|
Post by scathma on Apr 12, 2018 17:56:48 GMT -5
Maybe AML was just trying to aerate the soil to facilitate a lush lawn at Highfields... no wonder she was off the planks so much
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 13, 2018 11:05:24 GMT -5
Maybe
I know you were making a joke out of this. Actually this entire thread about the "female footprints" is a bit overdone. Because of their location so close to the house building, it would seem highly improbable that any kidnapper would be using that area, either to approach the house or to abscond, especially without any female footprints further away from the house. On the other hand, the two sets of male footprints leading from the ladder to Featherbed Road possibly could indicate an absconding pathway for kidnappers.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 13, 2018 11:18:49 GMT -5
True, but having driven up (no approach prints), why not drive out too? Even if they walked up to the house using, say, the driveway, why not take that clear path back out, rather than taking off through a muddy field in the dark?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Apr 13, 2018 12:28:30 GMT -5
Maybe I know you were making a joke out of this. The real joke is the accounting of AML’s activity the day of the kidnapping… not to mention CAL's. I don’t want to stray too far off topic, but the presence of female footprints in the mud from a woman’s heeled shoe supports my pet theory: that Betty was summoned from Englewood to Hopewell that afternoon to assist in the removal of the baby (because AML couldn’t or wouldn’t be a participant to the actual hand off) and any female footprints in that area were Betty’s, made in the course of that endeavor. Rather than having to create an innocent explanation for why the baby’s nursemaid would ever be out in that part of the yard in bad weather to make such fresh footprints, it was easier for AML to claim that she herself made the prints that afternoon. Having made the claim that the footprints were hers, when a lone-wolf scenario later had to be developed, such a scenario had to explain what AML was doing when she made them. Thus the pebble incident was born. The adult participants just couldn’t get their details straight when it came time to recount the cover story... because it never happened.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 13, 2018 15:20:52 GMT -5
Interesting. But if Betty was there to help, if Anne was in on it—if the whole household knew that CAL Jr. was, at the very least, “going away”—why would the kidnappers have needed to climb the ladder to get to him? Why not just have Betty hand him off at the front door? I mean, they would need a ladder to leave behind, to convey the appearance of kidnapping, but with everyone knowing the kidnappers were there, they wouldn’t need to actually use that ladder to break into the house by climbing through a window, with Betty standing in the mud to steady the ladder or whatever. That being said, don’t get me wrong: I think she did walk in the mud, that those were her footprints leading to the back patio—but what other reason could she have had to walk there...?
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Apr 13, 2018 17:34:29 GMT -5
Interesting. But if Betty was there to help, if Anne was in on it—if the whole household knew that CAL Jr. was, at the very least, “going away”—why would the kidnappers have needed to climb the ladder to get to him? Why not just have Betty hand him off at the front door? I agree, LJ. I don't think the ladder was ever climbed. The indentations in the soft ground under the window were 2" to 2 1/2" deep. That would just about account for the weight of the ladder itself. If anyone would have put weight on the risers, those imprints would have been deeper. (The glob of mud on the top of the library shutter remains a question, but there is nothing to indicate when it got there.) I also believe that Charlie was handed to someone at the front door. Also, does anyone think that the "two sets of footprints" makers had a flashlight? What did a flashlight look like in 1932? It was quite a walk back to the car parked near the chicken coops. Anyone unfamiliar with the terrain would have had some trouble navigating the area in the dark.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Apr 13, 2018 17:58:41 GMT -5
Interesting. But if Betty was there to help, if Anne was in on it—if the whole household knew that CAL Jr. was, at the very least, “going away”—why would the kidnappers have needed to climb the ladder to get to him? Why not just have Betty hand him off at the front door? I agree, LJ. I don't think the ladder was ever climbed. The indentations in the soft ground under the window were 2" to 2 1/2" deep. That would just about account for the weight of the ladder itself. If anyone would have put weight on the risers, those imprints would have been deeper. (The glob of mud on the top of the library shutter remains a question, but there is nothing to indicate when it got there.) I also believe that Charlie was handed to someone at the front door. Also, does anyone think that the "two sets of footprints" makers had a flashlight? What did a flashlight look like in 1932? It was quite a walk back to the car parked near the chicken coops. Anyone unfamiliar with the terrain would have had some trouble navigating the area in the dark. I think the ladder was likely a prop, if it was climbed it was perhaps just to leave the note.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 13, 2018 18:03:02 GMT -5
The mud on the lower shutter was probably placed there by hand to make it look like the ladder was climbed and some mud dropped off a kidnapper’s shoe onto the shutter.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Apr 13, 2018 20:36:52 GMT -5
I wasn't aware that the location of the woman's footprint was consistent with steadying the ladder. The picture I posted earlier in this thread didn't show a clear orientation.
