|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 14, 2017 15:50:41 GMT -5
This is covered fairly extensively in in "The Dark Corners," Chapter 15 ("In the Shadow of Death").
Here are two issues just for starters which lead me to think that the body found was NOT CAL Jr.
(1) The different toe abnormalities on the right foot in (A) Dr. Mitchell's Autopsy Report (second and third toes oveverlapping big toe) as compared to (b)Dr. Van Ingen's report to Mrs. Morrow re the last examination of the living Charlie (fourth and fifth toes overlapped).
(2) I find it very hard to believe that a body so badly decomposed would still have a part of a flannel shirt on it sufficient for Betty Gow and the police to to identify it as the shirt that Gow sewed for Charlie on the night of the purported kidnapping. Perhaps the body had been tampered with fairly recently and a new piece of flannel cut from the same batch was placed on it for phony identification purposes.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 15, 2017 1:55:07 GMT -5
Does anyone know how Robert Aldinger's last breath of trying to prove he was Lindberg baby ever end?
The last I heard was that he would never get the opportunity to see if his DNA would match.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 15, 2017 12:23:06 GMT -5
Wasn't familiar with the name Robert Aldinger, but apparently he is one of quite a number of men who have claimed to be the grown up Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr,
Getting and using modern-day DNA testing to determine the truth of these CAL Jr. claims has been made practically near impossible because of several factors: (1) the unwillingness (with one noted exception of which I'm aware) of known CAL descendants to co-operate by participating in such studies and (2) the ill-advised and questionably illegal return of known CAL Jr. personal items by the NJ State Attorney General to the surviving Lindbergh descendants in the 1990s.
In addition, CAL Sr.'s immediate cremation of the body found in the woods closed up any possibility of using samples from the body to test for DNA at a later date. It's almost as if Lindbergh was clairvoyant and knew that if the child's body were interred instead of cremated, future generations might be able to extract samples from the corpse to determine scientifically that it was NOT his child.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 15, 2017 23:03:25 GMT -5
Thanks Hurt, Yeah Robert Aldinger used to post on this board almost daily about ten years a go. The Aldinger family were clearly an acquaintance of Hauptmann. He lived with them in his early days in American and before he was married.He believed the Lindbergh baby is him and the Aldinger baby who died in the same time line is the one discovered at St Rose.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 16, 2017 6:51:00 GMT -5
Thanks Hurt, Yeah Robert Aldinger used to post on this board almost daily about ten years a go. The Aldinger family were clearly an acquaintance of Hauptmann. He lived with them in his early days in American and before he was married.He believed the Lindbergh baby is him and the Aldinger baby who died in the same time line is the one discovered at St Rose. I didn't know Robert passed away.... Although he and I sometimes "disagreed" he was a good guy. The problem is that he had his DNA codified and while it proved his father wasn't really his father it all but confirmed his mother wasn't Anne Lindbergh. This, to me, explained why his dad would say the things he remembered him saying, while he was growing up, which caused this belief. His "father" (Fred Aldinger) took Hauptmann in:
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 16, 2017 13:48:37 GMT -5
Then there was Harold Olson, whom I found witty, funny, a charming man to post with, on Ronelle's site. He made a good case for being CAL, Jr., quite different from Aldinger's, more conspiratorial. While Harold was convinced in his own mind that he was Charles Lindbergh's son he had a sense of humor about it, even when he went into "paranoid mode" he did so in such a way as to make his ramblings entertaining and a pleasure to read. I miss him.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 17, 2017 16:53:22 GMT -5
Then there was Harold Olson, whom I found witty, funny, a charming man to post with, on Ronelle's site. He made a good case for being CAL, Jr., quite different from Aldinger's, more conspiratorial. While Harold was convinced in his own mind that he was Charles Lindbergh's son he had a sense of humor about it, even when he went into "paranoid mode" he did so in such a way as to make his ramblings entertaining and a pleasure to read. I miss him. He was a really nice guy. Sometime during the time he was posting he sent along a few things to me. Since then his collection seems to have been divided into 2 parts. One part is at the NJSP Archives. I believe the other is in the Flemington Public Library but I'd have to check with Mark on that to make sure. Here is one of the photos he sent to me:
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 17, 2017 21:21:54 GMT -5
Lots of drama in the story including Capone and Cayce.
