|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 13, 2022 15:07:34 GMT -5
Here's something I made up awhile ago, that I think more or less captures it. Red is the main road, orange is the driveway, yellow is the access road (approximate), purple is Featherbed Ln., and pink is the footprint trails.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 13, 2022 16:06:57 GMT -5
Post by stella7 on Jun 13, 2022 16:06:57 GMT -5
So do you think the car on Featherbed was the getaway car, drove out Featherbed, turned left and sped down Greenwood, flew over the train bump and Doc Ashton witnessed this while sitting in what is now "Aunt Chubbies" on the corner of Greenwood and Railroad Place, turned left on Broad St. and then right on Princeton Ave. then dumped the baby in the sack on the side of the road towards Mount Rose Hill?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 13, 2022 16:07:35 GMT -5
Thanks LJ, btw, this map helps a lot!
|
|
|
V4
Jun 13, 2022 17:54:08 GMT -5
Post by lightningjew on Jun 13, 2022 17:54:08 GMT -5
I really can't speak to the car sightings; they're so confusing. What I think is that there were three guys in two cars. One car, at some point that evening, went to the spot on Featherbed Ln. where the Conovers saw it, and signaled to (or responded to a signal from) the other car, parked just north of the Lindbergh driveway entrance, by flashing its lights. I think that was the signal to meet and get things started. The car on Featherbed drove to the Lindbergh driveway entrance, and the kidnappers piled into one car with the ladder and went up the driveway. At the house, two kidnappers took CAL Jr. and put him in the car, which immediately took him for burial somewhere nearby. The kidnappers left the ladder and headed off across the yard and down the access road, which took them behind an abandoned house at the driveway entrance, across the driveway, into another field, past the general area of some chicken coops, and to the Wertsville road (now Lindbergh Rd.), where the other car was waiting. I think they then left the area as quickly as possible, with the burial car not too far behind--both racing back to, I assume, NYC, before news of the kidnapping got out and police started closing roads.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 13, 2022 19:39:24 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 13, 2022 19:39:24 GMT -5
Michael, If the below aerial photo comes through, do you agree with the marked locations? Isn't the caption under the photo of Kutcha incorrect? Wasn't Lindbergh's closest neighbor Hausenbauer at the driveway entrance? Thanks. I'd say generally yes. I think the wagon road was slightly different but you're close. Kind of hard to do it on a picture like this, plus, I might be off myself about where exactly everything was. That's part of the problem ... every time I think I've got it nailed down I find something that gives me pause. For example, take the part of the map I posted showing the wagon road intersecting the main road by the bridge. I've had it for about 20 years and studied it often. And here comes our discussion and I'm seeing another building by the abandoned house that looks an awful lot like its in the shape of a chicken coop. Can't say I "missed" it but I never did stop to consider that. See where I'm going with this? These buildings are definitely on Lindbergh's property but that chicken coop to the north I'm not so sure of. That caption is definitely incorrect. He's close but Hausenbauer was closer. Here's the subject line from Sgt. Moffatt and Cpl. Horn's report: " Information given by one Charlie Hausenbauer, residence Hopewell-Wertsville Road, opposite Lindbergh estate."
|
|
|
V4
Jun 14, 2022 13:14:06 GMT -5
IloveDFW likes this
Post by trojanusc on Jun 14, 2022 13:14:06 GMT -5
I really can't speak to the car sightings; they're so confusing. What I think is that there were three guys in two cars. One car, at some point that evening, went to the spot on Featherbed Ln. where the Conovers saw it, and signaled to (or responded to a signal from) the other car, parked just north of the Lindbergh driveway entrance, by flashing its lights. I think that was the signal to meet and get things started. The car on Featherbed drove to the Lindbergh driveway entrance, and the kidnappers piled into one car with the ladder and went up the driveway. At the house, two kidnappers took CAL Jr. and put him in the car, which immediately took him for burial somewhere nearby. The kidnappers left the ladder and headed off across the yard and down the access road, which took them behind an abandoned house at the driveway entrance, across the driveway, into another field, past the general area of some chicken coops, and to the Wertsville road (now Lindbergh Rd.), where the other car was waiting. I think they then left the area as quickly as possible, with the burial car not too far behind--both racing back to, I assume, NYC, before news of the kidnapping got out and police started closing roads. Don't forget about the sighting of Lindbergh's car far earlier than he claimed.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 14, 2022 13:17:19 GMT -5
Post by lightningjew on Jun 14, 2022 13:17:19 GMT -5
Oh, I haven't. I'm just talking about the cars that I think were involved in the actual removal.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
V4
Jun 14, 2022 13:58:53 GMT -5
Wayne likes this
Post by Joe on Jun 14, 2022 13:58:53 GMT -5
Can we perhaps more accurately call it the alleged sighting by Millard Whited, of a dark sedan entering Lindbergh's driveway at about 7:00 pm?
