Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
|
Post by Joe on Aug 6, 2006 16:24:47 GMT -5
Whether the kidnappers orginally planned to keep the child alive has got to be one of the most involved questions in this case.
I maintain it was never intended for this kidnapping to have mushroomed into a World Event and that it was originally designed to be a "quick snatch and return" of the child for the ransom payment. It seems clear from the nursery note that the kidnappers truly wanted to deal discreetly with Lindbergh for the return of his child. He is repeatedly chastised in subsequent notes for having brought in the police and as a result, great public attention to the proceedings.
Of couse, this does not necessarily mean the kidnappers really meant to keep the child alive for the safe return they implied in the ransom notes. But if they really had planned on killing the child, would they not have been painfully aware of the unprecedented level of police attention and public wrath this act would ultimately guarantee? When Lindbergh called in the police, this essentially brought about the same general world response and it appears from the kidnappers view, this was NOT what they wanted.
Why bring this level of misery upon yourself if your primary intention is to pull down $50,000? Would it not be worth the effort to make the basic arrangements for a few days of child care in return for the prospect of becoming rich overnight and have a much better chance of evading capture? I'm not thoroughly convinced, but I would think the kidnappers first wish was to ensure no harm came to the child, and that a woman's care was required for this.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 6, 2006 20:50:01 GMT -5
Good thread Joe You bring up one of the most, no THE most troubling aspect of the LKC for me. If, as you suggest the kidnappers intended to keep the child safe, which would seem to make perfect sense. Who was the intended caregiver and where was this safe house? It doesn't matter if you believe one or one hundred were involved in this crime, there would have to be a dedicated nurse/ caregiver and a place to hide the child. But who was it and where?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 6, 2006 20:59:07 GMT -5
I don't think the child was ever meant to be taken care of and/or returned. I personally believe he was murdered and buried in a predetermined location. Addtionally, as I have metioned before, I don't believe the ransom was ever supposed to be collected.
They got greedy - as criminals oft do.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 7, 2006 7:01:43 GMT -5
Michael, that is one interpretation and it very well may be true. I guess what I was getting at regarding this issue is that it has always seemed to me to be the "Achilles heel" of this case. If one believes that the child was never meant to be taken alive then it would seem likely that the perps would have planned for such and disposed of the body in a more appropriate manner. On the other hand an accidental death or a planned captivity would require a place and someone dedicated to watching the child. Now here is what has always bothered me regarding Hauptmann. I can accept that he would be capable of kidnapping, but I can't make the leap to accepting him as a premeditated cold blooded child murderer. I think the prosecution danced around this point by alluding to an accidental death as a result of the act of breaking and entering. However, it seems that they never produced any evidence of what Hauptmann's plans were for the child had he survived. It is hard for me to believe that with all the publicity and the amount of investigators working the case, no evidence of the intended safe house and caregiver surfaced. So anyway I look at this, there is something very big missing.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
|
Post by Joe on Aug 7, 2006 9:17:16 GMT -5
Kevin, coming up with a dedicated caregiver is a tough one if we're thinking strictly of the need for a secret nearby location. To counter this, I think there are at least two major points to consider here based on the content of the nursery note.
If the note had been opened immediately and the police were not called in - per the kidnappers request - then the entire logistics of the ransom exchange would have been shifted dramatically. The kidnappers would have been able to care for the child and deal with Lindbergh discreetly fom a larger number of potential locations, including NYC, where we know the subsequent ransom notes were mailed from. The 2 - 4 days time delay stated in the nursery note might also indicate following correspondence was to be mailed from a distance. A large city as origin would be best to preserve the kidnappers' anonymity.
There is also the point you have previously made about the possibility of the baby not being discovered before morning which also would have allowed the kidnappers to get more distance between them and a red alert. All of this would mean less chance of ultimately discovering the intended caregiver location.
I agree with you that there's a big chunk of missing information here and I think some of the authorities may well have known the true identity of at least one of Hauptmann's accomplices, which then would have provided a much better fix on a potential caregiver location. Michael, I gather from your comments that you believe Lindbergh was behind the killing / kidnapping. If this is the case, can you expand on what degree of interaction he would have had with the writer of the nursery note / subsequent notes? I'm just trying to envision how this connection could have been made and how others may have been absorbed into such a plan.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 7, 2006 16:37:16 GMT -5
My style of debate includes positioning myself along the lines of any argument I believe holds weight - at any time - in order to work out issues that may cause me problems with a specific point. I am open minded and will put to rest any point that I have reasonably concluded should be. Having said that - I will not dismiss or shrug something off simply because it doesn't jibe with my favorite position or any that make sense outside of what I would prefer to be the true scenario.
