Joe for Michael
Re: Dark Corners
Sun Jul 30, 2017 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 presentation and the lack of editing. Simply put, I've yet to see one piece of evidence strong enough to even suggest a staged kidnapping here. And I don't believe you've listed "everything" in one book, as it seems clear to me you've for the most part, selected those points which support your personal theory. Further, for you to imply here that these points should then form a clearer picture for one and all to see the truth, in your previous words, "leading to water," sounds more like an attempt to establish your viewpoint as the truth, as opposed to providing an impartial basis for individual conclusion.

Your statement that it seems I want to believe "they all saw unrelated cars," is inaccurate and I believe you're bending things here for your own purpose. For example, I'm not saying the vehicle Anne claims she heard was not the one seen by Wilmer Moore. What I am saying is that his sighting of the vehicle does not necessarily mean the kidnapping took place at about 8 pm, as you have summarily concluded and stated as fact. This vehicle could have been the one dropping off the ladder and other equipment, with the actual kidnapping taking place just before 9 pm. There is plenty of evidence that potentially places a kidnapper in the nursery just before 9 pm, but you seem to ignore this and, in your own words, "shrug off" some of these facts which don't support your own theory. Why is that?

Was the Moore family specifically looking for Lindbergh on the night of March 1? And why would Anne be listening for Lindbergh's return from 7:30 pm forward, if Whited is correct about seeing Lindbergh arrive home at 7 pm? Can you see how you seem to want to have it many ways over and then choose the answer that best suits your needs? But when one point directly contradicts another, it also seems okay to ignore this.

You've overstated Parker's effectiveness from the beginning, perhaps due your unquestioned allegiance to the man. I'm not saying he couldn't have figured this case out if he'd been given the chance to lead the investigation. In fact, in his prime, I would pick him above anyone else. Relatively speaking, in light of his non-inclusion by the NJSP and some of his resultant off-the-wall conclusions and actions, he just wasn't effective.

  • 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 Corners — Joe for Michael, Sun Jul 30 10:40
      • 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
Click here to receive daily updates