|
|
|
V4
Jun 14, 2022 19:13:11 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jun 14, 2022 19:13:11 GMT -5
Michael, If the below aerial photo comes through, do you agree with the marked locations? Isn't the caption under the photo of Kutcha incorrect? Wasn't Lindbergh's closest neighbor Hausenbauer at the driveway entrance? Thanks. I'd say generally yes. I think the wagon road was slightly different but you're close. Kind of hard to do it on a picture like this, plus, I might be off myself about where exactly everything was. That's part of the problem ... every time I think I've got it nailed down I find something that gives me pause. For example, take the part of the map I posted showing the wagon road intersecting the main road by the bridge. I've had it for about 20 years and studied it often. And here comes our discussion and I'm seeing another building by the abandoned house that looks an awful lot like its in the shape of a chicken coop. Can't say I "missed" it but I never did stop to consider that. See where I'm going with this? These buildings are definitely on Lindbergh's property but that chicken coop to the north I'm not so sure of. That caption is definitely incorrect. He's close but Hausenbauer was closer. Here's the subject line from Sgt. Moffatt and Cpl. Horn's report: " Information given by one Charlie Hausenbauer, residence Hopewell-Wertsville Road, opposite Lindbergh estate." Michael, I appreciate your response to the two recent photos that I posted. I thought that was Hausenbauer's house across Wertsville Road from the Lindbergh driveway. I always thought that the location of his house would have prevented anyone from parking too close to the Lindbergh driveway that night (especially on Hausenbauer's east side of the road). I missed seeing the map that you posted on my first reading of your prior post. It appears to be a survey map that is detailing property lines. The land parcel that the map shows incorporating the Lindbergh driveway entrance extends from north of the large chicken house (bordering the Kristofeck property) to well south of the old house structure. I would assume that this land parcel would be the Wertsville Road frontage of the Lindbergh estate. Lindbergh had asembled many separate but contiguous parcels of land to obtain the hundreds of acres for his estate. I believe that most of his acreage would have been west of this road frontage parcel (and all of it west of the Wertsville Road). I would imagine that Lindbergh had it all surveyed at the time of purchase as alot of land in those days had no official survey on file. If that road frontage parcel on your map is Lindbergh's, then he owned all of those old structures. I definitely agree that whoever drew this map (surveyors?), drew that one structure in the elongated shape of a chicken house, not a barn. Although for me that chicken house is very far away from Kuchta's house for him to have heard his dogs "sounding like they were about to bite someone". I believe that Lupica stated that the Lindbergh driveway was 300 yards from the house belonging to a Polish family with a name "something similar to Kirstofer" (page156 of "FBI Files on the Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping"). That would make this suspected chicken house located behind the old house at the driveway entrance even farther away from Kuchta. Just a few of my current thoughs on this. I also believe that there could be another "road" that DeGaetano was referring to when he mentioned the tracks "crosed" the road, but I'll stop at this point.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 14, 2022 19:26:13 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jun 14, 2022 19:26:13 GMT -5
Can we perhaps more accurately call it the alleged sighting by Millard Whited, of a dark sedan entering Lindbergh's driveway at about 7:00 pm? I would agree with you Joe, although to me "alleged" is even giving him too much credit. By all accounts most people in the Hopewell area knew that he was a scoundrel, willing to say most anything if he thought money was involved. Money from the Police or the Press for whatever needed to be stated. For me he is right there near the top of the list for the most unreliable witness in the LKC. We all have opinions on this, and for me, I don't consider anything Whited said.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 14, 2022 23:10:18 GMT -5
Post by lightningjew on Jun 14, 2022 23:10:18 GMT -5
Fair point, regarding Whited. That's why, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm only giving my thoughts on the two cars that I think were involved in the removal.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 15, 2022 0:33:57 GMT -5
IloveDFW likes this
Post by trojanusc on Jun 15, 2022 0:33:57 GMT -5
Can we perhaps more accurately call it the alleged sighting by Millard Whited, of a dark sedan entering Lindbergh's driveway at about 7:00 pm? I would agree with you Joe, although to me "alleged" is even giving him too much credit. By all accounts most people in the Hopewell area knew that he was a scoundrel, willing to say most anything if he thought money was involved. Money from the Police or the Press for whatever needed to be stated. For me he is right there near the top of the list for the most unreliable witness in the LKC. We all have opinions on this, and for me, I don't consider anything Whited said. Except that, at the time, Whited didn't know the importance of what he was saying. When money got involved his story changed 180º.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 15, 2022 7:03:51 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 15, 2022 7:03:51 GMT -5
I appreciate your response to the two recent photos that I posted. I thought that was Hausenbauer's house across Wertsville Road from the Lindbergh driveway. I always thought that the location of his house would have prevented anyone from parking too close to the Lindbergh driveway that night (especially on Hausenbauer's east side of the road). Which why, perhaps, Kutcha's placement of the tire tracks/footprints probably makes a little more "sense." Although there's quite a bit that doesn't so using "sense" as a guideline doesn't seem to work in all of the places it should. If that road frontage parcel on your map is Lindbergh's, then he owned all of those old structures. You are right about this. I definitely agree that whoever drew this map (surveyors?), drew that one structure in the elongated shape of a chicken house, not a barn. Although for me that chicken house is very far away from Kuchta's house for him to have heard his dogs "sounding like they were about to bite someone". I believe that Lupica stated that the Lindbergh driveway was 300 yards from the house belonging to a Polish family with a name "something similar to Kirstofer" (page156 of "FBI Files on the Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping"). That would make this suspected chicken house located behind the old house at the driveway entrance even farther away from Kuchta. I was trying to point out what both Leon and DeGaetano wrote in their reports. Specifically, perhaps the chicken coop DeGaetano was referring to was the one (apparently) that was south of the old house and not the one closer to the Kristofeck place.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
V4
Jun 15, 2022 7:18:42 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Jun 15, 2022 7:18:42 GMT -5
I would agree with you Joe, although to me "alleged" is even giving him too much credit. By all accounts most people in the Hopewell area knew that he was a scoundrel, willing to say most anything if he thought money was involved. Money from the Police or the Press for whatever needed to be stated. For me he is right there near the top of the list for the most unreliable witness in the LKC. We all have opinions on this, and for me, I don't consider anything Whited said. Except that, at the time, Whited didn't know the importance of what he was saying. When money got involved his story changed 180º. When money got involved, Whited fingered Hauptmann, there seems little doubt there. Whited's claim about the dark sedan entering Lindbergh's driveway just after 7:00 pm is an entirely unrelated event. You and others here appear to have concluded that Whited witnessed Lindbergh's car entering his driveway just after 7:00 pm. Just about an hour earlier in the evening Ben Lupica witnessed a late model Dodge sedan at dusk and in subsequent statements, appears he couldn't identify the actual colour as being black or dark blue even though he passed directly alongside it. How convinced are you then that well over an hour later when it would have been much darker, Whited was able to determine the colour of the sedan he witnessed, was brown? Could he possibly have witnessed one of the vehicles involved in the kidnapping, and in not knowing a kidnapping would be happening later that evening, just assumed that it was Lindbergh arriving home? A number of unfamiliar sedans were observed in the area in the days leading up to the kidnapping. Most people can very easily within casual viewing of what they perceive to be normal events, make gross assumptions to the point they are later surprised to discover they were purely mistaken. I'm not saying you're wrong here but you weren't the individual making the observation, and this nebulous account seems to now have become a kind of linchpin within a timeline that involves Lindbergh as direct participant in the kidnapping. Knowing that an entire household provided statements to the effect that Lindbergh arrived home at around 8:25 pm, is enough to cast some pretty serious doubt on the veracity of Whited's statement, regardless of the fact he was a publicly-recognized liar.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 15, 2022 7:41:45 GMT -5
