Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 26, 2022 9:20:59 GMT -5
There were a number of opportunities for various individuals to have brought Skean to Highfields in the critical period just prior to Charlie’s kidnapping, if it was even lightly considered that his presence there was crucial to Charlie’s safety alone in the nursery, and not just for the sake of companionship.
Anne Lindbergh, Alva Root and Henry Ellerson could have brought him on the Saturday afternoon. Betty Gow and Henry could have brought him on Tuesday afternoon. Why didn’t they think of doing this? Was Skean’s apparent “indispensability based on 20/20 hindsight after the crime” even on their radars, before the crime?
Margeurite Junge got it wrong in her mini-autobiography, when she stated that the “family had to drive off without the dog” on Saturday, February 27, 1932. She had obviously forgotten or inaccurately recollected that Lindbergh had left Englewood on that Saturday morning for work at the Rockefeller Institute prior to him having picked up the Breckinridges at their apartment for the trip out to Highfields. So there was a disruption within the normal process of the family driving together from Next Day Hill to Highfields. Junge's flawed account is the sole source mentioned in Dark Corners 1, and it's clearly not the only one that should be considered. An objective consideration of all the dynamics that shaped events that weekend up to and including Charlie's disappearance, should include the abovementioned points in paragraph 2 as well.
Also to consider. At the time of Charlie's disappearance, Wahgoosh lay asleep within his bed in the Whateley's servant quarters, at the farthest end of the house from the nursery. If anyone had truly believed that Skean's presence in the nursery was crucial to Charlie's safety that night, wouldn't it have made sense for Wahgoosh to have been placed in the nursery, instead of a location where he was essentially useless towards that purpose?
I believe the one irresistible truth within this whole thread scenario, is that Skean was not Charlie's "watchdog" and therefore his presence in the nursery when Charlie was there alone, was not considered by the family to be of critical importance.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 26, 2022 9:40:05 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. Unfortunately, your analysis falls short as each of the dozen or so points you often trot out, is analyzed individually, objectively and without bias. There is probably no other crime, at least within the extreme degree of investigation and publicity experienced, that was more favoured to misfortune for the victim and advantage to the perpetrator than this one. And its sheer audacity and strangeness was highly favoured to those with the right kind of vision, sheer determination, acute sense of adaptability and iron will, before, during and after such a crime.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 26, 2022 10:12:28 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.” Did Lindbergh ever intentionally steer the investigation into blind alleys? Quite possibly, during the time he insisted on dealing directly with the extortionist(s) if and when he felt Charlie's life might be in danger through some action on the part of investigators. Did Lindbergh take this same negative action after the discovery of his son's corpse? If you're aware of any examples for discussion, please let me know. BTW, and I believe this quote is from Berg's 'Lindbergh.' "Anne’s former mentor from Smith, Mina Curtiss, for one, initially found him “really no more than a mechanic, and that had it not been for the Lone Eagle flight, he would now be in charge of a gasoline station on the outskirts at St. Louis.”" Mina, apparently did not consider Lindbergh's vision and planning abilities, cutting edge design and mechanical skills, sense of self-promotion and his ability to "network," nor his almost-unlimited degree of determination, in her crude assessment.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 26, 2022 10:33:17 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.” I agree with a lot of what you've written. Obviously, I'm not regarded as a Lindbergh defender by any stretch. When I was growing up, all the bad things were hidden, but now, its just the opposite. I want it all. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Without everything, we will never be able to truly learn about whatever it is we want to know. What Lindbergh did by flying solo across the Atlantic was phenomenal. And frankly, there's a lot of flawed people who did great things. Look at Roosevelt. What happened to the Japanese Americans because of his EO is disgusting in my opinion. However, should we erase WWII as if it didn't happen because of it? Or remove his name from our history altogether? Anyway, I don't want to beat a dead horse or get into a debate outside of the topic so enough about that. Getting back to what Lindbergh did... He took the riskiest risk anyone could have ever taken. Why? Because he believed he was right and could do it. Now, what we see in this case, are certain people claiming Lindbergh would "never take the risk" of getting rid of his son. See how that works? Of course he would do whatever he wanted, and if he believed he was right or could pull it off he would absolutely take that risk. We have a famous and factual event that proves it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 26, 2022 10:49:17 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.” I agree with a lot of what you've written. Obviously, I'm not regarded as a Lindbergh defender by any stretch. When I was growing up, all the bad things were hidden, but now, its just the opposite. I want it all. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Without everything, we will never be able to truly learn about whatever it is we want to know. What Lindbergh did by flying solo across the Atlantic was phenomenal. And frankly, there's a lot of flawed people who did great things. Look at Roosevelt. What happened to the Japanese Americans because of his EO is disgusting in my opinion. However, should we erase WWII as if it didn't happen because of it? Or remove his name from our history altogether? Anyway, I don't want to beat a dead horse or get into a debate outside of the topic so enough about that. Getting back to what Lindbergh did... He took the riskiest risk anyone could have ever taken. Why? Because he believed he was right and could do it. Now, what we see in this case, are certain people claiming Lindbergh would "never take the risk" of getting rid of his son. See how that works? Of course he would do whatever he wanted, and if he believed he was right or could pull it off he would absolutely take that risk. We have a provable event that proves it. Lindbergh also believed he was adequately prepared through design and planning to singlehandedly fly the Atlantic. So would he have been capable of planning his own son's kidnapping and killing? Certainly, it would seem to have been within his scope, but he'd have been a fool for even mentioning it to anyone whom he felt could have assisted him. Did he have motive? No, he loved his son and wanted nothing to do at all with intrusions into his life, which of course a faked or real kidnapping would have necessitated. Would he have gotten away with such an ill-conceived scheme after 90 years, and more importantly during the investigation and within the 'warm period' after the crime? Not a chance.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 26, 2022 11:03:43 GMT -5
