|
Post by Michael on Sept 29, 2018 8:02:16 GMT -5
While I don't normally like to broadcast the topics ahead of time, I have absolutely no worries that anyone has what I do on much of what I plan to write in V3. For those interested I am currently working on Rail 16. As some who have read both of my books probably know, I do not write everything in the order it winds up in the final proof. I decided to "attack" the wood evidence first because its complicated and complex. In order to properly explain Rail 16 I have to do as I've done in the past and that is to explain everything, the best I can, step by step. Unfortunately, while I don't like to "present" something out of order, this topic is very challenging because groups of facts occur that creates a situation where I might have to. Already I have 80 pages written with no end it site. I know many people outside of our community may find it boring but I do not think anyone here will. In the end, all of the information that exists will be out there for everyone to draw a conclusion. That includes some information I am quite confident no one has seen since probably the original investigation.
|
|
|
V3
Sept 29, 2018 10:38:05 GMT -5
Post by Wayne on Sept 29, 2018 10:38:05 GMT -5
Hi Michael, I can't wait to see what you've come up with on Rail 16. I don't find it boring in the least. From everything I've read, I'm 99.9999999% convinced that BRH built the ladder found at Highfields (built either for himself or for someone else). Here's the one problem I have with Rail 16. It concerns the attic joists that Rail 16 was nailed into. Below is a diagram that illustrates the conventional wisdom of the relationship between the joists, Rail 16 and the 4 cut nail holes in Rail 16 (the nails locations are shown with blue dots) -- As you know, one cut nail went into Joist 7, one cut nail went into Joist 6, and two cut nails went into Joist 4. All well and good... BUT when you look at the joists in the museum, you see an extra cut nail hole in Joist 5 and one extra cut nail hole in Joist 6. BOTH of these nails went into both joists as far as the cut nails in Joists 7, 6, and 4. These two joists holes are illustrated with red dots below. The bottom line is this -- since there are two cut nail holes in Joist 5 and 6, then there should be two additional (and matching) cut nails holes in Rail 16. There are not. I find this hard to explain. I've worked with putting in attic floorboards before and I can't remember any joists that had holes in them prior to putting in floorboards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
V3
Sept 29, 2018 12:43:44 GMT -5
Wayne likes this
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2018 12:43:44 GMT -5
I am still absorbing The Dark Corners Volume 2 but am ready and already waiting eagerly for Volume 3. I fully expect it will be packed with new, unknown facts which will help all of us to have a better understanding about the evidence in this case. There is really so much to know that has never been included in other books written on the crime. I am thrilled that Michael will be sharing so much, yet again, about this case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 26, 2018 14:15:32 GMT -5
For anyone interested in the "progression" of this volume ... I should be done with my (unedited) section on Rail 16 by tomorrow. Is it exciting? No. No, it isn't. But does it explore everything, give new details, and provide new information/material? Yes. Absolutely yes. Will it answer the mystery? For me it has but I'll leave that up to the individual to decide. But let me say this... no one will say they don't have enough information to do so - that much is for certain. So the "excitement" is the ability to now come to a conclusion.
Hopefully the next sections do not take as long or require a 100 or so pages to explain like one this has!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
V3
Nov 26, 2018 14:22:28 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2018 14:22:28 GMT -5
I can hardly wait to read what you have on Rail 16. I know that I will find it to be informative and revealing just like your other volumes. Looking forward to everything you will be sharing in Volume III!!!