Michael .... Question: In your fabulous listing of car sightings how accurate could someone describe a car? Dodge comes up a lot. How easy was it to figure it is a dodge over say a Reo? The color dark is accounted for several times. I suppose dark could be be grey, black or even a blue in the dark. If I remember years a go you thought there were at least three cars involved in the closer time frame of the kidnapping. Sorry if my memory is wrong. The car sightings have alway been messy to me except Lupica and maybe Conovar. In your opening paragraph you mention "strange vehicles" are a key component of the investigation. So what conclusion can we make?
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 18, 2017 3:02:51 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael, and thanks also for preserving the Olson legacy, such as it can be celled. Harold, like Bob Aldinger, was definitely a player in the LKC in the broadest sense, and both men deserve our respect. The case has taken on Titanic or "Ripperish" proportions in recent years, and has itself become a part of history, complete with a colorful cast of characters. It's become a world unto itself, and that includes those who study and write the case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 18, 2017 6:26:54 GMT -5
Question: In your fabulous listing of car sightings how accurate could someone describe a car? Dodge comes up a lot. How easy was it to figure it is a dodge over say a Reo? The color dark is accounted for several times. I suppose dark could be be grey, black or even a blue in the dark. If I remember years a go you thought there were at least three cars involved in the closer time frame of the kidnapping. Sorry if my memory is wrong. The car sightings have alway been messy to me except Lupica and maybe Conovar. In your opening paragraph you mention "strange vehicles" are a key component of the investigation. So what conclusion can we make? The first thing I recognized was that a witness who claimed a car was a Dodge seemed to know it was. So to steal a term from Dave "it was a different time" in that regard. It just appears to me that if someone said Reo then it definitely was not a dodge. Maybe it was the area, or the fact there weren't as many different kinds of cars as there is now. There certainly weren't many cars rolling through those hills and back roads so people noticed. At times witnesses would just say "coupe" or "touring car" which limited the investigation into that account. This doesn't mean everything should be completely trusted but it's the sense I got from reading all of those reports over the years. By the way, this chapter by no means reflects all the different accounts or sightings. I tried to focus on the ones that I believed were in need of some attention, in fact, I am bringing up another one in Chapter 1 of V2. As to the color there is something to what you say. For example, Lupica can be quoted as saying either dark-blue, or black for the color of the dodge he saw. That's because the dark-blue and black were a very similar color. There was even a dark-green that I could see as being mistaken as well. There were different shades of colors which are sometimes reflected in the Reports like "powder blue" which I assume was a very light colored car. Thompson's account is one that I believe tends to show possible "dry runs." I don't like trying to influence anyone in this regard but that's how I see it. I am also convinced there were at least 2 cars involved that night with one definitely being the dodge that Lupica saw, and that Ellis Parker was correct when he concluded the child was taken a 8PM.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 18, 2017 9:15:17 GMT -5
I'm with you on the two cars. It would make sense, given witness descriptions of three men in two cars seen that day. My idea is that they signaled to each other or met up on Featherbed Ln. (seen by the Conovers), then headed to the Lindbergh house. They parked one car behind the gatehouse at the driveway entrance, piled into the other one with the ladder, and headed up the driveway. They stopped just before reaching the house, assembled the ladder in the driveway, then walked it over to the house, leaning it by the nursery window. One of the guys gets in through the front door and goes up into the nursery, as another guy climbs the ladder and waits at the top (with the third guy at the wheel in the car). CAL Jr.'s body is handed off from the nursery and taken to the car, which leaves and heads back to the gatehouse (Anne hears this, at around 8:20-8:25). The other two guys stage the scene, dropping the ladder and chisel as they cross the backyard on foot, making their way down an access road, which connects up with the driveway, near the entrance and gatehouse, where the two cars are waiting. Given the footprint trails out (but none heading in), which turn into tire tracks behind the gatehouse, this is what it looks like to me.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 18, 2017 14:40:52 GMT -5
To Michael and All:
In "The Dark Corners," footnote # 905 on page 309 refers to testimony by Robert W. Hicks in a civil action brought by Harold Roy Olson against the FBI in 1978. Can some one please explain why Mr. Olson (who was discussed in this thread) was suing the FBI and what the ultimate outcome of this 1978 case was?
