Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 16:23:34 GMT -5
Well, if you consider the Boad Nelly note that was given for that $50,000 dollars, then Lindbergh did get ripped for it. That note did not lead to Charlie. It sent him on a wild goose chase up the coast. CAL would have to wait about 6 more weeks before Charlie was recovered.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 20, 2017 17:26:21 GMT -5
The Lindbergh-hated-publicity-so-he-wouldn't-have-done-anything argument is a complete straw man: Assuming that Lindbergh wanted CAL Jr. gone to keep physical issues under wraps--assuming that this was the bottom line--the disappearance and/or death of that child was going to be page-one news under any circumstances; that much was just a given. So, with that established, it was going to have to occur in such a way that A) seemed involuntary and against the parents' will, and B) as much as possible, portrayed Lindbergh as a victim rather than as a suspect or as somehow negligent (by allowing his child to die in a household "accident", for example). And the victimization of both child and parent, due to a disappearance and death of a child--that death caused by outside forces, through no fault of the parent--this is the definition of a kidnapping gone wrong.
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Jul 21, 2017 13:00:52 GMT -5
Col Lindbergh also had the advice of Colonels Donovan, Breckenridge, Robert Thayer and others from the BI like Irey. If he chose to ignore their advice or manipulate the situation to make it difficult for LE to intervene to bring about a good ending than what can be deduced from his behavior? That Lindbergh panicked or was made a dupe in a con game? After being on lookout for "boad Nellie" and the Mary B Moss for several days, it must have occurred to him after some hours that it ain't working
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 21, 2017 18:34:35 GMT -5
Col Lindbergh also had the advice of Colonels Donovan, Breckenridge, Robert Thayer and others from the BI like Irey. If he chose to ignore their advice or manipulate the situation to make it difficult for LE to intervene to bring about a good ending than what can be deduced from his behavior? That Lindbergh panicked or was made a dupe in a con game? After being on lookout for "boad Nellie" and the Mary B Moss for several days, it must have occurred to him after some hours that it ain't working Lindbergh testified that he trusted and had complete trust in law enforcement. I think that he also testified that the FBI had access to all material pertaining to the case....all lies.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 25, 2017 7:34:07 GMT -5
I began this with the question of why not take Charlie back to Englewood. My crude attempt at research has lead me to believe that its questionable that cars were comfortably heated at this time. I can assume Mrs Morrow would have the latest in comfort and I think that Ellerson was driving a Cadillac. Beyond that I was unable to find more specifics. If anyone knows.....?
|
|
|
Post by Cindi on Jul 30, 2017 18:58:47 GMT -5
I have always thought it extremely strange that Lindbergh missed the speech he was supposed to give that day. He was always prompt at everything he did and the fact that he just "forgot" it doesn't ring true.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 30, 2017 20:30:23 GMT -5
Lots of us do too, Cindi!
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jul 31, 2017 9:04:42 GMT -5
I don't see anything strange about it. his child would have been murdered anyway
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jul 31, 2017 10:05:22 GMT -5
I have always thought it extremely strange that Lindbergh missed the speech he was supposed to give that day. He was always prompt at everything he did and the fact that he just "forgot" it doesn't ring true. It's a common belief, but Lindbergh was never scheduled to give a speech that evening.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 31, 2017 11:54:00 GMT -5
His attendance was expected though, but he was not one of the scheduled speakers, is that right Joe?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 31, 2017 15:01:42 GMT -5
His attendance was expected though, but he was not one of the scheduled speakers, is that right Joe? I think his presence there was the reason many people were planning to attend so I imagine it was well publicized.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 31, 2017 18:32:46 GMT -5
It's a common belief, but Lindbergh was never scheduled to give a speech that evening. Whether or not he was to give a speech is irrelevant to the actual point. It's like pointing out that although people say he wore a derby he was actually hat-less. He had committed to attend, it was widely reported that he going to be there, and people lined up outside to see him as well as those who attended expected to see him there. His excuse for not being there was that he "forgot."