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 26, 2018 15:16:41 GMT -5
For anyone interested in the "progression" of this volume ... I should be done with my (unedited) section on Rail 16 by tomorrow. Is it exciting? No. No, it isn't. But does it explore everything, give new details, and provide new information/material? Yes. Absolutely yes. Will it answer the mystery? For me it has but I'll leave that up to the individual to decide. But let me say this... no one will say they don't have enough information to do so - that much is for certain. So the "excitement" is the ability to now come to a conclusion. Hopefully the next sections do not take as long or require a 100 or so pages to explain like one this has! Can't wait to read it! I do hope that if volume III is the last one you add an "afterwards" like Dr. Gardner did, where you lay out your personal theory to some extent.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 27, 2018 9:49:23 GMT -5
Can't wait to read it! I do hope that if volume III is the last one you add an "afterwards" like Dr. Gardner did, where you lay out your personal theory to some extent. Thanks! It's hard for me to say if they'll be another volume after 3. I'd prefer not, but it all depends how this one ends up. I've always wanted to explore more but at the end of the day if there isn't what I consider "enough" then I'll call it quits. One thing that I've noticed is that some in the Legal field seem to take up the position that if it didn't occur within the confines of the trial in Flemington then we somehow cannot consider it - almost like anything else is exempt or it didn't happen (even though it did). I've obviously got a real problem with that philosophy and I can't see how someone who does hold that position would completely ignore testimony in any other related trial. For example: Curtis, Devine, Means, Parker, etc. - as well as ALL of the Grand Jury testimony connected to all of them as well. Pointing to one trial but ignoring the rest makes very little sense to me. There's also some really unique "stuff" that came up during the investigations which doesn't seem to quite "fit" but is interesting nevertheless. I'd hate to think that if I don't bring it up somewhere no one will ever know about it. I do appreciate your suggestion, as well as those before it from others and I take all of these ideas into consideration for sure. Take V2 for example. If it wasn't for Feather's advice about adding back stories and examples it would have been a very different book. So its not just helpful - its necessary - especially if I am to continue after V3.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
V3
Nov 27, 2018 14:52:51 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Nov 27, 2018 14:52:51 GMT -5
Like you, I'm solid with my conclusion that CAL had nothing to do with the LC, and mine is by evidence, not educated hunch. I do think though that something else was also going on, coincidentally at the same time (most like Lindbergh trying to cover up an affair with Betty which was actually well known by the staff.)
A real mystery is done by Anne who, even though she's claiming illness, goes for a long (3 hour?) walk on a cold and wet day. What's she really doing? Thinking about something - does she know or suspect an affair too?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
V3
Nov 27, 2018 15:27:09 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2018 15:27:09 GMT -5
I do think though that something else was also going on, coincidentally at the same time (most like Lindbergh trying to cover up an affair with Betty which was actually well known by the staff.) I do think it could be possible that something else was going on at the same time. Why do you think it is an affair between CAL and Betty Gow? Do you know of any evidence that points to such an affair? I am not against the possibility, I just haven't been able to find anything that suggests it did happen.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
V3
Nov 27, 2018 21:33:11 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Nov 27, 2018 21:33:11 GMT -5
No evidence - just some things. Like how CAL didn't reprimand Betty & Red for character unbecoming of a Lindbergh employee late in the park - twice! Why was Betty there 3/2 anyway? - Anne being ill sounds like BS. She may have been there for Charles. There are other things. The unreal-like situation which the Hopewell police noticed - everybody for some reason seemed to be on their toes. Cal missing the dinner - did he want to get home to Betty? More . . .
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
V3
Nov 27, 2018 21:37:26 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Nov 27, 2018 21:37:26 GMT -5
An affair because that's something he (Chas.) may have tried to hide. Maybe that's what Ollie's famous "deathbed confession" was about - he knew about the pair. More again . . .
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
V3
Nov 27, 2018 22:20:17 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Nov 27, 2018 22:20:17 GMT -5
I'd wager Betty had to stop at the drug store en-route to Charles' residence to pick up some condoms. Perhaps this was just a normal night for them. Maybe it had been going on a while, and the crew all knew or suspected. But it wpold be something the most famous man would want to hide from the police, including Schwartzkopf and the report writers. But it would make the situation look unusual in addition to the kidnapping. Probably more . . .
