|
Post by Miss dockendorf on Apr 17, 2019 15:54:58 GMT -5
Creosote and Turpentine, YUM!!!! Ok I asked my Mom who is the same age as Charlie would be and she said my Grandmother wouldn't give her these types of cough/cold meds because they were too strong. Grandmother was afraid Mom wouldn't wake up after a dose of the stuff. So that's a bit of trivia from the early thirties. Denadenise1963 mentioned that Anne didn't know how to comb/brush the babies hair so maybe new mom didn't realize how strong the stuff with codeine was. Just an assumption but imagine giving your baby cold medicine and they don't wake up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2019 20:42:56 GMT -5
Creosote and Turpentine, YUM!!!! Ok I asked my Mom who is the same age as Charlie would be and she said my Grandmother wouldn't give her these types of cough/cold meds because they were too strong. Grandmother was afraid Mom wouldn't wake up after a dose of the stuff. So that's a bit of trivia from the early thirties. Denadenise1963 mentioned that Anne didn't know how to comb/brush the babies hair so maybe new mom didn't realize how strong the stuff with codeine was. Just an assumption but imagine giving your baby cold medicine and they don't wake up. Creo-Terpin was a very popular cold/cough medicine up through the 1940s. Terpin is not turpentine. The Creo is from a wood plant. It was especially effective at relieving coughs, probably because of the codeine. Creo-Terpin was sold in drug stores all over the country. IF this is what Betty Gow might have stopped to get for Charlie's cold, you can be sure that it would have been administered properly. It is a lot safer than chloroform!! It is Vicks Vapo rub that is connected to turpentine. They were putting that on Charlie's chest. Here is a helpful link: www.wildpostcards.com/2009/07/wampoles-creo-terpin-compound/
|
|
|
Post by Miss dockendorf on Apr 18, 2019 6:11:37 GMT -5
But Terpin is artificial Turpentine oil and Creo refers to the same stuff used to make creosote, that had to not only taste terrible but pack a punch. Mom said those drugs were off limits only because her mother was afraid of them. On the funnier side she said what they did give her was honey and lemon with an eye dropper of what she now realizes was whiskey so who knows what they gave poor Charlie. She said her mother used to drink boiled beer for colds.
|
|
|
Post by Miss dockendorf on Apr 18, 2019 7:46:30 GMT -5
I bet it was. Never occurred to me but I haven't connected the dots as well as everyone on this board. I do think there's no way this was a one man job. Even a drugged baby is a handful and hefting him over your shoulder and carrying him down a ladder was difficult.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 7:49:45 GMT -5
I think the thing to keep in mind here is that the codeine was the agent in this product that carried any risk that you are seeking to apply to this "medicine". It is what caused the calming of the coughing that children and adults would experience with chest colds, bronchitis, etc. Charlie had a cold that had moved to his chest. He no doubt was coughing because of it. Anne had been in and out of that nursery during Monday night tending to Charlie. The codeine in this product would quiet the cough and allow Charlie to get some uninterrupted sleep; a benefit that also extended to Charlie's caregivers.
Codeine was removed from over the counter products years ago because parents were abusing its usage. I believe that today it is considered a narcotic.
Home remedies like you mention above were ways families had used to deal with illness and were passed down through generations. Honey and lemon, yes indeed! Soothing and safe!
