ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Jan 26, 2019 4:33:02 GMT -5
Recent discussion about Charlie’s photos made me think about this two things from above mentioned page from Michael’s V1 again: „On September 18th, the Morrow family packed up returning to Englewood, leaving Betty, the baby, and Emily Kempainen (Morrow Cook) behind. According to all sources, this decision was made due to the "infantile paralysis epidemic," and it was thought best to keep the child away from Englewood for the time being. … Betty and the baby had unauthorized photos taken of them by reporters while Morrow family was still there, so it must have been nerve-wracking for Betty to have been almost completely alone during that time.“1. According to this article ( Poliomyelitis distribution in the United States) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2024019/the poliomyelitis epidemic hit also Maine and other East Coast states. Moreover this terrible disease has incubation period up to a month, so when it peaked in August in NJC, then I see a possibility, Charlie was in fact hit by it (when Morrow family took him to Maine on July 27). But this still does not rule out some inborn defect (Dandy-Walker Syndrome?) and rickets being also present. 2. Michael, do you know, what happened with this photos? Is it possible to see them somewhere? And when were they actually made?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2019 11:41:57 GMT -5
2. Michael, do you know, what happened with this photos? Is it possible to see them somewhere? And when were they actually made? ILDFW is right. It's the photos showing her pushing the baby carriage. Look no further than xjd's avatar and that's one of them.
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Jan 27, 2019 4:35:09 GMT -5
Thank you, I love Dallas Fort Worth and Michael. I would not guess, this video is unauthorized (maybe at the beginning with a man shielding Charlie). Looks like Betty would hope to get a career in Hollywood, or at least a rich groom, thanks to this movie. Or would she just know and she got same money for it? But Charlie looks so cute here with Skean in the carriage, only the hair on the side of his head looks odd...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 9:06:29 GMT -5
Betty absolutely knows she is being filmed during that video. These news people are on the grounds of the Morrow Maine home and doing all this filming. So why didn't the Morrow security people go after these reporters and remove them? Why aren't they protecting their grandson from this publicity? All the fuss about not talking photos without permission. Why then is something like this allowed to happen? That news reel piece was played in theaters all over the country. You are right that Betty is not bothered a bit by the attention SHE is getting by parading Charlie across the lawn!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 27, 2019 11:13:50 GMT -5
Betty absolutely knows she is being filmed during that video. These news people are on the grounds of the Morrow Maine home and doing all this filming. So why didn't the Morrow security people go after these reporters and remove them? Why aren't they protecting their grandson from this publicity? All the fuss about not talking photos without permission. Why then is something like this allowed to happen? That news reel piece was played in theaters all over the country. You are right that Betty is not bothered a bit by the attention SHE is getting by parading Charlie across the lawn! Amy, I completely agree with you... Betty was looking directly into the camera lens, as it appears Charlie was too. As a side note, here is Red Johnson's take on the movie reel (this is an excerpt from "Chapter 3" dated April 21, 1932 from Red's 12-part newspaper serial). In his own words: "The first time she (Betty Gow) mentioned little Charles to me was when we went to see the news-reel picture of him. I have already told how, during the excitement of the Lindbergh takeoff for the Orient, the photographers swooped down on the Morrow home, set up their cameras with telephoto lenses outside the grounds and took the first movie of little Charles. Of course, when the pictures came to North Haven, everybody was anxious to see them, because a sight of the baby was a rare thing. Johnson Liked Pictures
Betty and I went to the theater. She, of course, was anxious to see how they came out. I guess I was more anxious to see Betty than the baby. The pictures showed Betty wheeling little Charles across the grounds. I thought they were very good of both of them. After her curiosity was satisfied, Betty’s chief reaction was humiliation at the thought that she had unknowingly figured in an incident which the Morrows and Lindberghs would disapprove of. Of course, she wasn't to blame, and she knew that they wouldn't feel harshly toward her about it, but still she wanted everything she did to be pleasing to them. While the film was being run off she nudged me and said, "Isn't he a darling?” I started to say, “Yes, she is,' but somehow my tongue got stuck, as it often does. Later she told me about how the pictures came to be taken, and how she was helpless to do anything about it."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 20:12:26 GMT -5