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
V3
Nov 27, 2018 22:33:14 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Nov 27, 2018 22:33:14 GMT -5
All this could be why Lindbergh appeared guilty to the police and many others. He was guilty all right, but of something else, But Lindbergh lived through it all - kidnapping, etc. The crime made him more reclusive, but not a recluse.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 27, 2018 22:45:17 GMT -5
All this could be why Lindbergh appeared guilty to the police and many others. He was guilty all right, but of something else, But Lindbergh lived through it all - kidnapping, etc. The crime made him more reclusive, but not a recluse. So many leaps of logic to blame strange behavior on a specific day as related to an alleged affair when it's far more likely that they were walking on eggshells at the house and he missed the dinner for far more obvious reasons. Can you honestly say that if a child was "kidnapped" today, the parents wouldn't be thoroughly investigated? You wouldn't find it suspicious that the father missed a major dinner and would not provide his whereabouts during the day leading up to the kidnapping? You wouldn't find it suspicious that the father called from "New York" but returned home much sooner than were he actually where he said? Or that his car was spotted by a local when he shouldn't have been near but disregarded based solely on the father's word alone?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
V3
Nov 28, 2018 2:29:51 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Nov 28, 2018 2:29:51 GMT -5
How do those points have anything to do with anything? Why were they walking on eggshells?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
V3
Nov 28, 2018 4:51:42 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Nov 28, 2018 4:51:42 GMT -5
I don't have access to police reports, so I've been unable to check up with kidnapping investigations, but one kidnapping which was well publicized was botched far worse than TLC. That was the JonBenet Ramsey murder which started out as a kidnapping. You talk as if crime detection has been greatly upgraded, well judging by The Ramsey Case it's degraded to nearly non-existant. No crime scene was ever established, unless you count the one made after the crime was about a day old. Friends and relatives were invited into the victim's house and discussed whatever with the parents. while possibly removing but definately disturbing evidence. On and on and from about twenty years ago the case is still unsolved, and there has never even been a suspect, just tons of talk - much like The Lindbergh Crime of eighty years ago. The difference being that the Lindbergh perpetrator unprofessionally goofed up and was apprehended and executed.
Your statement of "today's" crime detection, implying better methods and detection, doesn't hold water when the two crimes are compared. Modern detection was much worse.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 28, 2018 18:37:53 GMT -5
I don't have access to police reports, so I've been unable to check up with kidnapping investigations, but one kidnapping which was well publicized was botched far worse than TLC. That was the JonBenet Ramsey murder which started out as a kidnapping. You talk as if crime detection has been greatly upgraded, well judging by The Ramsey Case it's degraded to nearly non-existant. No crime scene was ever established, unless you count the one made after the crime was about a day old. Friends and relatives were invited into the victim's house and discussed whatever with the parents. while possibly removing but definately disturbing evidence. On and on and from about twenty years ago the case is still unsolved, and there has never even been a suspect, just tons of talk - much like The Lindbergh Crime of eighty years ago. The difference being that the Lindbergh perpetrator unprofessionally goofed up and was apprehended and executed. Your statement of "today's" crime detection, implying better methods and detection, doesn't hold water when the two crimes are compared. Modern detection was much worse. JonBenet, also a case where the concept that a random stranger entered the house to commit that crime is pretty far-fetched and nearly everyone that morning, including all the investigators, thought something just wasn't right. It was also a case where the parents stymied the investigation as much as possible.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 28, 2018 20:00:46 GMT -5
I don't have access to police reports, so I've been unable to check up with kidnapping investigations, but one kidnapping which was well publicized was botched far worse than TLC. That was the JonBenet Ramsey murder which started out as a kidnapping. You talk as if crime detection has been greatly upgraded, well judging by The Ramsey Case it's degraded to nearly non-existant. No crime scene was ever established, unless you count the one made after the crime was about a day old. Friends and relatives were invited into the victim's house and discussed whatever with the parents. while possibly removing but definately disturbing evidence. On and on and from about twenty years ago the case is still unsolved, and there has never even been a suspect, just tons of talk - much like The Lindbergh Crime of eighty years ago. The difference being that the Lindbergh perpetrator unprofessionally goofed up and was apprehended and executed. Your statement of "today's" crime detection, implying better methods and detection, doesn't hold water when the two crimes are compared. Modern detection was much worse. JonBenet, also a case where the concept that a random stranger entered the house to commit that crime is pretty far-fetched and nearly everyone that morning, including all the investigators, thought something just wasn't right. It was also a case where the parents stymied the investigation as much as possible. I don't think that you can draw general conclusions comparing the the state of crime detection in 1932 vs. about 2000 basing it solely on famous cases, one from each period. You would have to look into the two eras a lot more closely and consider many more cases. My general impression (nothing scientific here) is that a good number of crimes in any era remain officially unsolved because the perp or perps is or are too powerful for law enforcement to be willing to do what is necessary to solve them. Instead, some kind of cover-up is employed to explain away the findings. I know some people here think that Hauptmann was a "lone wolf" perp, but you still haven't convinced me that he was at Hopewell on the day or night of purported kidnapping of CAL Jr. , nor that he was physically capable of doing all the stuff he was alleged to have done all by himself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
