Chasing Clarence Mitchell

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hal,

There is going to be a time delay because you are dealing with me. I'm an intermediary. This information is not mine to share. I have to get permission for anything new that I share. Please understand that and have a little patience and sympathy. I have told you there is a direct route. Its quicker and the information passes through less hands. That's always the safest source. But; even though I'm a poor substitute, I do what I can. Have a little mercy on the messenger <g>k.

I do need to correct you on the Tumlinson/Mitchell purchase agreement. My understanding is that it DID create a LEGAL requirement for secrecy. I think you mis-read my post.

Here's an excerpt from my post: < I’m sure Mitchell did feel a moral obligation to Aileen but here we find there was also a LEGAL obligation to conceal that information…….from everyone, forever. >
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!
Garry said:
Hal,

This is taken from your original post in Old's thread, Post #90. You wrote: I have enclosed parts of the letter for you to review, un-blurred. (Your words) As I said before, I seldom understand your thought process but I thought it implied you had taken a blurred image and un-blurred it. I don't believe that was what happened as I have never seen a blurred image of any of the documents?

BTW - Why can't your special source share their revelations themselves? Why do they require a mouthpiece? Straight from the horse's mouth is much better than second hand information, don't you agree? I hope you do your homework before proceeding.

Garry
Click to expand...

Now I get it. Yes, un-blurred meaning, I did not blur the image. I think its called sarcasm. A series of unexplained and blurred maps were posted after someone asked to see the map that led to the stones. It was, IMO, along with deleting the obnoxious reply, done in poor taste and disrespectful to the person asking the question. If you were following along, I think that I made my thoughts known. I only wish that you voiced you concerns earlier.

Whats a special source? I reached out to several people and asked for help. I also asked for permission to use some of the information provided. The fact that it was given is something that I thought you might appreciate since, as I wrote, it was a preview of something to come at a latter date. It is also a work in progress and that's how I approach it. Baby steps Gary.

I am not sure what I did to cause you so much anxiousness but you seem a little shaken. That is unfortunate and not my intention. We are all looking for the same thing and the story of the stone maps doesn't belong to any one individual.
 

Old said:
Hal,

There is going to be a time delay because you are dealing with me. I'm an intermediary. This information is not mine to share. I have to get permission for anything new that I share. Please understand that and have a little patience and sympathy. I have told you there is a direct route. Its quicker and the information passes through less hands. That's always the safest source. But; even though I'm a poor substitute, I do what I can. Have a little mercy on the messenger <g>k.

I do need to correct you on the Tumlinson/Mitchell purchase agreement. My understanding is that it DID create a LEGAL requirement for secrecy. I think you mis-read my post.

Here's an excerpt from my post: < I’m sure Mitchell did feel a moral obligation to Aileen but here we find there was also a LEGAL obligation to conceal that information…….from everyone, forever. >
Click to expand...

Yes, I looked it once and should have gone back for a second read. That is very curious. How does something like that get enforced and if you know it, what would have been the penalty for disclosing the name?
So, now we have proof of a NDA and a much closer commute to MD hospital. The date, and information about where the agreement was notarized (hopefully it was) could put Mitchell in Texas and reinforce Joe's recollection of things.

Those answers are worth waiting for.
 

Hal, I don't have the document. I'll do what I can. I make no promises.

Generally, purchase contracts have three elements. An offer, an acceptance and consideration. I'm assuming (always dangerous) the non disclosure aspect was a part of the consideration. If breached, it would mean the value of the Non disclosure to the whole of the transaction had not been met. The terms (the lawyer speak fine print) would become all important and could mean the object (stones) would have to be returned or a dollar amount would come into play. Under the best case, the document would spell all that out. If not; the court would have to decide what the appropriate value of the non disclosure was at the outset of the transaction. Regardless; it would have given Mitchell ample $$$ reason to withhold the Tumlinson identity.
 

Last edited:
Please do not post anything that has a copyright..... Per our rules anything posted on TreasureNet belongs to Treasurenet...
 