And so, as it now stands, I believe there was absolutely more then one involved. I also believe there was an inside connection. Now considering this connection was real and existed, I see evidence that Lindbergh should not be dismissed as a suspect.
I said this before and I thought I was clear but perhaps I wasn't. Hopefully now everyone understands my position, which of course, is subject to change based upon what my research reveals and our discussions lead us....
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic5 on Aug 7, 2006 18:18:55 GMT -5
Slip out the back jack/ make a little plan Stan/no need to be coy Joy/ just listen to me. (there must be 50 ways to meet your lover)/
And 50 ways that Charlie could/might have been injured not requireing premeditated murder? Maybe we could sneak up on the subject:
A fall, a seizure, an accident, a joke gone bad, a foot spin gone bad, a pillow toss gone awry, a car backing up too fast, shaken baby syndrome, CAL overdoing it on the strict rules resulting in a temper tantrum, terrible twos........
nevertheless, Gang1 to me is the inside servants and CAL. They get the ball rolling/ outsiders come in later.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 7, 2006 19:00:19 GMT -5
That's fine Rick, but there is an enormous problem with what you propose. If pre-meditation did not exist, then how does one explain all of what you have called the props? Is there a kidnapping service one may call in such an emergency? You can't have a crime with elements requiring pre-meditation that isn't in some way pre-meditated. If Charlie was killed accidentally by someone other than the kidnapper, then he was "accidentally" killed with pre-meditation.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic5 on Aug 7, 2006 21:33:56 GMT -5
Kevin/ dont try to oversimplify this operation! Obviously we will require:
1.An order system that sees the need for a kidnap plot months in advance.
2. A chauffered delivery system for the essentials: one ladder, one chisel, one nursery note.
3. A pickup service for Charlie Jr. to make his getaway.
4. If Ben Lupica DOESNT see BRH with his own car and plates at 6pm, then who is deliverying the ladder 3 hours too early in broad daylight?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 8, 2006 5:43:24 GMT -5
Rick, I don't mean to oversimplify this, but I also don't know if over-complicating it is better. Essentially you are now saying that it was premeditated and probably the entire Lindbergh household was involved as well as Hauptmann and others. If you really believe this then I would suggest you look at Lindbergh's financial documents for that period. A conspiracy this big is going to cost a lot more than 50k and there has got to be a money trail. It shouldn't be too difficult to find where and who it went to.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Aug 8, 2006 12:57:40 GMT -5
<<<nevertheless, Gang1 to me is the inside servants and CAL. They get the ball rolling/ outsiders come in later.>>> Rick3
That is one large conspiracy, Rick. Just how many people do you think were involved?
BTW, the lyrics are:
"You just slip out the back Jack Make a new plan Stan You don't need to be coy Roy Just get yourself free"
And the song is called "Fifty ways to leave your lover".
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Aug 8, 2006 13:04:13 GMT -5
On a more serious note...
I say that Charlie's death was probably intentional mainly because there are several reasons to think it was (the difficulty of moving him around quietly, having a place to keep him, etc.) and no real reason to think otherwise. It is, of course, always possible that his death was accidental (but not by falling off the ladder).
It is also possible, and in my opinion likely, that not all the participants were aware of Charlie's fate or wanted him to meet that fate.
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Aug 8, 2006 13:59:47 GMT -5
i think the baby could have been drugged. if i was going to take a baby from a house full of people i'd want to keep him alivejust in case someone interrupted me. later it would be easier if the baby was dead. either the staff could have drugged him (coedine over the counter) as in betty's stop at the drug store or hauptman's car ether.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Aug 8, 2006 14:09:57 GMT -5
i haven't posted here in ages but along this line i do think some of this staff were extremely independent and had alot of time on their hands. something that has always made me wonder is betty's relationship with the whatley's, as far as i know the whatleys never worked at englewood and betty had only spent one night at hopewell prior to the kidnap night. when did they meet before the week-end visits that included red johnson? does anyone see what i mean? it would seem they shouldn't have any contact at all but R&B are driving 4 hr round trip on her day off to visit, just curious. like the new board mike
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 8, 2006 16:37:04 GMT -5
Bob/kevin/mjr: these are all excellent points to consider:
1. I sure like Betty and Red as a couple too. Good observation that Betty shows up maybe first Tuesday nite in 1932 for the snatch. And then Red get all kinds of special treatment over at the INS so he "can come back into the USA"? But he never does and he and Betty never see each other again? And then our buddy JFCJ gives them both a free pass to inocents? How about that? Betty and Red are already on the payroll as are Ollie, and Violet and Charlie Ellerson and his burnt up car in the ditch?