V3
Nov 28, 2018 21:12:49 GMT -5
Wayne likes this
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 21:12:49 GMT -5
No evidence - just some things. Like how CAL didn't reprimand Betty & Red for character unbecoming of a Lindbergh employee late in the park - twice! Why was Betty there 3/2 anyway? - Anne being ill sounds like BS. She may have been there for Charles. Hey, Jack. Thanks for all your responses regarding a CAL and Betty Gow affair. You gave me much to think about. I thought about the quote above and I can see how this might suggest to others that Lindbergh didn't do anything to Betty concerning her bad behavior because he (CAL) was engaging in an affair with Betty also and he wanted to continue that course. I am not in any way a fan of Betty Gow. I would never select someone like Betty Gow to be "besties" with. I do think Betty was complicit in what went down with Charlie on March 1, 1932. I think one of the areas where we differ concerning Betty Gow is why she was brought down to Hopewell on March 1, 1932. You say it was for sex and I say her involvement was coercion by Lindbergh. Let me explain my current position. After the kidnapping story broke and Betty Gow's name was appearing in all the newspapers, Mrs. Taylor, Betty Gow's mother, talked to the reporters in Scotland about her daughter. Not long before the kidnapping, Mrs. Taylor revealed, she had received a letter from Betty and that Betty had "misgivings" which prompted Betty to try to leave the employ of Colonel Lindbergh. In Betty's last letter to her mother before the kidnapping, Mrs. Taylor said although Betty wanted to leave the Lindberghs, she told her mother that the Colonel persuaded her daughter to stay on. We need to keep in mind that it is Lindbergh we are talking about who is doing the persuading. Are we to believe that Lindbergh is laying his heart out to Betty Gow; that he can't stand the thought that she won't be available to have sex with him?? How about this - After that New Years 1932 disaster with Betty and Red being brought into the Palisades Interstate Park Police station at 4 a.m. and after Betty and Red had been warned numerous times to discontinue parking in the park after hours, Betty and Red end up in the Police station where Red was registered as a disorderly person and in respect to the good Lindbergh name, Gow and Johnson are released with a warning. Betty and Red might have gotten away with this fiasco if a local paper hadn't found out about it and ran a story on it, which brought the Morrow Lawyers down on this paper. (See TDC, Volume I. Chapter 10, pages 113 and 114)No wonder Betty wrote her mother saying she wanted to leave her nanny job! Gow had messed up again. (Remember Princeton University - TDC, Volume I, Chapter 10 page 103)Betty Gow's mother thought highly of her daughter, of course. Betty would not have wanted her family to learn about the way she was behaving. A pure, virtuous, hard working girl, right? So her family thought. Betty had secrets to keep from her family and this would leave Betty vulnerable. Lindbergh needed Betty Gow available to aid him with Charlie's "kidnapping". Like Lindbergh had done to others at times during the kidnapping investigation, he stayed true to form and threatened Betty to get her cooperation. If she didn't stay, he would expose to Betty's family all her loose moral conduct and because of it she was being fired. She would go home, alright, in disgrace. Needless to say Betty Gow saw the writing on the wall and opted to stay. CAL promised Betty protection from the law and the preservation of her "good name". CAL gets his "Charlie problem" solved. This is just my theory, Jack. It is not in any way intended as a criticism of your theory. I just think we see Betty Gow's purpose differently. This is not a bad thing! It keeps the board and case interesting.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
V3
Nov 29, 2018 5:49:52 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Nov 29, 2018 5:49:52 GMT -5
You're a very good and thoughtful writer. IT seems to me that yh=ere could have been some of each motivating factor which we've discussed. A little nookie, but hey don't forget that stinky diaper in the tub. That 3/1/32 trip to Highfields had sexy written all over it though! CAL couldn't even remember where he was eating dinner that day. So lets split it up and we're both right - that seems very logical and correct to me.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
V3
Nov 29, 2018 7:42:23 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Nov 29, 2018 7:42:23 GMT -5
I didn't finish a sentence - Anne may have suspected Charles of infidelity. Maybe this screwing around by the most famous man was just getting started - it did get worse though, we'v got to remember. They were having their seven year itch at about five and a half. Anne and Betty don't really compare very well sexually. While Betty looks like a real woman, Anne still looks like a high-school dropout.
|
|
|
V3
Nov 29, 2018 10:09:25 GMT -5
Post by Wayne on Nov 29, 2018 10:09:25 GMT -5
Guys,
In one of his statements, CAL told NJSP that Betty had VD.