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 18, 2019 10:13:43 GMT -5
I think the thing to keep in mind here is that the codeine was the agent in this product that carried any risk that you are seeking to apply to this "medicine". It is what caused the calming of the coughing that children and adults would experience with chest colds, bronchitis, etc. Charlie had a cold that had moved to his chest. He no doubt was coughing because of it. Anne had been in and out of that nursery during Monday night tending to Charlie. The codeine in this product would quiet the cough and allow Charlie to get some uninterrupted sleep; a benefit that also extended to Charlie's caregivers. Codeine was removed from over the counter products years ago because parents were abusing its usage. I believe that today it is considered a narcotic. Home remedies like you mention above were ways families had used to deal with illness and were passed down through generations. Honey and lemon, yes indeed! Soothing and safe! Something has just occurred to me. I am going on the theory that the baby had hydrocephalus with my comment. Although many other medical conditions can cause this as welll. But as I was researching hydrocephalus a couple of days ago I began to think about this. I think a child suffering from hydrocephalus surely must experience horrendous headaches. Ive also heard that back in the day it was an old school belief that babies did not feel pain as much as adults. Which is of course absurd. But I’m wondering about Charlie having headaches. His head was oversized and even looks bulging in some areas to me from old photos. I know the baby had a cold. Wasnt it also possible that medicine was being picked up because this poor child was suffering from a severe headache? I’ve never had reason to look this up before as the only reason I’m trying to learn more about hydrocephalus at all is because of poor Charlie. But I wonder and it seems logical to me that a baby suffering from hydrocephalus would experience terrible headaches. I know that the prognosis for babies with this condition in 1932 was very bleak though. I am sort of veering off into thinking about the Lindbergh baby was being considered by CAL or any of the household, as being terminally ill ? Despite all of the lip service being given to how “normal” he was. Ive never really looked at it through this lens before. Why was the being picked up left out of the narrative? And was it possible that because the baby was considered to be terminally ill at this juncture, and might have been suffering terribly, large doses of codeint was being administered to Charlie? And the baby having a cold may have been just a convenient sideline for a medical condition that was obviously far more serious? I have fairly severe aphasia & even when I write I can’t always express what I’m trying to get out as I mean so I hope I’m explaining this as I intend it. To expound further (and of course this is just speculating but I’m trying to think outside of the box here) this family was adept at trying to make everything about this baby seem so “normal” to the public. There is no shame or should not EVER be shame in a baby having severe medical issues. To me this is almost unimaginable. But to a man like CAL, with all his Eugenics belief there obviously would be. I wonder if possibly the baby was suffering headaches and being given codeine for them because he was showing symptoms of severe pain...I also wonder if it is possible that IF the baby WAS suffering greatly , and it had become obvious that clearly the baby was suffering...it would be a horrifying and torturous experience to see your baby suffering in pain for anyone who loved this baby to be witnessing. I never ever thought of this possible angle until I started reading about Betty picking up the “medicine”. Why, when EVERY LITTLE DETAIL MIGHT MATTER, would Anne NOT mention this ? Ok I’m just going to say it. Was it possible the baby was given “medcine” not only to EASE his suffering, but to END his suffering as well? This is all speculation of course. But Im trying to look at this in a different light with this info about the stop for medicine being hidden. As this should not have been such a big deal. It only becomes a big deal at all when what should have been an innocuous enough event at the pharmacy is left out of the timeline at all. Again, I hope I was able to explain what I meant.
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 18, 2019 10:55:43 GMT -5
Creosote and Turpentine, YUM!!!! Ok I asked my Mom who is the same age as Charlie would be and she said my Grandmother wouldn't give her these types of cough/cold meds because they were too strong. Grandmother was afraid Mom wouldn't wake up after a dose of the stuff. So that's a bit of trivia from the early thirties. Denadenise1963 mentioned that Anne didn't know how to comb/brush the babies hair so maybe new mom didn't realize how strong the stuff with codeine was. Just an assumption but imagine giving your baby cold medicine and they don't wake up. Creo-Terpin was a very popular cold/cough medicine up through the 1940s. Terpin is not turpentine. The Creo is from a wood plant. It was especially effective at relieving coughs, probably because of the codeine. Creo-Terpin was sold in drug stores all over the country. IF this is what Betty Gow might have stopped to get for Charlie's cold, you can be sure that it would have been administered properly. It is a lot safer than chloroform!! It is Vicks Vapo rub that is connected to turpentine. They were putting that on Charlie's chest. Here is a helpful link: www.wildpostcards.com/2009/07/wampoles-creo-terpin-compound/So I’m researching this Creo-Turpin cough syrup right now. And it was actually available until the 1980’s. And I also read can still get it through a compounding pharmacy. 😳 Was supposed to be extremely effective. I’m just getting into reading about the science of how it works exactly. I’m assuming however that because of the codeine, a large enough dose would lead to respiratory suppression and next, full respiratory failure. There are also some other things to consider. But of course we might not ever get these answers. But was the baby on other medications that were never made public for example? Because drugs can interact and affect whether how another responds. One can make another weaker. Or stronger sometimes. So many variables here. Wish we had the baby’s medical records.