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 18, 2017 15:07:31 GMT -5
Thank you Michael. If the kidnapping happened tightly when Anne and Betty left the room then CAL drove past the ladder. Obviously he would have seen it and believed the kidnapping scheme was working as planned. Then hearing the crate noise would divert investigators that the ladder was propped after he arrived home.
If at 8 pm what were Kristofeck's and Kuchta's dogs barking at closer to 9 PM?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 18, 2017 15:58:01 GMT -5
At the kidnappers walking down the access road, away from the house? If the removal occurred around 8pm, it would seem to have taken a long time, true, but maybe the dogs were actually heard barking slightly earlier than Kuchta and Kristofek remembered, and, either way, I think it would still take awhile to make your way down that road on foot, in the dark, in a storm, etc.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 18, 2017 17:09:20 GMT -5
I hear you but what I am listening to, what is said here, unless you can tell me the kidnappers were there near an hour it doesn't match up. Why does it have to be 8 pm anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 18, 2017 21:21:56 GMT -5
I hear you but what I am listening to, what is said here, unless you can tell me the kidnappers were there near an hour it doesn't match up. Why does it have to be 8 pm anyway? We have a situation where more then one person is involved. If Ellis Parker was correct, and I believe he was, that accounts for one car leaving the scene at 8PM. If Lindbergh actually came home when he said he did then he cannot miss the car. If he did not then he's lying about when he came home - pick your poison. That scene itself was - in my opinion - staged. Did the party leaving with the child stage it? If the dogs were really hitting on a culprit then I would suggest it was not those in the car that Thompson, Lupica, Conover, and Moore saw. Next, the earwitness account of Lindbergh is highly suspicious for more reasons then one. Just look at when he claimed to have heard it. It moves the timeline beyond everything that already occurred. What are the odds that is a coincidence? Even then, look at how his theory changed and adapted to what the Police were coming up with. If he truly heard what he claimed that should never happen. Then he goes to court and swears by it again once it is needed. If it wasn't reliable early on how then does it become reliable later? To me it's just another red flag.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 18, 2017 23:06:57 GMT -5
Thank you for taking the time and patience for me to understand the sequence of car sightings pointing to the 8 PM kidnapping. I see your point if Lindbergh arrives home at 8PM even 8:30 why didn't he see these cars ? I think perhaps I negligently figured that cars seen at 6:30 and 7:30 were not in the approach mode but more scoping and later to return in shade of a darker sky. Closing in near 9 PM making more of a raucous for the dogs to get riled up. I can see the fault in my thinking but still am not sure why it has to be 8 PM? Why did Parker believe it was 8 PM ? Like I said it is a little messy to me . Then Ellerson to see a car at 3 pm and if part of the crime would seem to be scoping.
I really hope no one is thinking I am trying to question good research. I am truly trying to understand.