I would agree with you Joe, although to me "alleged" is even giving him too much credit. By all accounts most people in the Hopewell area knew that he was a scoundrel, willing to say most anything if he thought money was involved. Money from the Police or the Press for whatever needed to be stated. For me he is right there near the top of the list for the most unreliable witness in the LKC. We all have opinions on this, and for me, I don't consider anything Whited said. Except that, at the time, Whited didn't know the importance of what he was saying. When money got involved his story changed 180º. What Lurp has expressed is what everyone from Hopewell was saying back then. Even some of the Jurors dismissed his testimony based on it. No one trusted Whited and his reputation was the worst. However, this sighting is important in more ways than one. First, it proves he was lying about his identification of Hauptmann. Next, to me it seems to prove he was telling the truth about the cops telling him to "keep quiet" concerning what he saw, although this didn't apply to his sighting of Hauptmann. So he's doing what liars do - and that's combining actual truth with fiction and spinning them together. Remember, like Trojan wrote, this coming on the heels of what Whited thinks will be a big payday. Next, the original car he claimed to have seen was real, but Whited obviously didn't know who owned it. Furthermore, when Hausenbauer recalled the story to police, he mentioned the tag was from NY. However, when Cpl. Horn and Sgt. Moffatt interviewed Whited, this was the only thing he disputed about the sighting. To me that point seems rather trivial if the whole thing was made up. In my experience, if the police gave a detail they appeared to like or accept, a liar would "run with it" because that also makes the tale appear more acceptable. Next, the police believed it. Put all of these things together and it indicates he saw that car. At this point it is the police, not Whited, who believe the car he saw was Lindberghs. But their report notes that Lindbergh's " own statement" places him there between 8:20 and 8:25 - not 7:10. So the police are forced to accept that time and drop Whited's sighting as unrelated to the kidnapping. This comes at a time when there was a lot of whispers among those investigators that something wasn't "right" with the crime scene (See V1 Chapter 16). Next, Whited's statement about a month later puts him home by 7:30 on March 1st. This is consistent with his sighting above, and yet, during this statement he makes no mention of it and is consistent with his later statement about being told to keep quiet about it.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 15, 2022 18:25:06 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jun 15, 2022 18:25:06 GMT -5
Michael,
I apologize but I have loaned out my copies of your V I and V II, and I can't find in V III or V IV where you discuss Whited and the March 1st "7 PM vehicle". If you get a chance, could you answer two questions on this:
1. I believe that Whited was interviewed a couple of times (night of 3/1 and 4/26/32) and that he testified in the Bronx and in Flemington, but when exactly was the first documentation of his statements pertaining to observing this vehicle and being told by the police to "keep quiet" about it?
2. Where exactly does Whited say that he was allegedly situated at 7 PM on Wertsville Road when he observed and gave a good description of this vehicle when it turned into the Lindbergh driveway?
Thanks
|
|
|
V4
Jun 15, 2022 20:25:45 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 15, 2022 20:25:45 GMT -5
Michael, I apologize but I have loaned out my copies of your V I and V II, and I can't find in V III or V IV where you discuss Whited and the March 1st "7 PM vehicle". If you get a chance, could you answer two questions on this: No apologies necessary! It's discussed briefly in V1 pages 13-16. Briefly because the book was originally meant as a resource for our Board with the idea, more or less, to be fuel for discussions. I found mentioning certain discoveries I was making at the Archives were "lost" once a thread became stale so the idea was to put them in one place. If I knew then what I know now, I would have done things differently - to include using iUniverse to publish like I did with V2, V3, and V4. 1. I believe that Whited was interviewed a couple of times (night of 3/1 and 4/26/32) and that he testified in the Bronx and in Flemington, but when exactly was the first documentation of his statements pertaining to observing this vehicle and being told by the police to "keep quiet" about it? Before I started researching, I read about Whited in both Fisher and Scaduto. Once I started visiting the Archives, at some point, I read about his claim the officers told him to keep quiet. I can't remember his Flemington testimony as I sit here but he definitely said this during the big interview in Feb '36 with Hoffman, Fisher, and Hauck. In it he claimed that he was told to "keep it a secret" on that night and then again later when troopers stopped him two or three days later. I made it my goal to find all sources that concerned every interaction with Whited but one of the things in mind was to determine if it could be true that he was told this. All sources for the first night don't support it. There was no interaction "two or three" days later but when I found the March 15 report and read it there was no doubt in my mind there was a very real possibility he was told to keep quiet about that. As I wrote in the book, it's not in the report, but it makes sense. So to answer your question, it could be in the testimony, I am not sure, but it is definitely in the 2/22/36 statement. If you need me to check out the cross-examination let me know and I'll check it out tomorrow for you. 2. Where exactly does Whited say that he was allegedly situated at 7 PM on Wertsville Road when he observed and gave a good description of this vehicle when it turned into the Lindbergh driveway? The information originally came in to police from Charlie Hausenbauer. He said Whited told him about seeing a large brown colored sedan with NY tags at 7:10PM the night of the kidnapping enter the Lindbergh property. They followed this up by speaking with Whited. Except the part about NY tags, which he denied saying, he agreed with everything else stating this car entered the Lindbergh driveway. Police then wrote: "We could learn nothing further from Whited that would connect this car with the Lindbergh Kidnapping. Colonel Lindbergh's own statement explains that he himself driving his brown Lincoln sedan entered the driveway to his estate between 8:20 and 8:25 P. M. on the night of the kidnapping." So - if they asked him where he was situated, they didn't include it in this report. My hunch is they did not. It just seems to me once they determined he saw Lindbergh they shut down the interview.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 15, 2022 20:40:27 GMT -5
Post by Wayne on Jun 15, 2022 20:40:27 GMT -5
Michael, I apologize but I have loaned out my copies of your V I and V II, and I can't find in V III or V IV where you discuss Whited and the March 1st "7 PM vehicle". If you get a chance, could you answer two questions on this: 1. I believe that Whited was interviewed a couple of times (night of 3/1 and 4/26/32) and that he testified in the Bronx and in Flemington, but when exactly was the first documentation of his statements pertaining to observing this vehicle and being told by the police to "keep quiet" about it? 2. Where exactly does Whited say that he was allegedly situated at 7 PM on Wertsville Road when he observed and gave a good description of this vehicle when it turned into the Lindbergh driveway? Thanks Not to butt in, but if it helps, here are the first 2 statements that Whited gave. In the first one (March 15) he says he saw a brown sedan at 7:10 and in the second one (April 26) he says he saw no suspicious cars at all.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 15, 2022 20:52:45 GMT -5
Post by Wayne on Jun 15, 2022 20:52:45 GMT -5
Michael, I apologize but I have loaned out my copies of your V I and V II, and I can't find in V III or V IV where you discuss Whited and the March 1st "7 PM vehicle". If you get a chance, could you answer two questions on this: 1. I believe that Whited was interviewed a couple of times (night of 3/1 and 4/26/32) and that he testified in the Bronx and in Flemington, but when exactly was the first documentation of his statements pertaining to observing this vehicle and being told by the police to "keep quiet" about it? Also... the first time Whited mentioned that he was told by the police to "keep quiet" was when he was interviewed at the request of Gov. Hoffmann on February 22, 1936 -- almost a year after the trial. Whited (HGH dups, Box 8, file 77) was questioned by Hauck and Fisher in front of Hoffman, regarding the night of the kidnapping. “They did not tell me what they were here for or anything of the kind until two or three days later, and then they came and asked me—I told them what I knew. They asked me to please keep it a secret.” First they asked general questions, then got on to whether he had seen any strange cars. He said he’d seen a car but too far off to identify the make or see the driver. Then they asked if he’d seen any people. He said he had and described the man. He says he did not learn of the kidnapping from the police but on his own the next morning. He found out later that one of the men in the group was CAL. The troopers came back a few days later and told him to keep it a secret, so he never told his wife or anyone else. The troopers did not visit him again until after BRH arrest, when they found him and asked him to identify the man in the picture they brought, BRH, which he refused to do but would do so in person. (If you don't have Whited's statement and want it, message me and I will send it to you.)