2. All the Morrow/Lindbergh servants are on pay already? This saves alot of time and money looking for insiders. Somebody has to be the insider(s), why, because it can't be nobody. They are all terrified of CAL and getting fired so they will do as they are told now wont they? They sure did an excellent job wiping down the nursery?
3. Yes, of course you might have to pay any outsiders. But noone is ever going to admit to that now are they? We have some tentative links to Engelwood since the Junges are driving all over giving Red an alibi. Then Red heads up North to his bros place?
4. I still place some importance on any connection between the Morrow/Lindbergh servants and the Temple of Divine Power. On the same street as Walter Lyle's gas station and Fisch's apartment. Theon Wright and Dunninger seemed to think Condon liked to dabble in the occult seances as well? What we need is a link between the servants and Condon? Hmmmm....or the servants and BRH?
5. Every single solitary person, either insider or outsider, interviewed all up and down the East Coast is believed to be totally innocent? Do you believe that? (except one)
|
|
|
Post by gismo on Aug 8, 2006 17:12:26 GMT -5
Cpl Rick3: What was Red's life like once he returned to Norway? Must've been pretty good for him not to take advantage of the opportunity to return to the USA? Same with Betty.
Any idea how they fared?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 8, 2006 19:25:04 GMT -5
Gismo~ On Ronnelle's board (somewhere) there's an interview of Gow by Berg. Gow in her old age. I found it quite interesting--tells abit about her life in those years back in Scotland.
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Aug 8, 2006 20:50:43 GMT -5
she told scott berg she had always felt anne blamed her for the kidnapping, go figure
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 9, 2006 16:29:57 GMT -5
And then Red get all kinds of special treatment over at the INS so he "can come back into the USA"?
Rick, I know you responded on another thread to Gismo's question but I was hoping your reply to him would address this statement. What information to you have on Red and his deportation to Norway, I am curious.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 9, 2006 18:11:14 GMT -5
Red wasn't deported. He was allowed to leave, so that he could come back if he wished.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic5 on Aug 9, 2006 20:32:43 GMT -5
Hi Kevin/ well I cant recall the precise book/ Milton/Gardner/Norris etc but....
1. We all remember that Red was a serious Person of Interest for Im guessing 10+ days during which time he is arrested at his brothers in New Haven and then brought back to Newark for questioning?
2. I have a clear idea who was accusing him of what? Drinking milk? Or leaving towne? But during this period it is discovered that he is another "illegal" alien and deportation begins (in Ernest)
3. Just before he gets the boot to his home country, either CAL or Tom Lamont (great grand daddy of Ted who crushed Sen.Joe Liebermann last nite) intervenes and reduces the charges (what charges?) so he can come back in to the US at a later time? You gotta have heart?
4. What was Red Johnson's crime? Why did he remain a prime suspect in police custody for 2 weeks prior to deportation? Did he ever see Betty again....
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 9, 2006 20:50:03 GMT -5
Hi Bob.
Betty Gow made two trips to Highfields w/ the Lindberghs (which includes the day of the kidnapping) and two trips without them. The Whateley's were living in the temporary home when Betty Gow was hired in March of '31 and began living there for, according to her, "8 or 10 weeks" before moving to Englewood. The Whateley's moved into Highfields in Oct '31.
Someone on this board mentioned that Mrs. Whateley wasn't very fond of Betty because she refused to help with the housework. I remember finding this reference, once upon a time, but as of right now I cannot locate it. If anyone has it handy please help me out here..... It was one of the "petty" things since the night of March 1st they seemed to be getting along just fine with Mrs. Whateley showing off a new dress she bought to Betty.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 9, 2006 21:04:42 GMT -5
Ok - As usual it came to me after making my post above....
