|
Post by Michael on Sept 4, 2017 17:41:58 GMT -5
Acquiesce is an intriguing choice of word, Michael. It implies he was going along with Cummings being relieved of her position. If that is the case, then there must be someone else who was not happy with Cummings. Since this happens at Englewood, might it have been Betty Morrow who was not pleased with Marie Cummings? Wasn't Marie Cummings recommended by Dr. Hawkes, a very trusted family physican? It might not be the right choice of words, however, I can't think of any other word to describe it. I think most of us agree this wasn't a healthy baby. So here we have a nurse and the child is getting worse - not better. In this situation I think we can agree that Elizabeth is involved. The extra consideration is that Marie was by all accounts a very attractive woman. Combine this with the fact the Morrow Staff were saying that Lindbergh was fond of her and spoke to her more then any of them. If the Staff notice this stuff then we had better believe so did Elizabeth and Anne. Marie is also on the "wild" side, but one thing is certain - she was following Lindbergh's rules about the child. So Marie is out and Copin in. Copin changes the rules and the child begins to improve. But instead of Lindbergh being happy his son is doing better just the opposite occurs and he forces Copin out. Marie comes back temporarily until Gow, who is also considered attractive, fulfills her greatest dream by hooking up with a wealthy family. And just what kind of person is she? Wild is an understatement as my book proves - and Lindbergh? He is happy as a clam.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Sept 5, 2017 5:46:53 GMT -5
I agree there was something wrong with the baby. Why Elisabeth at this point?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 5, 2017 8:40:01 GMT -5
amy to many people handled the ladder when it was found. the police3 had bad procedures and didn't have any. that does not prove other people were involved
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 5, 2017 8:42:06 GMT -5
im not big on eyewitnesses on either side as far as Hopewell goes. I do believe the cashiers in new York that said hauptmann passed the notes. not just the famous one cecil barr there were others.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Sept 5, 2017 10:28:04 GMT -5
I agree there was something wrong with the baby. Why Elisabeth at this point? TDC, Page 133. "Despite hiding what appears to be a trivial fact, (her trip to Highfields the night of the 'kidnapping') Mrs. Morrow broke her seclusion at Highfields to speak to reporters. She expressed to them her view was this crime had been an inside job " perpetrated by someone familiar with the habits." She went on to say: " perhaps the condition of the baby's health bore upon this kidnapping." She had also believed, since that very first night, that her grandson was already dead." -- World-Telegram, March 3, 1932. First, I love this book. This quote from Anne's mother two days after the fact gives credence to the FACT that Charles, Jr. was not developing normally. We also have the report from Dr. V. directly to Mrs. Morrow on his examination of Charles in mid-February, 1932. If she received additional information on his condition, as the good Doctor promised, if she wished, we'll never know. While studying your book, Michael, I give special credence to the statements taken in the first few days of the 'kidnapping.' I, for one, thank you for the references and dates.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Sept 5, 2017 17:59:28 GMT -5
Still, why at this point Elizabeth? Not disagreeing just wondering about tying in baby's condition and his aunt. And any information about the Marie Cummings living at the JJ Faulkner address?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 5, 2017 19:11:34 GMT -5
This quote from Anne's mother two days after the fact gives credence to the FACT that Charles, Jr. was not developing normally. We also have the report from Dr. V. directly to Mrs. Morrow on his examination of Charles in mid-February, 1932. If she received additional information on his condition, as the good Doctor promised, if she wished, we'll never know. Thanks Rebekah! It's quite interesting especially considering all of the various observations and facts we never got to see in the other books. Heck, Whateley was saying damn near the exact same thing too! (page 82) Still, why at this point Elizabeth? Not disagreeing just wondering about tying in baby's condition and his aunt. And any information about the Marie Cummings living at the JJ Faulkner address? Kate, I wrote "Elizabeth" to mean Mrs. Morrow. I don't like using Betty for obvious reasons. Her daughter "Elisabeth" spelled her name with an "s" but I should have just used "Mrs. Morrow" like any other normal person would have. Sorry for the confusion.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Sept 5, 2017 19:34:24 GMT -5
Got it! Thanks. I remembered that there was a difference in the spelling and should have checked that.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Sept 6, 2017 5:50:00 GMT -5
Show me a man who would not prefer to be with good looking women . . .