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jul 31, 2017 19:18:01 GMT -5
His attendance was expected though, but he was not one of the scheduled speakers, is that right Joe? Yes, he was scheduled to be seated at the dais. I'm sure there would have been a lot of people disappointed by his absence and it seems a good bet the kidnappers would also have expected him to be there.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 31, 2017 19:26:37 GMT -5
Yes, he was scheduled to be seated at the dais. I'm sure there would have been a lot of people disappointed by his absence and it seems a good bet the kidnappers would also have expected him to be there. That does seem like the idea right? I mean a house with (4) people and (2) barking dogs, (1) sleeping in the nursery - would be easy to overcome. Now add an Aviator and no way! It's called off for sure. But wait, Skean is left behind by Lindbergh and he forgets his dinner commitment. What are the odds of this happening on the same night? A night they weren't even supposed to be there. But this isn't everything is it? Play the lottery folks!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jul 31, 2017 19:34:43 GMT -5
It's a common belief, but Lindbergh was never scheduled to give a speech that evening. Whether or not he was to give a speech is irrelevant to the actual point. It's like pointing out that although people say he wore a derby he was actually hat-less. He had committed to attend, it was widely reported that he going to be there, and people lined up outside to see him as well as those who attended expected to see him there. His excuse for not being there was that he "forgot." And if it was widely reported he was going to be attending, does it not stand to reason the kidnappers would have picked this night to strike knowing he would not be home before late? I know you don't agree with my belief this was a real kidnapping, but from how you view things, have you asked yourself why Lindbergh, given the perfect opportunity to have been "unfortunately" away from home while "tragedy struck" would then voluntarily and very conspicuously, thrust himself into the apex of the crime? It certainly doesn't sound much like logical Lindy, does it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 31, 2017 20:05:22 GMT -5
And if it was widely reported he was going to be attending, does it not stand to reason the kidnappers would have picked this night to strike knowing he would not be home before late? No it makes no sense. If Kidnappers are planning this based upon a near trivial point of one less person being home then they sure as hell knew the family schedule. They would know BOTH dogs should be there as well. This means they should not have expected the family to even be in Hopewell. What I see you doing is (and properly so) is concluding there was advanced planning. Seeing Lindbergh won't be home means one less person in the house. But is that the extent of it? No, not even close. Yet they don't know the family routine? A routine that only Lindbergh himself downplayed during his testimony in Flemington. I've outlined where he did this in other places in his testimony as well. Why is he contradicting his household? I know you don't agree with my belief this was a real kidnapping, but from how you view things, have you asked yourself why Lindbergh, given the perfect opportunity to have been "unfortunately" away from home while "tragedy struck" would then voluntarily and very conspicuously, thrust himself into the apex of the crime? It certainly doesn't sound much like logical Lindy, does it? Whatever happened involved outsiders. But it involved insider(s) as well. The dinner he blew off could be looked at in many ways. If it's something all by itself that's a big difference, but there's so much more that occurred. Let's say when he accepted the invite it was sincere. But then the situation arose after the fact requiring he must not go. Or it could be this was a "by design" alibi. But Lindbergh needed no alibi as we can all plainly see. Even still, as we all know, Lindbergh was a "hands-on" guy. If something like this was going to happen I don't see how he could resist staying away and not controlling certain events. An alternate view could exist as well.... But the "old" Lindbergh is great, young, is under pressure, or under stress, or has no clue doesn't work for me.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jul 31, 2017 20:10:19 GMT -5
Yes, he was scheduled to be seated at the dais. I'm sure there would have been a lot of people disappointed by his absence and it seems a good bet the kidnappers would also have expected him to be there. That does seem like the idea right? I mean a house with (4) people and (2) barking dogs, (1) sleeping in the nursery - would be easy to overcome. Now add an Aviator and no way! It's called off for sure. But wait, Skean is left behind by Lindbergh and he forgets his dinner commitment. What are the odds of this happening on the same night? A night they weren't even supposed to be there. But this isn't everything is it? Play the lottery folks! Yet don't all of these things make it that much more an unlikely scenario for someone to even entertain the notion here for a staged kidnapping without a whole boatload of suspicion being directed their way? Further, the slim to none odds of solitude-seeking Lindbergh actually going to all of this trouble, what with the anticipated world-wide fallout, and this quickly devolves into a sideshow. Remember, just one or two numbers out and you not only lose the jackpot, you get nothing.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 1, 2017 0:38:09 GMT -5
The crime itself shows a complete lack of knowledge of the household and certainly a lack of "insider" preparation. If he'd have known about the dogs ahead of time (from insider), he probably wouldn't have committed the kidnapping crime. If there was an insider he/she certainly would have told the kidnapper about the dogs. Since he didn't know about the dogs, he went ahead and did the kidnapping. He also didn't know they were never there on Tuesday nights, so that's when he did the crime - Anna's night to work.
