|
Post by kate1 on May 23, 2017 10:47:51 GMT -5
Does anyone else believe CAL's reaction the night the baby disappeared was a little impulsive? The nurse tells him the baby's gone. He rushes upstairs and quickly looks in the crib, then grabs a rifle and tells the butler to call the police. This seems out of character for someone who is so attentive to detail and has remained calm in many near misses while flying. What did he plan to do with the rifle?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 23, 2017 13:29:41 GMT -5
Better yet, what did he plan to do with a rifle on a dark, windy, (rainy?) night without a flashlight or similar? Crack shot or not, are those the conditions under which you would even consider taking a shot at someone making off with your child?
If he truly is not involved with the abduction, I'm curious why his first comment is "they have taken our baby." I believe at the time he made this comment the note in the nursery hadn't even been discovered yet, so his first inclination is automatically kidnapping? Granted the child would have had a difficult time getting loose from his pinned entrapment in his bedding (especially compromised by thumb guards supposedly on each hand) to exit his crib and wander off on his own, but is the immediate thought in a house full of people that a kidnapping has occurred?
As far as impulsivity, he grabs his gun and rushes out to search the yard but has the self-restraint to hold off on reading the note for hours? I'm surprised the note was found as early as it was given that the search would've been focused on the child elsewhere in the house (it would've become obvious pretty quickly that he wasn't in the nursery) rather than if any envelopes were laying on windowsills of all places... unless of course you know to look for such an item.
If CAL had to appear like he was doing something, anything productive in the search for the baby, then the macho act of grabbing a gun and desperately searching outdoors in inclement weather shows a more "manly" reaction than wandering through the house calling out "Charlie" and looking in closets. His narcissistic personality opted for the former...
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 23, 2017 15:09:14 GMT -5
All very sound observations. But bear in mind what Garsson said: The whole household belonged in jail--i.e. they were all in on it somehow, at least to the extent they knew it wasn't a kidnapping. And all this macho grabbing of rifles and "Anne they have stolen our baby!" business--who was present for that? Only those in the household; these events can't be verified independently. So it could all be made up--a version of events relayed to police to convey a very masculine and heroic reaction to an apparently genuine crisis. Either way, you're right; it sounds about as authentic as, say, Condon's version(s) of his conversations with CJ.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 23, 2017 15:35:19 GMT -5
Mrs Whatley had helped with the baby before Betty Gow came. I don't think anyone checked with her. She thought the baby had died.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 23, 2017 15:41:20 GMT -5
I happen to have my extremely rare copy of "CAL Tells All" here and this is the description of his thought process at the time: "I grabbed my trusty Remington Model 30 that had served me well through thick and thin. My focus was on one and only one thing - to catch these despicable miscreants who would dare violate the sanctity of my home. I dashed down the stairs and into the foreboding abyss, my eyes easily adjusting to the murky darkness of the vast expanse that lay before me. I was confident my marksmanship would bring down those who would dare abduct my beloved first born if only I could get them in my sights. I quickly scanned the vista for signs of movement, much like I had scanned the heavens in flight. I was crestfallen to see that, alas, I was too late and all that greeted me was the sound of the wind and the feel of the rain on my face as though I was over the Atlantic once more..."
Apparently he and Condon shared the same ghostwriter
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 23, 2017 16:47:54 GMT -5
It seems that, alas, they did. "My trusty Remington... despicable miscreants... the foreboding abyss..." I mean, he left out kneeling to say a quick prayer, as the august George Washington did at Valley Forge, before plunging into the tempestuous gustations to find these dastardly blackguards! I hate to make fun, but... well, I can't think of a way to finish that sentence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 17:15:45 GMT -5
Yes! Elsie Whateley had been helping Anne with Charlie. Why bother to bring Betty Gow to Hopewell at all? Wait...Betty's presence is needed to provide the time window of opportunity for Charlie to be kidnapped. Can't have a kidnapping without that.
Elsie did think that Charlie had died when Betty came down and said "the baby is gone." Died... from a cold??? Just how sick was Charlie that night? Elsie knew the answer for sure!
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on May 23, 2017 20:39:26 GMT -5
Another thing is his supposed impulsive reaction to immediately get his son back (charging outside with a gun, etc) - but upon his return to the house, he's quite comfortable waiting for the police fingerprint man to arrive to even touch the note located on the window sill.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 24, 2017 10:05:35 GMT -5
Not to be a cynic here but isn't a lot of the above 20/20 hindsight a bit selective and agenda-oriented? This is starting to sound a bit like the LKC 4 H chapter fist-bumping and high-fiving themselves into quite a state..
