Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Dec 28, 2016 18:13:01 GMT -5
Regarding what Ollie Whatelely said on his deathbed, was this actually a confession or a statement about someone within the household, he believed to be responsible for providing inside information towards the kidnapping?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2016 16:28:09 GMT -5
My interpretation of what Michael wrote about this confession is that Whateley confessed the name or names of who he knew within the Lindbergh household that were involved with Charlie's abduction. I don't believe Whateley was confessing to having any guilt himself. The fact that those who were present and heard the name or names Whateley revealed, then made the decision not to tell others (including authorities apparently) who Whateley was identifying. It really makes you wonder who he named, doesn't it?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Dec 30, 2016 8:45:39 GMT -5
Everything I've understood about Whatelely's purported statement and the politics within Highfields, leads me to believe he would have named Betty Gow. Although he seemed to have a number of grievances against Betty, I don't see anyone within that household even remotely capable of intentionally participating in a conspiracy to eliminate CALjr, or even just remove him from the scene. Could anyone in that household have said something, not realizing its importance to another who used that information to further the kidnapping? Of course there is a possibility.. but with firm intent to do so? No, I don't believe it. I wonder also about the potential deterioration of Whateley's state of mind in the months leading up to his death. How had the onset of his physical illness affected his mind and judgment? As far as Next Day Hill goes, there I believe moreso in the possibility that any one of a number of servants who frequented places like the Sha-Toe, could have intentionally or unintentionally provided what may have been helpful information towards the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 30, 2016 18:14:43 GMT -5
Everything I've understood about Whatelely's purported statement and the politics within Highfields, leads me to believe he would have named Betty Gow. Although he seemed to have a number of grievances against Betty, I don't see anyone within that household even remotely capable of intentionally participating in a conspiracy to eliminate CALjr, or even just remove him from the scene. Since Dave's revelation that Gow told him Whateley had implicated her then I think it's a foregone conclusion he named her on his deathbed. Perhaps alone or among others. Prior to Dave sharing this, I must confess that I had already believed Gow was named. Having said that, I have a real hard time with him naming Gow because he didn't "like" her. Frankly I've always been suspicious of Whateley's reactions behind the scene. His dislike for Gow, I've always suspected, was because of his knowledge she was involved. His need to "confess" this shows me he knew the situation but kept it to himself - so he felt guilty about it. (If you remember in my book Cummings said that Whateley was the guy who talked alot. Her words were true as we see). And then of course there's the wildcard that he was out of his mind because he was almost dead. So we have (3) options to choose from: - He lied.
- He was out of his mind at the time.
- He was being truthful
The other thing I tried to exemplify was that Whateley seemed to be hinting at this with his interaction with the Press & Mickey Rosner very early on. With this in mind, why was he fearful about his job? Why was Elsie alarmed or afraid of his words? If proceeding from the position that no one knew what happened, how does Lindbergh appear to already know that Gow was not involved? And if he did not, why would anyone's job be at stake? Why would he want to keep that person quiet? See my point? He's protecting someone who he himself later admits to Dan Cowie should be a suspect. (see TDC page 326). Might Gow's outburst during her interrogation by Garsson be a clue? Why would such a promise exist? And so as to the possibility of person(s) on the inside being capable of assisting with this crime, I'd say the "confession" isn't the only thing which points to it. In fact, I think the evidence contained within my entire book does.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 31, 2016 1:06:24 GMT -5
After reading Michael's book, my feeling now is that everyone in the household was involved, to varying degrees. There was someone who knew exactly what happened because they were behind the whole thing, and there were those who simply knew it wasn't a kidnapping, kept quiet, and, when CAL Jr. turned up dead, began to put it all together. I think the Whateleys were in that camp.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Dec 31, 2016 10:29:11 GMT -5
Michael, I agree there are three options but I'd substitute "He was mistaken" for "He lied," as I really don't believe anyone on their deathbed would finger someone out of spite. The issue here is that Whateley purported statement simply offers no proof as to how Gow was complicit, unless that was also claimed and we just haven't hear that part yet. Where is the credibility here? If we actually began to judge this case based on hearsay information like this, with no actual, verifiable proof, would we not be more over the map than we already are with this case? The whole scenario seems a bit surreal given that, at the completely opposite end of the spectrum, we have a schlep like Hauptmann who was obviously involved up to his neck but still has no shortage of case students willing to give him a free pass back to Kamenz. Justice?