Thanks Wayne for posting that portion of Johnson's Chapter 3 article. It certainly underscores exactly what we have been talking about in this thread. This last sentence made by Red Johnson: "Later she told me about how the pictures came to be taken, and how she was helpless to do anything about it."Betty had a choice whether to come out of that house and take that stroll. I don't think anyone had a gun to her head. Charlie would have been very content to be brought in the house. So are we suppose to believe that the Morrow family members were telling Betty to get out there and parade Charlie around so he can be recorded and shown in movie theaters? The Morrow family members should have told Betty no way, get the baby in the house. Then they should have had their security people get rid of those reporters. I am assuming there were security people employed by Dwight Morrow for this house, right?? When you look at the video, the news people are close enough that the dogs start running up to them. Betty does pick up the pace a bit for some reason. Why didn't anyone stand up for Charlie and do what was best for him? Here is the video clip for those who may not have seen it before. I posted it back in 2015 somewhere on this board. LOL www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh2bE32G5xM
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 27, 2019 20:35:03 GMT -5
Thanks Wayne for posting that portion of Johnson's Chapter 3 article. It certainly underscores exactly what we have been talking about in this thread. This last sentence made by Red Johnson: "Later she told me about how the pictures came to be taken, and how she was helpless to do anything about it."Betty had a choice whether to come out of that house and take that stroll. I don't think anyone had a gun to her head. Charlie would have been very content to be brought in the house. So are we suppose to believe that the Morrow family members were telling Betty to get out there and parade Charlie around so he can be recorded and shown in movie theaters? The Morrow family members should have told Betty no way, get the baby in the house. Then they should have had their security people get rid of those reporters. I am assuming there were security people employed by Dwight Morrow for this house, right?? When you look at the video, the news people are close enough that the dogs start running up to them. Betty does pick up the pace a bit for some reason. Why didn't anyone stand up for Charlie and do what was best for him? Here is the video clip for those who may not have seen it before. I posted it back in 2015 somewhere on this board. LOL www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh2bE32G5xMAmy, thanks for the excellent post and the video link! And I found one other entry Red made about the movie reel. This is from "Chapter 2" dated April 20, 1932: Betty Gow Upset
When the plane skipped along the water of the harbor, rose, circled and headed into the west, all the sailors and village people roared out a long cheer, and even a lot of the society people broke through their dignity and cheered and waved their hands and their handkerchiefs. I looked on with envy, because I think flying is great. I suppose there's a kinship between sailors and flyers; both pit their skill against the elements in a constant fight for life. During all the, excitement connected with the Lindbergh departure a strange thing happened. The news reel photographers managed to get their cameras pointed into the Morrow grounds and take some fine “shots” of the baby through telephoto lenses. Young Charles apparently didn't mind, for he smiled and gurgled, but Betty Gow was tremendously upset, she told me later, because it was a hard and fast rule around the Morrow home to keep the baby out of the limelight. The families felt that the child had no special virtues or accomplishments that made him a public figure. He was just a nice baby, like thousands and millions of others. They hoped and trusted that some day he would make his mark in the world on his own account, but they didn’t want him to bask in reflected glory because of the accident of birth. Both Col. Lindbergh and Senator Morrow were self-made men and they believed in rising in the world by honest effort. The strangest part of this news reel incident was that after the kidnaping some of the pictures made against the will of the family were used to make the baby's face familiar to people all over the country, so that they could be on the watch for him. It would have been stranger still if these pictures had been the means of bringing little Charles back to his suffering family.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 21:48:48 GMT -5
Thanks again for pulling that section of Chapter 2 out of Red Johnson's articles. Johnson is covering for Betty Gow trying to make her look more innocent. Just looking at that piece of video shows that this footage is not coming from some distant point beyond the Morrow home.