Regarding the rifle. We're talking about someone who owned a .22 rifle at age 5 and could bring down a bird in flight as a pre-teen. Lindbergh probably weighed no more than 140 lbs. soaking wet, even at 6' 3-1/2", but he was definitely prone to taking action he felt was required. I have no doubts he would have considered a quick response and loaded gun, to be definite equalizers if required. Would anyone desperate enough to steal your child out of his crib, not quite possibly have been considered a real threat to your own health? Given the state of the room and bed clothes, it wouldn't have taken Lindbergh long to deduce his son had been stolen, and also given the fact he himself was the only one capable of previously pranking the others in the house. Realizing this was no prank, (but extremely bad karma) what should he have done in this case? I can just hear the response if he hadn't grabbed his rifle and dashed out into the night, however desperate that action might seem to some.. "He had a loaded gun in his bedroom closet, so why wouldn't he have thought to grab it and do what he could to possibly intervene if the kidnappers were still on the property??!!"
After the Murray Garsson debacle, I believe if anyone deserved to be locked up, it was Garsson. What I find more interesting though, is that Lindbergh was in total agreement with having Garsson go to Highfields in the middle of the night, with his claim of being able to "break the case within 48 hours." You'd think that if Lindbergh had anything to do with this kidnapping, he would have quickly kaiboshed Garsson's visit, in much the same way he's so routinely accused of being a control freak and obstructing justice to protect himself.
Yes, Elsie Whateley thought Betty was telling her the baby had died, or had no vital signs. Betty's message was not interpreted correctly by Elsie at that specific moment. And Betty's presence at Hopewell was required to establish the window of opportunity for the "kidnapping" to take place? Why? It was Anne who requested Betty's presence that afternoon. And so I guess Anne is in on this fauxnapping now too? Why would she even have needed Betty to hand off the baby when she could have just done it herself? It would be interesting to see how that episode would have gone down in her diary.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 24, 2017 12:12:26 GMT -5
There's no agenda here. Based on the staged quality of the crime scene, and a ton of other new information brought out in Michael's book, there was more to this than a simple kidnapping gone wrong. There was someone on the inside, as everyone was saying at the time. And there was only one person on the inside who had the skill to organize something like this and the clout to make sure that wouldn't become a point of focus.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 24, 2017 14:51:02 GMT -5
he was definitely prone to taking action he felt was required Like getting his ill child out of the house in a manner that would not reflect poorly on himself and his image?
Given the state of the room and bed clothes,it wouldn't have taken Lindbergh long to deduce his son had been stolen Actually, for a purported kidnapping, the description of the room (windows closed, minimal water/mud on the floors, furnishings in place) and the bedclothes supposedly still pinned and "tented" from the child's body, it wouldn't seem to indicate much disruption to the "crime" scene. You'd think that if Lindbergh had anything to do with this kidnapping, he would have quickly kaiboshed Garsson's visit, in much the same way he's so routinely accused of being a control freak and obstructing justice to protect himself. Like Garsson, the whole Curtis goose chase was another example of Lindbergh going through the motions to appear as though he was entertaining investigative theories. He could have just as easily "kaiboshed" that tangent; Curtis had no authenticating "singnature" but Lindbergh apparently needed a little vacation from Highfields to play some cards. Betty's message was not interpreted correctly by Elsie at that specific moment. At what specific moment would it ever be logical for Elsie to interpret "gone" to mean an otherwise supposedly healthy child had died? It was Anne who requested Betty's presence that afternoon. And so I guess Anne is in on this fauxnapping now too? As Gardner has pointed out, she went for a lengthy walk the afternoon of March 1st, which included the whole pebble incident. Anne is so ill she needs to have help sent from Next Day Hill in weather so lousy it lengthens the travel time, even by car. It would make sense if they had just got to Highfields, but as it is already Tuesday, aren't they headed back to Next Day Hill the next day as usual? Nevertheless, once Betty arrives, she is well enough to not only go for a walk in miserable weather, but goes for a walk for hours? Why would she even have needed Betty to hand off the baby when she could have just done it herself? Because Lindbergh had declared the baby was leaving that day and she couldn't bear to perform the handoff herself. Therefore, Betty was summoned and while she was waiting, she decided to make a fleece for the baby's travels...