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Sept 6, 2017 12:09:26 GMT -5
Show me a man who would not prefer to be with good looking women . . . "Women" is a good choice of word for CAL.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 8, 2017 8:55:55 GMT -5
I disagree amy im saying nobody ever came forward to say they were involved with Hauptman. if you think Hauptman wasn't involved with all the evidence, you must review what you studied so far
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 8, 2017 12:03:00 GMT -5
I disagree amy im saying nobody ever came forward to say they were involved with Hauptman. if you think Hauptman wasn't involved with all the evidence, you must review what you studied so far Who, in their right mind, would come forward with such a thing? It's clear from nearly all points of evidence that more than one person was involved. If you think it was him alone, you must review "what you studied so far."
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Sept 8, 2017 12:30:59 GMT -5
This forum especially and several books have created "evidence" for more than one perpetrator of TLC. There is really no evidence of multiple kidnappers, and quite a bit more evidence of only one. For example the J.J. Faulkner exchange bank slip is presented as evidence of another person in possession of the ransom bills, and so the crime. Just as likely, perhaps more likely, it could have been Hauptmann with his German accent asking a stranger to fill out the slip for him because he couldn't write "American." So the super detectives have been chasing a never-will-be known individual at a random address all these years. That happens and is common in true crime - doesn't mean anyone is particularly stupid, but in most cases there should be a time to quit talking about something that has no substance.
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Sept 8, 2017 13:32:09 GMT -5
This forum especially and several books have created "evidence" for more than one perpetrator of TLC. There is really no evidence of multiple kidnappers, and quite a bit more evidence of only one. For example the J.J. Faulkner exchange bank slip is presented as evidence of another person in possession of the ransom bills, and so the crime. Just as likely, perhaps more likely, it could have been Hauptmann with his German accent asking a stranger to fill out the slip for him because he couldn't write "American." So the super detectives have been chasing a never-will-be known individual at a random address all these years. That happens and is common in true crime - doesn't mean anyone is particularly stupid, but in most cases there should be a time to quit talking about something that has no substance. Hi Jack There is evidence from Hauptmann's ledger books and letters, etc that were not presented as evidence because the writing didn't match what the prosecution had in their samples. I believe H could write out a deposit slip or letter because he was doing as much with his accounts at Rauch and with Isadore Fisch, possibly Anna wen she went back to Germany
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 8, 2017 15:04:53 GMT -5
For two and a half years, up until the time of Hauptmann's arrest, it was an article of faith among all investigating law enforcement agencies that there was more than one person involved in the removal of the Lindbergh baby from Highfields and his death.
That abruptly changed when law enforcement decided to focus in on Hauptmann (who obviously was the owner of a good chunk of ransom money), and somehow forgot about a bunch of other possible suspects they had been investigating at the time. They decided they'd nail Hauptmann and ONLY Hauptmann for the "heroes" status that they would get in the media, even though their homicide case against BRH was extremely weak: no cridible evidence to place him at or near Highfields on the night of the purported "kidnapping (unless you believe the chronic liar Whited or the blind Hochmuth).