I really wonder where some of Johnson's content came from for this "adventure series" he took part in. This series was obviously created while he was in custody. He was picked up in Connecticut like March 5, 1932. This series started running in newspapers in April of 1932. It seems being arrested worked no hardship on him, even though he claimed the Newark NJ police were treating him badly.
I wonder if he was paid to do this verbal soap opera?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jan 28, 2019 12:32:03 GMT -5
I'm curious as to what all of this noise about Betty Gow's presentation and image on camera is about. The last time I looked, Betty was an attractive and vivacious young lady, who carried herself quite nicely in a very natural sense. Would it have perhaps been considered more appropriate and dignified if she had suddenly transformed herself into a matronly old bag for the benefit of the film crew at North Haven?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 28, 2019 13:28:24 GMT -5
I'm curious as to what all of this noise about Betty Gow's presentation and image on camera is about. The last time I looked, Betty was an attractive and vivacious young lady, who carried herself quite nicely in a very natural sense. Would it have perhaps been considered more appropriate and dignified if she had suddenly transformed herself into a matronly old bag for the benefit of the film crew at North Haven? I'm curious to know why you only seem to see the attractive side of Betty. Why do you appear offended by her negative qualities being mentioned? Right? Why not take the good with the bad and examine/consider them all? I see her conduct in Detroit, Princeton, Palisades, and the Morgue all worthy to note. History has been very kind to her and now reality should at least be able to finally get a foot in the door. Hoping to find a wealthy husband so she'll never have to work again. Fired for being "slip-shod," arrested for disorderly conduct, and thrown out of Princeton. Going to the Morgue to identify the child fully made up like it was a movie audition.... But no - we dare not mention it. Any of it.
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Jan 28, 2019 16:14:06 GMT -5
I wonder if he was paid to do this verbal soap opera? By who: the press, or someone else? And what if Red didn’t cover just Betty but also Mrs. Morrow? Or someone else who had a deal with the reporters and told Betty that it was OK to go out with Charlie? On the other hand, I would not be surprised if I learn, that this "soap opera" was written by a journalist on the motifs of only few sentences, Red said or wrote, and that his other source was Betty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 17:55:45 GMT -5
I'm curious as to what all of this noise about Betty Gow's presentation and image on camera is about. The last time I looked, Betty was an attractive and vivacious young lady, who carried herself quite nicely in a very natural sense. Would it have perhaps been considered more appropriate and dignified if she had suddenly transformed herself into a matronly old bag for the benefit of the film crew at North Haven? WOW!!! You really are short-sighted if this is all you took away after reading those posts!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 18:20:38 GMT -5
I wonder if he was paid to do this verbal soap opera? By who: the press, or someone else? And what if Red didn’t cover just Betty but also Mrs. Morrow? Or someone else who had a deal with the reporters and told Betty that it was OK to go out with Charlie? On the other hand, I would not be surprised if I learn, that this "soap opera" was written by a journalist on the motifs of only few sentences, Red said or wrote, and that his other source was Betty. Red's "Adventure Series" is a real piece of PR work. It goes a long way in putting the right spin on him, Betty Gow, the Morrows, the kidnapping and anything else that needed to be included. This whole series ran in the newspapers before the body of the child was found. I believe the last installment appeared in the beginning of May. I don't know how this whole series was created but I would think there was a list of talking points to be covered for each episode. I think someone orchestrated this. Was Johnson compensated in some way for doing this series of articles? Compensation can take on many forms. It doesn't have to be just money. Red was in a jam. No doubt about it. He was in America illegally and would be facing deportation. Just maybe that compensation came in the form of Mrs. Dwight Morrow: The Brooklyn Daily Eagle - May 20, 1932
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Jan 29, 2019 0:27:09 GMT -5
Ziki, I don't think Mrs. Morrow would welcome something like that. She loved Charlie and was very protective. I love Dallas Fort Worth, you are most probably right, but sometimes to be in sight of everybody is also protection in a sort of way.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 29, 2019 9:49:16 GMT -5
hi amy I remember sue found this in 2010. I must have discussed it but forgot. red Johnson was interviewed in Hartford ct, and wasn't treated to good there either. the guy who interviewed him later became the lead investigator on the Hartford circus fire tragedy that killed a lot of people