Michael I love your book. I especially like chapter 15. The autopsy is told like no other account. I look forward to read your accounts of Condon and how he plays in in future volumes.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 19, 2017 0:10:28 GMT -5
Chapter 15 is pretty harrowing, isn't it? My question, though, is this: The implication of Lindbergh and Betty's demeanor--which I completely agree with--is that they knew more than they were telling, to say the least. I can see Lindbergh's stoicism being written off as just that, but cutting open the mouth like it was nothing? And Betty's cavalier attitude? Why did they act this way? If they didn't care about the child, wouldn't it have been smarter to at least pretend to be upset and not arouse suspicion? Of course, this is the only published account where Betty and Lindbergh are presented this way, so maybe it really didn't matter, but how did they know it wouldn't? Why take the chance? What're people's thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 19, 2017 6:50:05 GMT -5
Thank you for taking the time and patience for me to understand the sequence of car sightings pointing to the 8 PM kidnapping. I see your point if Lindbergh arrives home at 8PM even 8:30 why didn't he see these cars ? I think it all boils down to when Moore sees that car fleeing past the house. Only Parker was smart enough to take that into account. Lindbergh claiming, with the house backing him up, that he arrived at the house almost at that exact same time shows they had to have passed one another. But if he were home sooner, say when Whited said he saw him, then that changes everything and makes it even worse doesn't it? I think perhaps I negligently figured that cars seen at 6:30 and 7:30 were not in the approach mode but more scoping and later to return in shade of a darker sky. Closing in near 9 PM making more of a raucous for the dogs to get riled up. It's definitely something to think about right? And if Wendelin saw this same car at 4:30PM then it's there even earlier... and circling and circling. Waiting to meet someone? Waiting for darkness? But if we believe they "fell" and broke that ladder according to Lindbergh's account then, knowing the routine, they waited until after 9PM to strike? Does that make any sense to anyone? But closer to 8PM - now that does. It would give whoever "took" the child at least a 2 hour headstart. Coming out of that nursery around 9:30PM gives them 1/2 hour. Try to reconcile that with the "official" State Police position. Like I said it is a little messy to me . Then Ellerson to see a car at 3 pm and if part of the crime would seem to be scoping. Not sure if this car was the same one. No ladder seen inside, yet, it certainly gives one the feel that they were waiting there for another person like the one Lupica saw doesn't it? I really hope no one is thinking I am trying to question good research. I am truly trying to understand. I would never think that. I only wrote the book for all of what I found to come out so we could discuss it. Gary you know the enormity of information that is contained just in the Archives so I know you can relate with me when I say I am completely baffled by those who claim to be "Experts" who never once stepped foot there. Nothing exists to them that they do not know about, and if it does, then it's either somehow irrelevant or wrong. But those of us here want to know everything we can. If something new comes to the surface we want to see it. We want to consider it. Huge difference because crimes are solve with more information - not less. But of course, again, I am not perfect so if you disagree or see something differently I, and everyone else, want to hear about it.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 19, 2017 7:52:24 GMT -5
Chapter 15 is pretty harrowing, isn't it? My question, though, is this: The implication of Lindbergh and Betty's demeanor--which I completely agree with--is that they knew more than they were telling, to say the least. I can see Lindbergh's stoicism being written off as just that, but cutting open the mouth like it was nothing? And Betty's cavalier attitude? Why did they act this way? If they didn't care about the child, wouldn't it have been smarter to at least pretend to be upset and not arouse suspicion? Of course, this is the only published account where Betty and Lindbergh are presented this way, so maybe it really didn't matter, but how did they know it wouldn't? Why take the chance? What're people's thoughts on this? The implication of Lindbergh and Betty's demeanor is just another indicator that they knew that the body was NOT CAL Jr., and that they lied about the identification just to get closure, to end the various attempts by extortionists to collect the ransom, and to allow Lindbergh to return to a more private life.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 19, 2017 12:07:03 GMT -5
Hey Hurtable. I've seen some of your posts and I share your liking to Behn's book. So i can understand the context of your comments in a nutshell and briefly share your line of thought what happened during the kidnapping night.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 20, 2017 6:50:17 GMT -5
