|
Post by stella7 on Oct 19, 2017 15:23:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wendyrite on Oct 19, 2017 16:10:23 GMT -5
This baby was so different from most 20 month olds I've known! What do mean by that? Yes I’m curious to your thoughts as well as to why you thinks he’s an unusual two year old. The height definitely seems off. Did anyone ever see anything that noted the baby’s weight?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 8:13:34 GMT -5
Then why did Anne decide to take such a long walk if she was not feeling well; AND why did Betty leave the french window open in the nursery and not turn on the heater until she went in "to check on the baby" at 10:00???!!! Anne does mention in one of her statements that she took a walk twice on Monday afternoon, so I guess she was not going to let a cold keep her from doing the same on Tuesday?? As far as Betty leaving the French window open on Tuesday night, according to Anne's March 11 statement, she (Anne) left the French window open on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday night. Why do this if your child has a cold that is getting worse and not better, going from nasal congestion to now include chest congestion?! Anne makes it sound like leaving the French window open was customary. There is another "customary" activity that Anne mentions in her statements concerning Charlie's bedtime routine which I found to be interesting. Anne mentions that when Charlie was put down for the night, Charlie's bathroom light would be left on until 10 p.m. when he would be awakened and taken to the bathroom. Then the bathroom light would be put out after 10 p.m. You go to Betty Gow's statements and she says that on Tuesday night she put Charlie's bathroom light out before going downstairs at 8 p.m. Why wasn't it left on as was "customary"? Did she know that Charlie was not going to need to make that bathroom trip at 10 p.m. or did she just not know about this custom to leave it on?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 9:35:25 GMT -5
or might she have sent a signal. . . Yes, she might have been doing just that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 10:05:58 GMT -5
2. Ann leaves, Betty re-enters nursery, pins matress, turns out bath and bed light, goes to cellar, sitting room, eat You know what else is interesting, in both of Anne's statements she tells how she went to the baby's bathroom to retrieve her tooth powder so she could brush her teeth in her own bathroom. Anne says she did not turn on any lights at this time, retrieving the tooth powder in the dark. Anne does this before it is time for Betty to lift Charlie. So Anne knows that Betty did not follow her custom of leaving the baby's bathroom light on until after the 10 p.m. bathroom visit. I guess Betty can do whatever she wants!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 19, 2019 18:48:11 GMT -5
I don't think any of the events in the house happened as they described them. All this tooth-powder fetching, dress examining, dinner eating, heater checking, rifle grabbing--everything that whole day--seems artificial and made up.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 21, 2019 13:37:49 GMT -5
I don't think any of the events in the house happened as they described them. All this tooth-powder fetching, dress examining, dinner eating, heater checking, rifle grabbing--everything that whole day--seems artificial and made up. Exactly. We're supposed to believe CAL grabbed his rifle in a haste to find his son, taking whatever steps might be necessary but when it came time to open the letter he'd rather wait for "a fingerprint expert." What if the letter said meet us in 30 minutes?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 21, 2019 16:49:53 GMT -5
Exactly. Fingerprint expert, my a*s. He couldn’t use a pair of gloves and a kitchen knife to open the letter, then place it back where it was? No, it was more important that the police see it where it was, on the windowsill, establishing that as the entry/exit point, so they’d say “Well, there couldn’t have been an insider; if there were, then the kidnappers wouldn’t have needed to use a window.” Bottom line, there was no urgency regarding the ransom note on Lindbergh’s part—i.e. he had some general idea of the contents, therefore had some kind of foreknowledge and was in on it. And this is setting aside the staged crime scene: What genuine kidnapper is going to waste getaway time and leave behind incriminating footprints by taking off through a muddy field in the dark, when they had a car and must’ve used it to head up the driveway, since there were no approach prints?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 25, 2019 3:38:52 GMT -5
Exactly. Fingerprint expert, my a*s. He couldn’t use a pair of gloves and a kitchen knife to open the letter, then place it back where it was? No, it was more important that the police see it where it was, on the windowsill, establishing that as the entry/exit point, so they’d say “Well, there couldn’t have been an insider; if there were, then the kidnappers wouldn’t have needed to use a window.” Bottom line, there was no urgency regarding the ransom note on Lindbergh’s part—i.e. he had some general idea of the contents, therefore had some kind of foreknowledge and was in on it. And this is setting aside the staged crime scene: What genuine kidnapper is going to waste getaway time and leave behind incriminating footprints by taking off through a muddy field in the dark, when they had a car and must’ve used it to head up the driveway, since there were no approach prints? Exactly. I think it was Leon Ho-age, who seemed to be one of the most "on the right track" investigators, who said the ransom note and ladder were akin to a sign saying "WE WENT THIS WAY! LOOK HERE!"