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 18, 2019 11:01:06 GMT -5
But Terpin is artificial Turpentine oil and Creo refers to the same stuff used to make creosote, that had to not only taste terrible but pack a punch. Mom said those drugs were off limits only because her mother was afraid of them. On the funnier side she said what they did give her was honey and lemon with an eye dropper of what she now realizes was whiskey so who knows what they gave poor Charlie. She said her mother used to drink boiled beer for colds. Was this the "physic" Betty gave to him that Charlie allegedly spit up on the sleep suit? ? That’s right, I Love Dallas Fort Worth. I had forgotten all about the “physic” that Betty was supposed to have given Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by Miss dockendorf on Apr 18, 2019 15:01:21 GMT -5
The ominous answer to that question is Anne asked her to pick up some candy and Betty also picked up some Creo-Terpin so Charlie would be very mellow when BRH arrived with his ladder. Complete assumption but possible.
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Apr 18, 2019 17:51:19 GMT -5
I thought that this stop at the pharmacy had been checked by police and they were satisfied there was no suspicious purchases.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 18:45:40 GMT -5
I am going on the theory that the baby had hydrocephalus with my comment. Although many other medical conditions can cause this as welll. But as I was researching hydrocephalus a couple of days ago I began to think about this. I think a child suffering from hydrocephalus surely must experience horrendous headaches. I saw that you made another post on Hydrocephalus recently. You seem committed to this diagnosis. Can I ask you what type of hydrocephalus you think Charlie had and what caused it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 18:53:09 GMT -5
I thought that this stop at the pharmacy had been checked by police and they were satisfied there was no suspicious purchases. This is a great question. I have not yet come across a police report covering an investigation of this drug store stop. I am not saying it wasn't done. I have not come across it so far in my archives research. It is something that should have been checked. Perhaps Michael can share something about this.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 19, 2019 9:50:31 GMT -5
I think the thing to keep in mind here is that the codeine was the agent in this product that carried any risk that you are seeking to apply to this "medicine". It is what caused the calming of the coughing that children and adults would experience with chest colds, bronchitis, etc. Charlie had a cold that had moved to his chest. He no doubt was coughing because of it. Anne had been in and out of that nursery during Monday night tending to Charlie. The codeine in this product would quiet the cough and allow Charlie to get some uninterrupted sleep; a benefit that also extended to Charlie's caregivers. Codeine was removed from over the counter products years ago because parents were abusing its usage. I believe that today it is considered a narcotic. Home remedies like you mention above were ways families had used to deal with illness and were passed down through generations. Honey and lemon, yes indeed! Soothing and safe! Something has just occurred to me. I am going on the theory that the baby had hydrocephalus with my comment. Although many other medical conditions can cause this as welll. But as I was researching hydrocephalus a couple of days ago I began to think about this. I think a child suffering from hydrocephalus surely must experience horrendous headaches. Ive also heard that back in the day it was an old school belief that babies did not feel pain as much as adults. Which is of course absurd. But I’m wondering about Charlie having headaches. His head was oversized and even looks bulging in some areas to me from old photos. I know the baby had a cold. Wasnt it also possible that medicine was being picked up because this poor child was suffering from a severe headache? I’ve never had reason to look this up before as the only reason I’m trying to learn more about hydrocephalus at all is because of poor Charlie. But I wonder and it seems logical to me that a baby suffering from hydrocephalus would experience terrible headaches. I know that the prognosis for babies with this condition in 1932 was very bleak though. I am sort of veering off into thinking about the Lindbergh baby was being considered by CAL or any of the household, as being terminally ill ? Despite all of the lip service being given to how “normal” he was. Ive never really looked at it through this lens before. Why was the being picked up left out of the narrative? And was it possible that because the baby was considered to be terminally ill at this juncture, and might have been suffering terribly, large doses of codeint was being administered to Charlie? And the baby having a cold may have been just a convenient sideline for a medical condition that was obviously far more serious? I have fairly severe aphasia & even when I write I can’t always express