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 24, 2017 15:01:26 GMT -5
I think he might have checked with the rest of the staff. Good point about his "practical jokes". I might have thiught Anne and Betty were trying one on me.they lived in the middle of nowhere. How would he possibly have seen anything especially on a night like that. He obviously realized it would do no good to look out a window. But he knew the baby wasn't there. Truthfully I'm surprised he allowed the staff to look through the house once he had proclaimed the disappearence a kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2017 19:33:25 GMT -5
Not to be a cynic here but isn't a lot of the above 20/20 hindsight a bit selective and agenda-oriented? This is starting to sound a bit like the LKC 4 H chapter fist-bumping and high-fiving themselves into quite a state.. Regarding the rifle. We're talking about someone who owned a .22 rifle at age 5 and could bring down a bird in flight as a pre-teen. Lindbergh probably weighed no more than 140 lbs. soaking wet, even at 6' 3-1/2", but he was definitely prone to taking action he felt was required. I have no doubts he would have considered a quick response and loaded gun, to be definite equalizers if required. Would anyone desperate enough to steal your child out of his crib, not quite possibly have been considered a real threat to your own health? CAL was very concerned about how the public perceived him. First: Fearless and unafraid. Second: Super-intelligent (e.g. Dr. Einstein intelligent). These seperate actions satisfy both. They contradict one another but projects both of the traits he wants others to see. IF this was a real kidnapping, and CAL ran up on them I think we have several possibilities: 1. He gets killed. 2. He gets kidnapped himself. 3. There's a shootout. As for not opening the note, even the Cops were having a hard time with that (see page 152 TDC). Again, as USC pointed out, it's a contradiction to his earlier action AND not a normal reaction. After the Murray Garsson debacle, I believe if anyone deserved to be locked up, it was Garsson. What I find more interesting though, is that Lindbergh was in total agreement with having Garsson go to Highfields in the middle of the night, with his claim of being able to "break the case within 48 hours." You'd think that if Lindbergh had anything to do with this kidnapping, he would have quickly kaiboshed Garsson's visit, in much the same way he's so routinely accused of being a control freak and obstructing justice to protect himself. There are two version of this visit (see pages 66-7 TDC). If one doesn't like Schwazkopf's then CAL knew he was coming. If he did then I don't believe it was "sold" to him this was how things were going to happen. I mean, how dare he right? Why would she even have needed Betty to hand off the baby when she could have just done it herself? It would be interesting to see how that episode would have gone down in her diary. The child cried out when anyone other then Betty picked him up.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 25, 2017 1:07:23 GMT -5
Could the supposed closet/kidnapping/lockup have been so terrible if Charlie evidently wasn't even crying or they'd have found him right away?
Some of CAL's practical jokes don't really seem possible. Wouldn't the other soldier smell turpentine before he drank out of the bottle of it? Reassembling someone's bed on the roof of a building? Sounds like a lotta BS like a lotta this crime.
|
|
|
Post by john on May 25, 2017 3:24:34 GMT -5
I think it's good to have someone like Joe here, Michael, though among the many reasons to question how Lindbergh reached such quick conclusions (as to his son having been kidnapped) is, once again, that inconvenient business of the weather. Not to sound like a broken record here but the Lindbergh house was in the middle of freakin' nowhere,--why is why he chose the location--and no one knew better than Lindy how difficult it was to get to his new house in Hopewell.
It strikes me as just a bit odd that the first thought that would have popped into the man's mind was that his child had been abducted,--in such rough weather, and by whom, and how the heck were they going to get out of there?--this just seems like a stretch. There could have been so many other reasons why the child wasn't in his crib at that particular moment in time. Then there's his use of "they" having "stolen" his baby. Odd choice of words for a man prone to thinking logically and concretely, disinclined to wild speculation.
So many questions about just this issue, such as whether, assuming that there had been kidnapping threats or rumors of such Lindbergh was aware of, and as was his custom, he hadn't shared with anyone, even his wife--this would make his quick summing up of what had transpired make more sense--but I know of no such threats. There's no record of threats against the Lindbergh baby to the best of my recollection. This raises further questions, of the what Lindy knew and when did he learn about it.
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on May 25, 2017 4:33:14 GMT -5
I guess it is possible that the reason that kidnapping was suspected (or suggested) straight away was because of the large number of kidnappings at the time?