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 29, 2019 16:57:10 GMT -5
Recent discussion about Charlie’s photos made me think about this two things from above mentioned page from Michael’s V1 again: „On September 18th, the Morrow family packed up returning to Englewood, leaving Betty, the baby, and Emily Kempainen (Morrow Cook) behind. According to all sources, this decision was made due to the "infantile paralysis epidemic," and it was thought best to keep the child away from Englewood for the time being. … Betty and the baby had unauthorized photos taken of them by reporters while Morrow family was still there, so it must have been nerve-wracking for Betty to have been almost completely alone during that time.“1. According to this article ( Poliomyelitis distribution in the United States) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2024019/the poliomyelitis epidemic hit also Maine and other East Coast states. Moreover this terrible disease has incubation period up to a month, so when it peaked in August in NJC, then I see a possibility, Charlie was in fact hit by it (when Morrow family took him to Maine on July 27). But this still does not rule out some inborn defect (Dandy-Walker Syndrome?) and rickets being also present. 2. Michael, do you know, what happened with this photos? Is it possible to see them somewhere? And when were they actually made? The possibility that Charlie was struck by paralytic polio during the summer of 1931, though not very likely, is not inconsistent with what we know about the history of Charlie and the epidemiology of poliomyelitis. Localized outbreaks of polio in the US were not uncommon in the pre-vaccine period and the large majority of cases, for reasons not precisely known, occurred in August and September. It wouldn't be too unusual for a child about 1 year old to contract the disease. There were cases reported in many states around this time, and Maine was no exception. Displaying paralytic manifestations of polio could account for the difficulty Dr. Van Ingen reported in getting Charlie to a stand-up position in order to measure him at about twenty months of age in February 1932 and the curbing of photos and films of Charlie beyond his first birthday. It would also provide a stronger medical reason to arrange for a eugenically-motivated purported kidnapping. Again, not saying at all that he had polio, but it would be a remote possibility.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 19:03:07 GMT -5
Ziki, I don't think Mrs. Morrow would welcome something like that. She loved Charlie and was very protective. You are correct. Mrs. Morrow did love her grandson very much. His loss was deeply felt. Harold Nicolson, who wrote Dwight Morrow's biography, was at Next Day Hill in late November 1934, when Mrs. Morrow had been contacted that her daughter Elisabeth had taken a turn for the worse (Elisabeth had gone through a recent surgery), and Mrs. Morrow needed to fly immediately to California to be with her daughter. Here is what Nicolson says about Mrs. Morrow and Charlie. This quote comes from the book, "Harold Nicolson, Diary and Letters, 1930-1939, edited by Nigel Nicolson, published 1966. From Chapter "1934" page 190: "They have telephoned for Mrs. Morrow to fly there. She leaves in an hour. I feel quite bruised with pity for her. She seems so lonely in her misery, poor little thing. I do admire that woman. She never breaks down under these blows. For the first time tonight she mentioned the baby and in such a pathetic way. I said something about her control and courage. 'Courage?' she said. 'Do you know that I cry about that baby of ours every night even now. That is not courage!' "
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 19:50:49 GMT -5
I would not be surprised if I learn, that this "soap opera" was written by a journalist on the motifs of only few sentences, Red said or wrote, and that his other source was Betty. I want to be clear that I don't think there is anything nefarious about this adventure series Red Johnson did. When I read through this series in the past, I felt that it was purposely created as a communication not just entertainment, which is how one might perceive it by its title "MY ADVENTURES IN THE LINDBERGH CASE". This series was published while the return of Charlie was still actively being sought. There was a lot of things being written and even said by numerous sources. Some stuff that was erroneous, some that was criticism of the Lindbergh and Morrow families, some about Charlie's health, some about the servants. The family could not directly address anything that was being written/said. They needed a voice, someone who was able to present himself as an "insider" who would have knowledge about the family. He would be able to address all the points of criticism and suspicions that were circulating in the public arena. This is the role I think Johnson was given to do, for himself and for the families. Be that voice. When you read his articles you will see how he does just that. According to Johnson, he and Betty were reunited when Red was brought by authorities to the Hopewell house in March 1932 so that Lindbergh could question him. Johnson also claims he spoke with Betty Gow while there. The articles appear to be written with professional help and, I think, enhanced by other sources.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jan 30, 2019 7:21:50 GMT -5
