Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,650
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Nov 9, 2022 11:52:25 GMT -5
Michael, I’m going to extend an olive branch here and offer what I know about the events leading up to and including the evening of March 1, 1932, as they relate to Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery. If you or anyone else disagrees or has something to add, please do. I, and probably you and others here, have neither the time nor energy for the non-productive back-and-forth shenanigans on the previous Second Story Window thread. Hopefully things can be drilled down into sufficiently then to present a clearer picture of what really took place, along with any additional group facts and insights.
Anne Lindbergh in her March 11, 1932 statement, claims that she, Charlie and Alva Root were driven to Highfields by one of the Morrow chauffeurs, on the afternoon of Saturday, February 27. Exact time of the trip is not given. She also states that Charles and the Breckinridges arrived that same evening at about 7:30 pm, this approximation provided by Charlie’s 7:00 pm bedtime and the additional time she spent washing up (downstairs,) after putting him to bed. Sometime after 10:00 am on the following Tuesday, March 1, she asked Betty Gow to come to Highfields to help out with Charlie’s care, as she herself had come down with a cold, presumably Charlie’s. Betty and the chauffeur arrived at Highfields about 1:00 pm.
In her March 13th, 1932 statement, Anne essentially reiterates the above, and also mentions that the Morrow chauffeur for the Saturday trip was Henry Ellerson. Her only other significant deviation here appears to be her claim that she spent time in the baby’s bathroom (upstairs) washing his dishes, before Charles and the Breckinridges arrived about 7:30 pm. Anne spoke to Betty Gow sometime just after 11:00 on Tuesday, March 1, to request that the latter come to Highfields to help care for Charlie. Betty and Henry Ellerson arrived at Highfields between 1:00 and 1:30 pm that afternoon.
In Aida Breckinridge’s account for Saturday, February 27, 1932, she states that Anne, Alva and Charlie were first driven to Highfields by Henry, the Morrow chauffeur. Charles Lindbergh arrived at the Breckinridge apartment “right after luncheon” from the Rockefeller Institute, and sometime around 4:00 pm, they departed for Highfields. No arrival time at Highfields is provided by Aida.
In Marguerite Junge’s 11-page statement, (remainder appears to be missing) she claims that Charlie’s black Scotty, “Scium” (Skean) usually accompanied Charlie on the Lindbergh family weekend trips to Highfields. “Unfortunately, that last weekend before the kidnapping Scium had just gone for a stroll in the park, and Colonel Lindbergh could not wait for him to return, therefore the family had to drive off without the dog.” (Marguerite apparently believed that it was Charles, Anne and Charlie who drove as a family on Saturday, February 27, 1932, from Next Day Hill to Highfields, not taking into account the alternate arrangements which had been made on that specific day.) On the Tuesday morning of March 1, 1932, Anne telephoned Betty to ask her to come to Hopewell as Charlie had “run a temperature and this his cold went to his chest.” (Anne, in her March 13th statement, indicated Charlie had no temperature at this time.)
To your knowledge, is this summary of accounts essentially accurate, as it relates to individuals who might have been in a position to possibly bring Skean from Englewood to Highfields, between Saturday, February 27th and Tuesday, March 1st, 1932?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 9, 2022 13:39:39 GMT -5
Before I get started, it is absolutely necessary to point out/repeat that there are actions/inactions by Lindbergh that allowed for this crime to occur and/or are highly suspicious. So many that V1 is almost cover to cover in them. Things like leaving Skean behind and refusing to listen to old man Morrow's advice when he predicted the child would be KIDNAPPED if he didn't hire security. And its not like he didn't get around to it - he refused because, according to the man trying to retain the job, " he didn't want people to think he was afraid." We have a man who didn't get a defective shutter replaced or fixed because, according to him, the house was " too new." These explanations might be acceptable to you, but not to anybody else. Especially considering he called to have the front door repaired the weekend of the kidnapping. Apparently the house wasn't "too new" for the door but was for the shutter, which just happened to be on the kidnap window of the nursery! Then we have crazy facts like Lindbergh hiding his child and pretending he was kidnapped - TWICE - before that actual time he did go missing. Or when Gow belted out " Lindbergh promised I wouldn't be touched!" and Trooper Kelly supposedly hearing Lindbergh tell Gow to keep her mouth shut on the night of the crime. Examples like this are unlimited. So forgive me if I have a hard time when someone tries to shrug off ALL of these things each and every time they are mentioned. It's hard to take seriously. Of course it suspicious and should be more closely looked at. It's common sense. Don't get upset or in your feelings because you don't want others to consider what demands consideration. I used to suggest that you consider them as well, but I won't bother now because you are too far gone at this point. Anne Lindbergh in her March 11, 1932, states that she, Charlie and Alva Root were driven to Highfields by one of the Morrow chauffeurs, on the afternoon of Saturday, February 27. Exact time of the trip is not given. She also states that Charles and the Breckinridges arrived that same evening at about 7:30 pm, this approximation provided by Charlie’s 7:00 pm bedtime and the additional time she spent washing up (downstairs,) after putting him to bed. Sometime after 10:00 am on the following Tuesday, March 1, she asked Betty Gow to come to Highfields to help out with Charlie’s care, as she herself had come down with a cold, presumably Charlie’s. Betty and the chauffeur arrived at Highfields about 1:00 pm. In her March 13th, 1932 statement, Anne essentially reiterates the above, and also mentions that the Morrow chauffeur for the Saturday trip was Henry Ellerson. Her only other significant deviation here appears to be her claim that she spent time in the baby’s bathroom (upstairs) washing his dishes, before Charles and the Breckinridges arrived about 7:30 pm. Anne spoke to Betty Gow sometime just after 11:00 on Tuesday, March 1, to request that the latter come to Highfields to help care for Charlie. Betty and Henry Ellerson arrived at Highfields between 1:00 and 1:30 pm that afternoon. It depends what your source is Joe. Right now you are focusing on Anne's because its what I brought up. There are other sources for the times concerning Gow. For example, there's one Gow source that says she didn't get there until 2PM. So its not easy to say exactly when she left and when she arrived when the sources disagree. This is something one has to be careful about - consult ALL sources before drawing a specific conclusion. The first step is to ask who was there and/or who was everyone involved or in a position to know. Take that list and read all statements, police reports, and letters concerning all of them. In Aida Breckinridge’s account for Saturday, February 27, 1932, she states that Anne, Alva and Charlie were first driven to Highfields by Henry, the Morrow chauffeur. Charles Lindbergh arrived at the Breckinridge apartment “right after luncheon” from the Rockefeller Institute, and sometime around 4:00 pm, they departed for Highfields. No arrival time at Highfields is provided by Aida. Right. It's important to point out that we have no idea what time their "luncheon" took place. We also know that it took Rosner about 2 hours to get from the city to Princeton. Next, YOU have claimed it would take Lindbergh less than 1-1/2 to get to Highfields as a counter-argument that he could call at 7PM and make it there by 8:20PM on the night of the crime. Remember? While I think that was impossible, since its your position there it must be your position here as well - right? So you kind of painted yourself into a corner. Even if you don't believe it, you have no choice because that point is worse than the Skean issue. So let's both agree, at least, that Lindbergh did not take 3-1/2 hours to get to Highfields. This means Aida was either mistaken about the time or they stopped off at one or more places. In Marguerite Junge’s 11-page statement, (remainder appears to be missing) she claims that Charlie’s black Scotty, “Scium” (Skean) usually accompanied Charlie on the Lindbergh family weekend trips to Highfields. “Unfortunately, that last weekend before the kidnapping Scium had just gone for a stroll in the park, and Colonel Lindbergh could not wait for him to return, therefore the family had to drive off without the dog.” (Marguerite apparently believed that it was Charles, Anne and Charlie who drove as a family on Saturday, February 27, 1932, from Next Day Hill to Highfields, not taking into account the alternate arrangements which had been made on that specific day.) On the Tuesday morning of March 1, 1932, Anne telephoned Betty to ask her to come to Hopewell as Charlie had “run a temperature and this his cold went to his chest.” (Anne, in her March 13th statement, indicated Charlie had no temperature at this time.) There's several considerations that could be made. First, we don't know exactly when Jung wrote this. It says in the kidnapping part that she kept a journal and didn't look at it again for five years. I don't know what that means as far as when this section was written. As a "control" she gave the story about the person looking in the window. We know from other sources that story was absolutely true. Anyway, what Jung is remembering on the fateful weekend is that the family drove off without him because Lindbergh could not wait for Skean to return from his walk. Both things could be true, or its possible she's misremembering that they split up that day. Either way she is attributing, in no uncertain terms, that it was Lindbergh who could not "wait" for him as the reason why Skean did not go down this weekend. If he was supposed to take Skean along with him to NY to pick up the Breckinridges, then he was in a "hurry" to get there "earlier than expected."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 11, 2022 13:27:28 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,650
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Nov 12, 2022 6:30:13 GMT -5