Do you think CAL would be having an affair with someone who had VD?
|
|
|
V3
Nov 29, 2018 13:47:27 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Nov 29, 2018 13:47:27 GMT -5
In one of his statements, CAL told NJSP that Betty had VD. Do you think CAL would be having an affair with someone who had VD? I know that he revealed to police that Red had VD but I'm unaware about him saying Betty had it. I floated the idea in V1 that Betty may have given it to Red and not the other way around. But seriously I don't think Betty ever intended a serious relationship with Red so would she have ever put herself in a situation to have a child with a guy who didn't have 50 cents to his name? I'd say no for sure. I've also wondered why Lindbergh felt the need to reveal that information but it seems to me the logical conclusion is to insinuate Red was out doing what "typical" Sailors "do" and Betty was somehow a "victim." Victims are usually treated in a certain way. I know - lots of speculation so it could go any way the person reviewing it all might come up with. But to your point Wayne... When was it learned? Next, remember that they found a condom in Hauptmann's car which, among other things, led everyone to believe he was cheating on Anna. So with that in mind I am quite sure a man like Lindbergh would never put himself in a position to get his "help" pregnant.
|
|
|
V3
Nov 29, 2018 15:10:20 GMT -5
Post by Wayne on Nov 29, 2018 15:10:20 GMT -5
Michael, You are right (as usual I stand corrected. Lindbergh told NJSP that Red had VD, not Betty. And good point, I'm trying to find out why Lindbergh would bring that up in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
V3
Nov 29, 2018 16:45:25 GMT -5
Michael likes this
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 16:45:25 GMT -5
Amy, and remember that Betty wrote to her mother that she felt "something was going to happen"? I agree with some of your thoughts above, but I think it was more she wanted to leave because of the Princeton "matter", but also she hated being at Highfields and would be confined there permanently in just a matter of weeks or months. In the wilderness. Away from Red. Away from civilization. With the Lindberghs flying off for weeks and months on end. In a house where Ollie hates you. No more dates during week day evenings. Nowhere to go for fun or even to visit someone. No one to talk to except Ollie and his wife. With another baby to take care of (as if Charlie and his "problems" were not enough for one person) coming soon. Hi Mary, Betty did express the fear that something was going to happen. Also, the points you mention about Betty Gow disliking the Hopewell house and worried that she might have to live there are very valid. I do believe this was probably included as reasons she gave Lindbergh for wanting to leave her position with the family. I want to post for you some more of Mrs. Taylor's comments about what Betty was telling her Mother about the Hopewell house plus other things. I will need to post this article in three parts as it is lengthy and I want to keep it readable. About the Hopewell house:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
V3
Nov 29, 2018 16:49:02 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 16:49:02 GMT -5
In the second part of this article, Mrs. Taylor, being a good mom who wants to defend her daughter, she addresses some of the rumors that were being published about Betty:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
V3
Nov 29, 2018 16:57:29 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 16:57:29 GMT -5
In the final section of this same article, Mrs. Taylor discusses Betty and Red. When you read this, it becomes evident that Mrs. Taylor was being misled (lied to?) by her daughter about the type of relationship she had with Johnson. Betty wants her mother to see her conduct as proper and friendly. Betty wants her mother to think highly of her so she needs to keep secret what was going on with Red. I really think Lindbergh used this against Betty because he needed her to stay in that position. A plan was in the works for Charlie to be "kidnapped" and this was no time to bring in a new nanny.
|
|
|
V3
Nov 30, 2018 8:42:28 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Nov 30, 2018 8:42:28 GMT -5
You are right (as usual Not always Wayne! My brain is full and sometimes adding something new pushes someone old out. And of course I'm like everyone else and continue to learn new things!
|
|
|
V3
Nov 30, 2018 9:44:31 GMT -5
Wayne likes this
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 30, 2018 9:44:31 GMT -5
cant wait to debate rail 16 will see what v3 brings. im loaded with wood stuff and was in the attic
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
V3
Nov 30, 2018 12:30:54 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Nov 30, 2018 12:30:54 GMT -5
I'm looking forward to you and rail 16 WMan! Hope it's not like the rest of his 'dramatic disclosures" have been.
|
|