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 25, 2019 11:48:08 GMT -5
And I have yet to hear anyone successfully explain away Lindbergh's lack of urgency in not immediately opening the note, or, for that matter, how the kidnappers managed to see and reply to Condon's Home News letter as quickly as they did, or why they would bother replying at all.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 1, 2019 16:12:29 GMT -5
I don't think any of the events in the house happened as they described them. All this tooth-powder fetching, dress examining, dinner eating, heater checking, rifle grabbing--everything that whole day--seems artificial and made up. To provide a little perspective within your role as keyboard analyst here, try keeping a mental log yourself on any given evening in an active household, asking yourself how believable all of the regular and more spontaneous things that took place in tandem and by themselves would then sound, in the event something very bad were to happen and you were then thrust upon to explain your and everyone else's actions. And while you may not want to believe this took place, try at least to appreciate how difficult that might be if nothing very bad was actually expected to happen.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 1, 2019 16:15:18 GMT -5
I don't think any of the events in the house happened as they described them. All this tooth-powder fetching, dress examining, dinner eating, heater checking, rifle grabbing--everything that whole day--seems artificial and made up. Exactly. We're supposed to believe CAL grabbed his rifle in a haste to find his son, taking whatever steps might be necessary but when it came time to open the letter he'd rather wait for "a fingerprint expert." What if the letter said meet us in 30 minutes? Right, meet me at the fork in the road in a half hour and bring a pile of money I know you probably don't have kicking around the house, with you.. or were you suggesting they could have just got together to chat and get acquainted? You can call the kidnapper shortsighted here for not making it clear on the envelope what his intentions were = fatal mistake on Hauptmann's part. And of course you've neglected to mention the fact that Lindbergh had Whateley call the police right away. So, if you've now opened the door to what you know will become a full fledged police investigation, why would you then open what was obviously a ransom letter before they got there? And if the ever-privacy-seeking Lindbergh truly had any foreknowledge of the kidnapping, do you really think he would have wanted to make a "world affair" out of it? Or would he have wanted to deal with as much of it on his own upfront in private, to muddy further whatever waters which he would already know, would have to be investigated by police at a later date?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 1, 2019 16:37:13 GMT -5
Exactly. Fingerprint expert, my a*s. He couldn’t use a pair of gloves and a kitchen knife to open the letter, then place it back where it was? No, it was more important that the police see it where it was, on the windowsill, establishing that as the entry/exit point, so they’d say “Well, there couldn’t have been an insider; if there were, then the kidnappers wouldn’t have needed to use a window.” Bottom line, there was no urgency regarding the ransom note on Lindbergh’s part—i.e. he had some general idea of the contents, therefore had some kind of foreknowledge and was in on it. And this is setting aside the staged crime scene: What genuine kidnapper is going to waste getaway time and leave behind incriminating footprints by taking off through a muddy field in the dark, when they had a car and must’ve used it to head up the driveway, since there were no approach prints? Exactly. I think it was Leon Ho-age, who seemed to be one of the most "on the right track" investigators, who said the ransom note and ladder were akin to a sign saying "WE WENT THIS WAY! LOOK HERE!" I believe the ransom note and ladder in part, point to the fact the kidnapper(s) came that way and left that way. How else do they get in or out? And your "bread crumb trail" through the muddy field never would have happened if they hadn't lost their s**t when the ladder snapped and they panicked after things went south. They would have planned originally to go back by the same route they arrived. The driveway.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 1, 2019 16:47:53 GMT -5
And I have yet to hear anyone successfully explain away Lindbergh's lack of urgency in not immediately opening the note, or, for that matter, how the kidnappers managed to see and reply to Condon's Home News letter as quickly as they did, or why they would bother replying at all. I've been providing my personal thoughts on Lindbergh's decision not to open the ransom note for as long as I've been studying this case, see above post. Re: the Bronx Home News response, it's really not a stretch considering both individuals happened to live in the Bronx. And not a bad bet that the kidnappers would have originated in the New York City area given its population relative to the area within a radius of 60 miles and that is was a virtual hotbed for snatch racket type activities of the day.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 2, 2019 0:57:43 GMT -5
Sorry, when I said "successfully explain", the operative word was 'successfully'. And if you're this testy and defensive now about maintaining St. Charles the Aviated's image, I cannot wait to see how you react to V3...