Before I get started, it is absolutely necessary to point out/repeat that there are actions/inactions by Lindbergh that allowed for this crime to occur and/or are highly suspicious. So many that V1 is almost cover to cover in them. Things like leaving Skean behind and refusing to listen to old man Morrow's advice when he predicted the child would be KIDNAPPED if he didn't hire security. And its not like he didn't get around to it - he refused because, according to the man trying to retain the job, " he didn't want people to think he was afraid." We have a man who didn't get a defective shutter replaced or fixed because, according to him, the house was " too new." These explanations might be acceptable to you, but not to anybody else. Especially considering he called to have the front door repaired the weekend of the kidnapping. Apparently the house wasn't "too new" for the door but was for the shutter, which just happened to be on the kidnap window of the nursery! Then we have crazy facts like Lindbergh hiding his child and pretending he was kidnapped - TWICE - before that actual time he did go missing. Or when Gow belted out " Lindbergh promised I wouldn't be touched!" and Trooper Kelly supposedly hearing Lindbergh tell Gow to keep her mouth shut on the night of the crime. Examples like this are unlimited. So forgive me if I have a hard time when someone tries to shrug off ALL of these things each and every time they are mentioned. It's hard to take seriously. Of course it suspicious and should be more closely looked at. It's common sense. Don't get upset or in your feelings because you don't want others to consider what demands consideration. I used to suggest that you consider them as well, but I won't bother now because you are too far gone at this point. And before I get started, the unsubstantiated notion that Charles Lindbergh “allowed” for this crime to have occurred through yet another laundry list of simple cause-and-effect logicisms, is just that. Of course, all of these items can and should be duly scrutinized and brought to true ground where possible. But please don’t just continue to lob nebulous stuff like this at the wall every time and expect different and concrete results if you’re not willing to bore in, in a way that satisfactorily seeks to explain each and every one of them in isolation, well beyond this kind of tabloid multi-headline sensationalism. The good news is that Skean's absence from the nursery has it's own dedicated thread now. Anne Lindbergh in her March 11, 1932, states that she, Charlie and Alva Root were driven to Highfields by one of the Morrow chauffeurs, on the afternoon of Saturday, February 27. Exact time of the trip is not given. She also states that Charles and the Breckinridges arrived that same evening at about 7:30 pm, this approximation provided by Charlie’s 7:00 pm bedtime and the additional time she spent washing up (downstairs,) after putting him to bed. Sometime after 10:00 am on the following Tuesday, March 1, she asked Betty Gow to come to Highfields to help out with Charlie’s care, as she herself had come down with a cold, presumably Charlie’s. Betty and the chauffeur arrived at Highfields about 1:00 pm. In her March 13th, 1932 statement, Anne essentially reiterates the above, and also mentions that the Morrow chauffeur for the Saturday trip was Henry Ellerson. Her only other significant deviation here appears to be her claim that she spent time in the baby’s bathroom (upstairs) washing his dishes, before Charles and the Breckinridges arrived about 7:30 pm. Anne spoke to Betty Gow sometime just after 11:00 on Tuesday, March 1, to request that the latter come to Highfields to help care for Charlie. Betty and Henry Ellerson arrived at Highfields between 1:00 and 1:30 pm that afternoon. It depends what your source is Joe. Right now you are focusing on Anne's because its what I brought up. There are other sources for the times concerning Gow. For example, there's one Gow source that says she didn't get there until 2PM. So its not easy to say exactly when she left and when she arrived when the sources disagree. This is something one has to be careful about - consult ALL sources before drawing a specific conclusion. The first step is to ask who was there and/or who was everyone involved or in a position to know. Take that list and read all statements, police reports, and letters concerning all of them. In this case, it really matters not if Betty Gow arrived at Highfields at 2:00 pm or 1:30 pm. I’m satisfied with these reports for now because they present verifiable information to support that there were in fact, three (3) trips made from Englewood which could have potentially delivered Skean to Highfields on the critical weekend, if he had been available. Again, I don’t believe you’ve ever noted this fact while at the same time, you have somehow managed to put all of the onus on Lindbergh and for him only, to have had the opportunity to bring Skean from Next Day Hill. So where exactly, was Skean on Saturday afternoon when Anne, Alva and Charlie were driven from Englewood to Highfields by Henry Ellerson? Why didn’t they take him along then? When did he get back from his prior vet appointment, which I believe was in Princeton? And where was he on the following Tuesday just before noon, when Henry drove Betty from NDH to Highfields? Why is Skean left behind on three potential occasions? Did anyone really consider his presence there important enough, other than in an after-the-fact 20/20 hindsight kind of way because of the kidnapping having occured? Let’s try to move beyond cursory accounts and explanations and ask relevant questions here, shall we? Perhaps then, some real answers will appear. In Aida Breckinridge’s account for Saturday, February 27, 1932, she states that Anne, Alva and Charlie were first driven to Highfields by Henry, the Morrow chauffeur. Charles Lindbergh arrived at the Breckinridge apartment “right after luncheon” from the Rockefeller Institute, and sometime around 4:00 pm, they departed for Highfields. No arrival time at Highfields is provided by Aida. Right. It's important to point out that we have no idea what time their "luncheon" took place. We also know that it took Rosner about 2 hours to get from the city to Princeton. Next, YOU have claimed it would take Lindbergh less than 1-1/2 to get to Highfields as a counter-argument that he could call at 7PM and make it there by 8:20PM on the night of the crime. Remember? While I think that was impossible, since its your position there it must be your position here as well - right? So you kind of painted yourself into a corner. Even if you don't believe it, you have no choice because that point is worse than the Skean issue. So let's both agree, at least, that Lindbergh did not take 3-1/2 hours to get to Highfields. This means Aida was either mistaken about the time or they stopped off at one or more places. I believe what you’re trying to say here is that Lindbergh, Henry and Aida travelled to Englewood from the Breckinridge apartment after about 4:00 pm, before going on to Highfields where they arrived about 7:30 pm. If so, what exactly is your point? Is this when the “Skean pickup” was attempted? If not, what are you saying? That Lindbergh arrived at the Breckinridge apartment “earlier than expected” because he didn’t take enough time at Englewood waiting for Skean? Can you please clarify?In Marguerite Junge’s 11-page statement, (remainder appears to be missing) she claims that Charlie’s black Scotty, “Scium” (Skean) usually accompanied Charlie on the Lindbergh family weekend trips to Highfields. “Unfortunately, that last weekend before the kidnapping Scium had just gone for a stroll in the park, and Colonel Lindbergh could not wait for him to return, therefore the family had to drive off without the dog.” (Marguerite apparently believed that it was Charles, Anne and Charlie who drove as a family on Saturday, February 27, 1932, from Next Day Hill to Highfields, not taking into account the alternate arrangements which had been made on that specific day.) On the Tuesday morning of March 1, 1932, Anne telephoned Betty to ask her to come to Hopewell as Charlie had “run a temperature and this his cold went to his chest.” (Anne, in her March 13th statement, indicated Charlie had no temperature at this time.) There's several considerations that could be made. First, we don't know exactly when Jung wrote this. It says in the kidnapping part that she kept a journal and didn't look at it again for five years. I don't know what that means as far as when this section was written. As a "control" she gave the story about the person looking in the window. We know from other sources that story was absolutely true. Anyway, what Jung is remembering on the fateful weekend is that the family drove off without him because Lindbergh could not wait for Skean to return from his walk. Both things could be true, or its possible she's misremembering that they split up that day. Either way she is attributing, in no uncertain terms, that it was Lindbergh who could not "wait" for him as the reason why Skean did not go down this weekend. If he was supposed to take Skean along with him to NY to pick up the Breckinridges, then he was in a "hurry" to get there "earlier than expected."And I did not make any such claim about the actual duration of Lindbergh’s Tuesday evening trip home to Highfields, as you’ve claimed. What you’re trying to do here is once again, massage Elsie Whateley’s statement that Lindbergh called “about seven o’clock” on the Tuesday evening to say he would be a bit late in arriving home, so that now according to you, it’s 7:00 pm on the dot. As a result, you’re also trying to slide something by here that’s not only false but misleading, in that I believe Lindbergh arrived home, ostensibly from NYC, in less than an hour-and-a-half. Nonsense. We don’t know the exact time that Lindbergh called. Further we don’t know the exact location he called from, unless you can provide something more definitive and accurate here and be prepared to back it up.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,650
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Nov 12, 2022 6:39:01 GMT -5
ILoveDFW, I believe this post belongs in another thread.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 12, 2022 7:50:25 GMT -5
ILoveDFW, I believe this post belongs in another thread. It compliments one of the various points I was making. Don't be scared Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 12, 2022 8:26:40 GMT -5
And I did not make any such claim about the actual duration of Lindbergh’s Tuesday evening trip home to Highfields, as you’ve claimed. What you’re trying to do here is once again, massage Elsie Whateley’s statement that Lindbergh called “about seven o’clock” on the Tuesday evening to say he would be a bit late in arriving home, so that now according to you, it’s 7:00 pm on the dot. As a result, you’re also trying to slide something by here that’s not only false but misleading, in that I believe Lindbergh arrived home, ostensibly from NYC, in less than an hour-and-a-half. Nonsense. We don’t know the exact time that Lindbergh called. Further we don’t know the exact location he called from, unless you can provide something more definitive and accurate here and be prepared to back it up. I think you need to take that memory supplement that's made from jellyfish or something. Maybe its free up in Canada, but if its not, it might be worth the investment: I see the Lindbergh directions which were posted by Wayne now, and in them CAL does suggest the same Hwy. 27 route that I "crayoned" out. Of course, we'll probably never know the actual road conditions that presented themselves on the night of March 1, 1932. Bottom line, I certainly wouldn't rule out the likelihood of the guy who flew the Atlantic by himself, to have covered the distance he drove that night, in an hour-and-a-half.