|
|
|
V4
Jun 16, 2022 9:25:25 GMT -5
Wayne likes this
Post by lurp173 on Jun 16, 2022 9:25:25 GMT -5
Michael and Wayne,
Thanks to you both for the information concerning Whited. You've given me information to consider on this. I'm alway frustrated with the lack of specificity in many of the NJSP reports (how can an Officer hear a witness describe a suspected vehicle in the complete darkness of nightime and not ask, and document, where exactly he was to accomplish this--especially if he is the only witness to this vehicle). I am going to attempt a non-bias look at this, but Whited has an uphill battle with me considering his 4/26/32 statement and his testimony in the Bronx in October 1934 (I believe his own brother was used to impeach his testimony in the Bronx). Whited seems to have an M.O. of blaming the Police for why he is late in telling Prosecutors or Governors as to what he has seen.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
V4
Jun 16, 2022 10:27:07 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Jun 16, 2022 10:27:07 GMT -5
Michael and Wayne, Thanks to you both for the information concerning Whited. You've given me information to consider on this. I'm alway frustrated with the lack of specificity in many of the NJSP reports (how can an Officer hear a witness describe a suspected vehicle in the complete darkness of nightime and not ask, and document, where exactly he was to accomplish this--especially if he is the only witness to this vehicle). I am going to attempt a non-bias look at this, but Whited has an uphill battle with me considering his 4/26/32 statement and his testimony in the Bronx in October 1934 (I believe his own brother was used to impeach his testimony in the Bronx). Whited seems to have an M.O. of blaming the Police for why he is late in telling Prosecutors or Governors as to what he has seen. Absolutely with you on this one Lurp, and just a few more thoughts for now. Assuming that Whited was correct about the date he saw the "large brown sedan," how was he able to determine the colour was brown, at that time of night? Did he perhaps get a glimpse of the vehicle in his headlights? Not having any reason at the time to suspect anything out of the ordinary at the time, did he just assume, "that must be Lindbergh" with his mind then filling in any of other details he might already have been aware of? As far as his claim that the NJSP troopers told him to "keep it a secret," what exactly was communicated here, and when? From all verifiable accounts, it doesn't appear that Whited revealed any specific details in the early morning hours of March 2, relative to strange men or vehicles seen prior to March 1. Without a written report on the 3:30 am visit, we are really left to guess what Millard told the investigating party that included Lindbergh. As he didn't realize the purpose of the visit was about a kidnapping or even recognize Lindbergh, could he just been at his cagiest in order to deflect any suspicion away from his own extracurricular activities, or recent reports of a criminal nature? Had he known the party was investigating the disappearance of CALjr, would he perhaps have come from a completely different mindset, one more helpful towards the intent of the visit?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 16, 2022 11:34:49 GMT -5
Absolutely with you on this one Lurp, and just a few more thoughts for now. Assuming that Whited was correct about the date he saw the "large brown sedan," how was he able to determine the colour was brown, at that time of night? Did he perhaps get a glimpse of the vehicle in his headlights? Not having any reason at the time to suspect anything out of the ordinary at the time, did he just assume, "that must be Lindbergh" with his mind then filling in any of other details he might already have been aware of? I look at it in a way where I ask a series of questions to myself then come to a conclusion after I've answered them. As examples: Q: Did Whited see a car that night? A: Yes.
Q: Did Whited know what Lindbergh looked like on the night of the kidnapping? A: No.
Q: Did Whited know what Lindbergh's car looked like? A: No. Discussion: I come to these conclusions due to the fact he didn't recognize Lindbergh in the early morning hours of March 2 when the "search party" woke him up. That means he didn't know who he was. Next, if he's lying about seeing a car that night, it seems unlikely he'd implicate Lindbergh because, in essence, that would undermine his story. Furthermore, he'd plainly say that's who it was if the idea was to implicate Lindbergh in some way. Q: Did Police believe Whited's account? A: Yes. Discussion: Why did they? Because he obviously gave them 'enough' to believe what he saw was not only a possibility, but that he actually saw Lindbergh returning home that night. This is the Police conclusion and one I do not think they'd make without enough to draw it. That means to me, they asked the most basic questions that anyone in their right mind would, and received an acceptable answer. In other words, he satisfied them that he was in a position to determine the color of that car. As inexperienced as some of these men were, Sgt. Moffatt was not, and Horn was no idiot. So while the report itself leaves much to be desired, we have to remember how they concluded it. Most reports like this had no qualms about labeling their source in any way they saw fit. Some would label them a "nut," "stargazer," a "drunk" or a "liar." (Later on, they began to use the phrase "Lindberghitis"). Others, like this one, conclude the source was "wrong" and gave their reason(s) for it. Here their ultimate conclusion was obviously that Whited saw Lindbergh coming home between 8:20 and 8:25. Q: Is it likely or unlikely Horn or Moffatt told Whited to keep this information to his self? A: In my opinion, very likely. Discussion: Whited never again spoke of this sighting, or if he did, morphed it into something concerning his later but bogus sighting of Hauptmann to help that lie along - or in the case of his questioning in 1936 ... help explain the omission better. Q: How does this sighting compare with the lies Whited told about seeing Hauptmann? A: It doesn't. Discussion: Review the April 26th statement. Whited description tallies with what happened in the early morning of March 2nd. We know this based on Wolf's report, Lewis's interview of Wolf, and Lt. Wallace's review of the matter. Next, review all of his claims about seeing Hauptmann. In one instance it was claimed: " Whited stated that he was close enough to this stranger to touch him with his hand as he passed by in a car and had a good look at his face." So there are comparables to study. Places where we absolutely know he's lying and places where he's telling the truth. How do they stack up with what he said he saw to Horn and Moffatt on March 15? Q: Is this a "stand alone" item that proves Lindbergh was lying or somehow involved? A. No. It's a piece of the puzzle among many other pieces to be considered. It may snap into the bigger picture or it may not. That is up to the individual Researcher to decide for themselves.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
V4
Jun 17, 2022 8:49:54 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Jun 17, 2022 8:49:54 GMT -5
Absolutely with you on this one Lurp, and just a few more thoughts for now. Assuming that Whited was correct about the date he saw the "large brown sedan," how was he able to determine the colour was brown, at that time of night? Did he perhaps get a glimpse of the vehicle in his headlights? Not having any reason at the time to suspect anything out of the ordinary at the time, did he just assume, "that must be Lindbergh" with his mind then filling in any of other details he might already have been aware of? I look at it in a way where I ask a series of questions to myself then come to a conclusion after I've answered them. As examples: Q: Did Whited see a car that night? A: Yes. Hausenbauer claimed that Whited told him this 12 days later on March 13. Was Whited's recollection of the date and/or time accurate?