I'm not saying that Hauptmann wasn't involved in acquiring that ransom money and perhaps contributing wood to the ladder found on the scene, but to charge that Hauptmann was a superathlete who climbed the ladder into the nursery window then climbed back out with the baby (a feat which police could not accomplish in their attempted reenactments) without leaving a single fingerprint or footprint and without disturbing the location of the items in the nursery defies common sense. The ladder, whoever constructed it and regardless of when it may have been placed on the property, was most likely just a prop to throw investigators off.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 8, 2017 19:00:24 GMT -5
This forum especially and several books have created "evidence" for more than one perpetrator of TLC. There is really no evidence of multiple kidnappers, and quite a bit more evidence of only one. For example the J.J. Faulkner exchange bank slip is presented as evidence of another person in possession of the ransom bills, and so the crime. Just as likely, perhaps more likely, it could have been Hauptmann with his German accent asking a stranger to fill out the slip for him because he couldn't write "American." So the super detectives have been chasing a never-will-be known individual at a random address all these years. That happens and is common in true crime - doesn't mean anyone is particularly stupid, but in most cases there should be a time to quit talking about something that has no substance. I am not sure what's been "created." There's evidence all over the place that more than one person was involved. And this idea that Hauptmann asked someone to pen out the J.J. Faulkner slip for him for ANY reason makes no sense if in fact he wrote the Ransom Notes. It's the serial numbers on the Ransom Money that's about to be exchanged that's the issue - not the deposit slip. And if one believes Hauptmann did write the Ransom Notes than he's proven he can write with multiple disguises and exhibited a wide range of variation within his natural penmanship. The other issue to consider is IF he did ask someone to write it out now he faces the problem of having someone who could later identify him. We also have to remember this wasn't the only Ransom Money exchange. So by your argument he's asking various and random people, multiple times, to create deposit slips for him.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 9, 2017 0:20:41 GMT -5
This forum especially and several books have created "evidence" for more than one perpetrator of TLC. There is really no evidence of multiple kidnappers, and quite a bit more evidence of only one. For example the J.J. Faulkner exchange bank slip is presented as evidence of another person in possession of the ransom bills, and so the crime. Just as likely, perhaps more likely, it could have been Hauptmann with his German accent asking a stranger to fill out the slip for him because he couldn't write "American." So the super detectives have been chasing a never-will-be known individual at a random address all these years. That happens and is common in true crime - doesn't mean anyone is particularly stupid, but in most cases there should be a time to quit talking about something that has no substance. Considering there were was a lookout at both cemetery meetings (including the dropped handkerchief which could still be DNA tested today) and two sets of footprints leaving the nursery, we have evidence of two kidnappers. Full stop. None of this goes to the exculpating evidence of Hauptmann (inability to match footprints, Anna's testimony, JJ Faulkner, Condon's descriptions, Osborne's initial handwriting analysis, the lack of his fingerprints on the area the man who built the ladder would have had to touch, etc) - none of which proves his factual innocence in entirety, but of the possibility that he is innocent or that responsibility is to be spread between multiple individuals . Also, none of this speaks to the inability to raise that ladder alone while staying on the boardwalk or the sheer luck involved in a sole kidnapper arriving at a second-choice house he didn't plan for, luckily picking out the nursery window, the rusted lock on those shutters only, shimmying up the ladder to a room that might have no people in it or five (as no evidence indicates he stepped away from the boardwalk to get a glimpse inside), making a completely unrealistic entrance/exit to the house (if you're holding the most famous child in the world, why climb back over toys and chests when you could just move it out of the way?). Logic must dictate and nobody, not one single person involved, believed one kidnapper was involved until facts changed so they could build a narrative around Hauptmann, rather than letting the facts go where they may.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Sept 9, 2017 6:03:01 GMT -5