Let's move on to your next blue highlight.... And before I get started, the unsubstantiated notion that Charles Lindbergh “allowed” for this crime to have occurred through yet another laundry list of simple cause-and-effect logicisms, is just that. Of course, all of these items can and should be duly scrutinized and brought to true ground where possible. But please don’t just continue to lob nebulous stuff like this at the wall every time and expect different and concrete results if you’re not willing to bore in, in a way that satisfactorily seeks to explain each and every one of them in isolation, well beyond this kind of tabloid multi-headline sensationalism. The good news is that Skean's absence from the nursery has it's own dedicated thread now. What's unsubstantiated? Do you believe an intruder would have successfully removed the child had Skean been in that nursery? If not, then Lindbergh by leaving Skean behind, whether intentional or not, allowed for this crime to occur. The way I see it, Lindbergh was either a victim of circumstance and bad luck, or there was a purpose for leaving Skean behind. I don't see a third option. Maybe you believe the kidnappers were somehow prepared to "get around" Skean and we just don't know about it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 13, 2022 9:01:47 GMT -5
In this case, it really matters not if Betty Gow arrived at Highfields at 2:00 pm or 1:30 pm. I’m satisfied with these reports for now because they present verifiable information to support that there were in fact, three (3) trips made from Englewood which could have potentially delivered Skean to Highfields on the critical weekend, if he had been available. Again, I don’t believe you’ve ever noted this fact while at the same time, you have somehow managed to put all of the onus on Lindbergh and for him only, to have had the opportunity to bring Skean from Next Day Hill. So where exactly, was Skean on Saturday afternoon when Anne, Alva and Charlie were driven from Englewood to Highfields by Henry Ellerson? Why didn’t they take him along then? When did he get back from his prior vet appointment, which I believe was in Princeton? And where was he on the following Tuesday just before noon, when Henry drove Betty from NDH to Highfields? Why is Skean left behind on three potential occasions? Did anyone really consider his presence there important enough, other than in an after-the-fact 20/20 hindsight kind of way because of the kidnapping having occured? Let’s try to move beyond cursory accounts and explanations and ask relevant questions here, shall we? Perhaps then, some real answers will appear. Well it does matter because it proves my point. All sources need to be considered before drawing a conclusion. Just in this brief discussion you've done it twice. First with Aida Breckinridge's source by not exploring what Anne said to cross reference and the next when you relied on Anne without consulting all of Gow's. It's a pitfall anyone should want to avoid. Yes, its time consuming but a necessary "evil." You're not alone Joe, several authors have done it too. It's easy to find something you like to "forget" about everything else once that happens. First and foremost, the point you are attempting to make actually harms your position. Read again what Junge wrote. Lindbergh left him behind. Lindbergh. I'll say it again Joe ... Lindbergh. She doesn't say Ellerson, or Betty Gow, or Anne. So believe what your eyes see because that's what is written there. Maybe in your diary you'll write something else but we're considering what the actual source says and not what you'd like it to say. Next, read that Junge "diary" in its entirety. There's a little blurb in there about Lindbergh's return from his Florida flight in Feb. '32. He brought home with him a dead seagull that had gotten caught in his propeller. Brought it home. Not only that, he threw it down outside of his bedroom window where it sat for days. For DAYS. Why didn't Gow pick it up? Why didn't Henry Ellerson remove it to the trash? How about Anne, did she dare to remove it? Once you answer these questions, there is your answer Joe. You act like Lindbergh was a "normal" guy but by ALL accounts he was, at the very least, "strange." I believe what you’re trying to say here is that Lindbergh, Henry and Aida travelled to Englewood from the Breckinridge apartment after about 4:00 pm, before going on to Highfields where they arrived about 7:30 pm. If so, what exactly is your point? Is this when the “Skean pickup” was attempted? If not, what are you saying? That Lindbergh arrived at the Breckinridge apartment “earlier than expected” because he didn’t take enough time at Englewood waiting for Skean? Can you please clarify? It's pretty obvious. Stop trying to get into my head and just read what's there. You do this a lot. You are more worried about where my points may lead than actually looking at the facts from a neutral perspective. YOU tried to make a point earlier in the discussion that was completely dashed by the sources. Lindbergh had ample opportunity to leave Skean behind. Whether it was before or after - or both. There's a lot there to consider instead of this rigid timeline you wished existed. So read what I've written, apply it or not because it makes no difference to me. Your obvious goal is to find a way to make it look like Lindbergh didn't leave Skean behind despite a clear source that says he did. And I did not make any such claim about the actual duration of Lindbergh’s Tuesday evening trip home to Highfields, as you’ve claimed. What you’re trying to do here is once again, massage Elsie Whateley’s statement that Lindbergh called “about seven o’clock” on the Tuesday evening to say he would be a bit late in arriving home, so that now according to you, it’s 7:00 pm on the dot. As a result, you’re also trying to slide something by here that’s not only false but misleading, in that I believe Lindbergh arrived home, ostensibly from NYC, in less than an hour-and-a-half. Nonsense. We don’t know the exact time that Lindbergh called. Further we don’t know the exact location he called from, unless you can provide something more definitive and accurate here and be prepared to back it up. To your first point, simply refer to my earlier post where you absolutely stated you believed Lindbergh could make it home from NYC to Hopewell in an 1-1/2. Next, there's nothing "false or misleading" about the facts Joe. Lindbergh called home about 7PM on Monday night to say, in essence, it was too late to drive home. Lindbergh called about 7PM on Tuesday night to say he'd be a little late. About meaning what... 6:50 to 7:10 perhaps? Mrs. Whateley is not saying about 6:30, about 7:30PM or about quarter of or after. She was responsible for certain duties that revolved around specific times so I'd expect, if she was telling the truth, that the time is about right. Next, she is recalling what time Lindbergh called Anne. So what does Anne do? She went to her desk and sat specifically listening for Lindbergh starting at "about 7:30." Next we have Whited's actual account saying he saw a car, police claimed was Lindbergh's, pull into his lane at 7:10PM. Say what you will, it doesn't look good Joe.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,650
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Nov 15, 2022 10:59:59 GMT -5
I see the Lindbergh directions which were posted by Wayne now, and in them CAL does suggest the same Hwy. 27 route that I "crayoned" out. Of course, we'll probably never know the actual road conditions that presented themselves on the night of March 1, 1932. Bottom line, I certainly wouldn't rule out the likelihood of the guy who flew the Atlantic by himself, to have covered the distance he drove that night, in an hour-and-a-half.
Let's move on to your next blue highlight.... Can we accurately determine where Lindbergh was calling from, or just move beyond this non-productive discussion until it has the opportunity to become productive? We know what Point B was but attempting to realistically determine if it would take less than, equal to or more than an hour-and-a-half is meaningless unless we know what Point A was. In the absence of anything more concrete, Lindbergh could have still been relatively close to NYC or even in Englewood, when he made that call at “about 7:00 pm.” Englewood to Hopewell for example, a little over 60 miles distance, would have been quite achievable by 8:25 pm.And before I get started, the unsubstantiated notion that Charles Lindbergh “allowed” for this crime to have occurred through yet another laundry list of simple cause-and-effect logicisms, is just that. Of course, all of these items can and should be duly scrutinized and brought to true ground where possible. But please don’t just continue to lob nebulous stuff like this at the wall every time and expect different and concrete results if you’re not willing to bore in, in a way that satisfactorily seeks to explain each and every one of them in isolation, well beyond this kind of tabloid multi-headline sensationalism. The good news is that Skean's absence from the nursery has it's own dedicated thread now. What's unsubstantiated? Do you believe an intruder would have successfully removed the child had Skean been in that nursery? If not, then Lindbergh by leaving Skean behind, whether intentional or not, allowed for this crime to occur. The way I see it, Lindbergh was either a victim of circumstance and bad luck, or there was a purpose for leaving Skean behind. I don't see a third option. Maybe you believe the kidnappers were somehow prepared to "get around" Skean and we just don't know about it? Of course, Skean’s presence in the nursery would have added a wrinkle or two to any intruder’s plans. We can only speculate how the kidnapper(s) might have been prepared to deal with a dog. But I’m pretty sure they would have first considered the results of any noise they were making outside the nursery window in preparation for their ascent, as a kind of acid test within their progress. Dog barking... let’s get out of here. No dog barking... proceed as planned.
What tells us anything else but that no one in the family had really considered the possibility of Charlie being kidnapped out of his own bed thoroughly enough to insist that Skean’s presence in the nursery, should be a critical security and safety requirement? First and foremost, he was Charlie’s buddy and companion. Demonstrate something even close to conclusive proof that Charlie’s family and caregivers expected Skean to perform as a constant watchdog while Charlie was asleep or even playing in his nursery and I’m all ears, my friend.