Treasure_Hunter said:
Please do not post anything that has a copyright..... Per our rules anything posted on TreasureNet belongs to Treasurenet...
Click to expand...

With their understanding of TNet rules and the authors permission to post their copyrighted material, does that rule still apply?
Please let me know.

Thank you TH.
 

Old said:
Hal, I don't have the document. I'll do what I can. I make no promises.

Generally, purchase contracts have three elements. An offer, an acceptance and consideration. I'm assuming (always dangerous) the non disclosure aspect was a part of the consideration. If breached, it would mean the value of the Non disclosure to the whole of the transaction had not been met. The terms (the lawyer speak fine print) would become all important and could mean the object (stones) would have to be returned or a dollar amount would come into play. Under the best case, the document would spell all that out. If not; the court would have to decide what the appropriate value of the non disclosure was at the outset of the transaction. Regardless; it would have given Mitchell ample $$$ reason to withhold the Tumlinson identity.
Click to expand...

I understand that you are getting it second hand but I am surprised that you didn't ask about the date when you were told of the agreement.
As I said, that date is critical to the timeline and well worth waiting for.

TH has reminded me of the copyright rules which I am grateful for as my next post was what I wanted you to see.
I guess that information will have to wait which is unfortunate as I think that everyone involved would benefit from reading it.

I look forward to learning that date.
 

Treasure_Hunter said:
Please do not post anything that has a copyright..... Per our rules anything posted on TreasureNet belongs to Treasurenet...
Click to expand...

Thank you for making those two points 100% clear. I presume that the Fair Use provisions which allow the use of copyrighted materials when not for profit, for purposes of discussion and/or education will not excuse the use of copyrighted materials. I will be much more careful in what I post for the future, especially with anything that I wish to retain copyright on.

Oroblanco
 

Treasure_Hunter said:
Please do not post anything that has a copyright..... Per our rules anything posted on TreasureNet belongs to Treasurenet...
Click to expand...

I'd be real surprised if any site's rules trumped or obviated law or anyone's legal rights. Clearly any site can have a rule 'please do not ...' But that doesn't in any way 'take' anything from the owner whose things was posted here by another.
 

Old said:
Hal, I don't have the document. I'll do what I can. I make no promises.

Generally, purchase contracts have three elements. An offer, an acceptance and consideration. I'm assuming (always dangerous) the non disclosure aspect was a part of the consideration. If breached, it would mean the value of the Non disclosure to the whole of the transaction had not been met. The terms (the lawyer speak fine print) would become all important and could mean the object (stones) would have to be returned or a dollar amount would come into play. Under the best case, the document would spell all that out. If not; the court would have to decide what the appropriate value of the non disclosure was at the outset of the transaction. Regardless; it would have given Mitchell ample $$$ reason to withhold the Tumlinson identity.
Click to expand...

That would have to be a fine example of contract language. I'd love to have a read :D
 

Concept,

I haven't seen this specific document. I've been told of the higher level aspects. Not the details. I too want to see the fine print. The devil is in the details and we may find we have a different kettle of fish entirely. Wouldn't be the first time someone thought they had one thing and in fact had something entirely different. Its going to be interesting to see what kind of non disclosure clause exists and what teeth it may have.

What I posted was how such contracts are generally structured and how one perfects (enforces) them. That was Hal's question. I've seen more than a few, been in court and/or with arbitrators on both sides of the issue. Don't doubt me. Been there, done that. Not fun on either side. Paid hefty outside counsel legal fees win, lose or draw.

Hal, I can give you a date range from my own research. You are looking at a time period from March 1962 give or take a month or two, to end of June 1963.

I can tell you that I am now 99.99% convinced the man Joe remembers was in fact Clarence Mitchell. I have a 3 way confirmation on that with a combination of historical documents and person specific characteristics. I'm comfortable with it. Your mileage may vary.