This forum especially and several books have created "evidence" for more than one perpetrator of TLC. There is really no evidence of multiple kidnappers, and quite a bit more evidence of only one. For example the J.J. Faulkner exchange bank slip is presented as evidence of another person in possession of the ransom bills, and so the crime. Just as likely, perhaps more likely, it could have been Hauptmann with his German accent asking a stranger to fill out the slip for him because he couldn't write "American." So the super detectives have been chasing a never-will-be known individual at a random address all these years. That happens and is common in true crime - doesn't mean anyone is particularly stupid, but in most cases there should be a time to quit talking about something that has no substance. Considering there were was a lookout at both cemetery meetings (including the dropped handkerchief which could still be DNA tested today) and two sets of footprints leaving the nursery, we have evidence of two kidnappers. Full stop. None of this goes to the exculpating evidence of Hauptmann (inability to match footprints, Anna's testimony, JJ Faulkner, Condon's descriptions, Osborne's initial handwriting analysis, the lack of his fingerprints on the area the man who built the ladder would have had to touch, etc) - none of which proves his factual innocence in entirety, but of the possibility that he is innocent or that responsibility is to be spread between multiple individuals . Also, none of this speaks to the inability to raise that ladder alone while staying on the boardwalk or the sheer luck involved in a sole kidnapper arriving at a second-choice house he didn't plan for, luckily picking out the nursery window, the rusted lock on those shutters only, shimmying up the ladder to a room that might have no people in it or five (as no evidence indicates he stepped away from the boardwalk to get a glimpse inside), making a completely unrealistic entrance/exit to the house (if you're holding the most famous child in the world, why climb back over toys and chests when you could just move it out of the way?). Logic must dictate and nobody, not one single person involved, believed one kidnapper was involved until facts changed so they could build a narrative around Hauptmann, rather than letting the facts go where they may. I want to say that much of this "created evidence" was found only after individuals went to considerable, and in some instances, enormous, amounts of time and expense to uncover facts that have been suppressed or overlooked in this case. Kennedy hired a hand writing expert to compare Hauptmann's writing to the nursery notes. Michael's spent years digging into archives, etc.; you make it sound as if people arejust imagining scenarios and then throwing them out to see what sticks! And in some cases that's not a bad idea either. I'd like the Innocence's Project to look at Hauptmann's conviction.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Sept 9, 2017 13:33:03 GMT -5
SOS.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Sept 11, 2017 12:13:12 GMT -5
Show me a man who would not prefer to be with good looking women . . . Maybe a man who was a closeted homosexual in an era where such tendencies were still taboo? One whose only outlet for such feelings might be pranks, some bordering on cruel, against coworkers he may have fancied? A man who craves privacy and promotes the appearance of a loner as a means to protecting such a secret? Someone who might fear an incidental but in-depth police investigation could uncover secrets he preferred to remain hidden? The type of man who has virtually no dating history before choosing a pliable beard for a wife? A man who sees sex with women as merely vessels for ensuring his superior genes are replicated? A man who might be subject to blackmail because of such proclivities? Or one who might assess the positive physical characteristics and attractiveness of a man suspected of killing his child?
That is a man who would not prefer to be with good looking women - if ever such a man existed...
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Sept 11, 2017 12:32:47 GMT -5
I've always wondered what he shared with Curtis?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Sept 11, 2017 13:52:32 GMT -5
At least you've come up with something unsubstantiated and new to consider rather than the same old hype. Yes, Kate, the Curtis relationship with Charles does seem awfully strange. CAL probably could have gotten him ten years, and why not for such horrible actions by Curtis?
Personally though I've always felt Charles was a womanizer, with Anne's knowledge. Extra female sexual companionship by rich and famous people has existed and probably pretty commonly because I can think of two men right off the top of my head who enjoyed it. If CAL was homosexual though, he probably would have slipped up along the way, even going back to his pre-fame days, and it would have seen the light of his character descriptions and been there to haunt him. He would have put his hand on the wrong guy's thigh, so to speak.
We know now that he was a womanizer, closet perhaps, and maybe others on here have knowledge of his also spending time in another closet.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 11, 2017 16:38:07 GMT -5
Show me a man who would not prefer to be with good looking women . . . Maybe a man who was a closeted homosexual in an era where such tendencies were still taboo? One whose only outlet for such feelings might be pranks, some bordering on cruel, against coworkers he may have fancied? A man who craves privacy and promotes the appearance of a loner as a means to protecting such a secret? Someone who might fear an incidental but in-depth police investigation could uncover secrets he preferred to remain hidden? The type of man who has virtually no dating history before choosing a pliable beard for a wife? A man who sees sex with women as merely vessels for ensuring his superior genes are replicated? A man who might be subject to blackmail because of such proclivities? Or one who might assess the positive physical characteristics and attractiveness of a man suspected of killing his child?
That is a man who would not prefer to be with good looking women - if ever such a man existed...