I envisioned the hand off of the baby to have occurred out of the back of the house, near their waiting car, with the recipients then driving off from Featherbed Ln. AML, wanting no part of the transfer, was free to go for her walk down the driveway or self-sequestered in some other part of the house while it occurred without danger of observing any of the activity. The same goes for Elsie.
This is why there is so much ambiguity in their statements and why the emphasis is on providing an innocuous narrative for Betty's actions that afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 13, 2018 22:07:39 GMT -5
Given the various sightings of cars, I think the removal occurred at night, around 8pm or so, and was done at the front door. As far as I know, there were no tire tracks around the back of the house, and Featherbed Ln. was/is about a half-mile away. Police were getting that road confused and conflated with the construction access road, an entrance to which was in the backyard. It terminated at the driveway, about 100 ft. from its entrance. It was on this road where the footprint trails were, leading away from the house.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2018 10:53:50 GMT -5
If we go with the female prints being made by Betty Gow, then she did walk on the board walk that night. If she is handing Charlie out the front door to someone, then why would she even need to go on the boardwalk? I don't think she was footing that ladder.
If Betty carries Charlie out the front door to the side of the house to where the ladder is being staged, does this mean that Betty is the person who also "bagged" Charlie in the nursery??
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 14, 2018 17:00:31 GMT -5
If we go with the female prints being made by Betty Gow, then she did walk on the board walk that night. If she is handing Charlie out the front door to someone, then why would she even need to go on the boardwalk? I don't think she was footing that ladder. If Betty carries Charlie out the front door to the side of the house to where the ladder is being staged, does this mean that Betty is the person who also "bagged" Charlie in the nursery?? Amy, am I correct in concluding that you don't think it likely that Betty Gow made those female footprints? I would agree that if she was handing Charlie off, there would be no reason for her to be in the area where those footprints were found. As for "bagging" Charlie that night, yes, I know about the burlap (?) bag found near the corpse in the woods, but I haven't seen any definitive evidence that that particular bag had been used to suffocate Charlie. So unless I'm missing something, I'd say the theory that Charlie was "bagged" is merely conjecture.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Apr 14, 2018 18:54:25 GMT -5
If we go with the female prints being made by Betty Gow, then she did walk on the board walk that night. If she is handing Charlie out the front door to someone, then why would she even need to go on the boardwalk? I don't think she was footing that ladder. If Betty carries Charlie out the front door to the side of the house to where the ladder is being staged, does this mean that Betty is the person who also "bagged" Charlie in the nursery?? Hi, Amy. I don't think that Betty was out in the dark that night. I DO believe she is the one that handed Charlie out the front door to someone who was right there. The question of the missing crib sheet leads me to think that he was wrapped in it. It seems they thought of everything but how strange that crib looked without a sheet. I think he was put in the bag after being transferred to the car near the chicken coops, a car I believe he was driven to by someone in their own car. (How's that for beating around the bush? ) I do believe that the female prints were Anne's, just not sure when they got there. I don't believe there was a female with the ladder bringers, just the two guys, and a third doing all the supervising.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2018 22:28:27 GMT -5