I'm curious as to what all of this noise about Betty Gow's presentation and image on camera is about. The last time I looked, Betty was an attractive and vivacious young lady, who carried herself quite nicely in a very natural sense. Would it have perhaps been considered more appropriate and dignified if she had suddenly transformed herself into a matronly old bag for the benefit of the film crew at North Haven? WOW!!! You really are short-sighted if this is all you took away after reading those posts! Believe me Amy, that's not all I took away from the posts, and I'm not too shortsighted to fail to recognize where the value of real and relevant research ends and self-indulgent, over-the-back-fence gossip takes over.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 30, 2019 9:31:51 GMT -5
WOW!!! You really are short-sighted if this is all you took away after reading those posts! Believe me Amy, that's not all I took away from the posts, and I'm not too shortsighted to fail to recognize where the value of real and relevant research ends and self-indulgent, over-the-back-fence gossip takes over. Okay Joe, tell us where the research is that proves BRH did the kidnapping and murder all by himself. The facts are: contrary to the prosecution's eyewitnesses, no one saw BRH at Highfields on March 1, 1932; no one saw BRH kidnap Charlie; no one saw BRH kill Charlie. Tell me how a carpenter in the Bronx: knew that Charlie was in Highfields on a Tuesday night; knew where the nursery was; knew that Charlie had an 8-to-10PM lockdown; knew that the SE shutter was unlatchable; knew that Skean was (for the first time) not sleeping under Charlie's crib; knew that Wahgoosh would not bark; knew that no one would be in the nursery when he broke in (just the previous night, Anne had broken CAL's rules and checked on Charlie throughout the night).
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 30, 2019 9:43:40 GMT -5
And who did know all those things, in addition to apparently knowing the first ransom note wasn’t particularly time sensitive and didn’t need to be opened right away?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jan 30, 2019 9:54:12 GMT -5
Believe me Amy, that's not all I took away from the posts, and I'm not too shortsighted to fail to recognize where the value of real and relevant research ends and self-indulgent, over-the-back-fence gossip takes over. Okay Joe, tell us where the research is that proves BRH did the kidnapping and murder all by himself. The facts are: contrary to the prosecution's eyewitnesses, no one saw BRH at Highfields on March 1, 1932; no one saw BRH kidnap Charlie; no one saw BRH kill Charlie. Tell me how a carpenter in the Bronx: knew that Charlie was in Highfields on a Tuesday night; knew where the nursery was; knew that Charlie had an 8-to-10PM lockdown; knew that the SE shutter was unlatchable; knew that Skean was (for the first time) not sleeping under Charlie's crib; knew that Wahgoosh would not bark; knew that no one would be in the nursery when he broke in (just the previous night, Anne had broken CAL's rules and checked on Charlie throughout the night). Come on Wayne, you're killing me. I've never maintained that Hauptmann single-handedly pulled off this kidnapping. I was simply referring to the fact that in the film segment, Betty seemed to be carrying herself no differently than she normally would have. That didn't seem to be good enough for the Emily Post standards influence here though and now it seems I'm catching heck for unrelated things. Keeping on topic seems to be a bit of a challenge around here at times. But if you really want to know my thoughts on your above Q&A initiative, the kidnapper(s) knew very little about what you otherwise seem to have cemented in your mind as fact, and assume they were privy to.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 30, 2019 11:13:38 GMT -5
Believe me Amy, that's not all I took away from the posts, and I'm not too shortsighted to fail to recognize where the value of real and relevant research ends and self-indulgent, over-the-back-fence gossip takes over. I think we all have our positions that are rooted in our research. Since it's on-going sometimes its a little soon to cast aspersions or come to rock solid conclusions. I think to back to your own research Joe which concerned Baker/Bacon. If I am remembering it correctly you got his entire file which is at the NJSP Archives. So I would say that you are one of my best witnesses for what information resides there. Did you learn anything from those reports? If someone were to say that its not "necessary" to read them or tell you that you are "wrong" or did "poor research" concerning Baker - when they've NEVER even read that material in your possession how do you think that rates them in terms of their authority about the case? Now consider that there are even MORE reports on Baker in those Archives that are NOT located in his file. Would you be the guy telling everyone NOT to read them? Or would you be the guy saying they should?