And obviously, it wasn’t just Lindbergh who felt Skean wasn’t expected to serve as Charlie’s “watchdog.” Both Anne and Betty had perfect opportunities to ensure Skean was there that night, so why did they not act accordingly? Up to now, you’ve been conveniently avoiding this question and I believe just overthinking the one and only avenue that quite predictably, aligns most helpfully with your cause.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,650
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Nov 15, 2022 11:06:05 GMT -5
In this case, it really matters not if Betty Gow arrived at Highfields at 2:00 pm or 1:30 pm. I’m satisfied with these reports for now because they present verifiable information to support that there were in fact, three (3) trips made from Englewood which could have potentially delivered Skean to Highfields on the critical weekend, if he had been available. Again, I don’t believe you’ve ever noted this fact while at the same time, you have somehow managed to put all of the onus on Lindbergh and for him only, to have had the opportunity to bring Skean from Next Day Hill. So where exactly, was Skean on Saturday afternoon when Anne, Alva and Charlie were driven from Englewood to Highfields by Henry Ellerson? Why didn’t they take him along then? When did he get back from his prior vet appointment, which I believe was in Princeton? And where was he on the following Tuesday just before noon, when Henry drove Betty from NDH to Highfields? Why is Skean left behind on three potential occasions? Did anyone really consider his presence there important enough, other than in an after-the-fact 20/20 hindsight kind of way because of the kidnapping having occured? Let’s try to move beyond cursory accounts and explanations and ask relevant questions here, shall we? Perhaps then, some real answers will appear. Well it does matter because it proves my point. All sources need to be considered before drawing a conclusion. Just in this brief discussion you've done it twice. First with Aida Breckinridge's source by not exploring what Anne said to cross reference and the next when you relied on Anne without consulting all of Gow's. It's a pitfall anyone should want to avoid. Yes, its time consuming but a necessary "evil." You're not alone Joe, several authors have done it too. It's easy to find something you like to "forget" about everything else once that happens. First and foremost, the point you are attempting to make actually harms your position. Read again what Junge wrote. Lindbergh left him behind. Lindbergh. I'll say it again Joe ... Lindbergh. She doesn't say Ellerson, or Betty Gow, or Anne. So believe what your eyes see because that's what is written there. Maybe in your diary you'll write something else but we're considering what the actual source says and not what you'd like it to say. Next, read that Junge "diary" in its entirety. There's a little blurb in there about Lindbergh's return from his Florida flight in Feb. '32. He brought home with him a dead seagull that had gotten caught in his propeller. Brought it home. Not only that, he threw it down outside of his bedroom window where it sat for days. For DAYS. Why didn't Gow pick it up? Why didn't Henry Ellerson remove it to the trash? How about Anne, did she dare to remove it? Once you answer these questions, there is your answer Joe. You act like Lindbergh was a "normal" guy but by ALL accounts he was, at the very least, "strange." Before you accuse me of caring too much about what you have to say, you’re asking for this. Here in your inimitable style, you’ve managed to elevate the importance of something entirely debatable into cut-and-dry conclusive. You appear to have latched onto Margeurite Junge’s rhetorical, folksy overall writing style and content, and turned her into some kind of key authority figure to then underscore what you consider here to have been Lindbergh’s “biggest fail ever.” Then, before you’re even finished with that thought, you spin wildly off into the dead seagull account to underscore Lindbergh’s at-times overall peculiar nature and actions. To try and keep you on topic here, no Margeurite doesn’t mention that Ellerson, Betty or Anne also had the opportunity to bring Skean to Highfields. So clearly, she omitted mentioning that. Ask yourself this. Does her seemingly-wistful reflection in 20/20 hindsight out of necessity, make her absolutely correct and all-understanding in that full accountability for Skean being in the nursery, rested squarely on Lindbergh’s shoulders?
I believe what you’re trying to say here is that Lindbergh, Henry and Aida travelled to Englewood from the Breckinridge apartment after about 4:00 pm, before going on to Highfields where they arrived about 7:30 pm. If so, what exactly is your point? Is this when the “Skean pickup” was attempted? If not, what are you saying? That Lindbergh arrived at the Breckinridge apartment “earlier than expected” because he didn’t take enough time at Englewood waiting for Skean? Can you please clarify? It's pretty obvious. Stop trying to get into my head and just read what's there. You do this a lot. You are more worried about where my points may lead than actually looking at the facts from a neutral perspective. YOU tried to make a point earlier in the discussion that was completely dashed by the sources. Lindbergh had ample opportunity to leave Skean behind. Whether it was before or after - or both. There's a lot there to consider instead of this rigid timeline you wished existed. So read what I've written, apply it or not because it makes no difference to me. Your obvious goal is to find a way to make it look like Lindbergh didn't leave Skean behind despite a clear source that says he did. Stop trying to get into your head? I’m just trying to get you to come forward and stop beating around the bush, while you’re hinting and winking through your above response the whole time. What’s obvious? Please just tell us what’s on your mind. And I did not make any such claim about the actual duration of Lindbergh’s Tuesday evening trip home to Highfields, as you’ve claimed. What you’re trying to do here is once again, massage Elsie Whateley’s statement that Lindbergh called “about seven o’clock” on the Tuesday evening to say he would be a bit late in arriving home, so that now according to you, it’s 7:00 pm on the dot. As a result, you’re also trying to slide something by here that’s not only false but misleading, in that I believe Lindbergh arrived home, ostensibly from NYC, in less than an hour-and-a-half. Nonsense. We don’t know the exact time that Lindbergh called. Further we don’t know the exact location he called from, unless you can provide something more definitive and accurate here and be prepared to back it up. To your first point, simply refer to my earlier post where you absolutely stated you believed Lindbergh could make it home from NYC to Hopewell in an 1-1/2. Next, there's nothing "false or misleading" about the facts Joe. Lindbergh called home about 7PM on Monday night to say, in essence, it was too late to drive home. Lindbergh called about 7PM on Tuesday night to say he'd be a little late. About meaning what... 6:50 to 7:10 perhaps? Mrs. Whateley is not saying about 6:30, about 7:30PM or about quarter of or after. She was responsible for certain duties that revolved around specific times so I'd expect, if she was telling the truth, that the time is about right. Next, she is recalling what time Lindbergh called Anne. So what does Anne do? She went to her desk and sat specifically listening for Lindbergh starting at "about 7:30." Next we have Whited's actual account saying he saw a car, police claimed was Lindbergh's, pull into his lane at 7:10PM. Say what you will, it doesn't look good Joe. Again, I believe you're theorizing here without seeming to understand that you must know what Point A was before you can debate the true nature of Lindbergh’s trip home to Point B, ie. Highfields. Consider that Anne’s diary writings and statements reflect the concern and anticipation she demonstrated that evening awaiting Charles’ arrival on a dark and stormy evening. I believe we’ve all done this before. It’s called anticipation though clockwatching. But, if in the event Anne was truly expecting his arrival as early as 7:30 pm, based on a true understanding of where he was actually calling from, what does that then say about her actions that seems to have gone unreported otherwise? Whited’s account, which simply doesn’t make a lot of sense, was not given until mid-March and he might well have been off by a couple of days, you know a bit like your ‘Bernard Uebel timeline?’ I do believe Millard was mistaken and that Lindbergh was nowhere near Highfields as he claimed. Coincidentally, Lindbergh would have been arriving home in his brown Lincoln at just about that time with the Breckinridges on the Saturday evening before the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 15, 2022 13:29:54 GMT -5
Before you accuse me of caring too much about what you have to say, you’re asking for this. Here in your inimitable style, you’ve managed to elevate the importance of something entirely debatable into cut-and-dry conclusive. You appear to have latched onto Margeurite Junge’s rhetorical, folksy overall writing style and content, and turned her into some kind of key authority figure to then underscore what you consider here to have been Lindbergh’s “biggest fail ever.” Then, before you’re even finished with that thought, you spin wildly off into the dead seagull account to underscore Lindbergh’s at-times overall peculiar nature and actions. To try and keep you on topic here, no Margeurite doesn’t mention that Ellerson, Betty or Anne also had the opportunity to bring Skean to Highfields. So clearly, she omitted mentioning that. Ask yourself this. Does her seemingly-wistful reflection in 20/20 hindsight out of necessity, make her absolutely correct and all-understanding in that full accountability for Skean being in the nursery, rested squarely on Lindbergh’s shoulders? Okay, so what you haven't addressed has not gone unnoticed. But that's okay, I'll let sleeping dogs lie at this point. Next, thanks for the compliment. Admittedly, the word " inimitable" was not in my vocabulary so it forced me to look it up. Now it is, and although I don't expect I'll ever have a reason to use it, at least you taught me something. Next, I've allowed you more than once to challenge Junge. You never have. What I see is the beginning of a story she may have once thought about publishing some day. Just a guess of course, but that's what it looks like to me. Additionally, as I've already pointed out, she's not implicating or casting aspersions at Lindbergh for leaving Skean behind. No, she's actually trying to make it sound like it was an innocent act. So that, to me, makes it all the more important because its an indicator she isn't lying about it. Plus, she was in a position to know about it first hand. As for the dead seagull story... I don't see you doubting this occurred. Nope, your only counterargument is to try to make me look like a maniac or something. No, I didn't " wildly" do anything. It's an example, not only of Lindbergh's behavior, but of everyone else around him. It's but one example, and as you already know, there are many others mentioned in my books. I know they upset you, but that's your cross to bear. So, no, Junge doesn't