|
Post by the colonel on Apr 9, 2006 21:08:57 GMT -5
It has recently become news that CAL had a family in Germany which was a secret from his family in the US. Could it be that CAL had an involvement with Violet Sharp and was involved in her death?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 9, 2006 21:29:34 GMT -5
Yo Colonel: You could be onto something here--maybe? CAL spent alot of unexplained nites at Next Day Hill rather than make the extra one hour drive home. Monday 29 Feb 32 for one? Now at what age does a man start milking the maidens? 25, 35, 45? I dont know but since it was true later, it could easily be true in '32. At least thats what Bill Clinton told me/ but there are 30 servants at Next Day including Betty Gow...so theres a certain chance. The second part of the question is also yes. But we will only know when more of the LKC mystery is revealed. Like where was Charlie taken, on what day, and by whome for 72 days? It is interesting that CAL insulated all the servants at Sorry Hill, but none at Next Day? Violet could have been in the planning stages of a kidnap with Fisch in the Bronx at the Harlem church, or could have given away pertinient info to the snappers. But both Dwight Jr and CAL were there the day Violet drank the poison so either one of them could have handed it to her. Nice thought huh? CAL found the glass in her room?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 10, 2006 5:32:28 GMT -5
While there's always a chance of something going on - I highly doubt any Lindy/Sharp connection in which there was an affair. It's my belief that Lindbergh was having children in Germany due to his belief in Eugenics, and I'm quite sure there are more yet to be discovered.
That doesn't mean he wouldn't have an affair at that time but I don't see the connection with Sharp. A better possibility would be Gow.
Did he have a hand in Sharp's death? Well, her death was suspicious and I would submit if you think along those lines anyone in that house should be considered.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 11, 2006 14:34:21 GMT -5
As Violet Sharpe says in her poetry...I'm only a lowly scullery maid? I agree, CAL would really have to be into risky business to take up with Violet? But because of Violets late nite shenanigans with the butler and the locals she may have seen or heard something she wasnt supposed to know?
i think its now a pretty viable idea that maybe she and Oliie were heading out into New Rochelle and the Bronx on CALs orders? Why you say? Because Ollie is not going to get any permission from Elsey to spend his Sundays or Sunday evenings with Violet without it being a work effort assigned by CAL? As far as we can ascertain, Walsh and the Inquisition never asks Violet about Ollie so that suggests it wasnt known then, at least not openlly.
But, I am gradually getting the notion that certain matters were "off limits" for the cops and investigators. These are weatlhy and influential families the NJSP et al are dealing with and thus they all need to "walk on eggshells" 24/7. CAL threatend to shoot anyone disobeying his orders--or at the very least he could pull alot of strings quickly and you would be fired. CAL threatened more than one cop in his hometowne and in the Bronx as well. Walsh claims in his Jersey Journal articles that many so-called "secrets" about the case and the ransom notes could not be revealed in November of 1933. I can imagine there were plenty. Someone like Bornmann, for instance, would be smart enough to read the tea leaves on areas "to be covered" and those " to be covered up'".
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 12, 2006 5:59:15 GMT -5
I have really hard time considering that Whateley was involved but announced to the Newspapers there was an "inside connection." I would think if you are an inside connection you don't bull-horn this thought to the world.
|
|
|
Post by m60dick on Apr 12, 2006 10:09:54 GMT -5
Hi Folks,
As you all know, I am a "two people involved, but no inside help guy"; but one must consider all possibilities.
Betty Gow did mention a slight mud stain on the blankets, though no one else seem to notice. Also from many sources, though I do not know if pics exist, there were slightly muddy footprints on the nursey floor (not an exact description but they were described in many differnet ways though apparently some kind of tracks were there)
Yes, all this could have been a planted misdirection to make folk THINK someone entered the nursey...but if not? Well, it was mentioned that of the tracks leading from the house to the lane--one of the pair had some kind of woolen footcover on. I think Bruno put clean socks over his shoes just before he ascended--and in doing so they became slighly soiled. And he did it to help muffle the sound--that is what I think. Otherwise there would have been plentiful mud all over the place........Dick
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 12, 2006 18:33:42 GMT -5
Good observation concerning the mud in the crib only commented on by Gow. It's also an interesting theory that whoever entered the nursery slipped on socks [covering] just before ascending the ladder.
