|
Post by Michael on Feb 2, 2019 11:40:57 GMT -5
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. It's how it appears to me. Kinda like how you believe in my "need" to see something "black or white." I can tell you nothing is farther from the truth. I look at everything and encourage everyone to do the same. If I see a pattern develop then I especially take notice. Look at all sides. So I do "like" to have it, not only "both" ways but each and every way. Nothing is off the table when it comes to consideration. If there's something there then there's something there. Was she involved? That's up to everyone to decide on their own. But was she this person exactly as history has recorded? No way Jose. And so I think she's best viewed as she really was. 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? Yes I can relate! What I find from time to time is mention of him nestled within reports focusing on other topics. Since I'm working on J. J. Faulkner he's mentioned in some there that are not included in his file. He's also in the Hoffman Collection and in other State Police Reports. BTW: Hope you are staying warm. Everyone down here is crying about the cold never considering that its even colder up there!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 2, 2019 21:18:12 GMT -5
No worries about the cold here Michael, and I've been hibernating for the past two weeks outside of work after a wicked bout of flu two weeks ago.
These quieter times are where a lot of my personal insights into this case originate and I'm truly grateful for them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 3, 2019 8:25:02 GMT -5
Joe - give me the first and last dates on the reports of your Baker file and I will try to find you an example. Often times a name won't be in the index cards but can be found in a report anyway. Also, certain "cross-over" subjects, such as "Ransom Money" investigations, or "J. J. Faulkner" investigations may or may not be included in the specific collections. Sometimes yes - sometimes no. I think that's where experience with the files comes into play because I can understand "why" one might think everything is there and skip over other reports, or assume reports they do stumble on are ones they "already have" as a result. Then there's the cross-overs to the cross-overs and even those where the subject's got nothing to do with it. A perfect example would be one on "Cerardi" when the next thing you know (BAM!) there's a paragraph about Birritella then back to Cerardi again. One would expect its possible Schippell's name would emerge like that but not Birritella. This same sort of thing also occurs a lot with the FBI material. It's why everything is a challenge and why so many have missed so much over the years. Like I've said - it doesn't make me "right" or "perfect" it actually kinda of makes me a little crazy in that I took the time to comb through everything. Most normal people won't do that or simply don't have the time to dedicate to it. So in this case I'll call it crazy "good" instead of crazy "bad." Anyway - give me those dates and with a little luck I'll see if I can give you an actual example.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 4, 2019 9:46:05 GMT -5
Joe - give me the first and last dates on the reports of your Baker file and I will try to find you an example. Often times a name won't be in the index cards but can be found in a report anyway. Also, certain "cross-over" subjects, such as "Ransom Money" investigations, or "J. J. Faulkner" investigations may or may not be included in the specific collections. Sometimes yes - sometimes no. I think that's where experience with the files comes into play because I can understand "why" one might think everything is there and skip over other reports, or assume reports they do stumble on are ones they "already have" as a result. Then there's the cross-overs to the cross-overs and even those where the subject's got nothing to do with it. A perfect example would be one on "Cerardi" when the next thing you know (BAM!) there's a paragraph about Birritella then back to Cerardi again. One would expect its possible Schippell's name would emerge like that but not Birritella. This same sort of thing also occurs a lot with the FBI material. It's why everything is a challenge and why so many have missed so much over the years. Like I've said - it doesn't make me "right" or "perfect" it actually kinda of makes me a little crazy in that I took the time to comb through everything. Most normal people won't do that or simply don't have the time to dedicate to it. So in this case I'll call it crazy "good" instead of crazy "bad." Anyway - give me those dates and with a little luck I'll see if I can give you an actual example. Thanks Michael, I took a quick look for my Baker files last evening but couldn't locate them before leaving for the work week. I'll check again this weekend, and I can understand how the same name might pop up in a another seemingly-unrelated file..
