Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2016 10:41:07 GMT -5
Michael,
I was wondering how many statements Betty Gow gave on March 3, 1932. On page 3 of this thread you posted one page of a Betty Gow statement dated March 3, 1932. She made this statement to Lieut. John J. Sweeney, Newark Police; Captain Patrick J. Brady, Jersey City Police; Trooper L. J. Bornman, NJ State Police.
In Chapter 10, The Nursemaids, on page 118, you say the following, "Betty would tell authorities the whole reason for leaving the message with Mrs. Junge was because she knew Red would call Hopewell otherwise, and that she was simply trying to save him 5 cents." Your footnote for this statement(#323) at the bottom of page 118 references Betty Gow's March 3, 1932 statement. However the statement used in your footnote, although dated March 3, 1932, was made to Commissioner Edward A. Reilly, Chief of Police; James A. McRell, deputy chief; Frank E. Brex, Newark Police Station.
It looks to me, anyway, that Betty made two different statements on March 3, 1932. Can you comment on this? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 14, 2016 18:03:23 GMT -5
It looks to me, anyway, that Betty made two different statements on March 3, 1932. Can you comment on this? Thanks! Amy, There are (2) March 3rd Statements. The one I cited in the book in that footnote, which is (15) pages, and the other I posted here that no one knew about up until that time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2016 16:49:23 GMT -5
Thanks for clarifying this for me. Betty was really under the gun that day to give statements. She was the last person to see Charlie alive that night, apparently, so she is clearly a person of interest.
I want to ask you another question from this same Chapter 10, The Nursemaids. On page 116, you write the following:
"On March 1st, Betty's plans to meet Red again that night were dashed as Violet Sharp answered the telephone at Next Day Hill at approximately 10:30 AM."
You have a footnote, #313 appearing two sentences later which refers to Betty Gow's March 10, 1932 statement. In that statement Betty mentions talking to Mrs. Lindbergh but she does not say anything about Violet Sharp as the person who passed on the phone call to her. I have checked other books and they all mention Violet answering this call to the Englewood house but none of them reference any source material that says Violet did answer that phone call that morning. Does Violet say in any of her statements to authorities that she was the one who took that call at approximately 10:30 the morning of March 1st? This call is usually sighted as how Violet might have unknowingly(or maybe knowingly?) tipped off the kidnappers that Charlie was at the Hopewell house that day. I believe that Walsh thought Violet was this source.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 18, 2016 19:29:30 GMT -5
I want to ask you another question from this same Chapter 10, The Nursemaids. On page 116, you write the following: "On March 1st, Betty's plans to meet Red again that night were dashed as Violet Sharp answered the telephone at Next Day Hill at approximately 10:30 AM."You have a footnote, #313 appearing two sentences later which refers to Betty Gow's March 10, 1932 statement. Does Violet say in any of her statements to authorities that she was the one who took that call at approximately 10:30 the morning of March 1st? This call is usually sighted as how Violet might have unknowingly(or maybe knowingly?) tipped off the kidnappers that Charlie was at the Hopewell house that day. I believe that Walsh thought Violet was this source. Amy, The footnote #313 isn't for this fact. There are several sources which say Sharp took that call. Back when I was writing the book, I remember researching the point to death because somewhere Banks claims he took the call. But I remember being able to factor him into what happened and was okay with the conclusion that Sharp had answered it. For example, I remember "somewhere" it says the call was transferred to him. It's unfortunate but there's just too many sources for me to keep track of in my head. I do know in one of Walsh's November articles he says she took the call, I believe it's in the FBI Summary too, and something is telling me it's in the trial transcripts somewhere. Now it's in the Summary because it comes from one of their earlier reports. I also remember that Betty had left a message with Violet to transfer Red's call up the Mrs. Jung - knowing that Red was going to call and that Violet would be the one to answer the phone once he did. I wish I could do better for you on this. I'll try to think harder on it and hopefully something will click.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 18, 2016 20:48:54 GMT -5
Okay, so I just did a quick search of Red's statement, and in it he says when he called the woman who answered told him Betty went to Hopewell. Then I went to Jung's statement and she said she went to Violet to ask if Red called and she said yes but that she forgot to switch the call up to her. So this at least re-enforces the position that Violet was the one answering the incoming calls at that time. Otherwise neither Betty nor Mrs. Jung would have gone to her about Red's anticipated call.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2016 22:19:57 GMT -5