I thought Skean was at the vet.
It wouldn't have made any difference if CAL had attended the dinner banquet - he'd just have been home a couple hours later. Perhaps the crime would have been discovered and partially handled, confronted.
He probably brought all three ladder sections into play because he wasn't even familiar enough with the house to know he needed only two. Along those lines it seems he planned the crime for the Morrow residence (the three ladder sections fit right under that nursery window) but when he learned by lights or close observation that the Lindberghs weren't even there, he went on to Hopewell.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 1, 2017 4:25:52 GMT -5
The crime itself shows a complete lack of knowledge of the household and certainly a lack of "insider" preparation. If he'd have known about the dogs ahead of time (from insider), he probably wouldn't have committed the kidnapping crime. If there was an insider he/she certainly would have told the kidnapper about the dogs. Since he didn't know about the dogs, he went ahead and did the kidnapping. He also didn't know they were never there on Tuesday nights, so that's when he did the crime - Anna's night to work. Kidnappers walk along a boardwalk directly to the only shutters that are unlatched. They either know the time the baby is supposed to not be disturbed (a run of the mill kidnapper would not choose the peak hour when the most number of people would be home/awake) or they don't. However, footprint evidence shows they did not step out into the field to ensure there was nobody upstairs in the nursery when they began their climb. Who knows what would have been waiting up there. Not to mention, these people also are able to conduct an acrobatic feat by getting into a room, leaping over a chest with a suitcase & toys on it, make their way around the screen, take the child then exit in an impossible manner (nobody could understand why the chest wasn't moved out of the way on the exist - being placed there made the exit very difficult and added precious time to their escape). The whole thing makes zero logical sense but when you add in the fact an insider helped orchestrate it begins to seem feasible. As far as Lindbergh and his missed event. Ask yourself this: If the parent of a "kidnapping" victim today was scheduled to be at a work function that was well publicized but deliberately blew it off and obscured their whereabouts for nearly the entire day leading up to the event, it is almost certain that parent would be one of the first things that would be investigated. This was not done here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 1, 2017 5:11:35 GMT -5
As far as Lindbergh and his missed event. Ask yourself this: If the parent of a "kidnapping" victim today was scheduled to be at a work function that was well publicized but deliberately blew it off and obscured their whereabouts for nearly the entire day leading up to the event, it is almost certain that parent would be one of the first things that would be investigated. This was not done here. It wasn't done here but all the cops were thinking it. I say apply your points above, then step back and consider each and every point I've made in the book. Look at ALL that happened. Just Lindbergh's testimony alone is full of BS. The shutters: The house " was too new." But he's on the phone to get a sticky door fixed. At the very least it disproves this absurd testimony. Wahgoosh: " No. But I would not expect any from that dog." Morrow Sr. told him he needed security or his son would be kidnapped - so his response it to tell the Security Guard he isn't needed because he did not " want people to think he's afraid." It's EVERYWHERE. He takes over the investigation. Look at the The Jade investigation where a call comes in about the nursemaid and Lindbergh tells Kohler not to give his information to the police but to him personally! Each and everything that occurred which would have harmed a kidnapping he's lying about, or had a hand in preventing.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 1, 2017 6:09:11 GMT -5