what I’m trying to get out as I mean so I hope I’m explaining this as I intend it. To expound further (and of course this is just speculating but I’m trying to think outside of the box here) this family was adept at trying to make everything about this baby seem so “normal” to the public. There is no shame or should not EVER be shame in a baby having severe medical issues. To me this is almost unimaginable. But to a man like CAL, with all his Eugenics belief there obviously would be. I wonder if possibly the baby was suffering headaches and being given codeine for them because he was showing symptoms of severe pain...I also wonder if it is possible that IF the baby WAS suffering greatly , and it had become obvious that clearly the baby was suffering...it would be a horrifying and torturous experience to see your baby suffering in pain for anyone who loved this baby to be witnessing. I never ever thought of this possible angle until I started reading about Betty picking up the “medicine”. Why, when EVERY LITTLE DETAIL MIGHT MATTER, would Anne NOT mention this ? Ok I’m just going to say it. Was it possible the baby was given “medcine” not only to EASE his suffering, but to END his suffering as well? This is all speculation of course. But Im trying to look at this in a different light with this info about the stop for medicine being hidden. As this should not have been such a big deal. It only becomes a big deal at all when what should have been an innocuous enough event at the pharmacy is left out of the timeline at all. Again, I hope I was able to explain what I meant. The theory that Charlie had hydrocephalus is quite a reach. IIRC, he had measurement of his head circumference done and it was within the upper part of the normal range for his age. His anterior fontanelle had never closed, which could be a sign of hydrocephalus, but in so far as we know, he never showed the neurological symptoms that would be associated with the condition. I believe that someone had mentioned on these boards that he had found out that Charlie had once been admitted to Johns Hopkins Hospital, but that the hospital had strongly rebuffed efforts to release his records to a modern-day researcher. Those records would surely be valuable to our discussions here.
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 19, 2019 13:33:46 GMT -5
I am going on the theory that the baby had hydrocephalus with my comment. Although many other medical conditions can cause this as welll. But as I was researching hydrocephalus a couple of days ago I began to think about this. I think a child suffering from hydrocephalus surely must experience horrendous headaches. I saw that you made another post on Hydrocephalus recently. You seem committed to this diagnosis. Can I ask you what type of hydrocephalus you think Charlie had and what caused it? Because it was more than just the fontanel not closing. I can see the abnormally raised areas in certain areas of his head in different photos as well. So many of the descriptions of Charlie seem to coalesce with the known symptoms of hydrocephalus. Now some of these taken alone can be completely meaningless. But when all combined and I see what appears to me to be a limited range of movement...and I’m researching right now actually trying to determine if there is any medical research indicating that oxygen deprivation or carbon exposure in utero can be established as having any link to hydrocephalus. I do believe that this is indeed what Charlie suffered from as of this writing. But if other alternative information comes to light that could explain all of these symptoms he was displaying I am open to that as well. I just want to know what happened to him. 💔
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2019 8:46:53 GMT -5
I thought that this stop at the pharmacy had been checked by police and they were satisfied there was no suspicious purchases. This is a great question. I have not yet come across a police report covering an investigation of this drug store stop. I am not saying it wasn't done. I have not come across it so far in my archives research. It is something that should have been checked. Perhaps Michael can share something about this. I am having deja vu. Didn't we recently discuss this or am I losing it? I've had the impression this was mentioned somewhere but I can't find anything. I keep thinking FBI Summary but I cannot remember.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 9:19:50 GMT -5
I am having deja vu. Didn't we recently discuss this or am I losing it? I've had the impression this was mentioned somewhere but I can't find anything. I keep thinking FBI Summary but I cannot remember. Yes. we did. Here is the link to the conversation. Just scroll down a bit on the page. Ziki had asked the same question. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/76/henry-ellerson-witness-villain?page=5
|
|
|
Post by Ajohns on Oct 29, 2019 12:29:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 29, 2019 16:30:25 GMT -5
