|
Post by Michael on Apr 16, 2006 10:03:30 GMT -5
Jack,
I found Police Report concerning this very same issue you've brought up above. James Welsh told Constable Charles Steinman that his friend, David Hume had told him the Whateley's disliked Betty Gow.
The Police interviewed Welsh and discovered that Hume's wife had nursed Anne "when she was ill last summer" and that they had become friends with the Whateleys. However, Welsh denied telling the Constable what he had reported to them.
I think based upon what Thayer reported its safe to say they probably expressed this to others as well. I am also thinking there may be some sort of Scotch-British type dislike going on. Rab may be able to better explain if this is/was something to consider.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
|
Post by Joe on Apr 16, 2006 10:23:55 GMT -5
At first appearances, and assuming the same print test procedure was used everywhere, the general lack of fingerprints and / or smudges found in the nursery, relative to other areas of the house, does seem unusual.
Michael, can we be absolutely certain that Kelly used the same black powder test on the other areas of the house on the same night, and as a result came to the conclusion the nursery was uniquely and virtually devoid of all prints / smudges? I believe much would depend on the type of surfaces existing in the nursery compared to other areas of the house, ie. their texture and porosity and ability to retain moisture and salt from applied fingers. We know for example there were fingerprints of the child, recovered from some of its toys, via the Hudson silver nitrate technique. Are we possibly comparing apples and oranges?
I would think the nursery, by it's very nature, would normally be cleaned and disinfected more often that other areas of the house. If there were any concerns over the baby's health, due to it's recent cold, perhaps this had been done moreso in the previous days. The room layout with it's feeding table and sunlamp does seem to indicate the child spent considerable time in that room. Was the relatively "clean room" status possibly a precautionary measure against any real or perceived immune system weakness? At the same time, he seemed to have no restrictions in travelling to and from Englewood regularly.
I realize all of this this doesn't explain the lack of prints on the windows and other area where Betty and Anne would reasonably have left their prints just before leaving the baby for the night on March 1. This single point if accurate, the lack of fingerprints, for whatever reason, has the potential of taking the investigation in a totally divergent direction from the accepted evidence that a real kidnapping did take place. That's why I'm so strongly drawn back to Kelly's print tests and what they truly meant.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 16, 2006 11:47:26 GMT -5
"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." (Michael)
Perhaps I am mistaken on the ladder sequence, I wonder if the two section configuration was used last to place the note and close the window.
|
|
|
Post by jack on Apr 16, 2006 20:23:28 GMT -5
Michael,
Thanks for following up on the information about the relationship between Betty Gow and the Whatleys. I confused my sources in my original post regarding the Rosner Thayer inquiries. It was Dr. Gardner's book not Norris' book.
My interest in the relationship between Gow and Whatley is rooted in the search for an inside person. I used to suspect Whatley but of late I'm more inclined to think Gow might have been involved.
Jack
|
|
|
Post by Trooper Gary on Apr 16, 2006 22:39:43 GMT -5
I think the chances of Betty being involved is near null. If she is involved then Lindbergh is involved IMO. Her loyalty and devotion comes off every page That describes her in any book. The Lindbergh's kept her on in the raising of Jon. The account of her at a very late age hoping Anne would not think ill of her about the night of the kidnapping was strikingly touching. The love she had for Jr is deeply evident.
Whately on the other hand needs a closer look. There are many accounts of nervousness and unaccountability in different situations of the story. With Betty and Elsie in the bedroom and the Lindbergh's together in the critical time of the night leaves Whately able to be move freely undetected. Whately seemed to have card blanche with the windows in the home as described in one account that evening. Curtis when visiting Lindbergh noticed Whately as very nervous on his visit.