Q: Did Whited know what Lindbergh looked like on the night of the kidnapping? A: No. Agreed, other than knowing what he looked like through a photo.
Q: Did Whited know what Lindbergh's car looked like? A: No. I'd like to know if he'd seen a vehicle that looked like this before? Discussion: I come to these conclusions due to the fact he didn't recognize Lindbergh in the early morning hours of March 2 when the "search party" woke him up. That means he didn't know who he was. Next, if he's lying about seeing a car that night, it seems unlikely he'd implicate Lindbergh because, in essence, that would undermine his story. Furthermore, he'd plainly say that's who it was if the idea was to implicate Lindbergh in some way. I don't think anyone is saying Whited is "lying" here regarding an event he would have had absolutely no reason lied about. This is entirely a matter of whether Whited's recollection of the alleged event in terms of date and time, is accurate or not.Q: Did Police believe Whited's account? A: Yes. Perhaps. And perhaps they reasoned that he was simply mistaken about the time or the actual date of the sighting. Discussion: Why did they? Because he obviously gave them 'enough' to believe what he saw was not only a possibility, but that he actually saw Lindbergh returning home that night. This is the Police conclusion and one I do not think they'd make without enough to draw it. That means to me, they asked the most basic questions that anyone in their right mind would, and received an acceptable answer. In other words, he satisfied them that he was in a position to determine the color of that car. As inexperienced as some of these men were, Sgt. Moffatt was not, and Horn was no idiot. So while the report itself leaves much to be desired, we have to remember how they concluded it. Most reports like this had no qualms about labeling their source in any way they saw fit. Some would label them a "nut," "stargazer," a "drunk" or a "liar." (Later on, they began to use the phrase "Lindberghitis"). Others, like this one, conclude the source was "wrong" and gave their reason(s) for it. Here their ultimate conclusion was obviously that Whited saw Lindbergh coming home between 8:20 and 8:25. Millard Whited had no set schedule within his line of work, as he made clear to Governor Hoffman, Anthony Hauck and Lloyd Fisher in 1936, during Hoffman's re-investigation. He told them he always tried to be home before dark, but that if he had "bad luck," it might be 9:00 or even 10:00 o'clock. Could this have been one of those nights, where he had planned to be home earlier, but didn't actually drive past the Lindbergh driveway until later than he had originally recalled?
Q: Is it likely or unlikely Horn or Moffatt told Whited to keep this information to his self? A: In my opinion, very likely. It does seems likely, but there are a number of possible intentions here. I believe an obvious one would be that Whited's account, if not proven accurate, might only confuse the officially-recognized timeline based on Lindbergh's recollection, as well as that of the entire Highfield's household that he arrived home at 8:25 pm. It might also provide fodder for an inaccurate news story, the kind the NJSP would not have wanted to deal with.
Discussion: Whited never again spoke of this sighting, or if he did, morphed it into something concerning his later but bogus sighting of Hauptmann to help that lie along - or in the case of his questioning in 1936 ... help explain the omission better. Would Whited have had any reason to repeat his story if he ultimately came to understand his recollection of the sighting was inaccurate?Q: How does this sighting compare with the lies Whited told about seeing Hauptmann? A: It doesn't. As I've said before, Whited's alleged sighting of the large brown sedan entering Lindbergh's driveway is entirely unrelated to his claimed sightings of Hauptmann. Discussion: Review the April 26th statement. Whited description tallies with what happened in the early morning of March 2nd. We know this based on Wolf's report, Lewis's interview of Wolf, and Lt. Wallace's review of the matter. Next, review all of his claims about seeing Hauptmann. In one instance it was claimed: " Whited stated that he was close enough to this stranger to touch him with his hand as he passed by in a car and had a good look at his face." So there are comparables to study. Places where we absolutely know he's lying and places where he's telling the truth. How do they stack up with what he said he saw to Horn and Moffatt on March 15? Q: Is this a "stand alone" item that proves Lindbergh was lying or somehow involved? A. No. It's a piece of the puzzle among many other pieces to be considered. It may snap into the bigger picture or it may not. That is up to the individual Researcher to decide for themselves. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 17, 2022 10:05:25 GMT -5
It's impossible to address these things one by one due to the nature of the html responses. So I'm just going to do my best it in a stand alone way.... 1. Something like dates and times coming from witnesses is always a consideration as it should be. However, so are the conclusions of investigators. Here, they obviously concluded (officially) that Whited's observations were accurate but his timing was off. That, along with the date of the interview, is something I always give weight to.
2. Whether or not Whited saw a photo of Lindbergh is irrelevant considering he was standing in front of him, and yet, he still didn't know who he was.
3. Like I said, the report has much to be desired. But assuming he was asked the basic common sense questions isn't going overboard. Something caused these men to conclude what they did, and I submit they went thru the usual motions in determining what we can plainly see with our own eyes. They do not mention the date as an issue. We can certainly second guess them, or not, but to consider something as coming from them that did not isn't productive in the decision making process.