Of course, this is the only published account where Betty and Lindbergh are presented this way, so maybe it really didn't matter, but how did they know it wouldn't? Why take the chance? What're people's thoughts on this? Just imagine going to the Archives with the ideas of the historical accounts in your head then finding this information. I went there to get some things cleared up but seeing what was down there showed nothing was as we believed it to be. I found the information about Lindbergh first, and wondered why, with all of these people in the room, word about his real behavior never got out. When I later found out about Gow's behavior there, I remember thinking to myself "what the hell am I going to find next?" So of course there are going to be certain personalities, who's beliefs are rooted in myth or misrepresentations, rejecting the facts about what really happened. But now that we know what did happen then what does it mean? By stepping back do we see other new information that creates a bigger picture to this thing? It seems to me that the historical accounts all stem from official versions and from there repeated as the source matter of factly. But by researching it we see something very different. Each part or piece can possibly be explained away but when everything is looked at in its totality it becomes a huge mountain to climb in order to get around it.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 20, 2017 10:22:32 GMT -5
Hey Hurtable. I've seen some of your posts and I share your liking to Behn's book. So i can understand the context of your comments in a nutshell and briefly share your line of thought what happened during the kidnapping night. Yes, I did read Behn's book more than once and still have it on hand for reference (although it is physically falling apart). I think the Nosovitsky angle is probably correct, i.e., that Noso was "Cemetery John" and J. J. Faulkner. Noso was a rare brilliant criminal mind, although he did make a bad mistake that led to his bigamy conviction. As to Behn's conclusion that jealous aunt Elisabeth Morrow actually killed little Charlie back on Feb.27, 1932, I'm somewhat more skeptical of that. Too bad that Behn died shortly after his book was published. It would have been nice if he were able to participate in this type of forum.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 20, 2017 12:03:28 GMT -5
For any of the alternative theories to be correct, CAL would have had to be in on the crime. TLC been looked at a lot and where's any evidence of that?
Michael supposedly has evidence via a "deathbed confession," by somebody of something, but he violates one of his own rules about honesty by not coming forth with that information. To find out what he's talking about an interested person was thought to have to buy one book - now that has become two books. What if it's actually three or four books - or more?
I have to admit that this is an ingenious book-selling scam, but I wonder how much he's making per hour for all the time he's put into the case.
He's got a good plan not to fill his basement with unsold copies like some other authors have done - Wayne Jones comes to mind. His first book probably has some value, but anyone can have mine for free if they want it. PM me where to send it.
Plus there's no guarantee that his new information will conclude anything. Past revelations have simply led to more questions, i.e. folds on Hauptmann bill, Curtis scam, table, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 20, 2017 15:19:57 GMT -5
I have to admit that this is an ingenious book-selling scam, but I wonder how much he's making per hour for all the time he's put into the case. He's got a good plan not to fill his basement with unsold copies like some other authors have done - Wayne Jones comes to mind. His first book probably has some value, but anyone can have mine for free if they want it. Anyone who bought the book has a right to offer up anything they'd like to say about it. However, I think I also have a right to respond. As I read your critique I am not really sure how to though. The word "scam" upsets me a little, because there's nothing written in that book that I cannot back up. Next, there's a lot of new material to consider. Finally, suggesting I wrote a book that took me 15 years of research to write in order to make money is beyond silly. Also, this idea that I shouldn't write a 2nd Volume is one I've never heard before, and it doesn't make any sense to me. The fact Jones died with books in his basement was probably because it's 1200 pages long AND is just another version of Kennedy or Scaduto. So I see your point as proof that I should actually take the course that I am. Regardless, it's how I am doing it. For anyone who does not like that path or doesn't want to read it then don't buy it. For me it's that simple. Whether or not I sell 20 copies or 2000 copies isn't a motivating factor at all. It's as plain as that really.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 20, 2017 15:48:37 GMT -5
Of course it's a scam - otherwise why didn't you put all you've "discovered" into one book? If you were worried about using too much space you could just drop the redundant source references to the NJSP Museum and gain about thirty pages.
There is nothing new in v1 except opinionated material that other authors have chosen not to use. Who cares what history thinks of Betty Gow; if I knew she picked her nose though, I don't think I'd tell anyone about it because it has nothing to do with TLC.