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 4, 2019 10:05:08 GMT -5
[Thanks Michael, I took a quick look for my Baker files last evening but couldn't locate them before leaving for the work week. I'll check again this weekend, and I can understand how the same name might pop up in a another seemingly-unrelated file.. Copy that Joe. The "other" part of this is also something I often write about here... That is spelling. So a subject may not have gotten filed properly "way back when" as a result. I use the Schlacht/Slack example often because it's a perfect example. Same family where the name "moves" over into a more "American" sounding one without notice. So its easy to see why a researcher might believe its two different families. Plus there's the aliases that just about everyone on the planet seemed to have back then as well - which I know you are fully aware of. So many different "pit-falls" to navigate in order to find what one might be looking for. Or even if one isn't it could block a discovery too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 14:36:03 GMT -5
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. When you say this kidnapping might have been started as a group effort, I was wondering if you have ever considered a possible connection between Morrow chauffeur Henry Ellerson and Richard Hauptmann. Joyce Milton mentions this on page 298 of her book, "Loss of Eden". I know that you lean towards Duane Baker/Bacon but wondered if you might see a connection with Ellerson because he did drive Betty Gow to Highfields the day of the kidnapping plus he was also the chauffeur that drove Charlie to The Little School. Ellerson would have been a good source to provide inside info for this kidnapping.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 8, 2019 8:49:56 GMT -5
[Thanks Michael, I took a quick look for my Baker files last evening but couldn't locate them before leaving for the work week. I'll check again this weekend, and I can understand how the same name might pop up in a another seemingly-unrelated file.. Copy that Joe. The "other" part of this is also something I often write about here... That is spelling. So a subject may not have gotten filed properly "way back when" as a result. I use the Schlacht/Slack example often because it's a perfect example. Same family where the name "moves" over into a more "American" sounding one without notice. So its easy to see why a researcher might believe its two different families. Plus there's the aliases that just about everyone on the planet seemed to have back then as well - which I know you are fully aware of. So many different "pit-falls" to navigate in order to find what one might be looking for. Or even if one isn't it could block a discovery too. Michael, my Baker Investigation file runs from July 14, 1933 to July 23, 1934. At least this is the copy I received from Mark Falzini a couple of years back. It also contains information on a Harry Dunne, who was a suspect. My original Baker file from fifteen years ago is currently misplaced but I know it basically covers the same period. While I don't see any concrete evidence of his involvement, Baker was very street-wise, would have known how to handle himself in interrogation and he's still on my top five list.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 8, 2019 9:03:06 GMT -5
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. When you say this kidnapping might have been started as a group effort, I was wondering if you have ever considered a possible connection between Morrow chauffeur Henry Ellerson and Richard Hauptmann. Joyce Milton mentions this on page 298 of her book, "Loss of Eden". I know that you lean towards Duane Baker/Bacon but wondered if you might see a connection with Ellerson because he did drive Betty Gow to Highfields the day of the kidnapping plus he was also the chauffeur that drove Charlie to The Little School. Ellerson would have been a good source to provide inside info for this kidnapping. Amy, I've always been interested in the possible connection between Charles Ellerson and Duane Baker, but don't know of any potential ties between Ellerson and Hauptmann. Both Ellerson and Baker told NJSP investigtors they had previously worked for the Armour Meat Packing Co., albeit at different times and in different capacities. The FBI were told by Armour executives that neither Ellerson or Baker (Bacon) were know to them, but I believe they may have been trying to exercise a little damage control and not interested in being connected to the kidnapping. Regarding Ellerson providing inside information, yes he would have been a primary source for sure, but he seems to come across pretty clean in questioning. At the same time, Baker also convinced investigators he was not involved and I have my misgivings about how lightly he was treated. I see a lot of the same personal traits within Ellerson as I do in Baker and so I'm still all ears when it comes to Ellerson as well.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 8, 2019 9:19:11 GMT -5
Michael, my Baker Investigation file runs from July 14, 1933 to July 23, 1934. At least this is the copy I received from Mark Falzini a couple of years back. It also contains information on a Harry Dunne, who was a suspect. My original Baker file from fifteen years ago is currently misplaced but I know it basically covers the same period. While I don't see any concrete evidence of his involvement, Baker was very street-wise, would have known how to handle himself in interrogation and he's still on my top five list. I'm sort of hijacking this thread so I'll keep it brief. I think this was the first report which concerned Baker: imgur.com/a/TSGIyyOAs you can see this was not in his investigation file for one of the reasons I listed above - and there's definitely more out there. No doubt I have them. This one in particular I filed in my "J. J. Faulkner #4" file. Even my "system" doesn't always "work" but its the best way of filing things that I was able to come up with.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 8, 2019 9:37:21 GMT -5