Here are my obstacles to accepting it:
1. A sock, or similar covering over the shoe would make the entrance from a (2) sectioned ladder even more difficult.
2. There was a nice sized "chunk" of mud found on top of open 1st floor shutter.
3. Thayer's report saying the mud prints in the nursery were identified as Anne's from earlier in the day due to the "knobs" on her shoes.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Apr 12, 2006 18:45:08 GMT -5
Hi Dick,
That can work. There are other questions to ask though. How do you account for the lack of fingerprints and and a rather undisturbed nursery? If you put all things together the nursery is still suspiciously too perfect. How do you account for CJ's answer to Condon that the note was left in the crib yet Lindbergh says differently. If there are accounts of two or three then what is that places Hauptmann in the active role rather than behind the scenes? Would not Anna be suspicious somewhere along the line not being home, going out to a movie alone on his birthday, missing the german sing along on the night of payment of the ransom? If Hauptmann was the most active of the two or three involved wouldn't one of his friends remember such suspicious actions? Perhaps not but this is what is to be considered.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 12, 2006 21:40:30 GMT -5
Ollie doesnt belong in the nursery. If he was up there handing Charlie out the window and then cleaning the room up, chances are reasonable that he would be caught or seen. Betty Gow belongs in the nursery. Whatever she might do up there, or say she has to do up there would go totally unnoticed. Its SOP. Why CAL gives her a free pass but not Violet Sharpe is doubly suspicious. Betty also seems to have a stronger constitution for coverup? Red Johnson had been to Highfields a couple times before with Betty. He would know his way around the roads and the house. He moved to Englewood specifically to date Betty, and yet, he leaves the nite of the kidnapping under strange circumstances and then gets summarily deported. That certainly disrupts any marriage plans in the making and isolates Betty....one on CAL? Would Red have time to circle around Highfields or could Ellerson bring Charlie back to him? What are the chances that two sources claim that Violet and Ollie are meeting with Fisch but all three end up dead before BRH drops the $10 spot for gas? About the same as Koeholers nail stats I presume? 1 plus lots 0's
|
|
|
Post by m60dick on Apr 13, 2006 6:46:11 GMT -5
Hi Gary, This lack of fingerprint business just will not go away. Like other parts of this crime, it is clouded by which source and "expert" you read. Some have said the more sophisticated European technique raised "smudges"--whatever in the hell that is suppose to mean. Okay, Betty Gow passes the baby out the window to ? (and that person never actually enters the house) I have then never understood why the nursey would need sanitized? Betty's prints, Anne's prints--everybody in that house prints--would have been expected to be there--why wipe them away? As for where the ransom note was placed--any alleged conversation filtered back through Condon is automatically suspect for accuracy. The nursey being too neat? How was it suppose to look--like a fight happened? Again, this is where misdirection by experts with agendas make due caution a must. The alleged little trunk by the window that Gardner says would have taken a near-acrobat to jump over without leaving a trace? Another source says that pic was staged--the night of the kidnapping that trunk was in the middle of the nursey.........go figure Regards, Dick
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 13, 2006 8:09:29 GMT -5
These are very good points regarding the crime scene. Here are a few other points;
MUD We keep bringing up the muddy footprint issue, or the lack of. We must remember that as a recent construction site the soil consistency would variate between clay and loam. This combined with a variable of soil saturation would yield very different results in footprint impressions and adhesion to shoes. The soil transfer is going to be very different at this location. As for the "chunk" of mud on the Library shutter, it could be a result of Anne's stone tossing or a clump of soil scraped off of the kidnapper's shoe upon climbing and exiting the ladder.