Judging the reactions of anyone in that household on the night of the kidnapping and in the days following as a means of establishing an inroad to complicity, I think is a pretty slippery slope to begin with. It's convenient to view Lindbergh as complicit in some kind of agenda because of the all the ways he didn't behave that we might feel he should have between the night of the kidnapping and his trip to the morgue. At the same time, it's a fact that he was a cold fish with a consistently mercurial sense of unconventional and boorish behaviour. It's convenient to see Gow's outburst that she "wouldn't be touched" because the Colonel promised her that, as a demonstration of guilt, or was she just expressing in a moment of exasperation, that Lindbergh had already confided that he had ultimate faith in her and would not unduly hounded? And I'm sure Whateley did talk a lot. I think if I was in his relatively captive position within such a famous household, talking would be one of my most enjoyable outlets beyond my official duties. His "confession" would have been the crown jewel for any tabloid publication of the time, if they dared print it. After 85 years though, would it not be best to try and establish a sustainable connection for anyone (within a seemingly endless parade of "pseudo-guilty" parties) to the actual one we know was guilty?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2016 12:39:31 GMT -5
Michael, I agree there are three options but I'd substitute "He was mistaken" for "He lied," as I really don't believe anyone on their deathbed would finger someone out of spite. That's certainly fair - or we could add it as a fourth option. The issue here is that Whateley purported statement simply offers no proof as to how Gow was complicit, unless that was also claimed and we just haven't hear that part yet. It's my impression the details may have been given. But unless someone else who was there also revealed what was said then we'll never know. Or will we? I think my book, by and through all of the other facts fill those details in. But that's my opinion which is certainly biased at this point. Still though, I feel the totality of all these facts must be dismissed because the shrugging off of each individual point can't work anymore. Where is the credibility here? If we actually began to judge this case based on hearsay information like this, with no actual, verifiable proof, would we not be more over the map than we already are with this case? The whole scenario seems a bit surreal given that, at the completely opposite end of the spectrum, we have a schlep like Hauptmann who was obviously involved up to his neck but still has no shortage of case students willing to give him a free pass back to Kamenz. Justice? I would submit that you have to decide what's credible and what is not. On my end it's the 15 years of Archival research. There's plenty of things I've found that I did not add to the book because I did not feel confident with the information. And what I did include I've qualified it or offered alternatives. My biggest critics are people who simply haven't done any meaningful research. And so they come up with various excuses as to why the actual Police Reports are wrong - when they've never even seen them. Or they invent conversations that never occurred. Or they claim to have documents they do not have and lied about having them to impress some kind of authority when they have none. Or claiming to be a "Lawyer," "Professor," or some other profession that is used to imply, as if sitting behind a desk with a degree on a wall, means they are an Expert on the Lindbergh Kidnapping. There were several people claiming to be clairvoyants in this case back in the 1930s and adding these people to the list would make them more believable in my opinion. Fact is, anyone one of us can know something about this case the other does not. I make no claim myself of being immune to that. There's too much to know and I wouldn't be so pompous as to imply otherwise. On this point alone without any of Whateley's (source material) actions, we see the line of pre-trial questioning posed to Dr. Belford which is quite meaningful. Grace Robinson's reflection also means there was a source making that claim back around the time of the trial. Who knew either of these things? I mean we all research this case and I'd say none knew it previously. Also, there are levels of hearsay, and since we're not in Court, it matters if surrounded by other pieces which bolster it. There are crimes committed but the statute of limitations runs out so charges cannot be brought. Does that mean a crime was never committed? We are looking for the solution - not a conviction. As far as Hauptmann goes, if you believe his involvement means no one else was involved then I'd say Rabbi Fred Neulander should be immediately released from prison. Judging the reactions of anyone in that household on the night of the kidnapping and in the days following as a means of establishing an inroad to complicity, I think is a pretty slippery slope to begin with. It's convenient to view Lindbergh as complicit in some kind of agenda because of the all the ways he didn't behave that we might feel he should have between the night of the kidnapping and his trip to the