Michael, my Baker Investigation file runs from July 14, 1933 to July 23, 1934. At least this is the copy I received from Mark Falzini a couple of years back. It also contains information on a Harry Dunne, who was a suspect. My original Baker file from fifteen years ago is currently misplaced but I know it basically covers the same period. While I don't see any concrete evidence of his involvement, Baker was very street-wise, would have known how to handle himself in interrogation and he's still on my top five list. I'm sort of hijacking this thread so I'll keep it brief. I think this was the first report which concerned Baker: imgur.com/a/TSGIyyOAs you can see this was not in his investigation file for one of the reasons I listed above - and there's definitely more out there. No doubt I have them. This one in particular I filed in my "J. J. Faulkner #4" file. Even my "system" doesn't always "work" but its the best way of filing things that I was able to come up with. Thanks Michael, it looks as though this is probably the report which kicked off the Duane Baker investigation into his whereabouts.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 8, 2019 9:58:29 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, it looks as though this is probably the report which kicked off the Duane Baker investigation into his whereabouts. No problem Joe. I agree however I am not so confident that I'd say this was the first. It why I laugh when I see certain internet "personalities" on other Boards make comments about documentation they've never even laid eyes on. Milton & Behn immediately come to mind as having been bashed by those who wouldn't know a source even if it fell out of the sky and landed on their head. Anyway in light of your comments about Baker... Consider what's in this report. Imagine if "Gangsters" came to collect but offered him a "way out" by performing a task which would wipe the slate clean. Do you think he'd seize that opportunity?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 8, 2019 12:24:47 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, it looks as though this is probably the report which kicked off the Duane Baker investigation into his whereabouts. No problem Joe. I agree however I am not so confident that I'd say this was the first. It why I laugh when I see certain internet "personalities" on other Boards make comments about documentation they've never even laid eyes on. Milton & Behn immediately come to mind as having been bashed by those who wouldn't know a source even if it fell out of the sky and landed on their head. Anyway in light of your comments about Baker... Consider what's in this report. Imagine if "Gangsters" came to collect but offered him a "way out" by performing a task which would wipe the slate clean. Do you think he'd seize that opportunity? We know that Baker absconded from the Plymouth with the mid-month rent receipts on April 16, 1932, a day after Payne Kretzmer had loaned him $25. If gangsters came looking for him after that as Patrick Murray claims, what do you believe their intent was? If you're referring to the possibility of him being offered the job of playing kidnapper to wipe the slate clean, clearly they would have come to see him well before March 1, 1932. Anyway, the story about one of them having been offered a job by Baker seems like a ruse designed specifically to locate him. According to Milton, Baker moved four times between the date he took flight from the Plymouth and the end of May 1932, so if that's true, he was obviously trying to avoid someone. I'd venture though that his transient ways and the fact he was a gambler, had as much to with him owing someone significant money, as in potentially being a player in the Lindbergh Kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 9, 2019 9:50:07 GMT -5
We know that Baker absconded from the Plymouth with the mid-month rent receipts on April 16, 1932, a day after Payne Kretzmer had loaned him $25. If gangsters came looking for him after that as Patrick Murray claims, what do you believe their intent was? If you're referring to the possibility of him being offered the job of playing kidnapper to wipe the slate clean, clearly they would have come to see him well before March 1, 1932. Anyway, the story about one of them having been offered a job by Baker seems like a ruse designed specifically to locate him. According to Milton, Baker moved four times between the date he took flight from the Plymouth and the end of May 1932, so if that's true, he was obviously trying to avoid someone. I'd venture though that his transient ways and the fact he was a gambler, had as much to with him owing someone significant money, as in potentially being a player in the Lindbergh Kidnapping. No hidden specifics should be implied here. I was just offering up a question which I think could apply in certain situations. And not necessarily as a "kidnapper" but any one of many different roles that were performed throughout. But already I'm glad that I posed it because I can see its gotten you thinking about it. Hopefully everyone else will too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 13:26:05 GMT -5
According to Milton, Baker moved four times between the date he took flight from the Plymouth and the end of May 1932, so if that's true, he was obviously trying to avoid someone. I'd venture though that his transient ways and the fact he was a gambler, had as much to with him owing someone significant money, as in potentially being a player in the Lindbergh Kidnapping. What you say above plus reviewing the lengthy investigation done on Duane Bacon by LE, is what gives me pause about considering him as someone who would be included in the biggest crime of its time. Bacon's life lacks stability and focus which I think are needed in order to pull off the snatch and the extortion of the Lindbergh baby. I am not being argumentative, I just don't see Bacon bringing anything to the table that I think makes him a desirable player in this crime. Perhaps you can see things that I don't. I am more than willing to listen and consider what you determine to be indicators that he has involvement.