4. Hausenbauer heard this from him on the 13th. That's less than two weeks. I still remember exactly where I was when the Space Shuttle Challenger blew up. And so, I suspect it was even fresher 12 days later. That's not to say mistakes like that can happen, but we're talking about the Lindbergh Kidnapping only 12 days later.
5. We know about Whited's timing because of his April 26 statement. I would think if there was an issue concerning his memory 12 days out, then citing an interview about his routine from 1936 doesn't seem to make much sense.
6. We both agree it was likely they told him to keep quiet. I also agree there could be multiple reasons for it. Like I wrote in V4, Wilentz told Burns to keep quiet about what he supposedly witnessed too. One could argue the same here, that is, there were many reasons he said that.
7. Whited may have remained silent about his March account for several reasons. One is the police told him to keep quiet. Another could be the police didn't find any value and dismissed it. So its a clear indicator it held no value for him either.
8. Whited's alleged sighting of Hauptmann is unrelated. We know this. Later, I believe he's using the part about being told to stay quiet and use this for why he did not say anything about supposedly mentioning seeing something on the night the "search party" woke him up. But my point is to examine what he says when we know he's lying and apply that to other things he said as a comparable. This can help show whether or not he was telling the truth or lying about something.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jun 17, 2022 21:23:34 GMT -5
Not to interrupt any of the interesting exchanges, but: where would Hauptmann have parked his car if he was lurking around Highfields in February 1932? And why would he have stepped out of the woods to be seen, on the highway according to Whited's testimony, when he heard a truck approaching, and, by sheer coincidence, doing this twice, on different days, in front of the same driver? What are the odds of such a coincidence? Judge Trenchard ought to have asked, “Do you believe that?”
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
V4
Jun 18, 2022 18:19:41 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Jun 18, 2022 18:19:41 GMT -5
It's impossible to address these things one by one due to the nature of the html responses. So I'm just going to do my best it in a stand alone way.... 1. Something like dates and times coming from witnesses is always a consideration as it should be. However, so are the conclusions of investigators. Here, they obviously concluded (officially) that Whited's observations were accurate but his timing was off. That, along with the date of the interview, is something I always give weight to.
2. Whether or not Whited saw a photo of Lindbergh is irrelevant considering he was standing in front of him, and yet, he still didn't know who he was.
3. Like I said, the report has much to be desired. But assuming he was asked the basic common sense questions isn't going overboard. Something caused these men to conclude what they did, and I submit they went thru the usual motions in determining what we can plainly see with our own eyes. They do not mention the date as an issue. We can certainly second guess them, or not, but to consider something as coming from them that did not isn't productive in the decision making process.
4. Hausenbauer heard this from him on the 13th. That's less than two weeks. I still remember exactly where I was when the Space Shuttle Challenger blew up. And so, I suspect it was even fresher 12 days later. That's not to say mistakes like that can happen, but we're talking about the Lindbergh Kidnapping only 12 days later.
5. We know about Whited's timing because of his April 26 statement. I would think if there was an issue concerning his memory 12 days out, then citing an interview about his routine from 1936 doesn't seem to make much sense.
6. We both agree it was likely they told him to keep quiet. I also agree there could be multiple reasons for it. Like I wrote in V4, Wilentz told Burns to keep quiet about what he supposedly witnessed too. One could argue the same here, that is, there were many reasons he said that.
7. Whited may have remained silent about his March account for several reasons. One is the police told him to keep quiet. Another could be the police didn't find any value and dismissed it. So its a clear indicator it held no value for him either.
8. Whited's alleged sighting of Hauptmann is unrelated. We know this. Later, I believe he's using the part about being told to stay quiet and use this for why he did not say anything about supposedly mentioning seeing something on the night the "search party" woke him up. But my point is to examine what he says when we know he's lying and apply that to other things he said as a comparable. This can help show whether or not he was telling the truth or lying about something. I have no argument about your Challenger reference and recalling exactly where you were when you heard the news, as I retain the same experience on that one. My very clearest recollection is the Kennedy Assassination. We all have these kinds of moments, frozen in time. But I believe every one of us would be hard pressed to recall any details from the night previous, especially those which had no specific meaning or importance, prior to entering the sleep state which is in itself a type of consciousness “reboot.” Conversely, Whited does provide a pretty detailed timeline for his movements for March 1, in the April 26 report, which could easily have been verified by the NJSP. Just to confirm this, do you know if his movements were accurately verified, or did the NJSP just simply write off his accounting as having been inaccurate, deferring to Lindbergh's statement? I believe we have two possible scenarios: 1. Whited did see what he believed to be a large, brown sedan driving into Lindbergh’s driveway on the date and at the time he claimed, 2. Whited did see what he believed to be a large, brown sedan driving into Lindbergh’s driveway at a date and/or time other than what he claimed. Just for a moment, let’s assume Whited did actually drive past the Lindbergh house at about 7:10 pm on March 1, and witness Lindbergh, at the wheel of his brown Lincoln, entering his driveway. What is Lindbergh doing there about an hour and fifteen minutes prior to the time four other adult witnesses unimpeachably testified to him arriving home at about 8:25 pm? And what would he have been doing in the immediate vicinity of Highfields for approximately an hour and fifteen minutes between these two times? Let’s also remember that Elsie Whateley testified that Lindbergh called from a remote location at “about 7:00 pm,” although this obviously could have been plus or minus the hour of seven. And if he had actually arrived home at about 7:10 pm, what time would he have had to have left the NYC area at? Does everything add up here?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
V4
Jun 18, 2022 19:37:18 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Jun 18, 2022 19:37:18 GMT -5
As I understand it, Parker concluded that the kidnapper pulled the job at 8:00 pm, based on the fact that he "measured the distance" between Highfields and the point at which Wilmer Moore, who lived on Wertsville-Stoutsberg Rd., saw a car with some mud on its lights pass his home at 8:23 pm. Lupica and the Conovers simply reaffirmed their sightings of cars at an earlier time in the evening, and this has little relation to the actual time of the later kidnapping, or even Wilmer's sighting. It's a little more than that. What he did was old fashioned detective work and something the NJSP hadn't done. He interviewed these parties to establish they had seen the same car. Since Conover claimed the car he saw apparently got stuck in the mud, that helped to establish that Moore saw the dodge with mud covering and dimming the lights as one in the same. The timing and direction of this car is important since it was hightailing AWAY from Highfields at that time. statement relating to her having heard what she thought sounded like tires on the gravel drive does not necessarily mean this is what they were. It was a very windy night and there would have been numerous outside noises to contend with. But if they were car tires, it also does not mean they represented the sound of the kidnapper's car exiting the property. This could have been one of the kidnappers arriving to drop off the required equipment for the job at a location near the house. We don't know for sure. According to Lt. Keaten: " The Lane, as it reaches the residence, is well covered with gravel and it was noted that a car traveling on it makes considerable noise." Next, your point is correct. We don't know if it was a car that was coming