And if it was widely reported he was going to be attending, does it not stand to reason the kidnappers would have picked this night to strike knowing he would not be home before late? No it makes no sense. If Kidnappers are planning this based upon a near trivial point of one less person being home then they sure as hell knew the family schedule. They would know BOTH dogs should be there as well. This means they should not have expected the family to even be in Hopewell. What I see you doing is (and properly so) is concluding there was advanced planning. Seeing Lindbergh won't be home means one less person in the house. But is that the extent of it? No, not even close. Yet they don't know the family routine? A routine that only Lindbergh himself downplayed during his testimony in Flemington. I've outlined where he did this in other places in his testimony as well. Why is he contradicting his household? I know you don't agree with my belief this was a real kidnapping, but from how you view things, have you asked yourself why Lindbergh, given the perfect opportunity to have been "unfortunately" away from home while "tragedy struck" would then voluntarily and very conspicuously, thrust himself into the apex of the crime? It certainly doesn't sound much like logical Lindy, does it? Whatever happened involved outsiders. But it involved insider(s) as well. The dinner he blew off could be looked at in many ways. If it's something all by itself that's a big difference, but there's so much more that occurred. Let's say when he accepted the invite it was sincere. But then the situation arose after the fact requiring he must not go. Or it could be this was a "by design" alibi. But Lindbergh needed no alibi as we can all plainly see. Even still, as we all know, Lindbergh was a "hands-on" guy. If something like this was going to happen I don't see how he could resist staying away and not controlling certain events. An alternate view could exist as well.... But the "old" Lindbergh is great, young, is under pressure, or under stress, or has no clue doesn't work for me. CAL was a control freak. It served him well in his flight acrossed the Atlantic. He continued controlling his family/families. It pretty much worked with law enforcement too. This is who this guy was!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 1, 2017 9:06:12 GMT -5
So did I, Jack. Michael has claimed a while ago here that Skean was back in Englewood, when the Lindberghs left for Hopewell on the weekend before the kidnapping.
Here's an excerpt from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle from March 7, 1932, posted recently by Sue Campbell on Ronelle's discussion board:
Another dog was brought into the story today when it was reported that the Sealyham Terrier, which was really the Lindbergh watchdog, had become ill the Saturday preceding the kidnapping and had been removed to the Princeton Kennels.
I'd certainly like to see a little more in the way of supporting documentation on this account before concluding anything.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 1, 2017 9:08:47 GMT -5
So you are insinuating that Hauptmann was on the Lindbergh premises on the night of March 1, 1932. Just don't see any physical evidence that puts him there at that time. Fingerprints? Footprints? Maybe the ladder was made with wood that originated in his apartment, but who knows when the ladder was placed on the Lindbergh property?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 1, 2017 9:23:33 GMT -5
You believe Lindbergh's presence in the same house the kidnappers were planning to hit, was a trivial point? I don't think so. They knew where he was supposed to be that night, because it was widely reported in the papers and it seems quite clear they didn't want him at the house when they pulled the job. And how on earth would kidnappers be able to determine the family schedule from a story about Lindbergh being at the NYU dinner?
I very much doubt they knew the Lindberghs weren't supposed to be in Hopewell that night. If, within the slimmest of odds they did know, then I'd point to someone in the Morrow household but no one at Highfields. What they needed to know was where the nursery was and the general bedtime routine based upon some timely night time surveillance. Certainly the presence of dogs would have been a risk, but this this was a very high risk crime from the outset and they would have had a well thought out abort plan prior to the moment of truth.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 1, 2017 10:58:58 GMT -5
Ladder wood, ladder nails, personal planer marks, wrote the nursery note, physical similarity to eyewitness Lupica's statement, late model Dodge sedan, ladders in the same vehicle on the evening of March 1, no solid alibi for that day or night on Hauptmann's or Anna's part. Hauptmann would be shaking his head in disbelief at how much benefit of the doubt you're willing to give him here versus, say the occupants of Highfields. You really should try exacting a more consistent level of scrutiny within this case.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 1, 2017 14:13:30 GMT -5
Yes, Joe, all of that and plus researchers are factoring into the crime Charles' actions after the crime!