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Jan 31, 2019 17:28:05 GMT -5
Thank you for all the interesting information about this series, Amy. Maybe due to flu (btw. another disease possibly able to worsen Charlie’s hypothetical inborn condition or cause some interesting symptoms) and fever, I wondered, if it was just a coincidence, that Charlie’s body was found after this series finished...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 18:31:58 GMT -5
Maybe due to flu (btw. another disease possibly able to worsen Charlie’s hypothetical inborn condition or cause some interesting symptoms) and fever, I wondered, if it was just a coincidence, that Charlie’s body was found after this series finished... It is an interesting thought that Charlie might have developed the flu which could easily escalate into something even more serious. I, personally, think Charlie was more ill the night of the kidnapping, otherwise why not just take him back to Englewood. Why do they remain at that house rubbing Vicks on Charlie, when maybe, they should have just taken him to a doctor? Coincidence about the series and then the finding of the body? Perhaps. I am certainly one who takes note of coincidences in this case. There seem to be so many it leaves you wondering if they ALL are just coincidences. On this board back in 2014, Michael once told me the following: "I like how you are looking for "themes" and/or common denominators. Be careful though - it can drive you mad with all the possibilities!"I have not forgotten that and I still find and log coincidences. Let me share one about May 12, 1932, the day the corpse was found in the Mount Rose woods. Was the body being found on that date just coincidence? You decide.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 2, 2019 8:50:15 GMT -5
I'm curious as to what all of this noise about Betty Gow's presentation and image on camera is about. The last time I looked, Betty was an attractive and vivacious young lady, who carried herself quite nicely in a very natural sense. Would it have perhaps been considered more appropriate and dignified if she had suddenly transformed herself into a matronly old bag for the benefit of the film crew at North Haven? I'm curious to know why you only seem to see the attractive side of Betty. Why do you appear offended by her negative qualities being mentioned? Right? Why not take the good with the bad and examine/consider them all? I see her conduct in Detroit, Princeton, Palisades, and the Morgue all worthy to note. History has been very kind to her and now reality should at least be able to finally get a foot in the door. Hoping to find a wealthy husband so she'll never have to work again. Fired for being "slip-shod," arrested for disorderly conduct, and thrown out of Princeton. Going to the Morgue to identify the child fully made up like it was a movie audition.... But no - we dare not mention it. Any of it. I don't see only the "attractive" side of Betty Gow and again, my post was simply addressing the gossipy tone of some of the previous posts which was turning the thread into a bit of a cartoon. I believe this is part of your need to see this picture in either black or white. for example, would you have been willing to give Betty her "day in court" to answer charges she was "slip shod" or do you simply agree fully with the lady who purportedly stated this? Is the employer always right? What is the true relevance of one's seemingly-unrelated past when it becomes exposed under an investigative microscope? Would it be fair to say that everyone of us would be reluctant to risk having targeted aspects of our past dredged up by someone looking to associate them with something much more nefarious? And where have you once categorized Betty's better qualities as a loving and conscientious caregiver to Charlie, ie. a bit of balance for an accurate portrayal? On the whole, I do recognize her character assailing in your book along the same lines as the tactic used by Prosecutor Wilentz against witnesses Kiss, Singer, Manley, Carlstrom and Harding, and I have a bit of difficulty understanding how you'd seemingly like to have it both ways here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 2, 2019 9:25:22 GMT -5