|
|
|
Post by Trooper Gary on Apr 16, 2006 22:58:52 GMT -5
Let me ask a question. Why would Gow, Whately, Lindbergh even Anne wipe down the nursery ? IMO if truly the nursery was wiped down from prints it would be to hide someone who was not supposed to be there.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 17, 2006 1:55:24 GMT -5
To me, every nuiance of the crime scene seems staged. Nothing appears as it should appear if we are to believe the Offcial NJSP version of the kidnapping by The Lone Wolfe. Outside, we have a rickety ladder, which wont support the weight of the climber, and a chisel that serves no apparent purpose. At the interface of the ladder and house we have a nearly impossible acrobatic feat just to gain entrance thru the window. then it gets even weirder inside. Obsticles like the beer tankard and trunk require some sort of "movie staged high wire act flip in the dark" to not move or touch. Its one thing to watch the house thru the woods with binocs nite after nite determining which room is Charlies and which room has the broken shutters, but its another level of difficulty (points wise) to know whats on the window sill and trunk. Some accounts even have a toy on the trunk to boot. So right off the bat, we have a kidnap that seems to involve "stairs". Now, noone ever said that it had to look pristine, but it does have to look like someone came and went thru the window to be believed--clearly it doesnt. Now that we have accomplished the B & E we need to pack up Charlie and get out fast "in the dark"> Is Charlie thrown over the shoulder or lowered to the ground by rope or handed to an accomplice now up the ladder too? Can you get back out past the trunk and vase with the heavier load? Rationally and logically I think not. And then reach back with one hand and place the note in the most illogical place in the room? Yes--of course you can from the "inside"! thats why we are looking for the insider/ Lastly, the wiping of the room is legendary. Ever since 1932 it has been a key unanswered question by each inquiry. It always makes the Top 50 and cant be dismissed as "didnt happen". Michael suggests above that strangers were present. Dont want to find thier fingerprints or shoe prints so mud wiping may occur also. If you are staging a kidnap, any kind of prints would not be desirable. If you are stageing a kidnap in Charlies Nursery on a colde wet rainy muddy nite then Gow is in. Ollie and Elsie live in the servants quarters/ Betty Gow is the last person to see Charlie before his journey and the first to see him when he gets back--thanks of course to the blue threaded tshirt that is never mentioned even once in the negotiations for Charlies safe return.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 17, 2006 7:55:19 GMT -5
Rick, that is a good post. I do have some problems with it, however. The ladder will support a climber and is capable of a decent load as long as it is kept at a steep angle. Due to the "critical joint" employed it is difficult to determine the exact maximum load since the wood quality at the joint can vary. You can make a dozen of these ladders and get a different breaking point for each one. I think it is possible to get into and out of that window without creating a major disruption, though I believe all three sections must be used to do this. As far as "wiping down" the nursery, again I would ask why? How many surfaces in that room would a kidnapper with a flashlight need to touch? Anyone on the "inside" would not have to have cause to remove their prints. Even opening and closing that window does not require much exposure from a person's hands. In fact if you have a double hung window available, try opening and closing it. You will see that without a lift handle you really only touch a few areas of the sash and may not even use your fingertips. Also if the Nursery was "wiped down" as suggested why would any mud escape the cleaning? After all that would be obvious as opposed to invisible fingerprint latents.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 17, 2006 14:07:05 GMT -5
Kevin, touche'. Yours is a great post and makes my case in spades. Of course, the Lone Wolfe Kidnapper does not need to wipe off anyding if hes wearing socks on his hands and feet! (like was found in one car in Laura Vitrays book). So, by that argument alone all pre-existant fingerprints should be alive and well. But they are gone.
The motive for staging any crime scene is twofold: a) try to remove all incriminating forensic evidence of the crime to confound the investigation. Crooks are wise to fingerprints, footprints and blood evidence. Now, thanks to CourtTV cars are vaccumed inside and out to pull fibers too. But also b) to purposely make it look like someone else committed the crime and to "throw" the suspicion of guilt onto a wholely different party.
Ellis Parker made a good point: He could always tell a phoney crime scene because it was overdone, overthought and overtly arranged to appear normal.
Since Charlie was never really proved "alive and well" AFTER the snatch we can't be certain, as you stated above, that he was "alive and well" DURING the snatch either? Blood evidence or blunt force trauma evidence could also have been washed away 1/2 century before the invention of Luminol. Wonder if its still there?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 18, 2006 6:27:27 GMT -5
" But also b) to purposely make it look like someone else committed the crime and to "throw" the suspicion of guilt onto a wholely different party.