morgue. At the same time, it's a fact that he was a cold fish with a consistently mercurial sense of unconventional and boorish behaviour. Joe, you do realize that if this excuse was used in the real world no one would be a suspect? It wasn't just one time or one place but in just about ALL of them. And on top of it, what really happened wasn't told until my book came out. I have people who refuse to believe it's true because of the decades of false narratives being repeated as a matter of fact. Prosecutor Marshal is a perfect example of history misleading us. And so why did they do that for Lindbergh? If it's all excusable why not tell the truth about it? Lt. Keaten's personal beliefs seems to show us why. It's convenient to see Gow's outburst that she "wouldn't be touched" because the Colonel promised her that, as a demonstration of guilt, or was she just expressing in a moment of exasperation, that Lindbergh had already confided that he had ultimate faith in her and would not unduly hounded? I'd like to know how Lindbergh would know that, and how you can get around his saying he trusted his staff but telling others they should be suspected. So on one hand, he protects them during the actual investigation but outside of it he confides anyone could be involved. That alone all by itself is highly suspicious. And I'm sure Whateley did talk a lot. I think if I was in his relatively captive position within such a famous household, talking would be one of my most enjoyable outlets beyond my official duties. His "confession" would have been the crown jewel for any tabloid publication of the time, if they dared print it. After 85 years though, would it not be best to try and establish a sustainable connection for anyone (within a seemingly endless parade of "pseudo-guilty" parties) to the actual one we know was guilty? Hold on. So you're saying because no one printed it previously means it's not true? I ask you how much time previous Authors put into this case? Dave knew about it. How'd that happen? It is the crown jewel right? But why didn't the tabloids publish the picture of the corpse with Reporter in it? Or why didn't they publish the prevailing belief among police that Lindbergh was closer to Gow then they both let on? My book if full of facts that this very same question can be asked. But they are still factual. Next, trying to establish a connection with the crime is exactly what I've done in my opinion. And I will continue to do in the next volumes. Not just that but revealing information no one has ever seen. I just got done the Closet Writing Chapter which includes a lot of new material. I mean damn, I should have this stuff right?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 31, 2016 13:31:40 GMT -5
When you talk about "the press," what newspapers carried stories revealing that Olly Whateley thought that it was an inside job. I see you have footnotes 213 and 214 referring to the Hunterdon County Democrat and the Washington Post. This would seem like a very startling page 1 type of story. Did other papers carry it?
Now how would a servant like Whateley have an opportunity to meet the press? Did the NJSP allow him to be part of their press conferences?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 31, 2016 13:52:26 GMT -5
Gow supposedly told Garsson, "Colonel Lindbergh" promised I wouldn't be touched." If that's true, it it seems to indicate that Gow is culpable in some way or another, and that Lindbergh is as well. Why would he promise Gow that he would get her out of trouble if he didn't know that Gow had done something criminal, and most likely that Gow did something that Lindbergh approved of?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jan 21, 2017 18:32:04 GMT -5
I'd certainly like to hear more of the detail around Whateley's "confession" and how Betty Gow was brought into some conspiracy, but until that time comes, given Whateley's opinion of Betty Gow and the uncertainty over his state of mind at the time, I don't see how much credibility can be attached to it. I am very much looking forward to your next book.
Michael, I have no issues with the amount of archival research you've done over 15 years. We started out on this case about the same time and I can confidently say you've probably uncovered 100 times more than I know now and have forgotten! You're right that we're not looking for a conviction but simply the truth. I think most people are primarily interested in a result, which ever way it goes, but hold little hope it will be conclusively proven at this point. I have seen a lot of evidence, relevant and not relevant come to light during that time as well as what you've presented in your first book and for me it can't shake Hauptmann from the centre of the jigsaw puzzle. Although I do believe he had some help, if I was putting my money on any one individual to carry this off as main character in the script, it would be him in a heartbeat.
Really? Would it not cast more suspicion if Lindbergh had categorically cut off all discussion on the possibility of inside help? I don't think you're seeing the full scope of Lindbergh's impartial objectivity expressed here, but rather focusing on whatever indecision he might have been entertaining at any given stage of the investigation.