mention Ellerson, Betty or Anne in relationship to Skean. Neither did she mention any of them, and quite frankly the entire Staff at Next Day Hill to include herself, as to why they all left that dead bird lie right where Lindbergh left it. I know you see the correlation, but you must play dumb in order for your supposed point to exist. So, I get it. In the end, it makes sense that Lindbergh left Skean behind and no one else became involved. Just like no one picking up a dead bird where it laid. If Lindbergh hadn't tossed it there any number of staff would have disposed of it - as we both know. It was Lindbergh who set the rules. When the child was not to be disturbed was his rule as well. He did what he wanted, and it went unchallenged. He threw a multiple buckets of water on Richard while he was asleep in his cabin while out trying to assist Lindbergh in finding his child. It got so bad he had to lock his cabin door. Lindbergh broke in and threw another bucket on him. I don't see you asking questions about why Richard didn't quit or punch him in the face. He threatened Mulrooney that if he covered the mailboxes he'd "break" him. Mulrooney then ordered his men not to cover those boxes. He went toe to toe with Hoover - and won. These examples answer or neutralize that point you are so desperately trying to make. By the same argument, if Lindbergh asked somebody to bring him down I'm sure they would have. Stop trying to get into your head? I’m just trying to get you to come forward and stop beating around the bush, while you’re hinting and winking through your above response the whole time. What’s obvious? Please just tell us what’s on your mind. You have a terrible habit of trying to read my mind. You see my post, then run down each and every possible place it may lead. If one, in your mind, brings you to a place you don't like then you tell me that's where I was going and attack it based on that reason and that reason alone. Half the time I wasn't going there, but its how you approach everything. I'd like to see you consider things from a place without all the bias ... from a neutral perspective instead of worrying about me. I know you can because I've seen it, but this is more like a Laurel and Hardy routine than a real debate. Again, I believe you're theorizing here without seeming to understand that you must know what Point A was before you can debate the true nature of Lindbergh’s trip home to Point B, ie. Highfields. Consider that Anne’s diary writings and statements reflect the concern and anticipation she demonstrated that evening awaiting Charles’ arrival on a dark and stormy evening. I believe we’ve all done this before. It’s called anticipation though clockwatching. But, if in the event Anne was truly expecting his arrival as early as 7:30 pm, based on a true understanding of where he was actually calling from, what does that then say about her actions that seems to have gone unreported otherwise? Whited’s account, which simply doesn’t make a lot of sense, was not given until mid-March and he might well have been off by a couple of days, you know a bit like your ‘Bernard Uebel timeline?’ I do believe Millard was mistaken and that Lindbergh was nowhere near Highfields as he claimed. Coincidentally, Lindbergh would have been arriving home in his brown Lincoln at just about that time with the Breckinridges on the Saturday evening before the kidnapping. I'm not theorizing. The facts as we know them exist in this source material. You are sliding into a position where none matter in order to explain away what we know was supposed to have occurred. Where did he call from? IDK. But what we do know is it was too far at about 7 the night before but not too far at about 7 the next night. We know Anne went downstairs specifically listening for him starting at 7:30. We know it took Rosner at least 2 hours to get from NYC to Princeton. These are facts. Whited, of course, is a dubious source. However, it fits in with other sources when cross referenced. It wasn't a reward at the time because Lindbergh forbid it, so Whited wasn't motivated by money at that time. Finally, it was the police who believed it was Lindbergh based on the description of the vehicle. Whited never said it was.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 15, 2022 13:47:49 GMT -5
Can we accurately determine where Lindbergh was calling from, or just move beyond this non-productive discussion until it has the opportunity to become productive? We know what Point B was but attempting to realistically determine if it would take less than, equal to or more than an hour-and-a-half is meaningless unless we know what Point A was. In the absence of anything more concrete, Lindbergh could have still been relatively close to NYC or even in Englewood, when he made that call at “about 7:00 pm.” Englewood to Hopewell for example, a little over 60 miles distance, would have been quite achievable by 8:25 pm. Again, Rosner took at least 2 hours to get from NYC to Princeton. No, Lindbergh could not have made it on those roads in an hour and a half. In this case, if he left at 7, less than an hour and a half. This also creates the dilemma, as I've previously pointed out, that he left for Hopewell at 4PM with the Breckinridges that weekend and didn't get there until 7:30PM. You have yet to explain this and its pretty clear why. It's not JUST the distance Joe. Some of these roads were terrible and worse than driving on a washboard. Look at what some of the Reporters were saying. Scathma posted about the headlight situation as a factor as well. And of course we also have to consider the weather. You might want to put your slide rule away for this one at look at this realistically. Of course, Skean’s presence in the nursery would have added a wrinkle or two to any intruder’s plans. We can only speculate how the kidnapper(s) might have been prepared to deal with a dog. But I’m pretty sure they would have first considered the results of any noise they were making outside the nursery window in preparation for their ascent, as a kind of acid test within their progress. Dog barking... let’s get out of here. No dog barking... proceed as planned.
What tells us anything else but that no one in the family had really considered the possibility of Charlie being kidnapped out of his own bed thoroughly enough to insist that Skean’s presence in the nursery, should be a critical security and safety requirement? First and foremost, he was Charlie’s buddy and companion. Demonstrate something even close to conclusive proof that Charlie’s family and caregivers expected Skean to perform as a constant watchdog while Charlie was asleep or even playing in his nursery and I’m all ears, my friend.
And obviously, it wasn’t just Lindbergh who felt Skean wasn’t expected to serve as Charlie’s “watchdog.” Both Anne and Betty had perfect opportunities to ensure Skean was there that night, so why did they not act accordingly? Up to now, you’ve been conveniently avoiding this question and I believe just overthinking the one and only avenue that quite predictably, aligns most helpfully with your cause. 1. A " wrinkle or two?" Seriously? " Dog barking... let's get out of here. No dog barking... proceed as planned." Bless your heart Joe. You are a good guy, but this isn't how criminals think. No one planned this without considering the obstacles and planning for them. Next, no one goes into this blind and full of emotion. If they do, they immediately get caught. The fact Skean wasn't there would be a stroke of luck, but there's no way they'd hit the lottery in five or six different ways. That just doesn't happen. 2. This idea that I must prove Skean was considered a watch-dog is a straw man argument. Anne clearly believed if he was there that night, the child probably wouldn't have been kidnapped. And why? Because the house would have been alerted. It's basic common sense. 3. Asked and answered.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,650
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Nov 17, 2022 11:45:20 GMT -5
Before you accuse me of caring too much about what you have to say, you’re asking for this. Here in your inimitable style, you’ve managed to elevate the importance of something entirely debatable into cut-and-dry conclusive. You appear to have latched onto Margeurite Junge’s rhetorical, folksy overall writing style and content, and turned her into some kind of key authority figure to then underscore what you consider here to have been Lindbergh’s “biggest fail ever.” Then, before you’re even finished with that thought, you spin wildly off into the dead seagull account to underscore Lindbergh’s at-times overall peculiar nature and actions. To try and keep you on topic here, no Margeurite doesn’t mention that Ellerson, Betty or Anne also had the opportunity to bring Skean to Highfields. So clearly, she omitted mentioning that. Ask yourself this. Does her seemingly-wistful reflection in 20/20 hindsight out of necessity, make her absolutely correct and all-understanding in that full accountability for Skean being in the nursery, rested squarely on Lindbergh’s shoulders? Okay, so what you haven't addressed has not gone unnoticed. But that's okay, I'll let sleeping dogs lie at this point. Next, thanks for the compliment. Admittedly, the word " inimitable" was not in my vocabulary so it forced me to look it up. Now it is, and although I don't expect I'll ever have a reason to use it, at least you taught me something. Next, I've allowed you more than once to challenge Junge. You never have. What I see is the beginning of a story she may have once thought about publishing some day. Just a guess of course, but that's what it looks like to me. Additionally, as I've already pointed out, she's not implicating or casting aspersions at Lindbergh for leaving Skean behind. No, she's actually trying to make it sound like it was an innocent act. So that, to me, makes it all the more important because its an indicator she isn't lying about it. Plus, she was in a position to know about it first hand. Glad I could help out with your vocabulary. You’ve sent a few new words my way over the years, so I thank you as well. Just give those ‘sleeping dogs’ a shake and remind me what I haven’t “addressed” please and I’ll try, probably once again.
Challenge Junge? In what other way? I’ve already described her basic misunderstanding about the true nature of the Lindberghs’ separate trips to Highfields on Saturday, February 27th. Here, she is mistakenly referencing the otherwise customary habit for the family to drive there from Englewood as a group. Obviously, Junge had forgotten or not realized that Lindbergh had first driven from Englewood to the Rockefeller Institute by himself that morning before picking up the Breckinridges to take them to Highfields, and that Anne, Charlie and Alva had been driven there by Henry Ellerson later in the afternoon. I don’t believe Junge is lying or casting aspersions either. Quite the contrary, she’s just wistfully relating the significance of one of those supremely-unfortunate events in life that contributes towards unforeseen tragedy, albeit stated somewhat inaccurately. If Junge had had a clearer recollection of the event, she might well have included the fact that there were actually two opportunities on that same day for Skean to have been brought to Highfields, and another one the following Tuesday afternoon.