Believe me Amy, that's not all I took away from the posts, and I'm not too shortsighted to fail to recognize where the value of real and relevant research ends and self-indulgent, over-the-back-fence gossip takes over. I think we all have our positions that are rooted in our research. Since it's on-going sometimes its a little soon to cast aspersions or come to rock solid conclusions. I think to back to your own research Joe which concerned Baker/Bacon. If I am remembering it correctly you got his entire file which is at the NJSP Archives. So I would say that you are one of my best witnesses for what information resides there. Did you learn anything from those reports? If someone were to say that its not "necessary" to read them or tell you that you are "wrong" or did "poor research" concerning Baker - when they've NEVER even read that material in your possession how do you think that rates them in terms of their authority about the case? Now consider that there are even MORE reports on Baker in those Archives that are NOT located in his file. Would you be the guy telling everyone NOT to read them? Or would you be the guy saying they should? Thanks for the timely segue into things Duane Baker, as I've just returned to those reports. Baker, and Muller to an extent, has been a person of interest to me for years. I have no concrete proof of his involvement but I can't let him go because of some very specific references which appear in that set of reports relative to his travels and whereabouts in New Jersey, interactions with some of the individuals, eyewitness reports around Hopewell, and not to mention his address 537 West 149th St, re: the JJ Faulkner deposit slip. He's a guy who at times, I can clearly see within a larger cast of characters, which possibly includes Nosovitsky. More often though, the whole envisioned setting becomes a bit like a dream you're trying to remember the next day but can't quite put your finger on, until a seemingly unrelated event jogs you back, or an identical number or name from another seemingly-unrelated report suddenly pulls you back in. I'm sure you can relate. I think part of my own difficulty in establishing him is due to my evolved belief that this crime started out as a group effort but primarily became an individual concern for someone with nerves of steel, following the death of the child. The other roaches scattered into the woodwork for lack of a better image, until their money lust pulled at least one individual back in. When I requested the Baker Investigation files from Mark at the NJSP museum a few years ago, I discovered there were additional reports to the one I had requested fifteen years before that I thought I had lost, but then re-discovered. Are there a significant number of Baker-related reports beyond the ones I posted on this site within the past couple of years?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 10:18:37 GMT -5
WOW!!! You really are short-sighted if this is all you took away after reading those posts! Believe me Amy, that's not all I took away from the posts, and I'm not too shortsighted to fail to recognize where the value of real and relevant research ends and self-indulgent, over-the-back-fence gossip takes over. Joe, The thrust of my posts concerning Betty Gow were not gossip related. I was calling into question Betty Gow's action in taking that media covered stroll with Charlie which allowed him to be publicized all over our country and probably Europe. Betty absolutely knew that Charles and Anne wanted Charlie protected from the media, yet she exposes him anyway which is in direct opposition to her employer's position. I was hoping you would respond with your thoughts on why Betty would do something like this? Do you have any specific thoughts on Betty Gow's actions allowing Charlie to be publicized this way?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 2, 2019 10:49:15 GMT -5
Believe me Amy, that's not all I took away from the posts, and I'm not too shortsighted to fail to recognize where the value of real and relevant research ends and self-indulgent, over-the-back-fence gossip takes over. Joe, The thrust of my posts concerning Betty Gow were not gossip related. I was calling into question Betty Gow's action in taking that media covered stroll with Charlie which allowed him to be publicized all over our country and probably Europe. Betty absolutely knew that Charles and Anne wanted Charlie protected from the media, yet she exposes him anyway which is in direct opposition to her employer's position. I was hoping you would respond with your thoughts on why Betty would do something like this? Do you have any specific thoughts on Betty Gow's actions allowing Charlie to be publicized this way? Amy, I don't know who that gentleman accompanying Betty in the opening scene around Charlie is, but I'd venture that he's either responsible for the film vignette or he has responsibility for directing how the scene will unfold. Betty appears to me, to be a relatively unwilling participant here and not comfortable at all with her role. Her facial expressions are not cheery or even relaxed and her walk on the grass while pushing the carriage with Charlie in it, is hesitant and wooden. I'd also venture she would have preferred not to have been put up to this. I think it may also suggest that whatever privacy rules were in place, the occasion to be on site for Charles and Anne's departure from North Haven, allowed much of this "intrusion" to evolve and ultimately take shape under some form of guise and coercion, perhaps even tacit approval. While I don't believe this event to be of any significance to the case, other than human interest, I believe more information about who arranged what and under what conditions this transpired would be needed before anything conclusive could be determined.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 2, 2019 11:27:23 GMT -5