No, I said Whateley's purported "confession" would have been a sensational story, true or false, if some paper had had the nerve to print it. Thanks to you, we know it's there for the record but 80 plus years later, it's little more than hearsay unless someone has something more concrete to offer and I haven't seen that yet. We do know that Whateley did not like Betty Gow and very little about his state of mind at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 21, 2017 21:10:16 GMT -5
I'd certainly like to hear more of the detail around Whateley's "confession" and how Betty Gow was brought into some conspiracy, but until that time comes, given Whateley's opinion of Betty Gow and the uncertainty over his state of mind at the time, I don't see how much credibility can be attached to it. I am very much looking forward to your next book. Fair enough. I can see where his state of mind could be questioned. I personally think everything that's in the book pretty much leads us to it. Not just Whatelely, but Betty herself. The total sum of all the parts damn near points us there. Michael, I have no issues with the amount of archival research you've done over 15 years. We started out on this case about the same time and I can confidently say you've probably uncovered 100 times more than I know now and have forgotten! You're right that we're not looking for a conviction but simply the truth. I think most people are primarily interested in a result, which ever way it goes, but hold little hope it will be conclusively proven at this point. I have seen a lot of evidence, relevant and not relevant come to light during that time as well as what you've presented in your first book and for me it can't shake Hauptmann from the centre of the jigsaw puzzle. Although I do believe he had some help, if I was putting my money on any one individual to carry this off as main character in the script, it would be him in a heartbeat. I went on a bit of a rant in that post so let me give you the "nice" version... The bottom line is that if someone embraces a position it can be extremely uncomfortable when it's upended with new facts. So some might attempt to neutralize those facts by saying they aren't real, and my point is to be very wary of that tactic if those personalities haven't seen the material. My research is what I personally rely on. I am not saying that something I present should not be questioned because, for one, we all make mistakes, and secondly, because there is so much material to consult. We cannot know what we have not seen, and with all of the research I've done I haven't seen it all. Frankly that might be an impossibility. Finally, our perspective might not allow us to see a different one. It's why our Board is so important and has been vital to me over the years. I learn more everyday from just about every post. Anyway - no one is immune from being incorrect, and anyone could be right where others are wrong. I think my issue above is when we're told by those who couldn't know - tell us in no uncertain terms what's right and what isn't. Anyway, my intent of V1 was not to assert Hauptmann died an innocent man. I was just bringing out the unknown material in the order I believed it should be written. In the next volume I will do the same by hitting on the topics of interest I believe I can add to with new stuff. The newest chapter is giving me fits so hopefully I can overcome it soon. Really? Would it not cast more suspicion if Lindbergh had categorically cut off all discussion on the possibility of inside help? I don't think you're seeing the full scope of Lindbergh's impartial objectivity expressed here, but rather focusing on whatever indecision he might have been entertaining at any given stage of the investigation. Total difference of opinion here. I believe if he truly suspected someone, why use influence and control over the investigation to steer it away from the very people he would confess suspicion to others not connected to it. For me, it's a clear indicator there's something rotten in Denmark. No, I said Whateley's purported "confession" would have been a sensational story, true or false, if some paper had had the nerve to print it. Thanks to you, we know it's there for the record but 80 plus years later, it's little more than hearsay unless someone has something more concrete to offer and I haven't seen that yet. We do know that Whateley did not like Betty Gow and very little about his state of mind at the time. It's backed up with other material which points to it's existence. It's why I knew it was real when I heard it because of that documentation. After reading the statement I searched for the answer thinking there might be a hint in another source. There's no way anyone else knew about the pre-trial statement, or Grace Robinson's notes on it for that matter. Dave had known due to what Gow told him, in fact, I believe he said many knew about it at the time he was involved with his research. I do agree it's a real shame I couldn't get the full details but I think in bringing it out is better then to let the fact it occurred never be told.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Mar 16, 2017 18:19:51 GMT -5
Just read the book which I liked a lot. Kudos to Michael! Was on the discussion board years ago but felt many members were not opened to new theories. So many "facts" have never made sense and it's good to see these brought to life. I pointed out in Gardener's book the misidentification of Anne's grandmother's photo, but this book was just full of so much I hadn't heard.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 16, 2017 20:05:17 GMT -5
Just read the book which I liked a lot. Kudos to Michael! Was on the discussion board years ago but felt many members were not opened to new theories. So many "facts" have never made sense and it's good to see these brought to life. I pointed out in Gardener's book the misidentification of Anne's grandmother's photo, but this book was just full of so much I hadn't heard. I am glad you're back!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Mar 16, 2017 20:19:42 GMT -5