Now that we have broached this subject......now lets talk about who REALLY broke confidence and published to the world the identity that set off the fire storm that made Janie's life and all around her miserable with folks hounding them for information....... Aileen was right to make it a condition and Mitchell was right to keep that information close for as long as he did. Look what happened when for what ever reason (familiarity, misplaced trust, good guess on their part, too many adult beverages at the Playboy Club, whatever) he betrayed that confidence to two freelance treasure legend writers.......Want to discuss that? Or is that too a taboo subject around these parts?
 

I'm going to rethink my assumption that Grace & CO Mitchell breached their promise to Aileen. Maybe he kept that promise even when it was difficult to do so.

Something happened in the Mitchell/McGee relationship between Dec. 1967 and July 1969 where it took a marked downturn. There is a long list of questions Bernice McGee posed to Mitchell that were answered in 1969. We see the answers but not the questions. They (Mitchell's) were obviously not happy with the McGee's developing new spin on the old story. Looks to me like Grace took this new turn harder than CO did. Her correspondence became much more terse and dropped significantly in volume from 1967-1969 forward.

I'm thinking now someone else may have told the McGee's the Tumlinson name and perhaps (or maybe not) the Mitchells confirmed it outside of written correspondence. Grace had early on (1965) told Bernice the jest of the story but not the true names. That seemed to hold firm until perhaps as early as 1969 but maybe as far out as 1972. Other clues were included in the correspondence that "could" have lead to the true identity, but maybe not. Hard to tell. Did the Mitchells ever visit Texas? They say not in multiple letters, but good evidence shows at least CO did and covered his tracks as far as the McGee's were concerned.

Regardless; in Bernice McGee's sign off letter March 1972 she still didn't know the full extent of the obligation with Aileen. She signed off still wondering why the identity and relationship with Peg Leg was such a deep dark secret (her words). The secret wasn't (I don't believe) Peg Leg so much as it was his last name.

I'll hold my condemnation of the publication and tame it down to thoughtless, rather than in reckless disregard.
 

Personally,

I don't trust amateur's who recently blindly went into treasure hunting attempting research for a TV show about the stone maps. I don't care who they're using in the background as informational sources the fact is they're still an Amateur. That's why they ended up on that damn Island in the first place. No experience what so ever! If Gilligan would just do his part then the Skipper could finish his research.

Lets just leave it up to the Skipper shall we?

Gilligan needs the Skipper! That Treasure is on that island somewhere and we all know the Stone Maps lead to it.

At least we know where the Stone Maps go.

Too Gilligan's Island!

Keep up the good work Hal.

Ask Mary Ann where it's at she knows. Or maybe the Professor?

The big question here is how in the world did they get that stone map in that little bottle?
 

Old said:
Concept,

I haven't seen this specific document. I've been told of the higher level aspects. Not the details. I too want to see the fine print. The devil is in the details and we may find we have a different kettle of fish entirely. Wouldn't be the first time someone thought they had one thing and in fact had something entirely different. Its going to be interesting to see what kind of non disclosure clause exists and what teeth it may have.

What I posted was how such contracts are generally structured and how one perfects (enforces) them. That was Hal's question. I've seen more than a few, been in court and/or with arbitrators on both sides of the issue. Don't doubt me. Been there, done that. Not fun on either side. Paid hefty outside counsel legal fees win, lose or draw.

Hal, I can give you a date range from my own research. You are looking at a time period from March 1962 give or take a month or two, to end of June 1963.

I can tell you that I am now 99.99% convinced the man Joe remembers was in fact Clarence Mitchell. I have a 3 way confirmation on that with a combination of historical documents and person specific characteristics. I'm comfortable with it. Your mileage may vary.

Now that we have broached this subject......now lets talk about who REALLY broke confidence and published to the world the identity that set off the fire storm that made Janie's life and all around her miserable with folks hounding them for information....... Aileen was right to make it a condition and Mitchell was right to keep that information close for as long as he did. Look what happened when for what ever reason (familiarity, misplaced trust, good guess on their part, too many adult beverages at the Playboy Club, whatever) he betrayed that confidence to two freelance treasure legend writers.......Want to discuss that? Or is that too a taboo subject around these parts?
Click to expand...