This item comes from New York Times (I think) and may be why it (a) sprung to mind or (b)seemed a feasible suggestion
March 3, 1932
Kidnapping Wave Sweeps The Nation The kidnapping of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr., topping a long list of kidnappings in recent years, serves to emphasize the fact that abduction for ransom has become "a big money crime," taking its place beside the liquor, vice and drug traffic among the prominent "rackets" of the country. Authorities pointed out yesterday that there had been a big wave of kidnapping during the past two years, when more than 2,000 persons were abducted for ransom in the country. During these two years kidnapping syndicates have arisen and have extorted millions of dollars from their victims or their relatives and friends by means of torture or terrorization. It is estimated that in Illinois alone, during 1930 and 1931, there were 400 kidnappings, according to Alexander Jamie, chief investigator for the "Secret Six," a Chicago organization devoted to fighting organized crime. Forty-nine of the Illinois victims were reported officially as having paid ransom, many others were released without ransom and hundreds made no official reports. In a desperate effort to stem the kidnapping wave, mid-West crime fighters have united to obtain Federal legislation that would deter abductions by making transportation of a kidnapped person from one State to another a capital crime. Petitions have been presented to the Federal Government asking for enactment of such a law. Among those favoring this legislation are Colonel Robert Isham Randolph, head of Chicago's "Secret Six"; Walter B. Weisenburger, president of the St. Louis Chamber of Commerce, and others. Recalling recent kidnapping by extortionists, who strike at big money by seizing helpless victims, authorities here said yesterday it might be such a gang as that reported operating here last year which took the Lindbergh baby. Several months ago rumors of a kidnap plot threw high professional and theatrical circles into fright. The police had received information that a highly-organized group had marked a list of wealthy folk in these circles for kidnapping. Detectives disclosed that among the wealthy persons under constant guard to protect them from abduction was Frank Keeney, Brooklyn theatrical man and former Florida race track owner. Detectives said that extortion on a large scale had been attempted by a band operating from Philadelphia. No arrests were made.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 25, 2017 6:39:58 GMT -5
Really though, if he was so aware of the wave of kidnappings why was he so relaxed about security? He left his sick wife and baby alone the night before.
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on May 25, 2017 7:25:01 GMT -5
I don't know why he was lax about security. Perhaps he thought the location of the house itself was security enough.
My point was in response to the question of why he quickly concluded the baby had been kidnapped. If the event was staged, then suggesting a kidnap was plausible and would be readily accepted by others due to the kidnapping 'craze'. If the event was genuine, it was a reasonable conclusion to jump to, again due to the kidnapping 'craze'.
I'm just trying to point out that given the events of the time, kidnapping was not an outrageous conclusion to reach. Whether is was true or not is a different matter.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 25, 2017 8:34:08 GMT -5
How many victims of the kidnapping rings were 20-month old infants?
It was my understanding that the rings usually targeted wealthy men, which makes sense since they would be in the best position to afford to pay. Granted, one benefit would be the younger the child, the less likely they could testify effectively in the event the kidnappers were caught. Conversely, kidnapping an infant brings with it a host of problems to the kidnappers like feeding and diapers that (most) adult victims are not going to have.
If anything, Lindbergh himself (or Anne) would be more lucrative, "lower maintenance" targets than the baby. It would seem to be much easier to force Lindbergh off the road in rural Hopewell and put the grab on him than the relatively higher degree of difficulty in the ladder job required for the baby.
If Hauptmann had used that ether in his garage and grabbed Anne on her afternoon walk on March 1st, would Lindbergh have waited a month to pay ransom for her?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 25, 2017 9:24:35 GMT -5
Scathma, I would like a copy of CAL's book....most entertaining thing I've read recently! Thank you for the chuckle. I would have gone for Anne. Her family would have acted quickly I think.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 25, 2017 14:46:10 GMT -5
True, Anne would have been a juicy target. Wonder if CAL would have opened the note at all.
Regarding the Charlie kidnapping though, the physical act and the psychological events mostly fit right in with what Dudley Shoenfeld expertly comment on the crime long before anyone had ever heard about Richard Hauptmann. His views fit Hauptmann too; the kidnapper was striking at Charles himself at what the kidnapper - and anyone would feel - was his most valuable and vulnerable point. Money was somewhat secondary, of course it's always nice to not work for a while. I imagine the kidnapper figured 50K could be gotten in about 10 minutes by the Lindbergh/Morrow families (which it could have) and the crime - child unfortunately dead but that's what you get for being so famous - would be over in a couple days.