Amy, am I correct in concluding that you don't think it likely that Betty Gow made those female footprints? I would agree that if she was handing Charlie off, there would be no reason for her to be in the area where those footprints were found. As for "bagging" Charlie that night, yes, I know about the burlap (?) bag found near the corpse in the woods, but I haven't seen any definitive evidence that that particular bag had been used to suffocate Charlie. So unless I'm missing something, I'd say the theory that Charlie was "bagged" is merely conjecture. Anne never claimed to have walked on that boardwalk in any of her March statements. She never mentioned tossing a pebble at any nursery window, not March 1st or any other day. The fact that a false scenario concerning those female prints had to be created for the trial tells me that those prints are attached to the kidnapping that night. The night of March 1 when Lindbergh went outside to investigate the east side of the house with Marshal Wolfe and Assistant Chief Williamson from Hopewell, the first responders that night, and they saw those prints, Lindbergh must have told them that the prints were Anne's. How would Lindbergh know that since he wasn't home in the afternoon when Anne took that walk, right? What he would know, however, if Betty is helping with Charlie's removal, is that she would have been on that boardwalk that night and CAL needed to come up with an instant explanation for those female prints being there, so he offers Anne up as the source. As has already been said by Scathma in one of his posts, Betty did what Anne could not or would not do concerning Charlie's removal from the home that night. A few years back I questioned how it was known for a fact that a burlap bag was used to remove Charlie from the nursery. I was reminded then that Ben Lupica saw burlap bags with the ladder in the car he saw the night of the kidnapping. The police developed the burlap bag theory based on the bag that was found with the corpse. See TDC, Chapter 14, page 209. Personally, I am not a big fan of the burlap bag removal and would definitely consider other options for this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2018 22:43:16 GMT -5
The question of the missing crib sheet leads me to think that he was wrapped in it. It seems they thought of everything but how strange that crib looked without a sheet. I think he was put in the bag after being transferred to the car near the chicken coops, Thank you for this. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who found that crib to be questionable. I think your suggestion that Charlie could have been removed in that sheet to be an excellent one. I can see Betty bringing Charlie outside in just such a way. How would she have come upon a burlap bag to put him in to begin with?? I also agree that Charlie could have been transferred into the burlap bag once he was in the car of the kidnapper. Good work Rebekah!
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Apr 15, 2018 19:34:04 GMT -5
Any thoughts on who Betty is passing little Charlie out the front door to? If the whole house isn't in on this, isn't this very risky behavior on her part?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Apr 16, 2018 9:31:08 GMT -5
I base my theory of the female footprints being Betty’s for several reasons.
To begin with, let’s look at the bigger picture: why was Betty summoned to Highfields on March 1st and not already there in her capacity as CALjr’s nursemaid? Ostensibly Betty remaining behind was to allow “bonding time” between the baby and AML. Yet for the better part of the weekend prior to the kidnapping, the entire Breckenridge clan was invited to stay at Highfields… hardly the most conducive environment for a little one-on-one time between mother and baby.
We are all familiar with the fact that this was the first time that the Lindberghs stayed at Highfields during the week, supposedly due to the cold that CALjr was suffering from. I realize we are dealing with a wealthy family used to directing their staff at will, but if the family is planning on returning to Englewood the following day, why have Betty come to Highfields for the less than 24 hours the family is planning to remain there? Isn’t this Monday the first chance for mother and baby to actually have alone time that weekend, even if they are both suffering from colds? Olly and Elsie were avaialble to assist. Evidently, the bonding experiment was to be short-lived.
Betty was originally to travel by train, but this mode of travel was later changed to being chauffeur-driven instead. Was this to address a need for expediency in her arrival? To facilitate stopping at a pharmacy, as they did, on the way to Highfields in order to make a pick up, perhaps a sedative for the baby prior to his departure?
Reviewing the statements of the adults present at Highfields that afternoon, what does AML do with her freedom after Betty’s arrival? She goes for a walk! Did AML need to have Betty come from Englewood just to allow her to take a walk down the driveway? None of the statements indicate that AML took a nap or some other recuperative measure that might explain why, pregnant and suffering from a cold, she needed more than Elsie’s assistance in managing the baby for the remaining hours of their stay.
