|
Post by Wayne on Nov 5, 2018 21:32:30 GMT -5
Lurp, That's the earliest newspaper photo that I've seen of Highfields (completed). Where did you find it? And good job! Wayne and Lurp, I hope you guys don't mind me jumping in here. I have seen this picture in the past and this is a link to where I saw it. I don't know if this is the same place that you might have found it, Lurp. Here is my link: glover320.blogspot.com/search/label/HOPEWELLThanks Amy! And you too, Lurp! Again, this is the earliest newspaper photo of Highfields that I've seen. Nice fine!
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 6, 2018 9:41:13 GMT -5
sue found that picture a long time ago it was put on ronnelles board. also sue gave me a earlier picture of highfields being built
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 6, 2018 9:44:43 GMT -5
Good time to post this: Who is this mysterious co - conspirator of Hauptmann's, and exactly what evidence (not inclination) os there against him? jack, there some bad detectives on this board
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 7, 2018 8:51:00 GMT -5
I have no case, but whoever calls them lookouts is assuming something that is really unknown. If you won't admit that then we'll never agree with one another, and I'm surprised you've ever agreed with anyone. Maybe you havn't - there are a lot of overly long posts which come out of your office which I'd say were nothing more than doubletalk. Yes that's a correct word, it means it takes you a long time to say nothing. Big words help. As to the people on here who are outstanding as to your research, I say "show me the beef." Let's try this hypothetical example.... It's 1:45AM on a Monday night. "You" ( insert anyone's name here) realize you ran out of smokes and that the Circle-K closes at 2AM. You jump on your Harley and race to the store only to get there and realize you forgot your wallet. You start rifling through your pockets to see if you have enough lose change to buy a pack. As you do you get the feeling that someone is watching. You know what I am talking about. You look and some Dude acts in every way as the Look-Out did here. Once he comes running back up the street towards you what do you think? That he's just trying to sell you flowers? Or he's looking for a "date?" So no Jack, I'm not buying what you are selling and the funny part is that I know you aren't either. Bergen was the guy who wanted to sell them flowers - not the guy watching them and running to look all around to see where everyone was at and to know what was going on. It's all in V2 and its okay if you haven't read it. But to those reading this exchange I am not inventing these accounts (as some authors did) and I give everything as it appears in the source documentation which is where the "historical" accounts were "supposed" to come from in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 9, 2018 13:46:45 GMT -5
For all of you who believe that Lindbergh had nothing to do with the kidnapping, that he was a grieving father desperately looking for his son, please explain March 16th to me.
I've touched on 1/2 of this before, but now Siglinde Rach just brought some new information to my attention that she found in Condon's May 14, 1932 Grand Jury testimony.
Here's what happened on March 16:
Condon receives the sleeping suit package around 10:30AM in the mail. Condon calls Breck at his office (even though Breck says he was already at Condon's). Breck calls CAL at Highfields (right after Condon's call) and tells him that Condon has received a sleeping suit in the mail. Breck arrives at Condon's house around 11:45AM and inspects the sleeping suit. CAL arrives at Condon's house at 1:30 AM on March 17 (15 hours after Breck's call). CAL sits down and has supper. CAL, after eating supper, then looks at the sleeping suit for the first time.
So, not only does a grieving father, desperately looking for his son, take 15 hours to drive to Condon's house to look at the first piece of tangible evidence that someone has his son, what does he do when he gets to Condon's house?
He eats supper!
Then he looks at the sleeping suit.
Please, make me make sense of this!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2018 14:35:09 GMT -5
Typical of Lindbergh during this whole "negotiation" process. Never any hurry or show any concern. Leave the nursery note unopened until midnight, let the sleeping suit sit while we eat and talk, not opening the Boad Nelly note until prompted to, playing cards when he is supposed to be looking for the boat Curtis claims is out there with his son on it, playing practical jokes all during this whole process. This is not a grieving father anxious for the return of his son.