Thanks, and the book was terrific.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 17, 2017 4:43:35 GMT -5
"Although I believe he had some help" Meaning Hauptmann had some help. Joe
Who do you suspect, Joe, and how do you think they helped Richard?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Mar 17, 2017 11:05:27 GMT -5
Jack, after 15 plus years, I've come to the conclusion Hauptmann ended up being the main stakeholder but things didn't start off that way. Someone else, let's call him the Mastermind (no one in Lindbergh or Morrow households) hatched the scheme for personal reasons and began to develop it. At this stage, Hauptmann and a few others (Morrow household comes into play now) were drawn in primarily by the prospect of making money. Later, Mastermind thought to himself "What was I thinking here?" and tried to pull the plug on the scheme. Unfortunately, by this time, the seed had been planted primarily within Hauptmann and he was off and running, eventually assuming leadership, and possibly calling on some of the others for participation in the kidnapping and ransom payment processes. Some of his friends and acquaintances also knew what he had done but they were never grilled to the extent they should have been, after Hauptmann was exclusively targeted as "lone wolf." Before his capture, Anna came to understand Richard's role but they reached a mutual oath of silence (Schweigen) to protect one another and I believe she became as seasoned a lifetime liar-in-denial as her husband would have been, had he not been executed. I'll put something more specific in the Theories or Archives folder when I can.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 18, 2017 5:44:08 GMT -5
It seems like after eighty some years of scratching at LKC it would have to be considered a near perfect one-man crime. All of the known facts about it have either come directly from Hauptmann's doing, or it's reasonable that he had something (everything) to do with them. Sure there's plenty of speculation, but the big questions lead right to BRH. Why Tuesday? Why only 50K? Why could CJ decide on only 50K immediately on his own? Why did CAL act so strangely - shock at being so easily snookered? Etc., Etc.
If Hauptmann hadn't upgoofed at the gas station, we may be here now, wondering about Betty Gow, Violet, why Charlie was killed, why Ollie was a snitch, what happened to all the money - sound familiar?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 9:33:32 GMT -5
Ollie Whateley and an "inside job". From the Trenton Evening Times, March 2, 1932
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Apr 20, 2017 10:44:14 GMT -5
Could it have been a disingenuous comment intended to deflect any suspicion from himself?
My thought is that he was tasked with occupying the dog's attention by keeping it at the complete opposite end of the house from where the ladder activity was occurring.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Apr 20, 2017 17:50:48 GMT -5
Does anyone else find it strange that during the depression Morrows hired so many staff from out of the country? Not only that but so many were disfunctional or at least had behaviors that would have been abhorrent to Morrows/Lindberghs. I believe Whatleys were hired by Morrows as a wedding gift to Charles and Anne.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2017 19:32:42 GMT -5
Ollie Whateley and an "inside job". From the Trenton Evening Times, March 2, 1932 Good find Amy. Almost the same thing as the source I list on page 82. It looks to me that it was the same interview. Could it have been a disingenuous comment intended to deflect any suspicion from himself? My thought is that he was tasked with occupying the dog's attention by keeping it at the complete opposite end of the house from where the ladder activity was occurring. Definitely something to think about - right? Some people see something incriminating then point it out in order to give themselves an "out" later on once they are accused. Condon comes to mind here. The other thing along these lines is, over the years, I've seen some opinions as to why Hauptmann did not "confess" everything he knew because he was afraid of retaliation against his wife and son. Does anyone else find it strange that during the depression Morrows hired so many staff from out of the country? Not only that but so many were disfunctional or at least had behaviors that would have been abhorrent to Morrows/Lindberghs. I believe Whatleys were hired by Morrows as a wedding gift to Charles and Anne. I don't know why. Aren't most Nannies, even today, from foreign countries?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 20, 2017 22:34:27 GMT -5
Does anyone else find it strange that during the depression Morrows hired so many staff from out of the country? Not only that but so many were disfunctional or at least had behaviors that would have been abhorrent to Morrows/Lindberghs. I believe Whatleys were hired by Morrows as a wedding gift to Charles and Anne. No, I would say it was customary at the time for upper crust wealthy Americans to hire foreign house servants. The same holds today. The big difference between back then and now would be the ethnicity of the servants. Back then, people like the Lindberghs and Morrows would hire mostly foreigners from Britain and Western Europe, who generally spoke good English. That's probably because an immigration law passed in the 1920s proportioned immigration spots among countries of origin according to the ancestral countries of the then current American population, so Western Europeans in general had greater opportunity for relocation to the US than other groups. On the other hand, today, most of the house servants would probably come from Third World countries because that's where the immigrants are coming from.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 21, 2017 4:16:44 GMT -5
Joe:
Re - your posts at the beginning of this topic.