Thanks Michael. I appreciate you looking into this for me. You have certainly taught me the importance of checking for sources when you read something that is presented as fact. I couldn't link Violet answering that call to any of her statements that I have read so I started to wonder about it. I checked Banks statement dated April 13, 1932 and in his statement he claims he answered the phone that morning. Sometimes these statements can be difficult to make sense from. Elsie's March 10, 1932 statement has Olly calling Next Day Hill and talking to Betty Gow about the train schedule that Anne asked him to check on. Elsie then says that as part of this call Whateley made Anne then gets on the phone with Betty Gow and asked her to come to the Hopewell house because she didn't want to risk taking Charlie out. When you read this it sounds like Whateley placed the call to Next Day Hill instead of Anne. I believe that Anne's March 11,1932 statement also says that Whateley called Next Day Hill and got Betty to the phone and then Anne asks Betty to come down to Hopewell. I always thought it was Anne, herself, who placed the call. Now it appears to be Whateley? ??
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 19, 2016 6:27:52 GMT -5
First here is the source from Walsh's Jersey Journal Article (11/17/32): In questioning the Morrow employees, I found one person, Violet Sharpe, personal maid to Miss Elisabeth Morrow, who would not properly account for her movements the night of March 1, and who told very conflicting stories concerning what she did and whom she was with that night. She, incidentally, was the girl who received the phone call at 10:30 Tuesday morning, March 1, from Mrs. Lindbergh at Hopewell to care for the baby because of the change in plans which caused the Lindberghs to decide to stay there Tuesday night.
Next, what you say is all true and confusing. I remember spending quite some time on it and when I was finished I didn't see the point in explaining it all (in the book). So once I let something like this "go" I pretty much try to forget about it. But of course it always comes back to haunt me. From the best of my recollection as I sit here, there are many conflicting aspects.... Anne, Whateley, Banks, Sharp, Betty, Jung, and Mrs. Morrow. If you track down each and everything it shows a confusing scenario. "Somewhere" I found that Violet answered the original call from Anne. After that call there was something else going on about a train schedule which I believe caused another call. For example, in Betty's March 3rd statement she says she called Banks for the schedule and he told her to take the car - but everywhere else it says that Mrs. Morrow told her that. The truth was probably that Mrs. Morrow told Banks who told Betty, but in the end, it's retold that Mrs. Morrow told Betty. So after everything I looked at, I drew the conclusion which is in my book because it's what I was satisfied with. I remember thinking I was going to discover another big lie but after many hours of searching I wound up with that one innocent sentence. That's not to talk you out of waiting until you've seen everything yourself because we all know there's so much to consult that it's possible there is something I did not consider - all the while, currently, I cannot find a couple of things that I did.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 26, 2016 18:43:53 GMT -5
Re Chapter 3 of Michael's "The Dark Corners," titled "Hurley":
Can't see how this guy Richard Leigh Hurley wouldn't be a hot suspect as part of the kidnap or murder plot. He had (1) motive, having had Lindbergh refuse him a job during the Great Depression and wishing to take revenge on the rich guy; (2) proximity to the scene and knowledge of the area; (3) intimate knowledge of the layout of the Highfields house from having been part of the building crew and from even working there; (4) brazenness in talking about the case to passersby, saying that the loss of the child "served him (Lindbergh) right" ; and (5) visited the site where the dead baby was found almost daily in the weeks following (a ritual that killers sometimes engage in).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 27, 2016 6:43:07 GMT -5
Re Chapter 3 of Michael's "The Dark Corners," titled "Hurley": Can't see how this guy Richard Leigh Hurley wouldn't be a hot suspect as part of the kidnap or murder plot. This is something I'd thought I'd hear more people talk about so I'm glad you brought it up. The biggest head scratcher is "why" it took about 5 months to interview him. But I think once they did, and he told them about Lindbergh's irrational response, it was just another example to show when things look badly for him - they drop the issue. And as you pointed out ... it's not just dropping an unimportant matter ... it's ignoring what looks like a true lead. I am anxious to see what other thoughts are out there on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2016 16:45:51 GMT -5
I have also wondered why it took so long for authorities to talk to Hurley. He was on the list of employees that were going to be investigated. The report sourced in the Hurley chapter of Dark Corners concerning the employees of Matthew Construction Company is dated October 17, 1932. When did the investigation begin on these employees? Wouldn't it have been much earlier than the date of that report??