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 14, 2019 21:51:05 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 have now watched the video about 6x. And this also is striking me as odd. I have been wondering if anyone else has noticed this too. The baby was on the patio in the buggy outside. Presumably waiting for his ride. And the man comes out of the door and then Betty steps into the frame. But the baby was sitting alone in that buggy with no one near him. Most toddlers you have to watch like a hawk. Possibly he was secured in the buggy. But this just seems odd to me to step away from the buggy at all once Charlie was put into it. I mean she could have even rolled it with her if she had had to go and fetch something nearby. This just caught my eye. Well apart from how obviously staged the entire film is. I thought Betty seemed terribly nervous too. Betty struck me as being histrionic yes. But also very nervous. I keep thinking that this entire show was put on to show the world how “normal” the Baby was. But they didn’t allow anyone to get THAT close of a shot of him it seemed. All from the side and none looking directly in on the baby as he sat in the buggy. The shot before the man came outside and Betty came into frame , I wonder if the camera man was on the patio at all in fact but standing next to it. And if he was standing next to the patio it I wonder exactly the angle he was at....ok now I need to go watch it 6 more times. Lol
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 14, 2019 22:23:32 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. View AttachmentAll of the years I’ve been reading about this case ( 47 years to be specific) and I don’t remember ever realizing this. (Of course to be accurate I also now have a TBI. But my memory previous to TBI is fairly intact) But wow. I bet a profiler would have a field day with this one. Good catch, Amy.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Apr 15, 2019 2:40:53 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 have now watched the video about 6x. And this also is striking me as odd. I have been wondering if anyone else has noticed this too. The baby was on the patio in the buggy outside. Presumably waiting for his ride. And the man comes out of the door and then Betty steps into the frame. But the baby was sitting alone in that buggy with no one near him. Most toddlers you have to watch like a hawk. Possibly he was secured in the buggy. But this just seems odd to me to step away from the buggy at all once Charlie was put into it. I mean she could have even rolled it with her if she had had to go and fetch something nearby. This just caught my eye. Well apart from how obviously staged the entire film is. I thought Betty seemed terribly nervous too. Betty struck me as being histrionic yes. But also very nervous. I keep thinking that this entire show was put on to show the world how “normal” the Baby was. But they didn’t allow anyone to get THAT close of a shot of him it seemed. All from the side and none looking directly in on the baby as he sat in the buggy. The shot before the man came outside and Betty came into frame , I wonder if the camera man was on the patio at all in fact but standing next to it. And if he was standing next to the patio it I wonder exactly the angle he was at....ok now I need to go watch it 6 more times. Lol Video was likely staged, so there was likely someone with the camera. Someone was clearly watching just though the window, too. Not sure what is so odd about this.
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 15, 2019 3:02:24 GMT -5
Amy , I have now watched the video about 6x. And this also is striking me as odd. I have been wondering if anyone else has noticed this too. The baby was on the patio in the buggy outside. Presumably waiting for his ride. And the man comes out of the door and then Betty steps into the frame. But the baby was sitting alone in that buggy with no one near him. Most toddlers you have to watch like a hawk. Possibly he was secured in the buggy. But this just seems odd to me to step away from the buggy at all once Charlie was put into it. I mean she could have even rolled it with her if she had had to go and fetch something nearby. This just caught my eye. Well apart from how obviously staged the entire film is. I thought Betty seemed terribly nervous too. Betty struck me as being histrionic yes. But also very nervous. I keep thinking that this entire show was put on to show the world how “normal” the Baby was. But they didn’t allow anyone to get THAT close of a shot of him it seemed. All from the side and none looking directly in on the baby as he sat in the buggy. The shot before the man came outside and Betty came into frame , I wonder if the camera man was on the patio at all in fact but standing next to it. And if he was standing next to the patio it I wonder exactly the angle he was at....ok now I need to go watch it 6 more times. Lol Video was likely staged, so there was likely someone with the camera. Someone was clearly watching just though the window, too. Not sure what is so odd about this. I do find it odd that a toddler would be left unattended with no one in arms reach if he suddenly decided he wanted to climb out. Babies are known for their sudden movements. That’s why I also speculated if he was restrained in the carriage in some way. Or perhaps there no fear of this baby making some fast toddler move (and possibly falling out of the buggy and injuring himself) because his toddler agility was not that of a normal child at that age.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 8:37:30 GMT -5