Regarding the Riehl description of the cemetery contacts, his observations really fit right in with what is known about personal observations. A witness usually can only be relied on to accurately state if a suspect was male or female, white person or some color, generally tall or short and physical defects - limps, scars on hands, etc. In TLC even a little event like this brief meeting is confusing as can be!
Only an idiot would describe someone as "Calabrese Italian' and it seems that Condon was more if an idiot in spite of his learning, than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 25, 2017 15:49:50 GMT -5
Only an idiot would describe someone as "Calabrese Italian' and it seems that Condon was more if an idiot in spite of his learning, than anything else. Or someone doing their damnedest to muddy the waters and create a lead impossible trail to follow...
Isn't this the same guy who originally stated CJ had "Oriental" shaped eyes?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 25, 2017 16:25:42 GMT -5
I think he was simply trying to impress anyone who would listen how intelligent he was. You'd have to be looking at someone's Italian drivers license to know if he was Calabrese Italian or not. Condon does that frequently.
I doubt that anyone you'll ever meet will know what Calabrese means.
But reading something into Charles' choice of JFC really only leads to more speculatio of which there's plenty of already. Lets see, after Betty hands off poor Charlie to CAL or one of his cohorts, it's too bad she didn't think to go out and do something with the ladder. She could have hid it next to Charlie's body and it might never have been found.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 25, 2017 16:50:49 GMT -5
I don't know why he was lax about security. Perhaps he thought the location of the house itself was security enough. That would be hard to believe. With prior intrusions, and warnings I think he knew what the situation was. But as he told Hurley - he didn't want anyone to think he was afraid (see page 33 TDC).
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 26, 2017 0:26:14 GMT -5
That's right. The incidents at their farm house alone should have indicated their vulnerability. His explanation seems weak. The baby probably wasn't afraid at all and he ended up dead! It's one thing not to be concerned about your own safety but those you love? Especially an infant! Odd statement that I think says a lot.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 26, 2017 9:09:24 GMT -5
In her least popular book "I Do What I'm Told, I Go Where I'm Led," Anne writes about how afraid she is for her safety and that of the baby, since Lindbergh was seemingly hell-bent on sticking them in the boonies all alone:
"Mentioned to C. how I was brought up in a secure household with guards and none the worse for it. He said I was no longer a "Morrow," and that I was a "Lindbergh now - Lindberghs do not need guards" so I dropped the matter. It can be so hard sometimes being the co-pilot of a hero."
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 26, 2017 10:29:43 GMT -5
I want hat book too! Hope she covered the part where she worried about the baby at the first farmhouse! And maybe about the kidnapping plot of her sister. I'm not sure I buy the part about "what were you doing all day in NYC" though.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 26, 2017 18:13:22 GMT -5
In her least popular book "I Do What I'm Told, I Go Where I'm Led," Anne writes about how afraid she is for her safety and that of the baby, since Lindbergh was seemingly hell-bent on sticking them in the boonies all alone:
"Mentioned to C. how I was brought up in a secure household with guards and none the worse for it. He said I was no longer a "Morrow," and that I was a "Lindbergh now - Lindberghs do not need guards" so I dropped the matter. It can be so hard sometimes being the co-pilot of a hero." LMAO.
|
|
|
Post by john on May 27, 2017 23:50:13 GMT -5
Good question about kidnappings as to the age of,--abductees?--anyway, the ones who get kidnapped. A twenty month old toddler seems awfully young for a snatch; and then there's the issue of taking care of the child, feeding him, tending to his needs.
If the kidnapper was serious (about returning the child unharmed) it would not be unreasonable to assume that it would be if not a full blown gang, two people anyway. Then there's the issue of the time of year,--worst possible timing for that location for the kidnap--yet there it is.
All this makes one wonder just how carefully the crime was planned, considering the age of the child, what might happen to it if something went wrong, problems with illness, injuries and the like. In any weather, obviously, but especially on a wet and windy winter night.
Question: could it be that the timing of the kidnap, as to that particular night, in such poor weather, quite a distance from "civilization" and the distinct possibility (let's leave it at that) that the criminals were aware of the child's less than ideal health, was a signal to, specifically, Charles Lindbergh, that he would never see his son again alive?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 28, 2017 0:27:37 GMT -5
I think the simplest explanation for everything you point out is that this was not a kidnapping at all. Things were planned, for sure--the ruse that it was a kidnapping.
|
|