In Millard Whited's April 26, 1932 statement, Whited is asked about several men. Whited says he knows them and when asked about where these men live he says, "They live in a shanty on the Hawley (Hurley) farm."
Michael, do you know if this might be the same Richard Leigh Hurley or perhaps another Hurley in the Hopewell area. My understanding is that Richard Hurley was a machinist by trade and not a farmer.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 30, 2016 6:42:17 GMT -5
When did the investigation begin on these employees? Wouldn't it have been much earlier than the date of that report?? In Millard Whited's April 26, 1932 statement, Whited is asked about several men. Whited says he knows them and when asked about where these men live he says, "They live in a shanty on the Hawley (Hurley) farm." Michael, do you know if this might be the same Richard Leigh Hurley or perhaps another Hurley in the Hopewell area. My understanding is that Richard Hurley was a machinist by trade and not a farmer. The investigations into those who worked on the construction of the home started almost immediately. It's looks like they were coming up with a list on the 2nd, and the investigations seemed to have actually begun on the 4th (1932). They extend well into 1934. I am not sure what 'farm' Whited is referring to. I have a couple of things on this.... First is that the term 'farm' is used quite a bit but can be misleading. I'm not sure if it was a local thing or a term of the times or era. For example, Lindbergh referred to his place at times as "the farm." So it's been my impression that a house with a certain amount of land surrounding it might be referred to in this way. Next, there were other Hurleys in the area, and off the top of my head I know Hilbert Hurley worked on Highfields and lived on Providence Line Road. Finally, these men actually stayed at the Mentelowsky farm during the time in question.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 30, 2016 19:03:57 GMT -5
Finally, these men actually stayed at the Mentelowsky farm during the time in question. Well I had to do it. I searched for then found Charko's Statement. And guess what? Oh well, another mystery for us to tackle...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2016 11:19:30 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for sharing those statements. Was a statement taken from the third man in this trinity, George Salamik? If so, could you please post it?
It seems that the shanty is located on a farm (Hawley?) that is near the Mentelowsky farm. It will be interesting to see if Salamik's statement jives with the other two men as to location of that shanty. I will have to do some more research on this for sure.
Thinking about some of the statements attributed to Hurley in Chapter 3 of Dark Corners, he is bitter towards Lindbergh for not keeping him on as a night watchman. Hurley seems to understand that this left the family vulnerable to such a kidnapping and sees Lindbergh's miserly attitude concerning money as a contributing factor to the death of his son.
When the police finally did get to interview Hurley, did they question him about his statement to Spence(page 29 Dark Corners) that the child was placed in that spot recently? This is a position I hold personally, so I was wondering if Hurley was asked to explain this statement and also why he walked in those woods often enough that he was able to draw such a conclusion about that body.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2016 12:50:52 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for sharing those statements. Was a statement taken from the third man in this trinity, George Salamik? If so, could you please post it? It seems that the shanty is located on a farm (Hawley?) that is near the Mentelowsky farm. It will be interesting to see if Salamik's statement jives with the other two men as to location of that shanty. I will have to do some more research on this for sure. I've been searching but haven't been able to turn it up yet. Should be in my Whited file but like Charko's (since relocated there) it is not. I must tell you I don't know what the truth is. They seem to all be talking about the same spot but using different names. Why did the Police put "Hurley" in Whited's statement if both he and Charko were saying "Hawley?" I'll keep looking and will try to answer your other question soon....
