new and crime fighting was a way different ballgame (think of fingerprinting!)!! Oh, to be able to have some of the technologists of today go back in time and do the whole thing over!!! And, hey - when the heck do you sleep? ? Or do you? <grin>
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Apr 25, 2006 20:53:49 GMT -5
Hi Anonymouse You noticed the night owl. I fell asleep with my finger on the return key last night. The differences in crime fighting are a possible reason, but us forum super sleuths just turn motives and leads in different directions.
One of my Majors was Psychology, and got A+ in DSM IV Diiagnostics, and that realy makes me good at fortune telling, but doesn't work on a resume. My police and psychology training tell me of normal reactions that are missing in CAL-Anne stories, that others have noticed also. I draw a mental picture of character actions to see if the fit a normal pattern, then look at the normal compared to criminal examples I have read about, and althogh this is not proof I do swear by it's effectiveness.
No kidding in school I read for others that thought I was reading their mind, but is just knowing human
|
|