Ellis Parker made a good point: He could always tell a phoney crime scene because it was overdone, overthought and overtly arranged to appear normal." (Rick)
That is exactly the proof that this crime was not "staged". Lindbergh, a man who could most certainly plan an undertaking would have over thought the whole crime. No "rickety" ladder would suffice, no room with undisturbed furniture and above all the window and shutter would have been broken to prove forced entry. I think even Betty Gow would have come up with that, instead of being considered an inside accomplice.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Apr 18, 2006 9:27:39 GMT -5
Kevin,
I think to agree with you here. Even the ladder. If there was a staging leave the ladder up. There are still situations that are not addressed though. Was the room although not staged doctored or tidied up. I do believe it was but perhaps not to have anything to do with the case.
Why I might believe this is the account of where the note was found : I still do not understand CJ saying he left the note in the crib. Whats this all about? He got the pins right but not this. This bothers me a tad because CJ was so concerned about making sure Condon knew he was the guy. Someone got it wrong and I wonder who.
As I understand most of the prints are smeared on the ladder yet they were able to pick I think it was eight that were not identified. Hauptmann not being one of them. I often wonder if one of the prints still could have directed them to atleast to someone involved. Does anyone know if there is still a record of those prints?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Apr 18, 2006 10:11:05 GMT -5
Some final thoughts on Sharp.
I do have some things to share about Sharp and will down the road. I still am working on the abortion thing. I was kind of hoping Steve would present the document he thought Fisher found.
At this point I believe Sharp might have been a source for the media on the going ons of the Lindberghs. There are definite accounts of this. The degree is still in question but it think it is highly possible this might have been a regular thing. She says she even dated or was in contact with someone in the media for nearly two years. She evens says she was offered $10,000 for a picture of the dead baby. I think it possible she may have been totally embarrassed by being exposed. Maybe wondered if somehow she could have indirectly involved in giving out information she shouldn't have. Who knows maybe she did.
When she was in the hospital she shared a room with a woman who she became on friendly terms with. Her name was Katherine Cornels. Cornel's account was Violet wanted a serious answer of what she might of said "coming out of the ether." So there is definete signs of hiding something but I think it is might be anything including contributions to the media and any ramifications it may have.
On a fun note: We know Miller, Johnson, and Minners were the companions to the Peanut Grill. What is strikingly funny is that this was a two seater car. Violet mentions she sat on Johnson's lap on the way out. Violet did have a cocktail there. There was a toast of some kind. Violet also mentions Miller tried to kiss her. These are just some things I haven't read in books but discovered elsewhere.
I mentioned before Violet most likely paid for Edna's sickness and hospital stay a year or so before. This is because receipts of such were found in Violet's belongings. I found out Edna had a hernia. A woman's hernia is rare but can happen. In most cases it comes after giving birth to a baby.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 18, 2006 12:35:47 GMT -5
Gary, I don't mean to say that there are plenty of things amiss here and more questions than answers. It is just that as far as a hoax goes or staged kidnapping, the condition of the room and surrounding evidence actually reveals the opposite. Just the ladder alone and all the accompanying questions regarding it's use and capability would be null and void right now ( and then) if an ordinary extension ladder was found that night. The Nursery is another instance of this as it's condition indicates a very careful perpetrator as opposed to an obvious break and entry which would be what an insider would want to appear. And as with the ladder gives rise to continued skepticism. Of course this is all moot if one chooses to ignore the evidence and create a fantastic scenario which involves Hauptmann being set up from the beginning. I do think that Sharp could be a source of information to the kidnapper(s), either willingly or un-willingly though I still see no relevance to a possible abortion.