Perhaps you're confusing people who sit on their hands with those who demonstrate a little common sense and understanding from time to time. 14 drops of commercially-available Viosterol has been a normal dose for Charlie's reported medical condition since I began studying this case at the same time you did. Anne did not specify the concentration, but due to its widespread usage at the time, the standard concentration of 250D in a bottle with a dropper, was widely accepted. I'm also curious as to your thoughts on why Lindbergh "would have married into the Morrow family, with what would most certainly have been a readily-identifiable history of physical and mental health issues. And imagining for a moment he had something to do with the elimination of what he considered to be his "defective" son, why would he choose to have five more children with Anne, after they lost Charlie?" As far as the Viosterol goes... like I said .... I had his source and read it ... so I had no reason to doubt it up and until I was enlightened by other research. So am I saying "its not true" or calling people out for doing "poor research" as an attempt to still believe something that isn't true? Or do I accept the truth? I know you don't sit on your hands Joe and I think my post on Baker exemplifies that. But do you deny there are some telling us what to believe who do? That was my point. As far as why Lindbergh married into a family with health problems... I think this could assume he knew about items before they actually occurred. So the real question would be what he knew (or believed he knew) and when he knew it. I've never questioned the great amount and value of the research you've done Michael, and I don't believe anyone else has done more. I do not ignore anything that I read or see with my own two eyes here or elsewhere. Personally speaking, it's all weighed and considered on a playing field, and you just might be surprised at how level that playing field is. Hauptmann's beating is a great example of something having gone totally sideways and then trying to make sense and value of it. Does that event matter in this case? Yes and no. It demonstrates not only the resolve of Hauptmann not to break down and come clean within a very damning landscape of circumstantial physical evidence, but oppositely, the degenerate underbelly of the NJSP and NYPD using tactics that were admittedly on their part, common for the time. One has to look no further than Hugo Stockburger's account of cop-killer Metelski's beating, as described in Mark Falzini's "Their Fifteen Minutes." It also demonstrates the boiling point of frustration reached by those two organizations and how they ultimately acted out their own personal and resultant mob-oriented agendas, knowing full well any repercussions would be unlikely. And of course, Condon's refusal to positively ID Hauptmann didn't help him escape this wrath. At the end of the day though, Hauptmann's beating makes little to no difference as to his actual level of complicity and guilt in the original crime. As an aside, I'm currently reading Don Tolzmann's English version edit of Hauptmann's full autobiography, (Ich Bin Unschuldig) and it is an absolute eye-opener. I don't think you ever have questioned it Joe. But your "take" on the Hauptmann beating shows why different perspectives need a platform to be heard from. I see it as problematic from several fronts. Although a problem, its not just the beating itself. Its the demonstration of what I've always said and will continue to say. There's this school of thought out there that certain people "wouldn't do this" or "wouldn't do that..." etc. Everyone was lying about this from the State's side. Everyone. Some blatantly and others by omission. And so it completely disproves the "they wouldn't do" nonsense. Yes - yes they would do - and often DID. You seem to be offering up the "it was common" defense. Did it occur? Yes. Was it common? I guess that depends what you think "common" means. Was lying "common" and does that justify it occurring everywhere - to include that courtroom - by anyone attached to the State? If yes how can anyone use it as a defense as something they "wouldn't do?"
|
|