or going. But what we do know is the car Moore saw was going. Here is where we put 2 + 2 together as Parker did. just don't see any measure of certainty in your statement that Parker was able to "nail down" the time of the kidnapping to 8:00 pm. Given the multiple sources that tell us Betty Gow had just checked in on Charlie at 8:00 pm to make sure he was sleeping soundly, the sound heard by Lindbergh (not the wind) while sitting in the dining room near 9:00 pm, the corroborative Kuchter and Kristofeck accounts of their dogs responding to a disturbance near the chicken coops and the obvious interplay between man and dog through the footprints found in the ground there, tells me Parker was most likely incorrect. This is where you just lost me. Dog prints and footprints being intermingled don't mean they were both made at the same time. Also, you cite the wind above as a way to avoid the position, but omit it everywhere else. Next, you don't seem to have a problem that Wahgoosh didn't hear anything, but yet the nearest neighbor had dogs that had no problem doing so despite the distance. Did these farm dogs hear a fox perhaps? I hear one outside my window every night and if I was a dog I'd take off running too. I also noticed you avoided the fact that Lindbergh himself testified that crime could have been committed anywhere between 7:30PM and 10PM. This alone completely destroys any notion that it could NOT have occurred around the time Parker showed that it did. It's Lindbergh who is supposed to be the source of the timing, yet, he himself apparently didn't even believe this in June 1932. And finally, Lindbergh originlly accepted Curtis's version about what happened. That included a staff member being involved. So what you are doing is downvoting a position because you don't want to accept the possibility Gow was involved. Of course she doesn't have to be and she may have left the room shortly before it all went down, but its clearly not an option you want to consider. 1. Sorry, but it's still far from conclusive that Wilmer Moore saw the same car in complete darkness that was observed with some measure of clarity earlier by the Conover family and Mrs. Henry Wendling. Unless you believe it must have been the only car with mud on its headlights within the area over a multi-hour period. Try applying the same degree of rigour you are using for barking dogs here. 2. No issues about Anne having though that she had heard the sound of tires on gravel. What I am trying to impress is that with the multitude of outdoor sounds that were surely present that evening, the accuracy of her earwitness testimony needs to examined that much more closely. 3. It's very difficult here to gauge your response as being truly objective because of its apparent need to support some kind of pre-established position. Yes, Lindbergh did state he believed the kidnapping took place between 7:30 and 10:00 pm, but this timing makes no sense other than to have been an obvious error on the early time. Unless you believe he's throwing the Highfields household, including his wife under the bus, based on his having arrived home at 8:25 pm and then having heard that CALjr was last checked in on at about 8:00 pm. And what would you have said about those dogs and their prints intermingled with human footprints if Kuchta and Kristofeck had reported their barks an hour earlier? After the disappointment with the CJ negotiations, Lindbergh was desperate for some good news, and against the advice of just about everyone else, unwisely latched onto Curtis and his grand deception. There's not much more to add there.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 19, 2022 8:18:32 GMT -5
1. Sorry, but it's still far from conclusive that Wilmer Moore saw the same car in complete darkness that was observed with some measure of clarity earlier by the Conover family and Mrs. Henry Wendling. Unless you believe it must have been the only car with mud on its headlights within the area over a multi-hour period. Try applying the same degree of rigour you are using for barking dogs here. There weren't many cars driving around this area Joe. It's not like it is today. Locals took notice if they heard a car coming. I'm not suggesting there weren't two cars involved. What I am suggesting, given the rarity of the situation, is that one of the best Detectives in the country at the time, who solved hundreds of cases, knew a little bit about the environment as it existed. It was in the Moore statement that he said the car he saw had very little head lights on and looked as if they were splashed with mud. Moore was also only a few feet from the road when it went by. Also, I was wrong when I wrote it was "hightailing it," Moore claimed he was holding a lantern when the car went by it "wasn't going very fast." Parker showed Moore a picture of a car and Moore said " I took it to be that size sedan. I think so." Parker asked him if he ever saw a similar car " around here, prior to the kidnapping." and Moore brought up a strange Coup he saw the week before and that a couple of days after that it came back and met up with another car. And you are asking about a multi-hour period? When asked where the road goes, Parker was told " up to the Lindbergh place." When asked 'why' a car would use this road, Moore replied: " Because there are houses that are close to the road and more traveled on the other road and on this road there is absolutely no travel. Lindbergh used the road more than anyone." I'm sure you don't like any of this Joe, but claiming I lack "rigor" doesn't work on this topic. It's the totality of the circumstances. Could it have been a rare instance of another car that got stuck in the mud and looked like a Dodge Lupica and Conover saw? I suppose, but I don't think so. 2. No issues about Anne having though that she had heard the sound of tires on gravel. What I am trying to impress is that with the multitude of outdoor sounds that were surely present that evening, the accuracy of her earwitness testimony needs to examined that much more closely. I couldn't agree more. That's why its important to know the rock crunching sound a car made on that driveway was loud. Wind, shutters flapping, orange crates breaking, and wheels crunching rocks. Anne was listening for that particular sound wasn't she? And she heard it. 3. It's very difficult here to gauge your response as being truly objective because of its apparent need to support some kind of pre-established position. Yes, Lindbergh did state he believed the kidnapping took place between 7:30 and 10:00 pm, but this timing makes no sense other than to have been an obvious error on the early time. Unless you believe he's throwing the Highfields household, including his wife under the bus, based on his having arrived home at 8:25 pm and then having heard that CALjr was last checked in on at about 8:00 pm. And what would you have said about those dogs and their prints intermingled with human footprints if Kuchta and Kristofeck had reported their barks an hour earlier? After the disappointment with the CJ negotiations, Lindbergh was desperate for some good news, and against the advice of just about everyone else, unwisely latched onto Curtis and his grand deception. There's not much more to add there. You are projecting Joe. First and foremost, Lindbergh testified to this under oath. So what do we do with it? Well, we could argue he thought Betty had put the child to bed at 7:30PM instead of 8PM. Or, it might be a Freudian Slip of some kind. Regardless, what the timing shows is that Lindbergh himself readily accepted, in JUNE, that the sound he supposedly heard was NOT an indication of the timing of the crime. If he didn't believe it, why do you? As to the dogs, they bark and chase a lot of things. There were plenty of dogs all over that area too. In fact, Lindbergh had a couple himself. Then there were other dogs I have no idea whose they were. That Bulldog, " Highfields Sue," for example, that befriended the Troopers and was with them everyday they were there. To restate my point, there were Fox, Deer, Squirrels (but they go to sleep at night) etc. all over the place. In short, I don't know if the dog's prints that were found near the prints of the "Kidnapper" were made at the exact same time. And I also don't know what dog made them. Kutcha's dog seemed to track those prints the next morning after ignoring Kutcha to go home. Was it the scent or the familiarity? It's all hard to say. Everything should be considered though. And this "disappointment" and assigning emotions to Lindbergh is silly. Curtis told him a servant was involved and he obviously accepted that scenario. He took that opportunity to go on a vacation to get away from Highfields to pull pranks and - my favorite, to say to " hell with" searching for his child " let's play cards."