Now about that alleged walk. Who is more likely to have appropriate footwear available for outdoor activity such as walking in the rain, whether it be in mud or a gravel driveway? The wealthy mistress of the house or the nursemaid summoned by phone, who may not have anticipated any outdoor activity, and thus wore the usual high heeled shoes befitting her almost exclusively indoor role as a member of household staff? If AML has her golf shoes available at Highfields, isn’t it reasonable to assume that she also has a pair of boots there as well and that if she plans on walking outdoors she would wear the most appropriate footwear for the activity? Is it logical to assume that a women planning to walk outdoors in that environment would choose high heeled shoes? Or would it be more logical to believe that the woman who left high heeled prints in the mud outside Highfields couldn’t foresee such activity and did so because she didn’t have foreknowledge of what was expected of her and, therefore, no choice but to wear the shoes she had on at the time?
This is why I believe the prints to be Betty’s. A female kidnapper would have dressed for the occasion and if AML did take a walk, it wouldn’t have been in heels. Betty was summoned and either didn’t own any boots or didn’t anticipate being tasked with any activity that would require her to walk in mud. She did what was asked of her and did so wearing the high heeled shoes she had on at the time.
As for conflicting timelines, I offer one suggestion. Why does the baby removal and ladder staging have to occur simultaneously and by the same people? The baby could have been removed from the home in the afternoon during the 2pm-5pm window, where the statements by Betty/Elsie/Anne about their activity are weakest, and still allow for the staging team to arrive later, when the speeding vehicle witness statements put that activity around 7pm. The teams could have worked in concert or been completely separate in their assignments, perhaps to insulate the mastermind and the participants from each other. The removal team could have gotten away Scot-free (no pun intended) while only the staging team was observed by witnesses…
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2018 16:18:37 GMT -5
As for conflicting timelines, I offer one suggestion. Why does the baby removal and ladder staging have to occur simultaneously and by the same people? The baby could have been removed from the home in the afternoon during the 2pm-5pm window, where the statements by Betty/Elsie/Anne about their activity are weakest, and still allow for the staging team to arrive later, when the speeding vehicle witness statements put that activity around 7pm. The teams could have worked in concert or been completely separate in their assignments, perhaps to insulate the mastermind and the participants from each other. The removal team could have gotten away Scot-free (no pun intended) while only the staging team was observed by witnesses… So there would be a team of kidnappers operating in broad daylight kidnapping Charlie? I have privately theorized an earlier timeline for the removal of Charlie but during the afternoon time never crossed my mind. Do you see this first team driving up the driveway to receive Charlie? If this team is not using the boardwalk, why then would Betty use the boardwalk which would cause her to create those female prints? Then a second team shows up at night who uses the boardwalk to do the staging of the ladder and leave the footprint trail? I am concerned with the amount of people (outsiders) this two stage kidnapping would involve. I understand the need to insulate the mastermind and the participants, however, if we have Betty handing Charlie over in the daylight, she will be seeing this team of people who are taking possession of Charlie. Can you perhaps explain your theory in a little more detail? I think I am just having trouble envisioning how all this would work. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Apr 18, 2018 3:47:02 GMT -5
Seems to me like the most likely scenario is that the kidnappers arrived at Highfields, Betty passes the baby out the front door to one member of the team and then the rest of the gang to show them where the right window is. Is there something I'm not taking into account?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 18, 2018 9:01:50 GMT -5
this is crazy that never happened
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Apr 18, 2018 10:07:57 GMT -5