As for the dead seagull story... I don't see you doubting this occurred. Nope, your only counterargument is to try to make me look like a maniac or something. No, I didn't " wildly" do anything. It's an example, not only of Lindbergh's behavior, but of everyone else around him. It's but one example, and as you already know, there are many others mentioned in my books. I know they upset you, but that's your cross to bear. So, no, Junge doesn't mention Ellerson, Betty or Anne in relationship to Skean. Neither did she mention any of them, and quite frankly the entire Staff at Next Day Hill to include herself, as to why they all left that dead bird lie right where Lindbergh left it. I know you see the correlation, but you must play dumb in order for your supposed point to exist. So, I get it. I’m not trying to make you look like anything, you do that all on your own. What I am trying to do is understand what one thing has to do with the other, while at the same time understanding that it's more than likely you haven't truly understood Lindbergh’s actual intent here, nor the reaction of his family and those who had to put up with and deal with his often-strange behavioral aberrations.
In the end, it makes sense that Lindbergh left Skean behind and no one else became involved. Just like no one picking up a dead bird where it laid. If Lindbergh hadn't tossed it there any number of staff would have disposed of it - as we both know. It was Lindbergh who set the rules. When the child was not to be disturbed was his rule as well. He did what he wanted, and it went unchallenged. He threw a multiple buckets of water on Richard while he was asleep in his cabin while out trying to assist Lindbergh in finding his child. It got so bad he had to lock his cabin door. Lindbergh broke in and threw another bucket on him. I don't see you asking questions about why Richard didn't quit or punch him in the face. He threatened Mulrooney that if he covered the mailboxes he'd "break" him. Mulrooney then ordered his men not to cover those boxes. He went toe to toe with Hoover - and won. These examples answer or neutralize that point you are so desperately trying to make. By the same argument, if Lindbergh asked somebody to bring him down I'm sure they would have. I’ll admit I had little idea as to why you originally referenced the seagull account, and how on earth it related to Lindbergh not having brought Skean to Highfields. I believe though I’m beginning to see a hazy picture here.
Before I respond in full, are you possibly suggesting here that by leaving a dead bird lying around Next Day Hill, Lindbergh was demonstrating a kind of “alpha male dominance” and form of intimidation towards others and that actions like this, would have somehow negatively influenced anyone else at Next Day Hill from considering Charlie's companion Skean having been brought to Highfields within the three days leading up and including the kidnapping?
What rules is Lindbergh setting here, other than the ones your own mind is establishing, influencing whether Skean did or did not make the trip to Highfields? As for your other references to Richard, Mulrooney and Hoover neutralizing my point, no they don’t do that at all. Examples like this continue to remind me that by now, you’re probably only half aware of how far you’ve strayed from truly understanding the often-strange complexities of Lindbergh’s character, if you ever did to begin with.
Again, I believe you're theorizing here without seeming to understand that you must know what Point A was before you can debate the true nature of Lindbergh’s trip home to Point B, ie. Highfields. Consider that Anne’s diary writings and statements reflect the concern and anticipation she demonstrated that evening awaiting Charles’ arrival on a dark and stormy evening. I believe we’ve all done this before. It’s called anticipation though clockwatching. But, if in the event Anne was truly expecting his arrival as early as 7:30 pm, based on a true understanding of where he was actually calling from, what does that then say about her actions that seems to have gone unreported otherwise? Whited’s account, which simply doesn’t make a lot of sense, was not given until mid-March and he might well have been off by a couple of days, you know a bit like your ‘Bernard Uebel timeline?’ I do believe Millard was mistaken and that Lindbergh was nowhere near Highfields as he claimed. Coincidentally, Lindbergh would have been arriving home in his brown Lincoln at just about that time with the Breckinridges on the Saturday evening before the kidnapping. I'm not theorizing. The facts as we know them exist in this source material. You are sliding into a position where none matter in order to explain away what we know was supposed to have occurred. Where did he call from? IDK. But what we do know is it was too far at about 7 the night before but not too far at about 7 the next night. We know Anne went downstairs specifically listening for him starting at 7:30. We know it took Rosner at least 2 hours to get from NYC to Princeton. These are facts. Whited, of course, is a dubious source. However, it fits in with other sources when cross referenced. It wasn't a reward at the time because Lindbergh forbid it, so Whited wasn't motivated by money at that time. Finally, it was the police who believed it was Lindbergh based on the description of the vehicle. Whited never said it was. If you don’t know exactly where Lindbergh called from, then why do you keep trying to make a case about how long it would have taken him to get home?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,650
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Nov 17, 2022 11:52:41 GMT -5
Can we accurately determine where Lindbergh was calling from, or just move beyond this non-productive discussion until it has the opportunity to become productive? We know what Point B was but attempting to realistically determine if it would take less than, equal to or more than an hour-and-a-half is meaningless unless we know what Point A was. In the absence of anything more concrete, Lindbergh could have still been relatively close to NYC or even in Englewood, when he made that call at “about 7:00 pm.” Englewood to Hopewell for example, a little over 60 miles distance, would have been quite achievable by 8:25 pm. Again, Rosner took at least 2 hours to get from NYC to Princeton. No, Lindbergh could not have made it on those roads in an hour and a half. In this case, if he left at 7, less than an hour and a half. This also creates the dilemma, as I've previously pointed out, that he left for Hopewell at 4PM with the Breckinridges that weekend and didn't get there until 7:30PM. You have yet to explain this and its pretty clear why. It's not JUST the distance Joe. Some of these roads were terrible and worse than driving on a washboard. Look at what some of the Reporters were saying. Scathma posted about the headlight situation as a factor as well. And of course we also have to consider the weather. You might want to put your slide rule away for this one at look at this realistically. Did Lindbergh and the Breckinridges really drive directly from their apartment at 4:00 pm and arrive at Highfields about 7:30 pm, taking 3-1/2 hours for an approximately 60 mile trip? That’s less than 20 miles per hour. How do you know this, or are you just guessing? Could the trio possibly have stopped at NDH to try and retrieve Skean for the trip? That would make sense wouldn’t it, considering Lindbergh would have had no intention of carting Skean around with him all day until that point. These are the types of questions we should be asking ourselves as opposed to falling lock step into ‘source documentation’ which I know can be almost sacred to you at times. It doesn’t help to advance this case at all though, without due consideration of all other factors that may or may not come into play. Of course, Skean’s presence in the nursery would have added a wrinkle or two to any intruder’s plans. We can only speculate how the kidnapper(s) might have been prepared to deal with a dog. But I’m pretty sure they would have first considered the results of any noise they were making outside the nursery window in preparation for their ascent, as a kind of acid test within their progress. Dog barking... let’s get out of here. No dog barking... proceed as planned.
What tells us anything else but that no one in the family had really considered the possibility of Charlie being kidnapped out of his own bed thoroughly enough to insist that Skean’s presence in the nursery, should be a critical security and safety requirement? First and foremost, he was Charlie’s buddy and companion. Demonstrate something even close to conclusive proof that Charlie’s family and caregivers expected Skean to perform as a constant watchdog while Charlie was asleep or even playing in his nursery and I’m all ears, my friend.