Thanks for posting those articles on the Robert Dolfen story. Interesting stuff at the time, but like dozens of other possible living candidates, was proved NOT TO BE CHARLES A. LINDBERGH Jr. But this does not NOT rule out the possibility that the body found in the woods off the Mt. Rose Road in NJ on May 12, 1932 was that of a child other than Charlie. As I posted earlier on this thread and several times on other threads here, the differences in the toe deformities of the known Charlie described in Dr. Van Ingen's letter and the toe deformities of corpse on autopsy described in Dr. Mitchell's autopsy report, are such that - barring an error by at least one of the two - the corpse was NOT that of little Charlie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2019 7:01:30 GMT -5
Morning Amy, remember Charlie was supposedly "better" the morning of March 1. Anne was the one who was worn out and tired. Charlie did not need any "medicine". And also remember Ollie had made a trip or two to get medicine for Charlie over the weekend. I believe Ollie's trips involved the purchase of a thermometer and also one for Milk of Magnesia. Add to that Betty Gow's pharmacy stop on Tuesday, March 1, 1932 at Anne's request makes it look more like Charlie is getting worse not better. Gosh, Elsie thought Charlie had died in his bed the night of March 1, 1932 when Betty Gow came running downstairs and said Charlie was gone! I have always found Charlie's state of health at the time of the kidnapping confusing because of stuff like this. Anne was writing in her diary that Charlie was almost better and she was planning to take him home on Wednesday, March 2nd. He sounds more sick to me, especially if that cold had moved to Charlie's chest.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 30, 2019 10:06:31 GMT -5
Can we agree that James E. Starrs is real? "It matched in every place that we looked," he said. "There were no anomalies. There were no ifs, ands or buts." (Akron Beacon Journal 9/29/2000). The problem is that most of the claimants have something in common... An adult they trust tells or implies that they are the Lindbergh Baby. This, I think, is a perfect example why adults should never try to impress or suggest something like this onto a child because the end result is obvious. Here you have kids who want to be "Race Car Drivers" when they grow up subjected to the power of suggestion - to the point where it becomes part of who they are. Robert Aldinger's DNA also proved he was his mother's child and the guy was still in denial. I can only imagine how psychologically devastating that must have been for him.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 30, 2019 16:11:12 GMT -5
Way too much reading. Anyone who keeps up with this stuff should probably get a job.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2019 20:44:26 GMT -5
Amy, why do you think Betty kept saying she purchased candy at the store instead of something Anne asked her to purchase? I am only aware of Ellerson saying in his statement that Betty Gow told him she purchased candy. When Betty Gow did her 15 page statement on March 3, 1932 she said the following: Q Did you stop anywhere after you left Englewood?
A We stopped in a drug store.
Q Did you know the druggist?
A No, sir, it was one we passed on the way out; I bought something for the baby's cold that Mrs. Lindberg told me to get.It makes sense to me that Betty Gow told Ellerson she bought candy because it was not his business to know that the stop was at Anne's request and that it was something Anne wanted to treat Charlie"s cold. So, Ollie had secured a thermometer and some Milk of Magnesia. Charlie is already receiving nose drops and is being rubbed with Vicks. As I see it, the only thing left to treat would be a cough that was interrupting Charlie's sleep because the cold had moved to his chest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2019 8:31:47 GMT -5
We do see that Ellerson backed her up about the stop but differs as to what she purchased. But Scathma's point should not be lost either. Also, Ziki is right expecting there was an investigation into it. The problem is that sometimes the documents don't follow the expected pattern. If we don't find one then is it safe to assume it did not occur? I am not sure what your point is here since I don't see anything in contention in this discussion. I don't think anyone's point is being ignored. Betty Gow did make that stop. Ellerson backs it up. Betty Gow told Ellerson it was candy she bought. Betty Gow told the police the purchase was something Anne told her to get for Charlie's cold. I seriously doubt Anne told Betty to purchase candy for Charlie's cold. I would not just assume something did or did not happen just because a report is not available for us to review about it. We use what we have available and make the best evaluation we can based on that. Betty Gow and Ellerson agree on the drug store stop so I think it is safe to assume that such a stop was made. Gow and Ellerson's statements disagree on what was bought. Ellerson is dependent on what Betty Gow told him she bought. She chose to tell him she bought candy. She told the authorities otherwise. Ellerson never saw what Betty Gow bought. So Betty either lied to Ellerson or she lied to the police. You decide.