So there would be a team of kidnappers operating in broad daylight kidnapping Charlie? I have privately theorized an earlier timeline for the removal of Charlie but during the afternoon time never crossed my mind. Do you see this first team driving up the driveway to receive Charlie? If this team is not using the boardwalk, why then would Betty use the boardwalk which would cause her to create those female prints? Then a second team shows up at night who uses the boardwalk to do the staging of the ladder and leave the footprint trail? I am concerned with the amount of people (outsiders) this two stage kidnapping would involve. I understand the need to insulate the mastermind and the participants, however, if we have Betty handing Charlie over in the daylight, she will be seeing this team of people who are taking possession of Charlie. Can you perhaps explain your theory in a little more detail? I think I am just having trouble envisioning how all this would work. Thanks! I guess "team" might conjure images of an entire SEAL team being involved, but a single person could theoretically pick-up and take the baby away; however, I'd wager it was two - one to drive and one to tend to the baby. Broad daylight isn't really a concern because at this point the activity doesn't need to be covert. It's not a kidnapping, nor are the participants kidnappers. It is a sanctioned removal of the baby from the home and the alarm isn't to be sounded until later. Let's also remember that CAL himself does not have a verified accounting for his activity that day. He also telephoned later that evening from a location much closer to home than he implied. He himself could be part of the removal team. As for concerns about the total number of outsiders, it is less of a concern if they are not all at Highfields at the same time. The ladder delivery wouldn't require two participants or that they be entirely different people from the earlier mission; the driver from the baby pick-up could conceivably return and be involved in the ladder staging as well, reducing the number of outsiders to just three. I don't believe so, but for those that firmly believe that BRH was seen in the area that day, and alone, he can be our ladder deliveryman in this scenario. He, or any other member of this mission may not have even known that the baby was taken; just that a ladder was to be delivered and propped up alongside the house in a particular spot and by a designated time. Based on LJ's earlier comment, like police, I was confused about the difference between the temporary construction drive and Featherbed Ln. I could envision a plan where it might be preferred to not have the transfer take place out the front door and down the main drive and instead out of the rear of the home and the construction drive for some degree of privacy in the transfer, if not to spare AML from seeing her baby carted off, but also in the unforeseen event that someone where to arrive at the front of the home at just the wrong moment. It is this egress that puts Betty into the yard to leave female footprints...
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Apr 18, 2018 10:27:52 GMT -5
Interesting thoughts Scathma, I have never considered two separate events on that day. Do you thus believe everyone in the Highfields household was somehow involved? And do you think that Ollie's deathbed confession implicated everyone including himself and his wife or just Betty?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 18, 2018 10:57:43 GMT -5
If I’m remembering right, there were a total of two strange cars, with a total of three men in them, seen in the area that day. One of these cars had the ladders and burlap bags inside. So I think this suggests a total of three guys to do everything—remove CAL Jr. and stage the scene. Given the timing of the car sightings, my guess is that this all happened around 8pm, with Betty handing CAL Jr. out the door to someone (receiving the note in exchange). That person took the body to the car, which headed down the driveway, to a point near the entrance and across the road from the chicken coop. This is where they’d left the other car before driving up to the house with the ladder. The two remaining guys at the house then walked to the two cars, leaving evidence behind (footprints, ladder, chisel) to indicate what happened. I think the female footprints were Betty’s, left there after the kidnappers had gone. Why? To get mud on her shoes to track in the nursery. She just would’ve needed to take her shoes off after she got back inside through a rear door, putting them back on once in the nursery. I mean, this fits the evidence every bit as much (if not more than) the official line of someone sneaking into the nursery without being heard or moving anything, then climbing back onto the ladder and making his escape just as noiselessly.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 18, 2018 12:13:54 GMT -5
You don't have to convince me of that Steve, and I can well understand why you keep your responses brief here.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Apr 18, 2018 12:33:01 GMT -5
Do you thus believe everyone in the Highfields household was somehow involved? And do you think that Ollie's deathbed confession implicated everyone including himself and his wife or just Betty? Involved? No. Aware? Yes. I think Betty was the only truly active participant. The Whateley's didn't know the specifics, nor did they need to know. AML didn't want to know. Ollie's confession would have been an indictment of just Betty as a willing accomplice. Look at the official statements to investigators by every person at Highfields that day regarding their activities that afternoon/evening. They are incredibly vague, with huge lapses in time... because they can only recite details towards the collective narrative that supports the faux kidnapping and any recounting of their actual activity, no matter how innocuous, could threaten the integrity of the cover story. Even then, the three women can't coordinate all the details. Ollie's statement has nothing between 10:30am when he provided the train time for Betty's arrival and 7:45pm when he had dinner!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2018 17:44:36 GMT -5