And obviously, it wasn’t just Lindbergh who felt Skean wasn’t expected to serve as Charlie’s “watchdog.” Both Anne and Betty had perfect opportunities to ensure Skean was there that night, so why did they not act accordingly? Up to now, you’ve been conveniently avoiding this question and I believe just overthinking the one and only avenue that quite predictably, aligns most helpfully with your cause. 1. A " wrinkle or two?" Seriously? " Dog barking... let's get out of here. No dog barking... proceed as planned." Bless your heart Joe. You are a good guy, but this isn't how criminals think. No one planned this without considering the obstacles and planning for them. Next, no one goes into this blind and full of emotion. If they do, they immediately get caught. The fact Skean wasn't there would be a stroke of luck, but there's no way they'd hit the lottery in five or six different ways. That just doesn't happen. I don’t overthink this case Michael, and I believe it’s much simpler than the shifting, elaborate construction you’ve managed to make it for many years. “Five or six different ways” means absolutely nothing towards this having been a planned fake kidnapping if each one of those examples, under reasonable scrutiny as a contributing factor, has the potential to fall flat on its ass. And rather than try to bring each one of them to ground within some collaborative and logical thought process, you seem content in just pointing proudly to what you’ve concluded in print and be done with it. Your often-expressed sentiment that such “examples” should serve as the basis for intelligent discussion here, followed by your clear unwillingness to do so most times, demonstrates this to be little more than hollow hype.2. This idea that I must prove Skean was considered a watch-dog is a straw man argument. Anne clearly believed if he was there that night, the child probably wouldn't have been kidnapped. And why? Because the house would have been alerted. It's basic common sense. Using the straw man argument excuse here is a straw man argument in itself. You’ve clearly implied, inferred and innuendoed (not a real word by the way, but I’m sure you get the point) your way through this event to demonstrate your belief that Lindbergh fully intended to leave Skean behind, so why not pack up the bull’s hit? Yes, any rational and sane individual would understand that Charlie might not have been kidnapped if Skean had been in the nursery that night. Anne clearly laments this “what if” just as Margaret Junge did. And even Charles Lindbergh expressed to Anne something along the lines, “and to think how safe and secure we felt living there.” 3. Asked and answered. I’d say more a case of my question having been whimsically avoided, quite possibly by way of a dead seagull.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 17, 2022 13:44:45 GMT -5
Did Lindbergh and the Breckinridges really drive directly from their apartment at 4:00 pm and arrive at Highfields about 7:30 pm, taking 3-1/2 hours for an approximately 60 mile trip? That’s less than 20 miles per hour. How do you know this, or are you just guessing? Could the trio possibly have stopped at NDH to try and retrieve Skean for the trip? That would make sense wouldn’t it, considering Lindbergh would have had no intention of carting Skean around with him all day until that point. These are the types of questions we should be asking ourselves as opposed to falling lock step into ‘source documentation’ which I know can be almost sacred to you at times. It doesn’t help to advance this case at all though, without due consideration of all other factors that may or may not come into play. Oh, so now its the old selective amnesia trick? It was your original assertion that they did - remember? You mic dropped on me after revealing Lindbergh supposedly left Rockefeller and went directly to the Breckinridge's place, then at 4PM leaving for Highfields. Afterwards, I dashed your position by using other sources you forgot about, pretended to forget about, or just never consulted. I outlined several questions to be asked and now, here in your new rebuttal, you seem to be parroting my original response back at me as if I never mentioned any of it. That's an original tactic, to be sure, but not a very good one. Anyway, welcome aboard Joe. Glad you now you see things my way. I don’t overthink this case Michael, and I believe it’s much simpler than the shifting, elaborate construction you’ve managed to make it for many years. “Five or six different ways” means absolutely nothing towards this having been a planned fake kidnapping if each one of those examples, under reasonable scrutiny as a contributing factor, has the potential to fall flat on its ass. And rather than try to bring each one of them to ground within some collaborative and logical thought process, you seem content in just pointing proudly to what you’ve concluded in print and be done with it. Your often-expressed sentiment that such “examples” should serve as the basis for intelligent discussion here, followed by your clear unwillingness to do so most times, demonstrates this to be little more than hollow hype. Of course you think its simpler, that's pretty obvious. You step into the role of a criminal and repeat what comes to mind. That's simple. Fortunately, you're not a criminal, so pretending to be doesn't assist here. Fact is, if you had tried your hand at this, you would have been immediately arrested and hauled away scratching your head wondering how you just got caught. And so, just go with what the facts reveal instead of pretending to be a crook and/or forensic psychologist. And no, I haven't "constructed" anything. I have nothing to do with what the sources reveal. I do, and am, responsible for finding most of them because others chose not to look. Sorry, not sorry. And again, if you bothered to read my books, all of the things you say could not or would not happen have occurred in other cases/events that are all provable. You are calling what you've overlooked or do not like "hollow hype" as a means of protecting your personal conclusions. It's so obvious its hard to believe you don't realize it yourself which makes me think you actually do. Let's look at the lie-detector as another example. Do you remember why Schwarzkopf didn't use it? No, no, just sweep it under the rug as "hollow hype." No need to disturb that man behind the curtain.... Using the straw man argument excuse here is a straw man argument in itself. You’ve clearly implied, inferred and innuendoed (not a real word by the way, but I’m sure you get the point) your way through this event to demonstrate your belief that Lindbergh fully intended to leave Skean behind, so why not pack up the bull’s hit? Yes, any rational and sane individual would understand that Charlie might not have been kidnapped if Skean had been in the nursery that night. Anne clearly laments this “what if” just as Margaret Junge did. And even Charles Lindbergh expressed to Anne something along the lines, “and to think how safe and secure we felt living there.” Well, if the shoe fits ... wear it. Here you are now admitting to three separate sources yourself. And yet, the demand is that I find a source that labeled Skean a "watchdog?" It's absurd. Why not ask me to find a source that called him a circus dog? What in the hell is the difference? Neither matter to the point at hand. It's just another silly tactic meant to distract from the significance of the dog's absence. And by the way, there are more sources for believing Skean's absence being a factor. Al Dunlap interviewed Chief Wolfe who told him the dog normally slept by the nursery door when the child was in bed. I don't know how he knew that but was in an obvious position to know given the fact he was in the house talking to everyone who was there on March 1 immediately after the crime. And here you go with your belief about what "I" believe where the facts ultimately lead. It's all about what you think I think and not about what the actual information reveals. Again, its not just the "incident" with Skean. The bloodhound situation and the lie detector are two more. Again, all in my books. If you laid them all out on the floor they'd reach from the front door to the back. That's not "luck" - its something else. I’d say more a case of my question having been whimsically avoided, quite possibly by way of a dead seagull. You are playing dumb in order to pretend not to see the correlation. It's right there in front of you. You've been led to water but instead piss in the bowl and go thirsty instead.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 17, 2022 14:08:02 GMT -5
Glad I could help out with your vocabulary. You’ve sent a few new words my way over the years, so I thank you as well. Just give those ‘sleeping dogs’ a shake and remind me what I haven’t “addressed” please and I’ll try, probably once again.
Challenge Junge? In what other way? I’ve already described her basic misunderstanding about the true nature of the Lindberghs’ separate trips to Highfields on Saturday, February 27th. Here, she is mistakenly referencing the otherwise customary habit for the family to drive there from Englewood as a group. Obviously, Junge had forgotten or not realized that Lindbergh had first driven from Englewood to the Rockefeller Institute by himself that morning before picking up the Breckinridges to take them to Highfields, and that Anne, Charlie and Alva had been driven there by Henry Ellerson later in the afternoon. I don’t believe Junge is lying or casting aspersions either. Quite the contrary, she’s just wistfully relating the significance of one of those supremely-unfortunate events in life that contributes towards unforeseen tragedy, albeit stated somewhat inaccurately. If Junge had had a clearer recollection of the event, she might well have included the fact that there were actually two opportunities on that same day for Skean to have been brought to Highfields, and another one the following Tuesday afternoon.
So I'll put you down as believing Junge was truthful but mistaken. That wasn't so hard was it Joe? Why all the round and round and round in the first place? I’m not trying to make you look like anything, you do that all on your own. What I am trying to do is understand what one thing has to do with the other, while at the same time understanding that it's more than likely you haven't truly understood Lindbergh’s actual intent here, nor the reaction of his family and those who had to put up with and deal with his often-strange behavioral aberrations. You don't understand? Seriously? I'll admit I had little idea as to why you originally referenced the seagull account, and how on earth it related to Lindbergh not having brought Skean to Highfields. I believe though I’m beginning to see a hazy picture here.
Before I respond in full, are you possibly suggesting here that by leaving a dead bird lying around Next Day Hill, Lindbergh was demonstrating a kind of “alpha male dominance” and form of intimidation towards others and that actions like this, would have somehow negatively influenced anyone else at Next Day Hill from considering Charlie's companion Skean having been brought to Highfields within the three days leading up and including the kidnapping?
What rules is Lindbergh setting here, other than the ones your own mind is establishing, influencing whether Skean did or did not make the trip to Highfields? As for your other references to Richard, Mulrooney and Hoover neutralizing my point, no they don’t do that at all. Examples like this continue to remind me that by now, you’re probably only half aware of how far you’ve strayed from truly understanding the often-strange complexities of Lindbergh’s character, if you ever did to begin with. Hazy or drunk? You understand Lindbergh but I don't? Dude, you'd refuse to consider anything if I didn't force you to. Your replies to them reveal how far gone you are at this point. You may or may not realize it yourself, although I believe you do. Either way, it makes no difference to me. If you don’t know exactly where Lindbergh called from, then why do you keep trying to make a case about how long it would have taken him to get home? I've answered this many times. Why I'd even have to is beyond me because its common sense. If we have a question where he was, then we must take into consideration all the facts. He called both nights around 7PM. On one night it was too late to drive home. On the other night he drove home. On the night he drove, his wife was downstairs listening for his return starting at 7:30PM. Joe, it takes a LOT longer than a half an hour for that trip to occur. Once AGAIN, Rosner took 2 hours to get from NYC to Princeton. The trip from Princeton to Hopewell ain't 0 so it takes time to get to Highfields from Princeton. Reporters and Police complained that the county roads were horrible. Police blamed Lindbergh for their "machines" (cars) being ruined because it was by his order the headquarters moved from Wilburtha to Highfields where he could control everything. Whited saw a car police believed was Lindbergh's at 7:10PM. According to Michael Keaten, his grandfather told him Lindbergh originally said he was home at 9:25PM and confided in him that it was one of many "lies" Lindbergh told the police. The totality of the evidence place Lindbergh closer to Hopewell than NYC when he made that call.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,650
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Nov 19, 2022 10:09:46 GMT -5
I have no idea what you mean by being glad I now see things your way and most of the other debate tactic chaff that you’ve unloaded here. I’m done with this round of nonsense. You remind me of that kid in grade 11 who grew a beard and walked through the halls with head down, hands behind his back, looking to engage fellow students in debate without real content. And I don't believe you’re the right resource to help move this discussion thread along in a discerning and constructive way. Thankfully to date, I and hopefully others here including you, have come away with a much better understanding of the event specifics and contributing factors that conspired to shape Charlie’s disappearance through Skean's absence in the nursery. In my estimation, it has little to do with this event's lightweight treatment in your books. In the meantime, I'm sure you'll continue to transmogrify (check that one out ) this and other case events, relevant or not, into the construction of your choice on any given day. Sorry no hard feelings, but it's just too difficult and non-productive keeping up with such shifting sands on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 19, 2022 14:33:37 GMT -5
I’m done with this round of nonsense. You remind me of that kid in grade 11 who grew a beard and walked through the halls with head down, hands behind his back, looking to engage fellow students in debate without real content. Well of course everyone remembers that unshaven 11th grader who ... wait ... what??? There was no such kid, at least not where I went to school, and I'd wager not where anyone else went either. So, let's be honest Joe, if such a kid as you describe did in fact exist, that bearded mystery student was actually you - wasn't it?