Amy , I have now watched the video about 6x. And this also is striking me as odd. I have been wondering if anyone else has noticed this too. The baby was on the patio in the buggy outside. Presumably waiting for his ride. And the man comes out of the door and then Betty steps into the frame. But the baby was sitting alone in that buggy with no one near him. Most toddlers you have to watch like a hawk. Possibly he was secured in the buggy. But this just seems odd to me to step away from the buggy at all once Charlie was put into it. I mean she could have even rolled it with her if she had had to go and fetch something nearby. This just caught my eye. Well apart from how obviously staged the entire film is. I thought Betty seemed terribly nervous too. Betty struck me as being histrionic yes. But also very nervous. I keep thinking that this entire show was put on to show the world how “normal” the Baby was. But they didn’t allow anyone to get THAT close of a shot of him it seemed. All from the side and none looking directly in on the baby as he sat in the buggy. The shot before the man came outside and Betty came into frame , I wonder if the camera man was on the patio at all in fact but standing next to it. And if he was standing next to the patio it I wonder exactly the angle he was at....ok now I need to go watch it 6 more times. Lol I think you are smart to watch a video many times. You just can't take in all the details with one go through!! I cannot understand why she left Charlie all alone in that carriage that way simply from a safety standpoint. Good point!! Betty does look nervous coming out that door. I think this is because she knows she is doing something that Anne and Charles were very against, that being a public display of the child. Yet she does it anyway!!! Why!! More importantly, why didn't the Morrow Aunts who were very present in that house stop her from doing it??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 8:45:23 GMT -5
All of the years I’ve been reading about this case ( 47 years to be specific) and I don’t remember ever realizing this. (Of course to be accurate I also now have a TBI. But my memory previous to TBI is fairly intact) But wow. I bet a profiler would have a field day with this one. Good catch, Amy. WOW!!!! OMG!!!!!! 47 YEARS??!!!! I have only been seriously looking at this case since 2011. I am just blown away by this! I am sorry to hear that you have suffered a TBI. You are now building new memories and are blessed to still have the old ones! I look forward to what you can share about the LKC!!
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Apr 15, 2019 13:35:34 GMT -5
I do find it odd that a toddler would be left unattended with no one in arms reach if he suddenly decided he wanted to climb out. Babies are known for their sudden movements. That’s why I also speculated if he was restrained in the carriage in some way. Or perhaps there no fear of this baby making some fast toddler move (and possibly falling out of the buggy and injuring himself) because his toddler agility was not that of a normal child at that age. I think he was buckled into the carriage or propped up in some fashion that his handlers knew he could be left alone without fear. Perhaps without such attachments he would have lolled around too much, arousing suspicions of some sort of abnormality? Throughout the video there are no side-to-side movements of either the baby's upper torso or even his head; not even when Betty does that 180 to spin the carriage on the porch. He seems preternaturally rigid and erect throughout the carriage ride including on the uneven ground. He does appear to move forward and backward a bit in response to changes in momentum though. I'm curious why one of the dogs was placed in the carriage. At the beginning of the footage, there is no dog with the baby. Those dogs are too short to jump in on their own, so someone picked one of the dogs and placed it in the carriage. Was this an attempt to "fill" the carriage so that the baby's relatively fixed position wouldn't be so obvious?
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 15, 2019 13:50:36 GMT -5
I do find it odd that a toddler would be left unattended with no one in arms reach if he suddenly decided he wanted to climb out. Babies are known for their sudden movements. That’s why I also speculated if he was restrained in the carriage in some way. Or perhaps there no fear of this baby making some fast toddler move (and possibly falling out of the buggy and injuring himself) because his toddler agility was not that of a normal child at that age. I think he was buckled into the carriage or propped up in some fashion that his handlers knew he could be left alone without fear. Perhaps without such attachments he would have lolled around too much, arousing suspicions of some sort of abnormality? Throughout the video there are no side-to-side movements of either the baby's upper torso or even his head; not even when Betty does that 180 to spin the carriage on the porch. He seems preternaturally rigid and erect throughout the carriage ride including on the uneven ground. He does appear to move forward and backward a bit in response to changes in momentum though. I'm curious why one of the dogs was placed in the carriage. At the beginning of the footage, there is no dog with the baby. Those dogs are too short to jump in on their own, so someone picked one of the dogs and placed it in the carriage. Was this an attempt to "fill" the carriage so that the baby's relatively fixed position wouldn't be so obvious? You make excellent points. He did seem abnormally stiff for a baby of that age. And yes that would be a good distraction from the baby’s rigidity to have the dog in the buggy too. Which leads me to another thing I had missed. Charlie lived around these dogs. Why in any of the frames is Charlie not attempting to get closer to the dog? Obviously he was not scared of the dog. I think for the majority of babies who do not have any fear of dogs, they won’t usually leave a dog alone. Can’t keep their hands off the dog. Sometimes in their exuberance or excitement to pet a dog, they often get a little rough. Not intentionally. But no. This poor baby just sat there. Poor baby. In a normal situation we would not be dissecting every tiny movement of a child or the adults behaviors around the child of course. But this is not a normal situation.