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 31, 2016 18:28:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 2, 2017 10:48:52 GMT -5
Still haven't found George's statement, which I know exists and I have seen. If I don't locate it then a copy resides in Binder 9 at the NJSP Archives for sure. In the meantime, here are two more pieces of this puzzle to consider: Attachment DeletedWhen the police finally did get to interview Hurley, did they question him about his statement to Spence(page 29 Dark Corners) that the child was placed in that spot recently? This is a position I hold personally, so I was wondering if Hurley was asked to explain this statement and also why he walked in those woods often enough that he was able to draw such a conclusion about that body. Unfortunately no.
|
|
|
Post by peternsteinmetz on Jan 2, 2017 15:01:41 GMT -5
Michael, this is a great book and a very welcome addition to the literature on this case. Looking forward to volume 2!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 2, 2017 18:07:46 GMT -5
I would assume Charko spoke in a thick Russian accent, in which it would be difficult for police to tell what he was saying with regard to that name. "Hawley" and 'Hurley" are close enough. Was there, by any chance, anyone named Hawley in the vicinity? As for Whited, it's possible that he too had a foreign accent or a speech impediment, or that the police were unfamiliar with the local names and residents, and so could have made an error.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 3, 2017 7:09:07 GMT -5
Michael, this is a great book and a very welcome addition to the literature on this case. Looking forward to volume 2! Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 3, 2017 8:00:03 GMT -5
Was there, by any chance, anyone named Hawley in the vicinity? I was aware of these men, but until Amy asked about this, I really hadn't looked "into" them. This is a common sense question Hurt and should be our first course of action. The only name I've ever found was "Healy" and that property was in a different grid. So let me explain "how" the research played out.... There are (3) sources I consulted in attempting to track this down: - The NJSP grid searchs.
- The NJSP telephone records.
- The Department of Labor property searches.
Okay, now one thing I learned very quickly was that a named "farm" doesn't mean that named person lives there. It could be rented out, it have a mix of families living there with different names, or it could have been sold yet still retained that name either by choice or simply how the Locals preferred to call it. That creates a real mess for any of us bold enough to research this case. Also, some of these grid searches overlapped, and the Officers looking into it referred to the same property differently. Here's what I found: Telephone Records: Nothing. NJSP Grid Searches (referencing the exact same property): (Detective Leon) John Kukuruza Property. (Lt. Keaten) Empty house, 4 outbuildings. 3. (Tpr. Stinson) Earl Cox Home with outbuidlings one of which "Andrew Skugil," "George Colomenik," and "Mike Shako" live in. Department of Labor Searches: 635 "Andrew Skugal," "George ?," woodcutters. Farm belongs to Ten Eyk Lumber Co. 636 Earl Cox. Not trying to be a school teacher here. I just want to explain the possible pit-falls that can occur if anyone decides to take a ride to the Archives. As you can see, one could easily walk away from the files thinking there's nothing there when there can be. It's also why the index cards there can be more of a hindrance. If it's not on the index card that does not mean they are not in the files.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2017 14:36:10 GMT -5
To continue....
So while this exemplifies how chaotic things were - Troopers searching the same places, and a different Agency searching these same places too - it does give Researchers the luxury of MORE information from differing perspectives. Now that's not to say these perspectives were the best. For example, most Troopers weren't familiar with Hopewell or the surrounding area, which is why some did not know the actual names of the surrounding roads or their locations. So it's all one big double-edged sword.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 17:06:55 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 17:26:49 GMT -5
Still haven't found George's statement, which I know exists and I have seen. If I don't locate it then a copy resides in Binder 9 at the NJSP Archives for sure. Thanks for this information Michael. I will make a note of it in my research notebook for future use. Thanks for posting all the additional reports. You have given me a lot to work with. Betty Mentalowsky's statement is interesting and also introduces another man named Earl Cox into the mix. She claims she was asked about Earl Cox the day after the kidnapping! Concerning the shanty that these men supposedly were staying in at the beginning of March, did the NJSP have any of these men take them to this shanty so it could be searched?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2017 19:38:17 GMT -5
Concerning the shanty that these men supposedly were staying in at the beginning of March, did the NJSP have any of these men take them to this shanty so it could be searched? Nothing specific that I've found but I can tell you that based on other documentation their searches included going into the homes, and if no one was there "letting themselves in."