|
|
|
Post by rick3country pi on Apr 19, 2006 3:59:23 GMT -5
Kevin--methinks you are trying to put a square ladder in a round Nursery? There isnt one shred, iota or scintilla of real live forensic evidence that "anyone at all" was in the Nursery that night? No fingerprints>> not even Charlies? No muddy footprints>> not even CAL or Ollies from coming indoors? No pry marks on shutters or windows>>not even chisel marks? Sure, the ladder was put up against the house--but thats as far as it goes--in all likelyhhod just a lookin? No the NJSP were not officially idiots, they just had no leads and no suspects for 2 and 1/2 years. WHY--because they did not followup on any of the most obvious leads to any conclusions, eg the extra fingerprints on the ladder or notes? Laura Vitrays scepticism was fostered by the lack of followups on evidence surrounding the Sorrel Mountain area. So let me understand your argument...if CAL and Gow had really staged the crimescene they would have: 1. Actually had someone climb thru the window and bump over the vase and move the trunk? too noisy/ 2. Left more mud from the socks on the floor? too messy/ 3. Break a window with the chisel as was done over a JonBenets house? too noisy. 4. Leave the kidnap ladder up in 3 sections in the actual window? If the ladder broke in the 2 section version, eg more verticle, then the 3 section version would have really split all apart in the more horizontal, increased load version? 5. Basically, we get two pieces of evidence from the Nursery...Charlie is missing and there are no fingerprints in the room whatsoever. No climber perp could have left this crime scene so perfect so just like the Nursery Note sitting idle for 2 hours--"the whole thing is way overprotected and overcleaned to yeild absolutely nothing" and thus "under-staged". Someone or somethings were there before but now they are gone. {Apparently not BRH} You cant just "say" there was a kidnap because "Charlie is missing" and there is a ladder and chisel out on the lawn. Unless you are CAL (or John and Patsy Ramsey). Cleaning a crime scene is staging--especially if you are totally paranoid and focused on not touching the Nursery Note left on the window sill for 2 hours.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 19, 2006 5:08:43 GMT -5
Kevin/ indulge me for pounding away on a moribund equine. When I was in college (Muhlenberg?) I was in a genetics class with lab. We were all sposed to mate some fruit flys (with each other!) to see Mendelian traits. Two premeds "dry labbed" from their frat house and never did the experiment. Busted and suspended! Why because they really didnt know how it was supposed to turn out in "real life". They cook-booked it with a lack of experience. (Oh yes and a mixup of the genotypes helped also) Well, thats my whole point here. Only someone childlike, illusional and inexperienced in criminal investigation assumes that "Ladder minus baby = kidnap". Maybe it was the women as they would be the ones concerned with cleanliness before CALiness. Its not believable. Now, on the other hand, Charlie going down the stairs and out the front door/ well that has possibilties since he had to leave home someway. I'll buy that--then a good cleanup by the gals.
Gary...any discussion of the safety pins between JFC and CJ is dry labbed in the same way. Nothing Condon says and nothing Condon says CJ says even comes close to reality. "What pins" says CJ? "You know, the ones on the bed"--says JFC? I must admit however, that one of CJs most memorable quotes remains "I left the nursery note in the crib"! Good one. ("and Betty and Red are inocent")
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 19, 2006 7:41:50 GMT -5
Rick, I assume you are inexperienced in crime and in particular , kidnapping. So does it not seem odd to you that you are able to identify the crime scene deficiencies? If you were pulling off the "hoax" would you not over do the scene just as Parker said? Would you not make a more obvious entry and perhaps overdue a bit of damage to the room? Why leave only traces of mud prints when you could provide police with more to see? Here is a great example, the crib. Anyone faking this crime would assume that a kidnapping would entail a disturbance t o the crib and bedding. Yet the reality was that the kidnapper could pull the child out from under the sheets with very little disturbance. No way would we have thought that, and that would have led to one of those over done reactions. Also I think this issue of wiping the Nursery clean should be put into more accurate and responsible terms.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2006 20:09:55 GMT -5
I found an interesting tid-bit while searching through my Whateley file.... It's a hand-written document obviously prepared for an Investigator concerning this case made by Elsie Whateley. My impression is that it was made for Garsson but I can't say for sure at this moment. Anyway, I wanted to share what I think is the interesting part: Betty has talked of kidnapping since the kidnapping, saying that she knew it immediately. Also that Betty had thought of it before when she was alone in Maine.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Apr 20, 2006 21:42:03 GMT -5
Michael or anybody,
Why do you believe Betty and Red ended their relationship so abruptly after the kidnapping? I understand a the kidnapping can change things but judging the march 1st phone call the relationshipship seemed ok.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 21, 2006 5:30:32 GMT -5
Rick - This quote from CJ could mean one of two things. Either it shows that Condon was a liar and made this up, or it shows CJ was not in the nursery that night. At least that's how I see it.