FINGERPRINTS The lack of identifiable latents does not mean the Nursery was wiped clean. The surfaces in the room vary and lifting prints that are of any use is sometimes difficult. Was Kelly up to the task? Wouldn't the kidnapper wear gloves anyway? I don't think there is enough reliable information to state that no prints existed in the Nursery.
ROOM CONDITION & INSIDE AID The fact that the Nursery is so undisturbed and the entry window was closed after exit make perfect sense if the kidnapper expected that the bay was in bed for the night. He would want no obvious sign that something was amiss if he expected that the baby would not be disturbed until morning. I believe this is also why the ladder was removed. To me it indicates three things. One, the kidnapper may not have been a parent and simply assumed that a baby is in bed for the night without any need to be attended, Two, the kidnapper had no knowledge of the routine at the Lindbergh household and therefore had no idea that Gow would always check in at 10pm. Three, the kidnapper needed or wanted as much time as possible before the discovery of the missing child.
|
|
|
Post by m60dick on Apr 13, 2006 10:35:40 GMT -5
Excellent Kevkon--very nice!
On the mud however, I am sticking to my thought the kidnapper covered his shoes just before ascending to help muffle the noise. I will also acknowledge however, as I think Michael pointed-out--this would have made the whole operation much more difficult. But, I can not think of any other reason--if as you say (and I agree) the kidnapper thought the baby was down for the night--why would he care if he tracked mud in as it would not be noticed until morning? I also agree with you on the uncertainity and variablities of the soil--however it surely is true that if a man walked from the lane, through the field, to the house--his shoes would have considerable mud on them and left uncovered would have deposited a marked amount in the nursey?
The windows--it still is not certain which one was left slightly opened for ventilation. (apparently like my Grandmother those folks believed in fresh air no matter how sick you were...) But most will vote for the French one as Anne said in her testimony that was the one Betty "usually" left opened and Betty testifies that was the one she shut when she first checked on the baby. Now surely she only left it ajar slightly, and since she never mentioned finding it wide open we must than assume the kidnapper put it back as he found it. Implausible you say? Not if as Kevkon states the kidnapper did want to create any unusal circumstances that might have reduced his getaway time.
Or, it is at least as plausible as most of the conspiracy theories--and more plausible than many.........
Regards All, Dick
|
|
|
Post by gary on Apr 13, 2006 13:22:45 GMT -5
First of all I don't believe Gow is involved although I believe an inside source for information was used.
How is the room supposed to look? Certainly it is logical the room should be left intact as much as possible by the kidnapper but I am looking what is reasonable. Think of the mind set of the kidnapper. If I was entering my eye would be on the doorways as well as the crib. My concern would be getting in and getting the baby out as quickly as possible. The lack of evidence in this event is surprising. Let alone remarkably he got in the room but didn't knock over the toy on the chest and left basically everything undisturbed. Even the investigators were shocked. One of their first thoughts was that this involved an inside job.
The investigators were also baffled about the lack of fingerprints. What I understand there were some prints even on the ladder but they couldn't identify them and those they could never matched anybody including Hauptmann.
The quality of mud I don't know. The theory the socks were taken off before entry would mean the shoe impressions might be visible on the getaway. I believe the ladder was removed to give the kidnapper(s) time to get away in case the ladder against the window was detected from the outside. Now if it is Hauptmann alone who is holding the baby, the chisel, the pistol, the ether, the discarded socks. Have I missed anything? Most of what is reported indicates atleast two or more involved. Busch and all the investigators believed this even to the point of their findings on featherbed Lane. There were two cars sighted by a local family that viewed featherbed lane that evening. So if we can believe the possibility of two what makes it difficult there were more when we can't even identify who might be the second.