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2019 7:48:38 GMT -5
Sorry, when I said "satisfactorily explain", the operative word was 'satisfactorily'. And if you're this testy and defensive now about maintaining St. Charles the Aviated's image, I cannot wait to see how you react to V3... Your inference that I defend Charles Lindbergh, in the same style you fall over yourself supporting nothing more than a conspiracy notion like a loyal minion, demonstrates clearly where you base your position. This has nothing to do with defending anyone's image, especially when it comes to someone I admire only for his positive contributions to the world and most notably his 1927 trans-Atlantic flight, so I can assure you your statement is nothing more than a juvenile schoolyard tactic. Along the lines of what I told Michael, I'm very much looking forward to V3 for whatever additional, factual case information it has to offer on this case, but I won't hesitate to comment objectively on innuendo or conclusions drawn to support pre-conceived theories from cherry-picked references.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2019 9:05:45 GMT -5
Along the lines of what I told Michael, I'm very much looking forward to V3 for whatever additional, factual case information it has to offer on this case, but I won't hesitate to comment objectively on innuendo or conclusions drawn to support pre-conceived theories from cherry-picked references. I am trying to understand how you diversify your thoughts here. If it is only factual information that matters to you, how do you see the warped shutters as factual? There are no reports to refer to that conclude this pair of nursery room shutters were, in fact, warped. The shutters went missing so there was no way to check what was being claimed by Betty Gow, Anne Lindbergh, or Mrs. Morrow. You only have statements, no facts to prove those shutters were warped. Do you consider the warped shutter claim as factual in this case? If so, what fact/facts do you base it on?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2019 9:47:37 GMT -5
Along the lines of what I told Michael, I'm very much looking forward to V3 for whatever additional, factual case information it has to offer on this case, but I won't hesitate to comment objectively on innuendo or conclusions drawn to support pre-conceived theories from cherry-picked references. I am trying to understand how you diversify your thoughts here. If it is only factual information that matters to you, how do you see the warped shutters as factual? There are no reports to refer to that conclude this pair of nursery room shutters were, in fact, warped. The shutters went missing so there was no way to check what was being claimed by Betty Gow, Anne Lindbergh, or Mrs. Morrow. You only have statements, no facts to prove those shutters were warped. Do you consider the warped shutter claim as factual in this case? If so, what fact/facts do you base it on? Amy, I've never believed conclusively that the shutters were actually "warped" as this seems to be an opinion shared along the way only by Betty and Anne, who often tackled them together. I don't preclude the possibility that for example, the latch mechanism was never accurately enough aligned to allow the slide bolt to engage cleanly. Perhaps one of them commented, "they must be warped" and the idea just grew arms and legs from there.. I really don't know. Regardless, it was a new house maintenance issue, and one that really doesn't seem to have represented much of an inconvenience until the evening of March 1, 1932, (noise in the wind, further damage, etc.) other than the efforts needed each time to try and lock them until that time.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 2, 2019 12:18:45 GMT -5
Falling over myself like a loyal minion to support something... Oh, the irony. In any event, there’s no need to use “tactics” of any kind on a person who, whether they know it or not, is already down for the count.
|
|