Joe for Michael
Re: Dark Corners
Thu Jul 27, 2017 08:01

What's in your book is anything but conclusive as it relates to this account. Both Moore (at about 8:25 pm) and the Conover's (6:30 - 6:45 pm) saw a non-descript car in the dark, presumably both bearing mud. No model, no colour, no driver description, and from this you're willing to state unequivocally, the kidnapping took place around 8:00 pm, because Anne heard a sound she believed to be that made by car tires on the driveway gravel at about 8:10 pm. Also, please elaborate on your findings that eyewitness accounts place the same car at Highfields, arriving, circling and leaving. We both know Parker was on the outside of this case looking in for the entire time. You can trot out all of his previous successes, but they mean little without him having received enough accurate information within this case, the one that matters here. As a result, he made a number of off-the-cuff and ultimately discredited statements, so have you factored these in to the overall quality picture of his conclusions within the LKC?

  • Re: Dark CornersMichael For Joe, Wed Jul 26 17:59
    It's in the book. I suppose one could disregard the Conovers and the Moores eyewitness accounts. I suppose one could disregard Parker's conclusion based upon his investigative skill which, up to this ... more
    • Re: Dark Corners — Joe for Michael, Thu Jul 27 08:01
      • Re: Dark CornersMichael For Joe, Thu Jul 27 18:06
        "Conclusive" is a strong word. How about what "common sense" suggests? What I think you are doing is ignoring what I wrote on page 1. Consider that people noticed cars and for what reasons they did.... more
        • dialogueRichard E Sloan, Wed Aug 2 00:16
          Please keep this dialogue going, Joe and Michael. It is thought provoking. You both have interesting views and suspicions. Thanx for starting this. I sue hope you will want to continue it and remain... more
        • Re: Dark CornersJoe for Michael, Sun Jul 30 10:40
          I'm not ignoring anything that you've written in your book, that I've tried to understand and process. And that in itself can be anything but straightforward, given the nature of your style of... more
          • Re: Dark CornersMichael For Joe, Mon Jul 31 20:09
            My style of presentation is to list the facts then let the Reader decide what those facts represent. As far as spelling mistakes or "then/than" types of mistakes - I don't see how something like that ... more
    • Re: Dark CornersMichael For Joe con't, Wed Jul 26 19:26
      You're curious about my interpretation in the morgue? I've rec'd email from people accusing me of lying about this FACT. That's how insane what he did there was. I know you like the guy but nothing... more
      • Re: Dark CornersAnonymous, Thu Jul 27 08:37
        Yes, I am curious about your interpretation of his actions within the morgue, with respect to your belief that he participated in the disappearance of his son, and you didn't answer the question. No... more
        • Re: Dark CornersMichael For Joe, Thu Jul 27 18:13
          There is no rational explanation for how Lindbergh treated his son's corpse. None. He wasn't even needed for that identification and insisted on going - which was the only reason he was there.... more
          • Re: Dark CornersJoe for Michael, Sun Jul 30 10:55
            What's not real life, but is unfortunately practiced far too often in this world, is when someone attempts to impose his or her own personal code of fundamentalist morals and behavioral standards as... more
            • Re: Dark CornersMichael For Joe, Mon Jul 31 20:16
              This response proves my exact point. Nothing is out of bounds for you as it relates to Lindbergh or his actions. Absolutely nothing.
        • Re: Dark CornersJoe for Michael, Thu Jul 27 08:39
          My apologies, as I meant to address this Joe for Michael.
Click here to receive daily updates