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
V4
Jun 20, 2022 7:36:40 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Jun 20, 2022 7:36:40 GMT -5
1. I understand Parker's belief that the vehicle with muddy headlights on the road it traveled, had something to do with the crime, but "nailing down" the time of the kidnapping to 8:00 pm, is sheer speculation, and of course doesn't take into account the tire track evidence that indicated the possibility of two cars at the scene. Parker was essentially working in isolation and not privy to most of the evidence gathered by the NJSP. No question he was a great detective but continually pumping his tires here doesn't make him any better and unfortunately he only had a partial hand of cards to play with. Do you have a location for the Moore house on current-day Province Line Road, before it joins into Hopewell-Amwell Road?
2. Anne probably would have been listening for the sound of Lindbergh's tires on the gravel drive as well as the sound of his horn. Given her location at her writing desk and the other competing indoor and outdoor sounds that night though, leaves little wonder though that she only "thought" she heard the sound of car tires on the the gravel drive at about 8:10 pm.
3. Like everyone else here, I'm just trying to understand how case-related statements, actions and events mesh, and don't mesh together. It's really no more complicated than that. Positions that address only some of these and omit others for whatever reason and are not discussed, only lead to general stagnation of thought.
Who's projecting here? Lindbergh "accepted" Curtis's statement that a servant was involved? I don't think so. Lindbergh was willing to accept the possibility of a servant having been involved no matter how much he might have come to doubt it, and he also wasn't willing to overlook the possibility, no matter how slim, that Curtis was in contact with the kidnappers. I'm sure the expression "desperate times call for desperate measures," would have crossed his mind. Simply writing off Lindbergh's ocean search pursuits with Curtis as some kind of extended boondoggle through a simple dirty laundry list and nothing more, is what is silly. See Point 3.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 20, 2022 8:17:30 GMT -5
I have no argument about your Challenger reference and recalling exactly where you were when you heard the news, as I retain the same experience on that one. My very clearest recollection is the Kennedy Assassination. We all have these kinds of moments, frozen in time. But I believe every one of us would be hard pressed to recall any details from the night previous, especially those which had no specific meaning or importance, prior to entering the sleep state which is in itself a type of consciousness “reboot.” Now I'd be hard pressed for sure. But less than two weeks later, not so much. Especially if I lived down the street from it, the Cops had been to my house asking me about the whole thing, and I was running things down in my head because of it. This was the "Crime of the Century" and people in the area became part of it - whether or they liked it or not. That's two very big differences here: The timing and the venue. Conversely, Whited does provide a pretty detailed timeline for his movements for March 1, in the April 26 report, which could easily have been verified by the NJSP. Just to confirm this, do you know if his movements were accurately verified, or did the NJSP just simply write off his accounting as having been inaccurate, deferring to Lindbergh's statement? I don't have any evidence of it. What you have to understand is that his statement arose from a different investigation made by two different Officers: Coar & Leon. Whited had been interviewed the day before about men who had supposedly been chopping wood near the Lindbergh home and this is what that was all about. It does appear they were merely covering their bases to record certain information in case he was ever revisited as a suspect. Fact is though, Coar and Leon may not have ever known about the March 15 information. At that time it was pure chaos and sometimes people were interviewed about the same exact thing by different officers who were unaware that it had already previously been covered. There's also evidence of, as I wrote about in my books, where a tip would come in and it would be months before anyone even looked into it. I believe we have two possible scenarios: 1. Whited did see what he believed to be a large, brown sedan driving into Lindbergh’s driveway on the date and at the time he claimed, 2. Whited did see what he believed to be a large, brown sedan driving into Lindbergh’s driveway at a date and/or time other than what he claimed. A third would be that he made it up. I've previously written why I don't believe he did, but given his reputation and the evidence we have about his identification of Hauptmann, it must be a consideration so I wouldn't want anyone disregarding that option because its not something I believe. Just for a moment, let’s assume Whited did actually drive past the Lindbergh house at about 7:10 pm on March 1, and witness Lindbergh, at the wheel of his brown Lincoln, entering his driveway. What is Lindbergh doing there about an hour and fifteen minutes prior to the time four other adult witnesses unimpeachably testified to him arriving home at about 8:25 pm? And what would he have been doing in the immediate vicinity of Highfields for approximately an hour and fifteen minutes between these two times? Let’s also remember that Elsie Whateley testified that Lindbergh called from a remote location at “about 7:00 pm,” although this obviously could have been plus or minus the hour of seven. And if he had actually arrived home at about 7:10 pm, what time would he have had to have left the NYC area at? Does everything add up here? I'm not sure what you mean by " unimpeachably" but I do not agree. Again, Anne heard tires either pull up or pull out of the driveway as she listened for Lindbergh to pull up. As I've asked before, why was she listening at that time? Regardless, she heard someone. Elsie said Lindbergh called "about 7:00" (and I do NOT agree it could be " plus or minus the hour of seven.") If you are talking about a few minutes before or after that I can agree with but anything else seems like a huge reach. There's also the Whateley confession to consider (V1, pages 87-8). If what he said was true, then there was some covering up by some or all of the people in the house. Next, there's that bit of info Michael Keaten provided as coming from Lt. Keaten concerning Lindbergh's timing ... when he was originally claiming to have come home around 9:30 but changed it to an hour earlier after everyone else told him what time he pulled up (V1, page 350). Next, we see that whoever Lupica saw at 6 had pulled over and I agree with Lehman's theory about why. Next, the other car sightings show a pattern of "circling" Highfields as if killing time or not wanting to stay stationary. If we both agree this was one of the "Kidnappers" apply your questions here as well.
|
|