The source is Dr. Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies, on page 35. His source is Thayer's Memo and its solid.
Additionally, I found Police Report concerning this very same issue you've brought up above. James Welsh told Constable Charles Steinman that his friend, David Hume had told him the Whateley's disliked Betty Gow.
|
|
|
Post by bob for mike on Aug 9, 2006 22:08:06 GMT -5
so whatleys and gow lived in the rental house for awhile, at the same time? thanx
|
|
Rick3 Cub Reporter4
Guest
|
Post by Rick3 Cub Reporter4 on Aug 10, 2006 2:04:44 GMT -5
Although I cant find who intervende to "let" Red self-deport Gardner (p362) and Norris (p90) add more details:
Betty Gow left the US for Glasgow before the arrest of BRH. She returned for the Trial to testify and went back. Norris tries to interview her but she has a woman "minder" who does not let others see her.
Red marries his childhood sweetheart and has one daughter. She claims Red became an alcoholic and was haunted and hounded by police for years after. Red was never called to testify at the Trial.
Both received what was considered harsh and lasting negative treatment as a result of Charlies disappearnce.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 10, 2006 5:41:24 GMT -5
Thanks Rick. So basically, unless I am missing something here, neither Gow or Johnson seemed to have benefited from this kidnapping and, in fact , appear to have suffered from it. That would seem to leave the Whateleys as possible beneficiaries. What was their enrichment?
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Aug 10, 2006 7:02:26 GMT -5
B I agree that no one benefitted from this crime but somebody did have a motive. Am I right in thinking that the Whatley's lived in the old house for about 6 months most of this time alone? Betty was in Maine during the summer and into fall, right? How close to the old house was the body found? When did Whately start giving tours? I thought the builder checked the shutter after the kidnapping and stated it was fine when the house was completed. wouldn't that have been just months before? If the kidnapper/s planned this for any time his/their plans would have had to been fluid. Kevin, do you think the ladder builder just used the ladder Lindberghs had inthe garage to do surveillance? thanks
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 10, 2006 7:15:33 GMT -5
I wouldn't say no one benefited. What if Hauptmann hadn't bought gas w/ a Lindy note?
I don't think that would have been wise or necessary. I am sure any surveillance could be conducted without a ladder. It is the recon that is more important anyway. Scoping out the access, cover, barriers and entry/ escape routes. You are sure not going to just drive aimlessly around or pull on to Featherbed without knowing you can access Highfields from it.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 10, 2006 7:50:55 GMT -5
Kevin: one of the oddest things about this case is the possibility that Group1 or Gang1: the insider-servants may not have expected any monetary gain in the first place? Thier motives may have been altruistic, or connected to thier existing jobs? For some odd reason I have the feeling that whatever happened, especially to Violet Sharpe, was all bad--death. Like Violet, Ollie was dead by Summer 1933. In short, they may have been misled?
In point of fact, I have the oddest feeling that CAL and Anne may well have been the least affected, while those around them got multiple health problems and fell apart (Elizabeth/Dwight Jr). Even on the night of the snatch, there were reports that CAL and Anne were cool, calm and collected? CAL and Anne had another child, almost named John, and moved on with their lives. Betty, Red, Violet, Ellerson, Mary/Peter, Liepold, Ollie, BRH, Anna (picture her grief) etc were hounded by the public and police and it adversely affected thier futures to say the least? They, unlike the Lindberghs, could not move to a private island in France? Police tactics in the 1930s were not nice--CAL and Anne were above the fray. Also, maybe Charlie was not supposed to end up dead? (wink of Violet?)
2. In regards the apartment BRH rented, maybe downtown NYC, Bob Aldinger told me it was specifically related to BRHs phlebitis doctors appointments. Bob said Fritz Aldinger rented the apartment/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 10, 2006 16:20:29 GMT -5
I don't know Rick, for me that goes above and beyond altruism and job security. Think of the criminal charges these people could face, let alone the moral issues that would be with them for the rest of their lives. I mean if it were not for the fact that serious multiple crimes had been committed and an innocent man was executed needlessly, I would say that such "altruistic" actions warrant beatification. I think I will stick with the money. It is usually a pretty reliable indicator of malfeasance. And so far that trail only leads to you know who.
|
|