Thanks for the good post, Wayne and to Siglinde Rach for bringing it to your attention so it could be shared with us.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 10, 2018 8:00:49 GMT -5
So, not only does a grieving father, desperately looking for his son, take 15 hours to drive to Condon's house to look at the first piece of tangible evidence that someone has his son, what does he do when he gets to Condon's house? He eats supper! Then he looks at the sleeping suit. Please, make me make sense of this!
There is no making "sense" of it Wayne. That's why its mostly ignored and when it gets brought up anywhere some people counter it with absurd excuses or start slinging mud. It literally happens everywhere at every point and every turn. So this historical narrative that the guy was "upset," "concerned," or "serious," about finding his son just isn't supported by his very own actions as well as other evidence outside of that. Of course it doesn't mean he was behind this event but what I see are some people resisting what is so plainly obvious simply because they are afraid of the optics of it all. And so they are disingenuous about what they see - or try labeling others who aren't afraid to speak up about it.
If you go to page 113 of V2 you will see that Coleman attempted to explain his delay away by saying he couldn't get away from the Reporters. He also said both Lindbergh and Capt. Galvin " hurried up the steps" as if to imply he was in a rush to see the suit which obviously gives to the Reader what they'd expect how a normal Father would act under these circumstances.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Nov 10, 2018 8:50:30 GMT -5
I'm curious. With this high level of surveillance and moral standardization, has anyone been able to determine the factual reason it took Lindbergh 15 hours to get to Condon's house? I mean, without simply making thinly-veiled inferences that he couldn't care less about getting his son back, or by tossing in Coleman's Vigil explanation which then appears as a ripe pinata to bash around for a while? Does anyone really know or is this account now destined to become yet another card that makes up the house here?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 10, 2018 11:17:23 GMT -5
I'm curious. With this high level of surveillance and moral standardization, has anyone been able to determine the factual reason it took Lindbergh 15 hours to get to Condon's house? I mean, without simply making thinly-veiled inferences that he couldn't care less about getting his son back, or by tossing in Coleman's Vigil explanation which then appears as a ripe pinata to bash around for a while? Does anyone really know or is this account now destined to become yet another card that makes up the house here? Good questions Joe. What we have here is just another ripe plot-point pinata! Like Michael says Coleman (and Condon in Jafsie Tells All) both try to rationalize CAL's 15-hour delay by saying CAL was afraid that reporters would have trailed him to Condon's house, revealing Condon's involvement to the press. I personally don't believe this (take a look at how CAL was able to confuse reporters just prior to his wedding -- awesome deception). But for the sake of argument, let's say that was CAL's reasoning. The logical thing then was simply for Breckinridge to drive to Highfields with the sleeping suit. Instead CAL patiently waits 15 hours, then has supper at Condon's house before viewing the Dr. Denton. These are the actions of a grieving father who is looking for his son?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Nov 10, 2018 12:07:42 GMT -5
I'm curious. With this high level of surveillance and moral standardization, has anyone been able to determine the factual reason it took Lindbergh 15 hours to get to Condon's house? I mean, without simply making thinly-veiled inferences that he couldn't care less about getting his son back, or by tossing in Coleman's Vigil explanation which then appears as a ripe pinata to bash around for a while? Does anyone really know or is this account now destined to become yet another card that makes up the house here? Good questions Joe. What we have here is just another ripe plot-point pinata! Like Michael says Coleman (and Condon in Jafsie Tells All) both try to rationalize CAL's 15-hour delay by saying CAL was afraid that reporters would have trailed him to Condon's house, revealing Condon's involvement to the press. I personally don't believe this (take a look at how CAL was able to confuse reporters just prior to his wedding -- awesome deception). But for the sake of argument, let's say that was CAL's reasoning. The logical thing then was simply for Breckinridge to drive to Highfields with the sleeping suit. Instead CAL patiently waits 15 hours, then has supper at Condon's house before viewing the Dr. Denton. These are the actions of a grieving father who is looking for his son? Wayne, I think that would depend very much on who the father was, and the relative importance of personally confirming the authenticity of the sleeping suit after probably getting a full description over the phone from Breckinridge. As for