Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 5, 2022 7:13:48 GMT -5
OK Joe, if you look at Bookrefuge's ahead "How Hauptmann knew about Tuesday - A Theory" he lays out how it could have happened. Then, months later, he said he wasn't on the board much anymore because he had come to the conclusion that Hauptman had done it, I must have put the two things together in my mind. You were right, he didn't necessarily think Hauptmann did it alone. I could have sworn he posted more of a goodbye but I can't find it. Thanks Stella, could you possibly direct me to that thread, by copying and pasting the link here? I've tried doing searches, both at the site and on Google, with no luck!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 5, 2022 7:27:52 GMT -5
Those were pretty much my sentiments ILoveDFW, when I read that quote. There's a lot there to take issue with. Sorry Joe, but I was not agreeing with you. I should have been clearer. I did understand your intentions ILoveDFW, and I should have been clearer in my reply. Given Dr. Gardner's belief that Charlie was essentially eliminated for reasons that Charles Lindbergh would not have been able to tolerate, do you feel his summary evaluation of Charlie's true conditions of health, is objectively accurate?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 5, 2022 10:36:48 GMT -5
Joe, when you log in, go to Members, then you'll find Bookrefuge on page 2, then click on View Recent Threads and all the threads he started will pop up. Let me know if you need help.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 5, 2022 10:39:07 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 5, 2022 12:25:25 GMT -5
Thank you Stella.. I really should be using more of those effective filtering techniques you've outlined. Some excellent points made in this discussion and many that resonate strongly with my own views. I also believe there may have been a Monday evening kidnapping attempt made by Hauptmann, but that the decision to strike the following evening, was in part, dictated by the need to add the ladder's third section in order to attain the required height. Whether or not it was actually used is debatable, but we do know it was considered important enough to have been brought to the house. Perhaps it was deemed to have been an option, for 'safety's sake.'
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 5, 2022 16:37:30 GMT -5
Thank you Stella.. I really should be using more of those effective filtering techniques you've outlined. Some excellent points made in this discussion and many that resonate strongly with my own views. I also believe there may have been a Monday evening kidnapping attempt made by Hauptmann, but that the decision to strike the following evening, was in part, dictated by the need to add the ladder's third section in order to attain the required height. Whether or not it was actually used is debatable, but we do know it was considered important enough to have been brought to the house. Perhaps it was deemed to have been an option, for 'safety's sake.' So he is doing reconnaissance which apparently shows the family’s schedule, yet decides to strike on a night such investigation would say the child wouldn’t be there? Some other questions with the preposterous Hauptmann Did It All Theory: 1) How do we explain no footprints approaching the house and the inability of one person to raise the ladder in such swift way that it did not cause other indentations beyond the set in front of the window? 2) How do we explain that a kidnapper would have no idea whether the nursery had occupants, particularly when it’s clear the ladder was only set down once and nobody walked away from the boardwalk far enough back to observe the goings on inside (if the shutters were open)? 3) How do we explain the total lack of fingerprints in the nursery? Wearing gloves is fine, but that doesn’t account for the total absence of usable prints anywhere in the nursery, even areas witnesses stated they touched that very night? 4) Hauptmann’s prints are nowhere to be found, even on areas the man who build the ladder would have had to have touched. Sure maybe he wore gloves that night, but it’s preposterous to believe he intended to leave the ladder so why use them while building it? 5) How do we account for Anna swearing Hauptmann picked him up, when she is clearly unwilling to lie for him in other areas that would have helped his defense? 6) How do we we explain Lindbergh’s lying about his arrival time when his car was clearly seen earlier than it was and that he called much closer to Highfields than he claimed? 7) How do we account for two sets of prints leaving the house? Do we just ignore this? 8) As far as I’m aware, Hauptmann’s shoe size didn’t match the one at Highfields. 9) How do we account for the dog not barking? Also, any observation would have shown Skean slept in the nursery yet was forgotten. 10) Why would a would-be kidnapper strike at dinner time, the time most nearly everyone in the house, including Lindbergh, would be up and awake? So many questions which people believing the absurd theory of the state’s case gloss over. Not to mention the state itself didn’t believe it’s own theory until it had to make all the square pegs fit into round holes to convict Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Sept 5, 2022 20:47:37 GMT -5
In regard to Anne Morrow, Lindbergh may have chosen her for his wife for her physical characteristics: she was short and weighed about 100 pounds. She was also intelligent. All of the qualities would make her a good co-pilot for him. wow! i'm not saying i disagree with this idea. but if that is true, CAL was a cold-hearted, single-minded, soulless individual. he wasn't looking for a love match, but more casting or recruiting a crew member.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Sept 5, 2022 23:43:41 GMT -5