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Nov 20, 2022 18:14:35 GMT -5
The more I read about this case, Occam’s razor persuades me that BRH was one brave, lucky monster.
He had no idea that under normal circumstances a little dog would be sleeping under Charlie’s bed.
If Lindy had no scruples against killing Charlie he’d surely have murdered the little dog too, without compunction.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 20, 2022 19:19:28 GMT -5
The more I read about this case, Occam’s razor persuades me that BRH was one brave, lucky monster. He had no idea that under normal circumstances a little dog would be sleeping under Charlie’s bed. If Lindy had no scruples against killing Charlie he’d surely have murdered the little dog too, without compunction. Nonsense. The amount of luck here to accomplish this would be staggeringly impossible, from their last minute decision to stay at Hopewell, to the obvious skill at which the boardwalk was used, the daring kidnap at peak time while everyone in the house was awake, the dog Lindbergh left home, etc. It defies logic. The whole point was that Lindbergh wanted to create sympathy while removing Charlie. Hitler loved dogs too but sent millions of Jews to the gas chamber. The idea that Skean would be killed, rather than just leaving him out of the way back in Englewood, is silly.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Nov 21, 2022 4:32:56 GMT -5
Before he committed suicide Hitler killed his dog Blondie, a German shepherd, by giving her cyanide . He also drowned her little pups and took them all with him, along with his mistress/wife. No redeeming feature here. I am not suggesting that Lindbergh would do the same; there may be no parallel between these two men.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 21, 2022 15:49:29 GMT -5
Before he committed suicide Hitler killed his dog Blondie, a German shepherd, by giving her cyanide . He also drowned her little pups and took them all with him, along with his mistress/wife. No redeeming feature here. I am not suggesting that Lindbergh would do the same; there may be no parallel between these two men. Sure but that was because he was saving her from capture by the soviets and was convinced the cyanide wasn't real, after her death he was hysterical. The point remains that many people love dogs (as Hitler did) while deeply believing in eugenics (as Hitler did).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 22, 2022 13:47:47 GMT -5
For me, the idea that an easier solution to this obstacle was to murder Skean doesn't make any sense. The control to this whole matter is Wahgoosh. In his case, Lindbergh chose to lie about him. So in one case he left the dog behind and in the next he made the assertion he didn't expect the other to bark. Fortunately for us, he wasn't on the same page as everyone else so we know from Anne, Betty, Mrs. Whateley and the Cops that Wahgoosh absolutely would have. The letter below is about the breed and was written before the police became familiar with Wahgoosh.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Nov 23, 2022 20:11:40 GMT -5
Think about it.
The most famous man in America is ashamed of his little son.
So, he pays criminals to snatch the child away, from his room.
It’s not just little dogs in the house that can get him caught, it’s his wife, and the staff waking in, not to mention the criminal blackmailing him.
Lindy was a racist, bigoted asshole.
Who was a crime victim.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 23, 2022 20:43:24 GMT -5
Think about it. The most famous man in America is ashamed of his little son. So, he pays criminals to snatch the child away, from his room. It’s not just little dogs in the house that can get him caught, it’s his wife, and the staff waking in, not to mention the criminal blackmailing him. Lindy was a racist, bigoted asshole. Who was a crime victim. You forgot Eugenicist. You forgot a Controller. And you forgot Powerful. Regardless, what does being a racist and bigot have to do with being responsible for leaving the dog behind that would have been lying next to the nursery door AND lying on the stand in Flemington by falsely testifying he wouldn't expect Wahgoosh to bark? Every other source on the planet says he would have so I cannot understand how some find it so easy to ignore things like this. I've thought about it since I was a child growing up with everyone at my grandparents' age telling me about it. It's a main reason why I started doing serious archival research 22 years ago. Next, Lindbergh never had to worry about anyone in his family or on his staff since they were all afraid of him. But we do have Whateley's confession that at least one person in the house was involved. So he knew more but waited until he was about to die before he said anything. Finally, your argument about how Lindbergh would have committed this does not match how I believe it would have been done. So by knocking down something else doesn't affect what I personally believe. There's nothing that says you have to read my books, but could you at least read the posts?
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Nov 24, 2022 2:34:56 GMT -5
Those who devote a great deal of time to research the Lindbergh Kidnapping do a valuable service to the historical record.
Not the least of that service is to expose far right wing ideology for the cesspool of ignorance and hatred it has always been and ever will be. Perhaps the glorification of Lindbergh as a the Hero of The Solo Transatlantic Flight to Paris generations of schoolteachers taught children like me will stop.
Yet every piece of the known evidence points to somebody or group of people planning a bold kidnap for ransom, which by 1932 was as much as an epidemic as somebody waking into a school, church, store, or nightclub and mowing down a lot of innocent people is today.
I own an AR-15 and I use it for targets and shot deer with it last week.
In 90 years my descendants might wonder why I owned such a dreadful weapon of war.
Me and millions of other people saw nothing evil in buying a cool rifle the day we bought one.
Morality is dependent on the morals of the times.
Lindy was a typical conservative in 1932. Millions of prosperous Americans shared every right wing view he did, and kidnappers didn’t target poor folks.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 24, 2022 9:57:55 GMT -5
Those who devote a great deal of time to research the Lindbergh Kidnapping do a valuable service to the historical record. Not the least of that service is to expose far right wing ideology for the cesspool of ignorance and hatred it has always been and ever will be. Perhaps the glorification of Lindbergh as a the Hero of The Solo Transatlantic Flight to Paris generations of schoolteachers taught children like me will stop. I'm not a big fan of arguing about modern day politics. Presentism can strike down just about every "Hero" from our past whether they be right, middle, or left. We cannot erase history, as you've suggested, because we will ultimately wind up with what Orwell predicted. That said, Lindbergh's attitude was common back then, and this idea that an Eugenicist might consider getting rid of an offspring for any number of reasons needs to be considered. If in one's final conclusion he had nothing to do with it then so be it. But shrugging it off before that due consideration is reckless in my opinion. Yet every piece of the known evidence points to somebody or group of people planning a bold kidnap for ransom, which by 1932 was as much as an epidemic as somebody waking into a school, church, store, or nightclub and mowing down a lot of innocent people is today. Every piece? Does that include the two above that you just swept under the rug? Or literally the hundreds of others you've chosen to ignore or do not know about?
|
|
|
Post by trojan on Nov 24, 2022 21:17:17 GMT -5
Yet every piece of the known evidence points to somebody or group of people planning a bold kidnap for ransom, which by 1932 was as much as an epidemic as somebody waking into a school, church, store, or nightclub and mowing down a lot of innocent people is today. Absolutely an epidemic. Which is why, if you're Lindbergh and a diehard eugenicist, a kidnapping would have been an ideal way to "remove" the child without raising any suspicion and simultaneously creating public sympathy. It was a very believable ruse. Particularly if you extricate yourself from the plot far enough so it's not traceable. Eugenicists in Europe were having family members removed to be destroyed or, at the very least, sent to sanitariums. Whether the NJSP had checked on the health of the baby, given the plight of eugenics in Europe and Lindbergh's known associations with the movement, was literally the first thing Scotland Yard asked when they were consulted for help.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Nov 25, 2022 16:01:30 GMT -5
Following up on Skeptical’s remarks, I do hope that American schoolchildren continue to be told of Lindbergh’s courageous solo flight across the Atlantic in 1927. It showed guts and an extraordinary level of self-confidence in the 25 year old US Mail pilot. Navigating by the stars for heaven’s sake! A tremendous achievement which is justly celebrated. In an age when we need heroes more than ever ……..
We like our bogeymen to be painted the deepest shade of black. It is undeniable that Lindbergh’s domineering character, lack of social skills, probable involvement in his son’s abduction, eugenicist views, anti-semitism, worship of Nazi Germany and his extra-marital fathering of seven progeny have, to say the least, damaged his reputation. But none of this, serious though it is, should intrude on the hero status accorded him in 1927.
It was this same self-belief and his steering of the investigation into blind alleys that enabled Lindbergh to fool the world into believing his son had been kidnapped for ransom. If he insulated himself from direct involvement by intermediaries and cut-outs it is likely that the person/people who physically took the child away from that house believed it was a kidnap for ransom. Otherwise why have the insulating intermediaries?
Lindbergh had a deeply flawed personality. A racist and ruthless bigot who, as his sister-in-law said “If he hadn’t flown the Atlantic would be running a gas station outside St Louis.”
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,650
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Nov 26, 2022 8:42:33 GMT -5
I’m done with this round of nonsense. You remind me of that kid in grade 11 who grew a beard and walked through the halls with head down, hands behind his back, looking to engage fellow students in debate without real content. Well of course everyone remembers that unshaven 11th grader who ... wait ... what??? There was no such kid, at least not where I went to school, and I'd wager not where anyone else went either. So, let's be honest Joe, if such a kid as you describe did in fact exist, that bearded mystery student was actually you - wasn't it? Michael, I couldn’t have grown a beard in grade 11 if my life depended on it. Here I am 50 odd years later and I’ve still never had one. BTW, you should have seen that kid's sideburns in grade 9!
|
|