the term 'grieving,' I don't think that's what I'd call him and this seems to have become another one of those leading terms that by design or not, has clearly crept into the mix here. After all, Lindbergh at this point appears to be negotiating for the return of his living son and not lamenting his death, right? Why would he be grieving, when by all accounts he appears to 'marshalling his forces' (Anne's words!) to effect his son's return? From everything I know about Lindbergh, (again.. not the way I would have handled things) he would have been very measured in his activities, making lists, presentation, collaboration, establishing priorities and perhaps in a way that might be incomprehensible to many, in a very emotionally detached way. But, through the rigidity of his thought and decision-making processes, he would only set himself up for failure by failing to adapt when he needed to. Does anyone really feel he would have been capable of suddenly switching gears and deviating from his personal and well-established "Lindbergh ways", given his vast position of influence within the case? At the risk of sounding like a totally insensitive boob, perhaps he was hungry when he got to Condon's house and dinner had been offered? Again, maybe not what I would have done but I think the more we see Lindbergh's actions only through our own limited perceptions of the man, the easier it is to become sidetracked by injecting our own moral standards and emotions. It's a trap quite simply.. the more our egos judge, the more they are reinforced and in doing so, guarantee their own survival. Okay enough of that.. I'd still like to hear more about what Lindbergh was actually doing at Highfields all day before anyone else takes the pinata stick to him!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Nov 10, 2018 19:27:31 GMT -5
Wayne, I think that would depend very much on who the father was, and the relative importance of personally confirming the authenticity of the sleeping suit after probably getting a full description over the phone from Breckinridge. As for the term 'grieving,' I don't think that's what I'd call him and this seems to have become another one of those leading terms that by design or not, has clearly crept into the mix here. After all, Lindbergh at this point appears to be negotiating for the return of his living son and not lamenting his death, right? Why would he be grieving, when by all accounts he appears to 'marshalling his forces' (Anne's words!) to effect his son's return? From everything I know about Lindbergh, (again.. not the way I would have handled things) he would have been very measured in his activities, making lists, presentation, collaboration, establishing priorities and perhaps in a way that might be incomprehensible to many, in a very emotionally detached way. But, through the rigidity of his thought and decision-making processes, he would only set himself up for failure by failing to adapt when he needed to. Does anyone really feel he would have been capable of suddenly switching gears and deviating from his personal and well-established "Lindbergh ways", given his vast position of influence within the case? At the risk of sounding like a totally insensitive boob, perhaps he was hungry when he got to Condon's house and dinner had been offered? Again, maybe not what I would have done but I think the more we see Lindbergh's actions only through our own limited perceptions of the man, the easier it is to become sidetracked by injecting our own moral standards and emotions. It's a trap quite simply.. the more our egos judge, the more they are reinforced and in doing so, guarantee their own survival. Okay enough of that.. I'd still like to hear more about what Lindbergh was actually doing at Highfields all day before anyone else takes the pinata stick to him! CAL had every damned resource available in 1932 to get his son back and did not only not use any of them, he actually precluded any professional help. I hope he is burning in hell. Oh.. the humanity!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 11, 2018 9:58:35 GMT -5
Wayne, I think that would depend very much on who the father was, and the relative importance of personally confirming the authenticity of the sleeping suit after probably getting a full description over the phone from Breckinridge. As for the term 'grieving,' I don't think that's what I'd call him and this seems to have become another one of those leading terms that by design or not, has clearly crept into the mix here. After all, Lindbergh at this point appears to be negotiating for the return of his living son and not lamenting his death, right? Why would he be grieving, when by all accounts he appears to 'marshalling his forces' (Anne's words!) to effect his son's return? I hope no one minds me jumping in here. Certainly ignore it if you like... Replace "grieving" with "caring." However one wants to spin this his actions do not line up as the situation dictates. So many Lindbergh enthusiasts resist the fact that he is not acting normally under the circumstances and come up with some very weak excuses. It's "okay" to believe what you see. Not