Broad daylight isn't really a concern because at this point the activity doesn't need to be covert. It's not a kidnapping, nor are the participants kidnappers. It is a sanctioned removal of the baby from the home and the alarm isn't to be sounded until later. Let's also remember that CAL himself does not have a verified accounting for his activity that day. He also telephoned later that evening from a location much closer to home than he implied. He himself could be part of the removal team. First, I want to sincerely thank you for sharing more details of your theory. You have given me much to think about. I do hope you know that my questions and comments are not criticisms in any way. I do think about and consider what people share and that is why I ask questions. That said, I do believe that it was known by those in the Lindbergh house that Charlie would be leaving that day. It is true that CAL's whereabouts for the day of March 1, were never checked. He offers nothing in his March statement to shed light on what he did that day before arriving home on March 1. So are you saying that the people who are taking Charlie away are associates of Lindbergh? These are not hired people that need to be paid upfront? So the need for insulation between mastermind and participants only applies to those who stage the ladder at the Hopewell house?? With an afternoon removal of Charlie, wouldn't the crafting of the special shirt made by Betty need to be moved to the afternoon not long after she arrived? Anne and Betty were together when this shirt was made or so their statements claim. Charlie is then dressed in his night clothes with the special shirt instead of regular clothes. No need for Vicks if he is not being put to bed. How certain are you that the picture you posted earlier in this thread is a female footprint? I understand what you said about the amount of dirt between the sole and the heel impressions. This, you feel, suggests a female made that print. Having looked at that picture, plus some others from the scene, what bothers me is that if any of the prints available are the female ones and Betty Gow is wearing high heels, the heel impression should be showing a hole in it where the spike part of that shoe went down into the mud. It definitely would have needed to sink in in order to get the top of the heel impression in the mud. If it is daytime when Charlie is removed, I can see it being done on the side of the house also.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Apr 18, 2018 19:34:22 GMT -5
Anne Lindbergh Statement 3-11-32 p3
It was around six o'clock, which is the usual feeding time; it must have been a little later, because I didn't get up there until after his supper. I was there for at least an hour, fixing him, giving him medicine, dropping drops in his nose; went out during that time to get needle and thread and flannel because we were making an extra shirt for him and Betty sewed the shirt for him.
Anne Lindbergh Statement 3-13-32 p4
Betty must have taken him upstairs for his supper for when I went upstairs into his room a little later, about 6:15, he had almost finished eating. We were with him at least an hour, straightening the room, closing the shutters, and attending to him. We found as before that the corner shutters would not close even though we both pulled on them. I went out of the room once to speak to Colonel Lindbergh on the telephone. He said he would be late coming home. I also went out to get a needle and thread for Betty. She cut and sewed an extra high-necked flannel shirt for the baby.
Anne Lindbergh Trial Testimony p.69
Q[Wilentz]: Blue. Was there a blue thread - I think you said Miss Gow sewed that afternoon. A: I did not sew the garment and I did not get the thread.
++++
Betty Gow Statement 3-3-32 p3
Q[Brex]: .....You then thought it would be best to put a flannel shirt on its vest not to expose it. Mrs. Lindberg went downstairs with you to get the Vix and you were to cut out the flannel shirt? A: No, I didn't leave the baby then. Q: When you came up did she stay? A: She went down for the sewing materials and I did the cutting here.
Betty Gow Statement 3-10-32 p3
When he was all fixed for bed Mrs. Lindbergh and I decided to make a little shirt of flannel instead of the flannel bandage which he had on him. Mrs. Lindbergh left the room to procure scissors and thread and played with the baby while I cut and stitched the shirt. I put this on him and put him under covers to sleep.
Betty Gow's pre-trial preparation Statement 1-1-35
Q[Peacock]: Where did you get that thread? A[Gow]: I got that from Mrs. Whateley.