True, I was suggesting a reason that Lindbergh did not choose Elisabeth, the Morrow older sister, for his wife but preferred Anne.. The reason may not have been because of any mental problem on the part of Elisabeth but rather a preference for the smaller younger sister for the reasons mentioned. Anne did become his copilot and earned her license.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Sept 6, 2022 0:11:21 GMT -5
I recall a story when Lindbergh and Anne were introduced and am sorry I do not remember the source. They were introduced at the Morrow's home when he was ambassador to Mexico. Lindbergh, upon his introduction to Anne, asked her if she was a pilot. She replied, "No, are you?" Very witty, yes? But there may have been a reason for his question.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Sept 6, 2022 8:09:56 GMT -5
Sorry, I looked for the source of the story of their meeting and cannot find it. However, in her book "Bring Me a Unicorn" Anne describes her first date with Colonel Lindbergh. They flew up in a plane (yes, first date) in 1928. Lindbergh asked her if she wished to learn to fly at that time, according to her own account (page 175). She then writes, "We went into a long discussion as to how much of a mechanical understanding mind one needed to have. He was such a dear, and said you needn't understand all about the engines, etc." Anne then reports a long conversation about flying planes. First date. Quite the courtship!
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Sept 6, 2022 8:24:11 GMT -5
On this first date, Lindbergh does give her a lesson in flying. She writes (page 180): "Not paying any attention to my protests, he told me 'You pull this to go up, push it to go down. The rudder works this way Also in turning, you have to push the stick this way." There's a lot more her on his instructions to her so that she was actually flying the plane under his directions. Point made. I am suggesting that he is training her to be his copilot even on the first date with no suggestion of courtship or romance at that time.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 6, 2022 9:25:44 GMT -5
In regard to Anne Morrow, Lindbergh may have chosen her for his wife for her physical characteristics: she was short and weighed about 100 pounds. She was also intelligent. All of the qualities would make her a good co-pilot for him. wow! i'm not saying i disagree with this idea. but if that is true, CAL was a cold-hearted, single-minded, soulless individual. he wasn't looking for a love match, but more casting or recruiting a crew member. Would Lindbergh then out of necessity, not have demanded she go through some kind of flying boot camp to ensure she was capable of pulling her own weight, so to speak.. lol? I'd venture it might be a bit more objective and balanced to consider the fact that both Charles and Anne were quite taken with each other from the time of their first meeting. He with her reserved and understated nature, and she with his boyish and down-to-earth charm that was a welcomed counterpoint to his famous accomplishment. I’m pretty certain that Lindbergh’s first impressions of Anne weren't simply through the thoughts of her becoming a potential piece of navigating ballast.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Sept 6, 2022 10:00:20 GMT -5
Actually, Lindbergh seemed to be more interested in Elisabeth initially, and he would have thought his own instruction on flying was much better than that of any boot camp. Anne's book "Bring Me a Unicorn" clearly describes his lessons he gave her on flying a plane.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Sept 7, 2022 6:41:01 GMT -5
Interesting find! I recalllthat Charles Lindbergh enrolled in courses at the University of Wisconsin for one semester or so and made some serious trouble there. He put kerosene into his roommate's water pitcher which made the student so ill he had to go into a hospital. He could have died, and Lindbergh left the school after a semester or so. CAL had a complex personality. He seems, in Anne's descrptions found in "Bring Me a Unicorn" to be boyish, bashful, well-mannered, innocent even, but he had a sadistic streak under all that. I am not stating that he necessarily was involved in the kidnapping, but he was more than the innocent kid Anne thought she married.
|
|
Stones Unturned Podcast
Guest
|
Post by Stones Unturned Podcast on Sept 29, 2023 15:31:52 GMT -5
There is a rrrrreeeeaaalllllyyyy simple explanation for the WHOLE THING. Other people have brought this up in bits and pieces, and just because it's simple doesn't prove it's true. But, after 35 years as a private insurance/fraud investigator (and yes, that includes homicide and suicide) I've learned a few things:
1. People too often end up beating their brains out trying to explain a "crime" that never actually happened in the first place. This is a PERFECT example. From the crime scene photos, etc, it is clear that there is simply NO WAY somebody--not even a Chinese acrobat--could climb in AND OUT of that window from a ladder. ANY ladder. Whether they "dropped" the kid or not--how did they get him out the window to drop? And BTW, has anybody else EVER noticed that there was a REAL ladder lying right up against the house under the "French" window? Any "inside job" would have known about that ladder. Etc etc etc. So, what DID happen? Something else.