just here but everywhere. Not just with Lindbergh but with everyone. Then take the additional information as it comes and apply it accordingly. There's nothing wrong with that. But I don't see how fictionalizing his actions can lead to that end. Does anyone really feel he would have been capable of suddenly switching gears and deviating from his personal and well-established "Lindbergh ways", given his vast position of influence within the case? At the risk of sounding like a totally insensitive boob, perhaps he was hungry when he got to Condon's house and dinner had been offered? You're neither a "boob" nor "insensitive" Joe. No one could ever call you either. But they would not be out of bounds to call Lindbergh both. So why do people resist it? Nothing changed for Lindy. Eating, Sleeping, and Joking. He left with Curtis, not to search for his son, but to get away on a vacation. And he enjoyed every minute of it when he wasn't sleeping. These actions cannot be "normalized" and trying to shows me there is an ulterior motive to it. Again, I believe because the optics are bad this is what is the root cause of pretending he's not "really" acting the way he IS really acting. (Just like why the NJSP resisted the fact Hauptmann was not a Lone-Wolf) Once again - this doesn't prove he was behind this thing but I think pretending not to see what is on full display serves no real purpose.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Nov 16, 2018 13:28:20 GMT -5
I guess that guy was talking about me earlier and I don't drink or smoke. But I do know something - eliminating one child from the gene pool has nothing to do with eugenics, so that angle can be forgotten. It could be said tha CAL wanted to eliminate Charlie from his line of relatives, but eugenics is much different from that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 17, 2018 7:48:10 GMT -5
I guess that guy was talking about me earlier and I don't drink or smoke. But I do know something - eliminating one child from the gene pool has nothing to do with eugenics, so that angle can be forgotten. It could be said tha CAL wanted to eliminate Charlie from his line of relatives, but eugenics is much different from that. If you are talking about my post concerning a hypothetical situation then no - it wasn't supposed to be you. I thought the post was pretty clear in that regard. However, it was designed to show weakness in your position which I also believe is clear. As far as Eugenics goes... I do see your point. I guess one has to consider the "mindset" of an individual who believes that way and what they would be willing to do (or not do) in a situation where they may view their child as being "defective" in some way. Since most of us do not think along those lines its hard to consider. Kinda like not being a Bank Robber but considering the thought process of one. Its hard to imagine. The irony of this whole thing is that I believe whatever was wrong with Charles Jr. came because of Lindbergh's beliefs in superiority, perception, and optics of a particular situation meant to exemplify strength. He would not listen to his wife who was pleading for him to land the plane because he felt it would be a sign of weakness. So before I read about "how" or "why" this man wouldn't be involved in getting rid of his "defective" son I think it wise to consider his documented actions before doing so.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Nov 17, 2018 16:51:31 GMT -5
No, it wasn't you. Just somebody said you were talking with drunks. No big deal, but not me anyway. Lots of questions and often more questions when answers are found in TLC. Keeps one wondering about some things. CAL sure acted goofy for a considered normal rich-guy.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 18, 2018 8:36:38 GMT -5
No, it wasn't you. Just somebody said you were talking with drunks. No big deal, but not me anyway. Lots of questions and often more questions when answers are found in TLC. Keeps one wondering about some things. CAL sure acted goofy for a considered normal rich-guy. We're veering off into CAL's personality but that's fine with me... After approximately 18 years of research we can all see there is some information contained within the source material that gives "us" reason to at least consider he may be involved - a lot of it I mentioned in V1 and a little in V2. As a result we must all wrestle with the ideas concerning, for example, if Whited is embraced for all of these years as a legitimate source, why he's ignored by these very same people when it turns out his real account was much different. Yet that's what certain people do. Because if he saw Hauptmann that's "cool" but when it turned out he actually saw Lindbergh that's "crazy." Stuff like this cannot be reasonably explained so they usually shrug it off and "go with" the version they've falsely believed over all of these years. I do not "create" facts. I go to the Archives, I read the material, and I go where the information in them lead me. It's pretty simple actually. Despite all of the books written over the years for some reason most of these other people did not spend the amount of time there necessary to do so. Some spent a little time there, cut corners, and wrote a book. I get it because most people don't have the time I've given this thing. Now I am willing to bet that most normal people would never place their pregnant wife in harms way - to begin with. Now consider she was being harmed and still refusing to stop that harm because it was a sign of "weakness." And yet here will come the million and one excuses as to why he would never harm his son? See how that works? We have documented proof that he's willing to harm BOTH his wife and unborn son for a trivial reason - but we're supposed to believe he would never do anything to his son for ANY reason after he was born.