Betty Gow Trial Testimony p259
A: .....We dressed him and just as he was about ready for bed I decided to give him some physic. In taking this he spilt some over his nightclothes. Q[Wilentz]: He didn't like the physic? A: No. I undressed him again and decided that I would have time to make him a proper little flannel shirt to put on next his skin. I didn't have sewing materials there, so I asked Mrs. Lindbergh while I went out of the room to get material from Mrs. Whately, whom I thought would have some. Went down to the kitchen where she gave me scissors, and said she would look for thread and bring it to me. I went back up to the nursery. Mrs. Lindbergh played with the baby while I cut this little shirt out. Mrs. Whately came into the room with the thread and I stitched it up very hurriedly and put it on the baby after having rubbed him with Vicks.
++++
Elsie Whateley Trial Testimony p. 237-8
Q[Wilentz]: ....During the day do you recall the operation in which this baby's shirt was knitted together or sewed together? A: Well, the only thing, Miss Gow came down to me and asked me if I had any white thread. Q: About what time of the day was that? A: Well, it was during the afternoon some time, but I can't tell you exactly.
(omit)
Q: She asked you for some white thread? A: Yes. I didn't have white. I did it with blue; I didn't have white. Q: What sort of a blue thread was it? A: Well, it was blue Silco, I brought it from England.
(omit)
Q: - that you provided for Miss Gow that afternoon? A: Yes, it is. Q: And was it from that spool, and that Silco that you provided that she sewed the baby's sleeping shirt that day? A: Yes it was. Q: Did you see her do it? A: I, no, I didn't see it, but I saw her cutting it out.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Apr 18, 2018 19:38:48 GMT -5
Yes Scathma, no one has their story straight regarding who got the thread and what time it took place. Only Elsie places the event in the afternoon. Thanks Michael for laying this out for us in the Blue Thread thread.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Apr 19, 2018 9:00:01 GMT -5
So are you saying that the people who are taking Charlie away are associates of Lindbergh? These are not hired people that need to be paid upfront? So the need for insulation between mastermind and participants only applies to those who stage the ladder at the Hopewell house?? With an afternoon removal of Charlie, wouldn't the crafting of the special shirt made by Betty need to be moved to the afternoon not long after she arrived? How certain are you that the picture you posted in an earlier thread is a female footprint? I understand what you said about the amount of dirt between the sole and the heel impressions. This, you feel, suggests a female made that print. Having looked at that picture, plus some others from the scene, what bothers me is that if any of the prints available are the female ones and Betty Gow is wearing high heels, the heel impression should be showing a hole in it where the spike part of that shoe went down into the mud. It definitely would have needed to sink in in order to get the top of the heel impression in the mud. One can only speculate on how closely "associated" they might be with CAL, other than he would had to have been involved in making the arrangements. Since his whereabouts are unknown that day, he could very well have been the remover, maybe wearing one of those amazing disguises he would later use to move about during the ransom negotiations at Condon's that proved so effective in dodging the media Yes, the shirt would've been made during the afternoon prior to his departure. Whether the shirt was intended as a unique identifier for the inevitable discovery of the baby's body (if that was already the determined outcome at that point), or as a genuine effort by Betty out of concern for his well-being I cannot say. Considering women's 1930's era footwear, a "clunky" heel, from the type of shoe that a member of formal household staff would wear, is consistent with that footprint in the photo. Betty would have worn a more conservative shoe than, say a stiletto-type heel, and such a conservative shoe would not leave the round hole print you describe. Perhaps, "high-heeled shoe" is a misnomer and the term "heeled" shoe is more appropriate when referring to the female footprints at Highfields as opposed to a flat shoe or boot that would leave a single contiguous impression.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Apr 19, 2018 14:05:50 GMT -5
Anne could not have walked along the boards at the side of the house to the patio and onto the patio to throw pebbles at the baby's window either. Look at the drop off from the patio to the ground in this photo: Hi ilovedfw, If this helps, here's a better look at the "boardwalk" and the patio --
|
|