No one knows how someone will react under extreme stress. CAL seemed to act correctly when the crime occurred, but is soundly criticized for what he did afterwards. That he "took over the investigation" is probably normal for a man used to making his own decisions. My father and my uncle were pilots and I can see them taking complete charge of the occasion as well, and in some cases even moreso. They would have locked everybody in the basement until it was certain they were in control of things.
As far as Lindbergh's various answers to certain questions, "he wouldn't expect the dog to bark," etc. remember, he was not only snookered by a small time crook, (crummy ladder - simple note) but he was in the public eye bigtime, his ego was also in play. He probably figured he looked like a fool in front of the whole world, why look like a bigger one by talking too much.
There are certain facts which cannot be denied that strongly point to no inside information! The Tuesday night choice of the crimenight - which has been gone over lots, - the no preknowledge of dogs at the crimesite - and Lindbergh's being home when he shouldn't have been show the kidnapper was going into an unknown situation.
If i were taking a child from a happy home I know I'd rather face Ollie than Charles!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 1, 2017 14:50:03 GMT -5
Michael has claimed a while ago here that Skean was back in Englewood, when the Lindberghs left for Hopewell on the weekend before the kidnapping. On page 58 of TDC I cite a source written by Mrs. Jung which leaves no doubt about it. I would entertain the newspaper story only if I didn't have this source which disproves it.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 1, 2017 15:01:35 GMT -5
Then it's even more decisive that there was no insider. Skean should have been at the Lindbergh residence, and unusually wasn't substantially proving that the kidnapper(s) had no inside information!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 1, 2017 15:03:33 GMT -5
You believe Lindbergh's presence in the same house the kidnappers were planning to hit, was a trivial point? I don't think so. I do. Under the impossible circumstances what's adding an Aviator to the mix? Obviously another set of ears, but when you have (4) people and (2) dogs that bark what does it matter? But Lindbergh left the dog that slept in the nursery so there was only (1) dog this night. Still, if we believe everyone else and not Lindbergh, Wahgoosh should have heard them. I mean you believe Lindbergh did right? But not Wahgoosh? They knew where he was supposed to be that night, because it was widely reported in the papers and it seems quite clear they didn't want him at the house when they pulled the job. And how on earth would kidnappers be able to determine the family schedule from a story about Lindbergh being at the NYU dinner? Huh? You've lost me. Are you really suggesting they planned a kidnapping based solely on this newspaper article? Nothing more? No planning except to make sure an Aviator wasn't at the house? Give me a break! They determine it by planning. By casing the home. By learning the routes to and from and their travels. You suggest planning when it suits you then believe they ad-libbed where you need that too? I very much doubt they knew the Lindberghs weren't supposed to be in Hopewell that night. If, within the slimmest of odds they did know, then I'd point to someone in the Morrow household but no one at Highfields. What they needed to know was where the nursery was and the general bedtime routine based upon some timely night time surveillance. Certainly the presence of dogs would have been a risk, but this this was a very high risk crime from the outset and they would have had a well thought out abort plan prior to the moment of truth. I would expect that you'd doubt it. If you didn't I'd be worried about you. However criminals have a "target" before a crime and there's no way in the world they are preparing by reading a newspaper then driving to Hopewell based up whims, luck, and whatever they can determine by looking at the house from the woodline. Whatever they did not know they would have found out before actually launching their efforts. There's no way they drive from NY to Hopewell never knowing the whos, whats, wheres, and whys. It doesn't work that way, and if that's what they did they would have been caught almost immediately.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 1, 2017 15:07:47 GMT -5
Then it's even more decisive that there was no insider. Skean should have been at the Lindbergh residence, and unusually wasn't substantially proving that the kidnapper(s) had no inside information! Really? He should have been there. If he was, he would be where ever the child was. If sleeping in the nursery that's where Skean would be. But, like everything else, Lindbergh's actions caused him NOT to be there.
|
|