Thanks Old,
While I appreciate you taking a guess at the date, I think its best to deal with facts if at all possible. "You are looking at a time period from March 1962 give or take a month or two, to end of June 1963."

Travis died October 4, 1961. Correct? Do you know when (specifically) Alleen move back to Texas to be with her mother? Which month in 1962?

Do you know exactly when Alleen was diagnosed with cancer? Was it 1963? (I hate involving cancer victims and here apologize and ask for her families understanding).

Based on your words in red, specifically "give or take a month or two", is it at all possible that the date might actually be December of 1961?

Once you post that date, I will find a way to work within the TNet rules and share what I have been given permission to share. You can form your own conclusion and due your own follow up. Its honestly about the dates, specifically when and where Mitchell took possession of the stones. Compare this to the story that's being told and there are some problems.

The terms of the contract would be an interesting read but the date and where it was signed/notarized are perhaps the most important detail. It will either confirm what I wanted to share with you or debunk it. If you want to write about what you describe as taboo, feel free. This thread is labeled Chasing Clarence Mitchell. Chasing, as in chasing after.

However, if you can focus on the date of that agreement, and respond to my questions above, we might all be able to make a leap forward.
That's the goal here, I hope.
 

Bill Riley said:
Personally,

I don't trust amateur's who recently blindly went into treasure hunting attempting research for a TV show about the stone maps. I don't care who they're using in the background as informational sources the fact is they're still an Amateur. That's why they ended up on that damn Island in the first place. No experience what so ever! If Gilligan would just do his part then the Skipper could finish his research.

Lets just leave it up to the Skipper shall we?

Gilligan needs the Skipper! That Treasure is on that island somewhere and we all know the Stone Maps lead to it.

At least we know where the Stone Maps go.

Too Gilligan's Island!

Keep up the good work Hal.

Ask Mary Ann where it's at she knows. Or maybe the Professor?

The big question here is how in the world did they get that stone map in that little bottle?
Click to expand...

Yes, many a naughty young men went to bed thinking about Mary Ann or, to be fair, a handful the Professor.

Anyway, once the truth (whatever that may be) comes to light, and the timeline adjusted, something decent could potentially come from it. I believe so anyway.
Still, Travis and the others, based on what we know, didn't have much luck in all this.

So while we argue over the historical details, and sometimes trade punches, there still may be something out there worth finding. ;)

There are other maps out there worth following.
 

Last edited:
Good morning Hal. I'm going to blow your mind. This hit me like a ton of bricks. I'm going to tell you this and then I HAVE to go get some work done.

I think we are both right. For different reasons but both right. Garry's words kept taking me back to the correspondence and I think its all there. Hidden but there.

I think it was a 2 stage transaction. Step one involved a partial purchase and took place at or near the time Aileen left Hood River. Don't know what was transferred then, but I strongly believe it was an incomplete package. I think there was a later purchase after Aileen was diagnosed and taking treatments at MD Anderson around May-June. That would be the second purchase which is the trip and meeting Joe remembers. To me that all makes sense and fits all things we can document. You and me. There were more Travis items in Mitchell's possession than just the stones. This scenario would take all of that into account.

Okay, I'll shut up now and let you think on this. Stop Applauding <g>

I double swear to you I have not seen or hear anything from the purchase agreement. But; I'm more eager than ever to see it now.

Lynda
 

ConceptualizedNetherlandr said:
I'd be real surprised if any site's rules trumped or obviated law or anyone's legal rights. Clearly any site can have a rule 'please do not ...' But that doesn't in any way 'take' anything from the owner whose things was posted here by another.
Click to expand...

I think its more of a courtesy than a legal thing. Posting copyrighted material without permission is a liability and the rules are one way for TNet to avoid potential litigation.
I agree with it but don't consider quoting a work a violation.
Artist and comedians seem to have found a loop hole in the system.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Superstition People, Places, & Things.

⬅️ Previous Thread

Why did Travis Tumlinson Fake the Stone Maps as a Hoax?

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Latest Discussions

Back
Top