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 4, 2017 20:44:56 GMT -5
To amy35 and All:
Very strange that apparently the same web site has Richard Leigh Hurley Sr. (b.1884) being buried in BOTH NJ and FL. Obviously, one of these has to be wrong, unless in the offbeat chance the body was exhumed at some point. Now which Hurley, Sr. or Jr., was the suspect in the LKC about whom Michael wrote? Depends on his approximate age in 1932 - was that RLH 48 years old or was he much younger?
As for Nancy Deegan Hurley, she was the wife of Richard Leigh Hurley Sr. and the presumed mother of Richart Leigh Hurley, Jr. FWIW, her death in 1918 at a very young age highly suggests that she was a victim of the influenza pandemic which devastated the western world that year.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 4, 2017 20:55:50 GMT -5
Changing the subject here to the sighting of a strange car by Roscoe LaRue in the morning of March 1, 1932. (TDC, pp. 4-6.)
Don't quite understand these points:
(1) Why did LaRue report his sighting to Springfield police if he spotted this car near Princeton. Seems as if Springfield is quite far from Princeton by New Jersey standards.
(2) How would police looking up the license plate know that the car "never left the garage."?
(3) Why is LaRue writing a letter to Lindbergh in Jan.1935 (fn. 6) almost three years after his sighting of the strange car and when Hauptmann is already on trial?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 6, 2017 19:06:29 GMT -5
Nothing specific that I've found but I can tell you that based on other documentation their searches included going into the homes, and if no one was there "letting themselves in." Here is a report which exemplifies what I say above: Also, I cannot locate that other Statement in my files. It's possible I didn't copy it. I've been trough every file at the NJSP Archives multiple times, and sometimes I will think I've made a copy from my previous trip which would cause me not to have it for that reason OR it's simply in a file I can't think of to search. It's unlikely I would willingly skip over it while making copies of the other ones since they all relate - it's in my nature to grab them all.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 6, 2017 19:18:52 GMT -5
(1) Why did LaRue report his sighting to Springfield police if he spotted this car near Princeton. Seems as if Springfield is quite far from Princeton by New Jersey standards. He lived in Springfield at the time. (2) How would police looking up the license plate know that the car "never left the garage."? It's what the Police told him. I assume they interviewed it's owner who told them it never left, however, that isn't written anywhere. In fact, LaRue writes that he was never told if the right tag was on that car at the time of their investigation. Why is LaRue writing a letter to Lindbergh in Jan.1935 (fn. 6) almost three years after his sighting of the strange car and when Hauptmann is already on trial? It seems to me since the tag traced back to a former employee of the Morrow's, he was being naivete by thinking Lindbergh might want to consider someone attached to the family was involved. Of course the exact opposite was true but the public actually viewed Lindbergh as a victim who wanted the truth. Since no one in the car he saw looked like Hauptmann then he believed he should write Lindbergh, Schwarzkopf, and Wilentz with the full story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2017 9:14:45 GMT -5
To amy35 and All: Now which Hurley, Sr. or Jr., was the suspect in the LKC about whom Michael wrote? Depends on his approximate age in 1932 - was that RLH 48 years old or was he much younger? FYI Hurtelable. Richard Leigh Hurley Jr. was born in 1912 so he was 19 years old in 1932. Hurley Sr. was 47 years old. I would think that Hurley Sr. would have been the one working as a watchman for Lindbergh in 1931. According to the records I have looked at, Hurley Sr. married Hannah (Nan) Deegan in 1911. Richard Jr. was born in 1912, Reginald Charles was born in 1914 and a third son Lawrence was born in 1917. Nan died in 1918.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 7, 2017 9:42:55 GMT -5
Nice find, amy35. That should clear things up as to who the suspect was. I'm taking an educated guess that you got your info from the US Censuses and the "Find A Grave Site" page.
|
|