BTW - you misspelled Dave's name.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 20, 2017 16:19:59 GMT -5
Of course it's a scam - otherwise why didn't you put all you've "discovered" into one book? If you were worried about using too much space you could just drop the redundant source references to the NJSP Museum and gain about thirty pages. Well sorry you feel that way Jack. I don't really understand your point or position but again, you are certainly entitled to it. I wrote the footnotes the way I did and it won't change in the next book. There is nothing new in v1 except opinionated material that other authors have chosen not to use. I call bullshit. There are sources I found that no one, not even Mark, had ever laid eyes on. It's not a slight because I realize most people won't dedicate all the time I have to this. Want to prove me wrong? Tell me what I know about J.J. Faulkner that everyone else does but chose not to write about. You see Jack, I went through folders and files that were only supposed to contain Hoffman's bills and found new LKC material there. It's the benefit of being thorough. I went through boxes and boxes of un-filed and unprocessed material that were labeled something else only to find LKC material at the bottom. I opened documents sealed with rusty staples. I unbound documents with string that was tied back in the 1930s. Etc., etc., etc. Who cares what history thinks of Betty Gow; if I knew she picked her nose though, I don't think I'd tell anyone about it because it has nothing to do with TLC. I do, and I think most students of the case who bought into and believed the historical account do too. If you don't that's cool. There's nothing that says you have to, and it's certainly something you could debate if you like. BTW - you misspelled Dave's name. I am going to share a little secret with you.... This book was never written for the literary experience so if you don't like how I wrote V1 then you won't like how I write V2. Next, these publishers are geared toward making their money off of the Author. Most buy their books in bulk, then sell them at book signings or events. I have no desire (nor will I ever) to do such a thing. So I think it caught them off-guard when they got so many individual orders which overwhelmed and delayed them. As far as Dave's name...I spelled it the way it was spelled in whatever I had in front of me at the time. If it's mispelled then I'll make sure it's right in V2. Thanks for the heads-up.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 20, 2017 17:34:34 GMT -5
In "The Dark Corners," footnote # 905 on page 309 refers to testimony by Robert W. Hicks in a civil action brought by Harold Roy Olson against the FBI in 1978. Can some one please explain why Mr. Olson (who was discussed in this thread) was suing the FBI and what the ultimate outcome of this 1978 case was? The civil action was based on the position that the FBI did not make a good faith effort to thoroughly search their files for the fingerprints.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 20, 2017 18:18:49 GMT -5
If I can read between the lines here, my guess is that Mr. Olson's case in 1978 was based on the federal Freedom of Information Act (which came into effect not long before that), and he, Olson, was requesting the fingerprints of CAL Jr. which were taken by the NJSP from the nursery as part of the kidnap investigation and would presumably wind up in the FBI's data base. If Olson's prints could be compared to CAL Jr.'s it theoretically would provide a definitive answer to the question of whether or not Olson and CAL Jr. were one and the same individual.
Unfortunately, the FBI said they couldn't find CAL Jr.'s prints and deprived Olson of the capability of making that comparison.
(If I'm wrong here, please correct me.)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 20, 2017 22:16:06 GMT -5
If I can read between the lines here, my guess is that Mr. Olson's case in 1978 was based on the federal Freedom of Information Act (which came into effect not long before that), and he, Olson, was requesting the fingerprints of CAL Jr. which were taken by the NJSP from the nursery as part of the kidnap investigation and would presumably wind up in the FBI's data base. Mostly yes. However, I think it was a foregone conclusion that they were not in the data base. I believe it was his position they were elsewhere among the files and needed to be searched for beyond what was already done. In a nutshell the case was all about trying to obtain information they did not have to assist in identifying that body. The avenue by which they were attempting to get that was to prove Hoover was given a set of those prints even though the FBI was saying they did not have them. I am pretty sure it was merely an avenue by which to draw out additional material but I don't want to over-step here. Honestly though, I do believe McLean did give Hoover a set.
|
|