Gary - This is an interesting question. I don't recall reading anything on that specific matter. Let me dig around this weekend to see what I find out. Also, you may want to ask Mark this too... He knows alot more about Red Johnson then I do.
|
|
|
Post by rick3american pi on Apr 21, 2006 6:34:48 GMT -5
Kevin...Im not trying to push any one position. If you think objectively "staging" has an equal chance of going either way (AC/DC). Some persons lean toward overboard like you say, but others more conservative or shy like women, might, be inclined to underplay and clean up everything just to be on the safe side. Neither looks or feels "just right" in the words of Goldylocks. What are the statistical chances that the windows are not hooked or locked or are easily pushed up and down--50/50. The "low rider" ladder position does not provide the best leverage. And pulling the window closed on the way out also seems odd under the circumstances. That would be another good job for the insider. Violet Sharpe makes a good insider for information, but it looks like another one is needed at Highfields...maybe even to pass Charlie out the window? And tidy up. Vis-a-vis Betty and Red...laura vitray brought up a new perspective...that Red was mad, or jealous, that Betty had to drive down to Highfields and miss their date? I hadnt thought of that before. The events that nite seemed to derailed their relationship and Betty dies an olde maid. She bailed for Scotland as soon as the Trial was over. Could that be because Charlie died? And lastly, Ollie looks bad hanging out in New Rochelle and Harlem with Violet Sharpe and Fisch? If true, its very difficult to just sweep these meetings under the muddy carpet. The involvement of any one servant does not preclude the involvement of any other. Each could have their own assignment.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 21, 2006 7:10:15 GMT -5
I can respect your position on this issue. We both see the same room but have a different interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by rick62american pi on Apr 21, 2006 7:26:41 GMT -5
One other question that must have been covered before: Was it a slam dunk for the climber to pick that exact window? Its dark, windy and rainy so its not exactly easy to see what to do? There are 3 choices: the window picked (A), the window on the other side of the fireplace (B) and the one in the back of the house (C). Did the perps just get lucky so to speak or did a combination of pre-surveillence and insider tips help pick this window? Someone just recently made a good observation: the window in the back was not visible to someone driving in the driveway. Could the snatch be equally successful from either of the other two nursery windows. Why or why not? Does the perp need inside help with the B & E? In the words of Kevin "the snatch was 100% successful just as is"/
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 21, 2006 21:46:17 GMT -5
The eyewitness account of Whateley and Sharp in New Rochelle should be viewed with caution. I just don't know if this is legitimate evidence or a case of mistaken identity. Whateley did live in New Rochelle for about 3 weeks time but that's the only thing I see connecting him to this place outside of the Mancke's version. And I have always felt it odd that Governor Hoffman didn't seem very interested in their story.
|
|
|
Post by steve for gary on Apr 21, 2006 22:15:13 GMT -5
i believe since red johnson was a suspect and grilled in conn, and betty was needed for questioning. i dont think there was time for them to hang around. plus he got deported
|
|
|
Post by jack on Apr 22, 2006 16:44:24 GMT -5
To all,
Several comments in the previous posts raise questions. Concerning the relevance of the possibility of a Violet Sharpe abortion to the crime, could it have been used by the kidnappers to blackmail/coerce her participation? Concerning Elsie Whately's comments about Betty Gow, is Elsie trying to direct scrutiny away from herself and Ollie or Does Betty have a guilty conscience? Why'd did Red and Betty split up? Could Red's venereal disease (as reported by Dr. Gardner) have come to light during the investigation? Wouldn't Betty be kind of angry about it?The information coming to light on this board regarding the people involved in this crime either as possible perpetrators or victims is impressive. Thank-you all for sharing it with us.