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Nov 1, 2019 3:08:05 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2019 5:48:50 GMT -5
Although medicine type candy can be considered a possibility, I am not sure this would be safe for children under two because they might choke on this type of medicine. Liquid is safer.
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Nov 1, 2019 14:30:13 GMT -5
I agree with you, Amy, that liquid is far safer for small children. I don’t know why I think, that people weren’t so aware about this things then. When thinking about a liquid, it’s also eaisier to overdose a child with a liquid containing some opiate or other drug...
|
|
truthseeker777
Recruit
Trying again after almost three years. Can someone guide me?
Posts: 8
|
Post by truthseeker777 on Jul 16, 2020 21:01:14 GMT -5
Yes. I believe the body was that of a child who had died at St.Michael's and was procured by/or for a pathologist friend of Lindbergh, to be evidence for the staged kidnapping set up by Lindbergh himself to cover for his child being taken and secretly dropped off at an institution for the "feeble-minded"located in the boondocks of Georgetown Delaware. During that time people were known to simply drop off their child, no questions asked because times were tough. The child didn't even need to be mentally challenged, just not wanted. I believe the child was taken by boat to Cape Henlopen from New Jersey and was transported the short trip to the facility in Georgetown. I'm not sure of the original name, but at some point the place was named "Home for the Feeble-minded" then "Delaware Colony", then "Stockley Center." It is a state facility now. Lindbergh involved some of the staff in his plan for March 1, 1932 and swore them to secrecy so as not to let Anne know. Things got complicated and it's too much for me to share on this one post, but I have a very plausible theory as well as something I was told by my aunt who worked at Stockley Center for many years. Pieces of the puzzle remain blank but there is much to ponder considering the lying, controlling and deceptive nature we have discovered about Charles Lindbergh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2020 7:09:47 GMT -5
I find your theory interesting and I can hear your frustration with trying to pull things together about what your Aunt shared with you about the possible presence of Charles Lindbergh Jr. at Stockley Center. I remember you bringing this up a few years ago on this thread. If you have anything new or additional you would like to share on the board, please do.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jul 17, 2020 9:31:20 GMT -5
The visit to the pharmacy as described in the statements of Betty Gow and Henry Ellerson prompts some suspicion. First, Ellerson says that she stopped for candy, but she changes the story later by indicating that a request came from Mrs. Lindbergh who needed something for the baby's cough. However, regardless of what she says, she does have an opportunity to purchase something to make the baby sleep soundly which could be mixed with his milk or a meal before bedtime. No scent of chloroform was detected in the bedroom, and if the baby had awakened suddenly from his sleep, he would have cried out loudly. He was yanked out of bed, presumably by his feet, so it would appear that he was unconscious and remained so. He did not relate to strangers either and would have made noise just for that reason. The child was most likely drugged before he was put to bed. The stop at the drugstore also gave Ellerson an opportunity to make a phone call. He does deny doing this in his statement, but this stop did allow him the chance to call and alert at least one of the kidnappers of the situation. This was the second day that the Lindberghs were staying at Hopewell because of the illnesses of the baby and his mother. They had probably been working since Monday afternoon in case the possibility for the snatch should open up on Tuesday. Anne had called Next Day Hill on Monday to state that she would not be returning to Englewood until the baby was better, mentioning no time when this might happen. The gang would be on the alert on Tuesday. There had to be cooperation from the inside, from the Morrow or the Lindbergh staff. Unfortunately Lindbergh refused to accept the obvious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2020 18:19:06 GMT -5
The stop at the drugstore also gave Ellerson an opoortunity to make a phone call. Interesting observation. Violet Sharp was looked at as the person who tipped off someone connected to the kidnapping. Since many of the servants knew Betty Gow was going to Hopewell because Charlie was staying yet another night at the Hopewell house, Ellerson might have been the person who made such a call. He could have done that before he ever drove Betty Gow down to Highfields.
|
|