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Nov 20, 2018 2:29:33 GMT -5
Regarding CAL's missing hours, he was known to have serious affairs in Europe at about the same time frame, around 1940 perhaps, so why not have affairs in USA too?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 20, 2018 8:20:58 GMT -5
Regarding CAL's missing hours, he was known to have serious affairs in Europe at about the same time frame, around 1940 perhaps, so why not have affairs in USA too? Is there evidence he believed the gene pool for the "superior" race (which he believed he was a member of) needed to be "reconstituted" at that time? The answer to this question should answer yours.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Nov 20, 2018 14:22:03 GMT -5
I don't know? Is there evidence? He evidently thought he was better genetically than Charlie, and he probably was. Charlie sounds kinda borderline mentally retarded. Problem probably would be with those kind of people - that they'd get a Hitler/Stalin thinking that they were better than everyone else themselves which would lead to who knows where?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Nov 23, 2018 6:30:59 GMT -5
All this "Lindbergh(s) did it" stuff started about the time the body of Charlie was found. It seems America's most perfect couple couldn't have had an imperfect child. So Charles and Anne have been looked into plenty for eighty years and no evidence of involvement in the Lindbergh Kidnapping Crime has ever been found. The most likely suspect, Betty Gow has been looked at along with the Lindberghs and no evidence there has been uncovered either. Sure, all of them didn't seem to act normal ay yimes, but BRH's nam and where to contact him wasn't found on the back of one of CAL's interior house doors, nor in Anne's make-up kit. So sooner or later reality will come around and unemployed independent investigators will stop poking a dead horse and those people will RIP.
Lots can be said about what happened regarding the crime, and it's probably time when all should just be unsaid.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 23, 2018 7:57:26 GMT -5
All this "Lindbergh(s) did it" stuff started about the time the body of Charlie was found. It seems America's most perfect couple couldn't have had an imperfect child. So Charles and Anne have been looked into plenty for eighty years and no evidence of involvement in the Lindbergh Kidnapping Crime has ever been found. The most likely suspect, Betty Gow has been looked at along with the Lindberghs and no evidence there has been uncovered either. Sure, all of them didn't seem to act normal ay yimes, but BRH's nam and where to contact him wasn't found on the back of one of CAL's interior house doors, nor in Anne's make-up kit. So sooner or later reality will come around and unemployed independent investigators will stop poking a dead horse and those people will RIP. Lots can be said about what happened regarding the crime, and it's probably time when all should just be unsaid. Well Jack this seems to be another of your "go to" responses. Unfortunately it doesn't hold water. If all of this was looked into to the degree in which you say it was then why did I find all of the new material for both books? Not possible if what you wrote is true. So you point to Flawed, Faulty, and Half-Assed research as a way to upset new and valuable material? By your argument if someone finds the Lost Dutchman's Mine you could say they really didn't find it because so many looked before they did. Fact is, the "rumors" actually began immediately about the child's health. It accelerated once the child was kidnapped. It spread like wild fire as personal stories from the Cops about specific observations and certain odd behaviors became known. You may personally come to certain conclusions but I don't think trying to invalidate new discoveries as not being new works to that end. In short - nothing NEW could be found - ever - if what you write above is true. And yet I have two books full of them and I'm not done yet.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Nov 23, 2018 9:34:44 GMT -5