From the back cover-
"This book (book in hand - TDC Vol. 1) explores all the unknown facts concerning the early stages of the Lindbergh Kidnapping that were either ignored, forgotten, missed or shrugged off. Among THIS new material is the death bed "confession" which has been sought after by just about anyone who has ever researched this crime. It undeniably turns this crime upside down! Anyone familiar with this sensational case will be completely shocked to learn about this new important information and once applying it, no matter how it is interpreted, will realize the solution is obviously at hand - once and for all."
There was no confession in the book. There is a statement, more of a snitch or death-bed tattle-on made by Whatley which Michael, the author, claims is supported by other facts in this particular volume. I also didn't see any other supporting facts on first reading and am starting to read TDC again to find them.
To date, as far as more death-bed confession from Ollie Whatley is concerned, what you seen is what you gets.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 21, 2017 5:55:43 GMT -5
There was no confession in the book. There is a statement, more of a snitch or death-bed tattle-on made by Whatley which Michael, the author, claims is supported by other facts in this particular volume. I also didn't see any other supporting facts on first reading and am starting to read TDC again to find them. You seem to be alternating between two different positions. At times you've said this was "nothing new" because Dave, who said it happened, already knew about it. Then at other times you say it's unsupported, something which implies it never did. Next, while it isn't the best possible "confession" I can only give what I have. There's plenty of authors who have embellished or supported their positions with "facts" that do not exist to make it appear as if it's fact instead of their own speculation. There's things I've read which was new to me and when I look at their footnote it doesn't include the source. So for a guy who's seen every source there is at the NJSP Archives I know there's a reason for that. There's even flat out lies in some books that are often repeated over and over. Do you see where I do that? No. Every source is real, and the facts are legitimate. If someone reads my book then says to themselves they don't feel what Whateley said was legit then I certainly cannot argue. But they cannot consider what they do not know about. I see it happen all the time where Reports are evaluated by people who have never read them. That's a neat ability that I do not have because I need to see the documents in order to understand what's in them. The fact that the State was obviously worried about something Whateley said while he was in the hospital is supported by the source material ( footnote #229). The fact that Robinson was writing about the same thing, independently, also supports this occurred ( see footnotes 227 & 228). Over the years BOTH of these things caught my attention and I always wondered what was going on. Then once I heard from someone who told me what their father heard it all came together. Certainly I didn't make it up, and there's no way he had seen the other two things I had to know Whateley had said something - or anything. So it was both a unique and independent source that answered the question I had. Now obviously years and years earlier Dave had the opportunity to interview everyone, heard about the confession, and even Gow told who told him that Whatelely suspected her. So I'd say it happened. I am also going to add a few things to my next volume that isn't in V1 which also supports it occurred. You may not think so, and believe me I'll have no issue with that because it's about seeing something then considering it for yourself. The alternative is never knowing about it in the first place. Anyone can decide for themselves what to believe and what not to. It's why I wrote the book - to get the facts out there that no one is aware of - and footnote them. That's been another criticism too - that I've footnoted too much. V2 will be exactly the same excepting I'll have a better Editor and different publisher. If you didn't like V1 you will hate V2. And if you like the historical version where people who don't know what happened tell you what to believe then you will absolutely despise it.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 22, 2017 1:07:36 GMT -5
I believe it happened, I just don't think it should be called a confession. My dictionary defines "confession - acknowledge or disclose one's misdeed, fault or sin." Whatley's statement is not an admission of anything - it's a belief about somebody else's misdeed, and completely unfactually supported at that. Whately could have been talking about Franklin Roosevelt and had the same proof - would you then also call it "Whatley's confession?"
Joe asked the same thing above ("is there more to come about Ollie?",) and you never answered his question about it (unless you considered "plenty of evidence in my book," as meaning something.) I was simply letting Joe know that apparently the confession is actually Ollie's statement about whom we now know was Betty. And I was also pointing out that you do use the term "confession" in regards to that statement.