Certainly one person doing this is possible. Respectively I say this though, I saw the immaculate reception by Franco Harris. I wonder what had a better chance in happening ?
|
|
|
Post by elyssa on Apr 13, 2006 15:17:32 GMT -5
Anne heard a car on the gravel driveway before Charles got home. This could have been someone (or Charles) placing the ladder to get to Charlie, then taking him to someone on Feather bed Lane. If it were Charles he would have been in a hurry to get Charlie to the other person so as not to get caught himself. He could have removed the ladder when he returned, so no one would ask why he didn't see the ladder upon arriving home.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 13, 2006 16:05:57 GMT -5
What Anne heard could be important. I have felt that one or more Perpetrators could have been dropped off. Its seems too far to carry this ladder, among other things, from either road.
The mud... I agree with Kevin concerning the possibility of various conditions but say with conviction mud must have existed on the shoes of anyone walking anywhere on that yard. I believe the mud on the shutter was from the foot of someone who had walked in the yard, ascended the ladder, and waited for the child to be handed to them and centered themselves by placing their left foot there.
The fingerprints....If someone wore gloves then Kelly would have found prints on, near, and around that "kidnap" window. He didn't. Nothing about smudges in the source material, in fact, these reports and memos clearly say in no uncertain terms that no prints were found. The trial testimony was BS meant to neutralize the Defense's agreements.
If Kelly wasn't up to the task, then we'd have to ask ourselves how he was able to find prints elsewhere in the house, days later, using the Black Powder method if he couldn't only hours after the crime was committed in the Nursery. Anne and Betty both claimed they touched the areas in question and neither were wearing gloves.
Someone wiped down that area.
The "undisturbed" Nursery....It's impossible for me to accept someone blindly pulled this off with no information. It's one or the other - either they had it or they didn't. Then to accept they were able to pick the right window at the right time under impossible circumstances and not bump into or knock over these obstacles is beyond comprehension.
At least for me.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 13, 2006 17:03:07 GMT -5
A while back, who knows how far, there was a comment at least, that the person who climbed the ladder only needed to "look in to see" either that Charlie was there or that the insider was there"? I know I read this speculation somewheres?
Why? Because--why chance dropping your meal ticket in some Circ de Solle acrobatic balancing stunt when Betty (?) can just hand Charlie out the front door quckly and safely?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 14, 2006 5:44:06 GMT -5
I think anytime you are removing a child out of a 2nd floor window, no matter what the method there is a chance he could be dropped - regardless. The child had to have been out or handled by Betty for him not to scream when being removed. I think we all agree Strangers were present at the time.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 14, 2006 6:16:39 GMT -5
If he is still alive, conscious, or not gagged.
|
|
|
Post by m60dick on Apr 14, 2006 6:36:12 GMT -5
Hi Folks,
I must say as a near-rookie here--you folks are capable of putting beacuoup brain-power to work. This next idea may have been done, attempted, before I came aboard but if not---have we ever tried to establish a baseline of "facts" that most agree to.
For instance, this bizness about not knocking over the toy on the trunk going in and out of the window. In one of my recent posts I said I have read that in fact that trunk was in the middle of the nursey floor-----does anyone know for sure? This is an example of a baseline fact that needs to be established.......
As for the baby not crying, it always has been my believe that the kidnappers never had any intention to keep the baby alive. A child that young could easily and quicklyhave been stangled in his crib w/o uttering a sound.
Cold-blooded you say? I agree but then Bruno was a cold dude--take a look at those eyes. And here is another angle. Hauptman suffered severe trauma in WWI--a personal injury in addition to family members killed. Who is to say the kidnapping/murder was not at least partly due to the rage he felt about the U.S. being part of the Allies that caused his trauma? And CAL was at the time THE epitome of the power of the U.S. and a huge idol (his pro-German tendencies were not yet well-known) This was Hauptman's way of "getting back"
Betty Gow loved that baby--no way can I see her as part of it. Some will say, well, she thought it was only a kidnapping and the murder was an accident. Okay--but we should yank the baby from under the covers with such force the pins were left in place AND then hand him over w/o a blanket to protect him from the cold? I simply can not see it.