You call them discoveries, but others may say who gives a s--- how many cars passed over a remote bridge that happened to be near the Lindbergh home. You have no idea whose cars they were so how does it matter eighty years later? That's representative of everything you came up with including the fraudulent "deathbed confession." You have your own world of belief and have followers who think it's correct so you needn't respond here. Just tell your happy followers how great it is that you've come up with so much after eighteen years of page turning.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 23, 2018 11:19:22 GMT -5
You call them discoveries, but others may say who gives a s--- how many cars passed over a remote bridge that happened to be near the Lindbergh home. You have no idea whose cars they were so how does it matter eighty years later? That's representative of everything you came up with including the fraudulent "deathbed confession." You have your own world of belief and have followers who think it's correct so you needn't respond here. Just tell your happy followers how great it is that you've come up with so much after eighteen years of page turning. I don't think anyone who seriously researches this case would say " who gives a s**t." Why exactly would anyone even read the Board if their reaction to anything new is " I don't give a s**t?" Seems beyond odd to me. Its about learning then applying what's new. Does it help, harm, or do nothing to change a personal opinion? You don't "like" the new material - that much is clear. Frankly there's stuff I found I didn't "like" either but there it was - so I've had to consider it despite my personal bias which I had prior to finding it. But for you, instead of coming up with reasons why it should not apply or that it doesn't hold much weight, seem to take the strategy that pretends it was never found, I am making it all up, or new material of any kind is completely worthless. This appears to be done as an easier way to dismiss or shrug off what you cannot intelligently address. That's not research and defies common sense. There's nothing "fraudulent" about any of it as my footnotes all prove, and its this fact which ruins your false narrative about what "would" have been found previously. So don't read it, don't consider it, and do not apply it. Here's where I say " I don't give a s**t," but your approach seems disingenuous and a little nutty if you ask me.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Nov 23, 2018 14:48:14 GMT -5
You're not trying to answer anything - you're just trying to create questioning of Lindbergh and Anne, and of course Betty comes along for the ride. Nobody gives a s--- about TLC anymore, they don't even know who Charles was - they don't even teach it in history classes anymore unless you take "The History of Obscure Flights." I feel bas about that too, as I'm sure you do, but reality is harsh.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Nov 23, 2018 14:58:12 GMT -5
The stuff you're finding is not new. The police had it and noted it down, but in most cases didn't do anything about it because it was a dead end. Sound familiar to current investigating?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 24, 2018 9:16:58 GMT -5
The stuff you're finding is not new. The police had it and noted it down, but in most cases didn't do anything about it because it was a dead end. Sound familiar to current investigating? Of course its new. If you never read about it before then what do you call it? Old? So now in order to deflect you merely shrug it off with some kind of an excuse in order to justify rejecting or dismissing everything. If that's your personal approach, and it appears to be, then so be it. As far as "what" the police did with it ... its in the books. Claiming it didn't mean anything to authorities is yet another personal approach you've decided to take. Of course you couldn't personally know if you haven't read the material I have so you must rely on my books in order to get there. So you cannot have your cake and eat it too, however, its certainly your prerogative to create that imaginary bridge to cross if you like. Fact is, if one relies on most of the other books you'd be led down a path of omission or misrepresentation about most of what actually happened. So here's what did.... Like it, hate it, like some, hate some, or simply do as you are doing Jack - pretend it doesn't matter, isn't real, or say in "most" cases it was a "dead end." As far as most people not even knowing who Lindbergh was anymore... I'd have to agree. Younger students or adults who aren't interested in history may never know. But those who come here or read books on the subject do not fit into that mold. They are reading because they want to learn. If the interest continues, as it has for everyone here now, then they'll want everything. And when I say everything I mean what's actually real and not fake conversations dreampt up by someone who "wished" that's what was said. The whole reason some are stunned or question what's in my books is because they bought into, hook - line - and sinker, what the others wrote. How could this stuff exist and why is it soooo different concerning the true narrative about what really occurred? The answer: Research. Not 2 weeks or 2 months of it. If one spends that little amount of time than those are the type of books you get. Tough talk, labels, and bad or incomplete information.