2. You do NOT want to know how often kids die accidentally at home. Don't even ask. But, based on the crime scene photos, witness statements, newsreel footage from the previous summer, etc, it doesn't take much to imagine little Charley--who had "escaped" from his room before--simply climbing up on the chest + suitcase and opening the window (in the crime scene photos, you can plainly see that A: The other window to the left of the fireplace was not only unlocked, but a little bit open. B: "The" window was NOT forced open) and, as witnesses described, THAT shutter would not latch. In other word, he COULD have EASILY fallen out the window. Imagine a couple more famous than Kim Kardashian and Prince William combined. Imagine them having to explain an accident like that. I can. I've seen it too many times.
3. Two problems, of course--how to get BRH's handwriting on a ransom note, not to mention ONE piece of his attic floor (that one still cracks me up...) in just an hour or two? They couldn't. But, if they had, say, Saturday night, all day Sunday, all day Monday, and all day Tuesday...didn't Lucky Lindy say he came straight from the Morrow estate Tuesday evening? Could have gotten the note from Septimus Banks. Who had a couple of days to get it from who the hell ever. Banks had a regular hooch hookup with precisely the class of criminals Hauptmann ran with. Not baby killers--just grifters. Paper hangers. Second story men. Sticky fingered maids and store clerks. Carpenters with business partners named Isidor Fisch who can launder gold certificates back in the Old Country. Etc.
4. Fine. But, why would all the staff (not that many, really) go along? Well, it's not like they're covering up for a murder. Some of them might have been somewhat responsible in some ways or other. Plus, it's the WORST depression EVER. If you lose your cushy, cushy, cushy job working in The Big House, and especially if you lose it for having a BIG MOUTH, you ain't getting any more jobs. Just ask the Stooges what it took to get a job digging ditches in 1932. If Marsh Charles wants to stuff your pockets with, say, 1000 extra dollars--and we're talking 1932 dollars--to tell Schwarzkopf's Keystone "cops" a little white lie...why slap his hand away? It's his private family business, anyhow. You're already in the habit of keeping your mouth SHUT. That's how you keep your job. Believe me. And after all, it was just an accident...It's not like Miss Elisabeth is some witchy old boss lady. Why make her life more miserable, and everybody else's, including yours?
5. But, why would The Colonel spend $50,000 to protect some shady butler or maid? He wouldn't. But, how much would he pay to protect Anne? Ever pick up a 33-inch, 30-pound kid? Ever drop a 33-inch, 30-pound kid and then fall to your knees to thank the Good Christ he didn't fall on his head? Accidents HAPPEN. Believe me. And if it was Auntie Elisabeth---who was dying, anyway...I mean, what's the point of ruining the whole family name with a manslaughter charge? And if you fell in love with her first, so in love that you barged into a Nobel Prize factory and invented an artificial heart perfusion pump so she can have life-saving surgery, then, you might be willing to use your super-control-freak powers and sudden wealth to cover up for HER. And it's Anne's sister, so, Anne's not going to throw EVERYTHING away just to make her dying sister look bad. Who's going to tell Elisabeth's mother? You? It was just an accident, after all.
6. Now, to get away with a thing like that, you'd have to have a lot of pull with the police, the media, the "governor"...well, you've already heard the rest of the story.
7. You guys know that Condon and Breckinridge knew each other? Right?
8. I mean, it does explain EVERYTHING. It explains why Lucky Chucky didn't want the staff overly-bothered. It explains why he didn't want the FBI overly-bothered. It explains why he didn't want the money marked. He didn't even want them to write down the serial numbers. It explains the media circus. It explains the practical jokes, the fishy comings and goings, the practical jokes, the planting of the body, the practical jokes, the midnight mausoleum meetings, the practical jokes...
9. I'll say it again---out of aaaaalllllll the "documentaries," movies, YouTube extravaganzas, you name it--I've NEVER seen ANYBODY actually DO it. Climb in and out of a window that size from a ladder and then back onto the ladder. Even without carrying a 30-pound sack of sugar. Without knocking over the suitcase stacked on the chest. The first cops on the scene said it didn't happen that way. They were right. The "kidnapping" simply never happened at all.
10. PS how do you keep BRH's mouth shut? When he's staring straight into the tanning booth? Well, he does have a wife and kid of his own...and there' still about $30,000 unaccounted for....
|
|