Regards, Dick
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 14, 2006 6:53:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by elyssa on Apr 14, 2006 15:17:33 GMT -5
If Charlie had been given for his cold he may have slept through being taken. Anyone wanting to get the child out of his bed without waking him would take him out gently, and this could have been done without removing the pins. As for the placement of the furniture in the room that night we can never know for sure. For instance if Charlie fell out of the window from his crib, that crib would have been moved away from the window. If Anne were tossing pebbles at the window hoping to get Charlie to look out the window at her I would think the crib was next to the window. It will be hard to come up with the true facts of what happened when all the reports are half truths.
|
|
|
Post by jack on Apr 15, 2006 7:40:47 GMT -5
In his book, Norris refers to interviews of the staff done by Rosner with Thayer present during which Rosner found out that Gow and Whatley had problems with each other. Does anyone know more about this? Could it have played into the kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 15, 2006 9:52:50 GMT -5
Dick,
I don't exempt anyone who was in the house or employed by the family from suspicion. I also ask to see evidence of this "cold-blooded" behavior by Hauptmann prior to this crime. It's my opinion that signs should exist while in Germany and in the years while in the US prior to March 1, 1932 - I just don't see any.
Elyssa,
I think this is interesting suggest someone slipped the baby something to keep him asleep.
Jack,
Do you have a page number? This would make it easier for me to find an answer for you. If not don't worry about it....
|
|
|
Post by jack on Apr 15, 2006 15:16:24 GMT -5
Michael,
The reference to the relationship between Gow and Whatley can be found at the bottom of page 35. "Later that morning, Rosner and Thayer interrogated the servants ... All was not sweetness and light, for example, between Olly and Betty."
Jack
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 15, 2006 19:44:09 GMT -5
Unfortunately my version of the book doesn't have this on that page, however, it obviously came from either Thayer or Rosner. After going through my first Thayer file I located this excerpt from his 1st report: When Wheatley was asked what his opinion was of Betty, he replied that he always had a feeling of irritation towards her since she had never offered to help either him or Mrs. Wheatley with the housework and would never lift a finger to anything except when asked. Mrs. Wheatley tried to keep Mr. Wheatley from saying this commenting that after all she was a baby's nurse and had nothing to do with the household work.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 15, 2006 20:26:04 GMT -5
I would bet that Betty had a hand in scrubbing down the Nursery. You know how one hand washes the other? Wonder what kind of forensic evidence was being "cleaned"?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 16, 2006 8:12:10 GMT -5
Other than it's use as an innuendo to infer conspiracy without proof, I really don't see the point of scrubbing or wiping down the Nursery. A kidnapper would likely wear gloves and would not need to touch anything in that room besides the window, some window trim, the shutter, and perhaps the crib. If you believe there was an inside accomplice, wiping the room is equally pointless as their prints would be expected to be present there.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 16, 2006 8:35:06 GMT -5
I personally think we shouldn't ignore the situation because it implies conspiracy. The word conspiracy scares people but its a fact that if two or more people plan a crime they've just entered into one. There are thousands of people in Federal Prison having been convicted of Conspiracy.
One would assume the Kidnappers would wear gloves but we still don't know the true nature and the exact happenings in order to make any declarations.
That window, especially that window, should have had prints all over it and none were found. None. Not smudges - none.
I think an explanation should be sought out as to why. It could be someone did it simply because they thought they would be suspected but didn't have any role. However, prints were there but weren't when Kelly showed up.
Prints developed on the ransom notes too lets not forget.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 16, 2006 8:59:52 GMT -5
Conspiracy doesn't bother me, innuendo does. I can certainly see additional conspirators involved in this crime. But allusions to "wiping the nursery clean" have another purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 16, 2006 9:14:19 GMT -5
I am convinced the area was wiped down. The circumstances not only suggest this they support it. Heck, you had Charles Jr.'s prints being raised as late as May, on wood no less, in other places in the house but not a single print on that glass window?
I am open to the thought that even the Kidnapper(s) may have done this. Perhaps they weren't wearing gloves or had to take one off for some reason.
I think we've also forgotten to mention the note. Maybe it wouldn't have blown off. I would like to kick around the how and when concerning its placement.
What do you think happened here?
|
|