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 15, 2019 0:29:18 GMT -5
CAL had every damned resource available in 1932 to get his son back and did not only not use any of them, he actually precluded any professional help. I hope he is burning in hell.[/quote]
Well said.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 31, 2023 8:05:49 GMT -5
Here is a news photo story recently discovered by Sue, which appeared July 28, 1931 and indicates the Lindbergh home was expected to be ready for occupancy at the conclusion of their Orient trip in late 1931. From such a source, would a potential kidnapper have reason to believe the Lindberghs would not have been living full time in Hopewell by the end of February 1932?
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Mar 31, 2023 11:26:40 GMT -5
Joe and Sue,
A personal thanks for finding and posting this Lindbergh house construction photo from July 1931. As I have mentioned before, my grandfather was a Hopewell union carpenter who died from a massive heart attack on May 29, 1931 while working on the Lindbergh house. Although his carpentry specialty was doors and windows, my mother was always under the impression that he was working on the roof construction at the time of his fatal heart attack. This is the first house construction photo that I have seen that was close to his May 29th death. It confirms for me that my mother's assumption was correct in that 2 months or so prior to this photo being taken, the carpenters would have been working on the roof construction and certainly not on doors and windows. Just a small detail of my grandfather's death that I always wanted to ascertain. As an aside, according to my grandfathers local Hopewell carpentry reputation as a "door and window man", if he had lived to install the doors and windows on the house they would all have been in proper working order on March 1st, 1932! Thanks again for posting the photo.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Mar 31, 2023 16:37:18 GMT -5
Joe and Sue, A personal thanks for finding and posting this Lindbergh house construction photo from July 1931. As I have mentioned before, my grandfather was a Hopewell union carpenter who died from a massive heart attack on May 29, 1931 while working on the Lindbergh house. Although his carpentry specialty was doors and windows, my mother was always under the impression that he was working on the roof construction at the time of his fatal heart attack. This is the first house construction photo that I have seen that was close to his May 29th death. It confirms for me that my mother's assumption was correct in that 2 months or so prior to this photo being taken, the carpenters would have been working on the roof construction and certainly not on doors and windows. Just a small detail of my grandfather's death that I always wanted to ascertain. As an aside, according to my grandfathers local Hopewell carpentry reputation as a "door and window man", if he had lived to install the doors and windows on the house they would all have been in proper working order on March 1st, 1932! Thanks again for posting the photo. Hello lurp173. I hope you do not mind me responding to your post. So sorry that your grandfather was stricken while working on the Lindbergh house. You mention that your grandfather's speciality was doors and windows but your grandmother was under the impression that he was working on the roof of the house. Is it possible that your grandfather might have worked on the skylight windows that had been included in the design of the Highfield house? They were discreetly camouflaged keeping in mind the desire for privacy that the Lindberghs desired. I am going to try to put a link to a picture of the Highfield house. If you look carefully you can see two of those skylights. One is on the side of the house where the nursery was located. It is to the right of the chimney about center on the roof. The second one is on the back roof between the two dormer windows. If the link does not work, you might be able to copy and paste it into your browser. I am not a member of this board so it may not allow me to link anything. www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/lindbergh-charles-august-pilot-flieger-usa-das-haus-news-photo/545676007?adppopup=true
|
|