Jack
|
|
|
Post by gary on Apr 23, 2006 0:35:42 GMT -5
Hey Jack,
I think its possible. I believe Gardner mentioned the same thing. That is perhaps the relationship might have been doomed eventually. I am not so sure if Violet had an abortion if it was a big secret to the ones closest to her. So I am not sure there is an angle there or not.
Michael,
I am trying to get Elsie's comment in the right context as said. Do we know in what she means by she knew immediately? Should we interpret this as once she discoverd the empty room? Secondly when is this moment Betty was alone in Maine? This is interesting to me because if we remember they both found the thumbguard. Could there have been some suspicion of one against the other unspoken?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2006 9:36:30 GMT -5
Charles Jr. was in Maine in the summer of '31.... I don't know if I can assist with the context of this letter. Elsie is writing about Ollie and then this new paragraph I've listed above which doesn't even seem to fit. I definitely do not have the entire letter and I found the cover sheet which says it was turned over by Sisk for the purposes of having a handwriting sample. Sisk could have gotten this when the Dept. of Labor turned over their reports after the FBI was made the hub of all Federal Agencies investigating the case. It's an interesting idea that Sharp may have had this piece of information dangled over her head. Springer's assertion that he did not believe its true leads me to believe he was: 1. Lying 2. She didn't have an abortion but something else occurred which we have been attributing to an abortion. I simply cannot accept Springer being in the "dark" here....Not after all the research I have done about the situation. I recently found a report by a PI who originally was working for Sisk then later assisted the Governor. In one of his reports he interviewed Mrs. Junge. She tells him she knew "why" Violet killed herself but that Schwarzkopf told her not to say anything about it. As to Red and Betty breaking up.... I am not sure if Betty ever found out about Red having VD. And he definitely did have it. I see him being locked up and then deported so I don't see how they could maintain a relationship under those circumstances. There are mixed reports concerning whether Red was actually deported or left willingly. I found something in my files obtained from the NJSP Archives. It's from the Nordisk Tiedende, July 1932: Before the departure, Nordisk Tidende's associate had a chat with Johnsen, who was delighted with the final outcome of the case.
-I'm looking forward to getting home for a vacation in Norway. After that I might sail around the coast a little with my dad, who owns a freight carrier. And in the Spring I'm thanking of going back here.
-So you wish to return?
-Yes, I'm determined to. I like it here in this country.
-Have you seen anything of Betty Gow recently?
Now Johnsen is smiling, and at first doesn't wish to talk. He just says: "I saw her yesterday!"
From other reliable sources we've been told that Betty Gow and Henry Johnsen are "The best of friends." Betty Gow is going home to England in August, but has a return permit and will be coming back.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 PI on Apr 23, 2006 11:33:32 GMT -5
michael, its timely that you should mention Schwartzkopf in regards to Mrs Junge and Violet. I am going under the assumption that Stormin Norman Sr. was an active participant in any coverup of some truth which may have threatened to embarass CAL? Not necessarily related to Charlies disapperarnce....but during the same time frame.
As it so happens, CAL, Schwartzkopf and Jon Edgar Hoover were Freemasons and as such were sworn to protect all Brothers from any embarrassment or harm and in the perfect position to offer aid and control the flow of info. Norman Sr was quoted as saying " I would do anything for CAL" including concealment, obfuscation and blocking leads that went anywhere to include deception. Maybe Violets suicide is a perfect example. Likely Reds deportment fits too?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2006 12:49:29 GMT -5
The only problem with that theory is that Schwarzkopf and Hoover did not get along and Schwarzkopf on several occasions attempted to embarrass Hoover.
I have made Mark Falzini, NJSP Archivist, an honorary member and posted a section of his unpublished essay on Red Johnson in our Archive section with his permission. Mark knows Red Johnson's daughter and spent time with her in Norway a few years ago and was over there retracing Red's footsteps after the left the U.S.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 23, 2006 20:44:59 GMT -5
Schwartzkopf and Jedgar could have hated each other for all I care. But from time to time one of their underlings could have gone to them with inside knowledge about the case and they could have each said separately and independently--"bury that and i dont want to hear about again=="got it!" After all they are dealing with The First Family of the Nation. Neither one exactly "broke the case wide open"? Before/during or after.
|
|