As far as my saying it's unsupported, why don't you point out what supports it now so that can be cleared up. It should be noted also, that not just Whatley believed Betty had something to do with TLC, probably millions of people across the world also did, and many still do. She's the logical choice for a Lindbergh mistress and criminal conspiratorist so accusations against her have been lots.
And about Dave knowing of the statement which he says he and others did know, it's funny that the accusation never found its way into a book. If that statement would have been about Hauptmann's supposed innocence I'm sure it would have made it to print.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 22, 2017 1:28:47 GMT -5
As far as V1 goes, I never said I didn't like the book, there's plenty of good stuff in there, and you, as a published author certainly have the choice as to what you believe to be pertinent to the big crime. I made a suggestion that I felt might help with V2 & on?, but you have to write as you think correct and true. I didn't reexpress some comments I've read, but you don't need that - as far as V1 goes, it's in the can.
I think is's a fine achievement to be an author, and you've done very well!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 22, 2017 8:34:06 GMT -5
I believe it happened, I just don't think it should be called a confession. My dictionary defines "confession - acknowledge or disclose one's misdeed, fault or sin." Whatley's statement is not an admission of anything - it's a belief about somebody else's misdeed, and completely unfactually supported at that. Whately could have been talking about Franklin Roosevelt and had the same proof - would you then also call it "Whatley's confession?" Fair enough. I do not agree though and here's why.... A "confession" is something revealed that was previously denied. If I witnessed something, denied seeing it, then on my deathbed admitted that I did - that's a confession. Also, there was more to it excepting I don't know what it was. That's the real issue if you ask me but I cannot fill in the missing part. So what we have is history recording that Whatelely did not have a clue about what happened, but the truth is that he obviously believed he did. How do we know that? Because on his deathbed he confessed to it. Why do people say things of this nature when they are about to die? To not confess something? They do it to clear their conscience right? But like I said, I wish I had the entire thing but I don't. Dave's input certainly helps though and I would have mentioned it in V1 had I known about it at the time. As far as my saying it's unsupported, why don't you point out what supports it now so that can be cleared up. It should be noted also, that not just Whatley believed Betty had something to do with TLC, probably millions of people across the world also did, and many still do. She's the logical choice for a Lindbergh mistress and criminal conspiratorist so accusations against her have been lots. I did that already in my last post. Also, to counter your point, I don't think lumping Whateley in with others who weren't in the house at the time is a fair comparison. And about Dave knowing of the statement which he says he and others did know, it's funny that the accusation never found its way into a book. If that statement would have been about Hauptmann's supposed innocence I'm sure it would have made it to print. To your point here.... Most people writing books are looking to make money. But it's really about research. Very few people have done actual years of research. The more one does the more one finds. If you have a theory in your head, doing more research can ruin it. So it's simply my goal to get out what I've found that no one has heard about. Lots of different reactions this. Some happy, some now more interested, some completely indifferent, and some very angry about it. So here they are do what you will. The idea is to discuss facts and what they may or may not reveal. As far as V1 goes, I never said I didn't like the book, there's plenty of good stuff in there, and you, as a published author certainly have the choice as to what you believe to be pertinent to the big crime. Anyone who bought the book should express their opinions, good or bad, because that is their right. As I've said previously there are a few who did so in bad faith and that's where I draw the line. But my reply to your post was just discussion fodder on my end so whether you like the book isn't something I have a right to call you out on. Know what I mean? V2 will have a lot more on Hauptmann for those who are wondering. I'm already way past where I thought I'd be according to my outline. Since the goal is to bring out the new facts, I am kind of letting it go where it leads me.
|
|
|
Post by wendyrite on Oct 10, 2017 23:46:06 GMT -5
Who is Dave? It sounds like Dave knew or spoke to Betty Gow. I will search the site for more information about what Dave came forward with as I haven't found the meat of it yet...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 11, 2017 9:11:11 GMT -5
Who is Dave? It sounds like Dave knew or spoke to Betty Gow. I will search the site for more information about what Dave came forward with as I haven't found the meat of it yet... This should help make it easier for you: lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/user/314/recent
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 25, 2018 14:11:21 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken, Olly Whateley was the only one of the five adults in the Lindbergh household whose whereabouts for the hour before Charlie was discovered missing (roughly 9 PM to 10 PM on Mar. 1, 1932) have never been specified in any report. Please correct if I'm wrong on this.
|
|