Of all the various books and articles, etc., written about CAL Sr.'s character and proclivities, both positive and negative, this insinuation of homosexuality seems most absurd. Maybe it's a byproduct of the obsession of today's media culture which seems like it can't get enough of scrutinizing celebrities for the possibility that they might be homosexual, bisexual, transgender, etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Sept 11, 2017 18:35:19 GMT -5
I was actually thinking of what CAL told Curtis that he swore he'd never reveal and didn't. Sort of sounded like quid pro quo? Also I think his pranks were conferred on those he perceived as "weaker" or more as retaliation. I can't look at this crime without looking a at the character of those involved. Even the baby was "spoiled"! And actually, I do think he was a little weird.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 12, 2017 8:53:37 GMT -5
hi jack some people on this board study unimportant things that's been gone over a million times. I don't respond to long and boring posts with no meaning
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 12, 2017 8:56:15 GMT -5
idont agree amy, ive studied this case since 1992 and Iive seen nothing to convince me
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 12, 2017 12:51:32 GMT -5
Hi Steve, in over 17 years of studying this case, there have been some great insights and new information contributions from folks on this and the other boards. Bottom line: Nothing's changed, Hauptmann is still guilty, although I do feel he had help along the way, which is something which probably would have landed that person(s) within the same noose.
And in spite of all of the far-reaching innuendo, libel, assumptions and character roasting, Lindbergh had absolutely nothing to do with the disappearance of his son. It's a runaway locomotive that's been barreling down the wrong track in the wrong direction, with nothing to substantiate it for over 85 years. People need to get over this and move on. When that happens, then this case will have the opportunity to be resolved in everyone's mind, unless that is, their personal axe to grind is just too big.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 12, 2017 16:34:31 GMT -5
And in spite of all of the far-reaching innuendo, libel, assumptions and character roasting, Lindbergh had absolutely nothing to do with the disappearance of his son. It's a runaway locomotive that's been barreling down the wrong track in the wrong direction, with nothing to substantiate it for over 85 years. People need to get over this and move on. When that happens, then this case will have the opportunity to be resolved in everyone's mind, unless that is, their personal axe to grind is just too big. This sounds like you have a pretty big personal axe to grind in the opposite direction. It's okay to go where the evidence leads you. If you can ignore certain FACTS that don't look good for Lindbergh then go ahead and conclude he wasn't involved. But remember: Whateley implicated someone in the house. All evidence suggests there was more then one person. Lindbergh let the Security Guard go. Lindbergh left Skean behind. Lindbergh lied about Wahgoosh. Lindbergh was a no-show to his dinner. This is just the tip of the iceberg. These are facts - not innuendo. Do the math, and one has to at least consider Lindbergh knew something about what happened if Whateley did. Perhaps he protected Gow and the others in hopes of getting his child back, but once the child is found dead all bets should have been off. The problem was, as Walsh and the other Cops said, Lindbergh was untouchable. If they locked up Gow the solution would have been discovered. But Lindbergh was protecting her and protected her to the very end. Look at how history views Gow then compare it to the truth. How could that have happened? How does history get it so wrong?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Oct 25, 2017 16:49:21 GMT -5
From AML's 3/11/32 statement to police: "I told her (Betty) to come down, as I had decided to stay over Tuesday, due to the baby's condition."
From AML's 3/13/32 statement to police: "When I awoke and found the baby's cold still rather thick in his chest and that I also had a cold I decided to have Betty come down and help me."
Neither statement mentioned any conferring with CAL beforehand. What I find interesting about the second statement is that AML states she made the decision to have Whateley call Betty to come down "between 10:00 and 11:00 in the morning", that Betty and the chauffeur arrived "between 1:00 and 1:30" and that "when the baby awoke from his nap sometime between 2:30 and 3:00" "his cold seemed much better." Never underestimate the restorative healing powers of a nap.
If the condition of both baby and mother (she went on a two-hour walk by her own account) were so much improved why wouldn't they just pile in the car at that point and drive to Englewood? AML's walk apparently took just as long as the drive to Englewood from Hopewell would have taken. If CAL was expected to attend that NYU banquet as scheduled, it would have made for rather a late night and it would have been more logical and convenient to meet the family in Englewood than make the late night drive down the back roads to Hopewell just to spend the night. Of course we know he didn't keep that appointment...
Never in either of their initial statements is missing the banquet mentioned which is a critical development in establishing the timeline for that evening.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Oct 25, 2017 20:00:02 GMT -5
In other books, Lindbergh was the one who made the decisions to stay at Hopewell both Monday AND Tuesday nights. He called Anne and told her to stay. Trial Testimony too. That's what I remember too. CAL made the decisions and Anne carried them out.
|
|