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 15, 2019 13:59:18 GMT -5
All of the years I’ve been reading about this case ( 47 years to be specific) and I don’t remember ever realizing this. (Of course to be accurate I also now have a TBI. But my memory previous to TBI is fairly intact) But wow. I bet a profiler would have a field day with this one. Good catch, Amy. WOW!!!! OMG!!!!!! 47 YEARS??!!!! I have only been seriously looking at this case since 2011. I am just blown away by this! I am sorry to hear that you have suffered a TBI. You are now building new memories and are blessed to still have the old ones! I look forward to what you can share about the LKC!! My grandma lived in New Jersey and she had attended the trial. Or at least parts of it. She started telling me about this case when I was 8. It had bit her hard and would not let her go. Then she passed it onto me. Lol She died when I was 12 and I was not yet mature enough to understand the importance of writing down at the time every little thing she told me. But she didn’t care for CAL. Boy that always came through loud and clear. To me anyway. As people used to me kind of quiet about this I think. As nobody wanted to buck the hero tide.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Apr 15, 2019 19:47:05 GMT -5
He's moving his head around and he's patting the dog. It looks like there's a bar in front of him so likely he's harnessed into the stroller, we just can't see it.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Apr 16, 2019 13:46:56 GMT -5
Is this kid strapped into the stroller? If so, he has a pretty good range of motion...
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Apr 16, 2019 13:49:08 GMT -5
This is a more similar posture to the video
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 18, 2019 9:21:46 GMT -5
View AttachmentIs this kid strapped into the stroller? If so, he has a pretty good range of motion... Yes this baby in the photo appears to be fastened into the buggy. Or perambulator as they used to say. And he seems to be easily able to turn his head and move his arms. Exactly as a baby would normally do.
|
|
|
Post by denadenise1963 on Apr 18, 2019 18:45:19 GMT -5
Scathma, I can’t find it now. And I’ve been looking and I wish I could find it again as you went through the points detail by detail. But for the very first time I’m considering that just possibly the baby found really was Charlie. A plausible alternative for the family removing the items from the NJSP in 2003 would also be if it were to have ended up being tested that it would show exactly what the baby really had wrong with him. But I don’t even think that’s what you said that got me to open my mind on this subject. And I am telling you this on a completely different thread too. lol I’ll keep looking for it. Wish I had thought to webshot it . When I finally find it again I’m webshotting it so I can reread it. Because I’ve firmly believed for 47 years it’s not Charlie. My grandma lived in NJ in 1932 and she said this often. She used to speak frequently of the baby and she would often speak of “how everybody knew the poor baby had something wrong with him!” She would get very upset still actually. Sometimes she would even get tears or cry when she would talk about him. So many people cared so deeply about this baby. She also personally thought he had some degree of Retardation I remember. Although the term challenged is used today. Thankfully as it’s is so much kinder sounding. But Im extrapolating from this oft repeated statement she made that of course not “everybody knew.” I find it terribly interesting that apparently it was rumored even in 1932 that the baby had some major physical or developmental problems. I’m not firmly convinced yet. But my mind is far more open than before I read your post.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 14, 2020 2:04:23 GMT -5
Interesting possibility. There could've been something wrong along these lines, especially given the high altitude flights Anne Lindbergh took while pregnant. I think there was also something physical too: All things being equal, post-mortem skulls don't come apart "like an orange peel."
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 14, 2020 8:31:52 GMT -5
What happened to Rosemary Kennedy should never have taken place.
Two books about Rosemary's life came out in 2015. I read the one written by the niece of the nun who took care of Rosemary at St. Coletta's in Wisconsin.
The nun's name was Sister Paulus, and she was a loving and devoted caretaker to Rosemary.
|
|