There were a number of opportunities for various individuals to have brought Skean to Highfields in the critical period just prior to Charlie’s kidnapping, if it was even lightly considered that his presence there was crucial to Charlie’s safety alone in the nursery, and not just for the sake of companionship. More proof that you don't actually read what I write. I answered these points in our earlier exchange. Repeating them again later doesn't change anything. It's been established that Lindbergh was responsible for leaving him behind. That Skean would have been lying near the nursery door had Lindbergh chosen to bring him down. That Skean would have caused a "kidnapper" serious problems had he been there. AGAIN, it was Lindbergh who left a dead seagull under his window and nobody touched it. It lay there for days. That's where he wanted it, so no one dared move it or dispose of it. Think someone was going to bring Skean along if Lindbergh was the guy who was supposed to do it? Sure you do, but to everyone else? No. If they wouldn't touch a dead bird they're not going to undermine him concerning his dog. That's how it was. Anne Lindbergh, Alva Root and Henry Ellerson could have brought him on the Saturday afternoon. Betty Gow and Henry could have brought him on Tuesday afternoon. Why didn’t they think of doing this? Was Skean’s apparent “indispensability based on 20/20 hindsight after the crime” even on their radars, before the crime? See above. They could have picked up the Breckinridges too but they didn't. Why not? Because Lindbergh was supposed to. If he told them to bring Skean down, now that's a different story, because they would have. You see, every time you try to make a point, you shoot yourself in the foot. Margeurite Junge got it wrong in her mini-autobiography, when she stated that the “family had to drive off without the dog” on Saturday, February 27, 1932. She had obviously forgotten or inaccurately recollected that Lindbergh had left Englewood on that Saturday morning for work at the Rockefeller Institute prior to him having picked up the Breckinridges at their apartment for the trip out to Highfields. So there was a disruption within the normal process of the family driving together from Next Day Hill to Highfields. Junge's flawed account is the sole source mentioned in Dark Corners 1, and it's clearly not the only one that should be considered. An objective consideration of all the dynamics that shaped events that weekend up to and including Charlie's disappearance, should include the abovementioned points in paragraph 2 as well. All dealt with previously. You have a bad habit of forgetting about previous exchanges. You know, where I offered a rebuttal, never heard anything that disputes my position, then the tired old arguments are resurrected as if they were never neutralized. Also to consider. At the time of Charlie's disappearance, Wahgoosh lay asleep within his bed in the Whateley's servant quarters, at the farthest end of the house from the nursery. If anyone had truly believed that Skean's presence in the nursery was crucial to Charlie's safety that night, wouldn't it have made sense for Wahgoosh to have been placed in the nursery, instead of a location where he was essentially useless towards that purpose? First of all, do you believe those in the house already knew the child was going to be taken or not? If yes, none of your points matter. If not, then why in the hell would they be worried about it? The windows were unlocked and the shutter was warped. Who didn't get the shutter fixed? Lindbergh. Who left Skean behind? Lindbergh. Who set the rules about when the child could or could not be disturbed. Lindbergh. Who lied about whether or not Wahgoosh would have barked? Lindbergh. And here you are trying to argue that Wahgoosh should have been placed in the nursery as a means to neutralize the fact that Lindbergh purposely left Skean behind? It makes no sense. As far as Wahgoosh is concerned, who hasn't thought about him? There you go again shooting yourself in the foot. Everyone said he would have barked if he heard something except Lindbergh who lied about it. Why? What's the motivation to lie about such a thing? And so, Wahgoosh seems to be tucked away in his basket at about the furthest part of the house from the Nursery. Another stroke of luck for the Kidnappers! And again, if he heard something, he would have barked. Once you start to look at the odds concerning all that HAD to have happened for this thing to work then it doesn't make any sense when considering the Kidnappers struck out on a night the family wasn't even supposed to be there. It's too much Joe. I know you see it, so come up with an alternative scenario because your strategy thus far kinda sucks. Give me something. Blame Whateley. Blame Gow. Blame somebody because we both know Hauptmann didn't blindly strike out into the night and pull this off like we've been led to believe. It's impossible and you know it. I believe the one irresistible truth within this whole thread scenario, is that Skean was not Charlie's "watchdog" and therefore his presence in the nursery when Charlie was there alone, was not considered by the family to be of critical importance. Oh for Christ's sake! Skean was his constant companion. He was supposed to be there but was left behind. Had he been there, Anne herself basically tells us the crime probably wouldn't have occurred.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 26, 2022 12:46:01 GMT -5
There were a number of opportunities for various individuals to have brought Skean to Highfields in the critical period just prior to Charlie’s kidnapping, if it was even lightly considered that his presence there was crucial to Charlie’s safety alone in the nursery, and not just for the sake of companionship. More proof that you don't actually read what I write. I answered these points in our earlier exchange. Repeating them again later doesn't change anything. It's been established that Lindbergh was responsible for leaving him behind. That Skean would have been lying near the nursery door had Lindbergh chosen to bring him down. That Skean would have caused a "kidnapper" serious problems had he been there. AGAIN, it was Lindbergh who left a dead seagull under his window and nobody touched it. It lay there for days. That's where he wanted it, so no one dared move it or dispose of it. Think someone was going to bring Skean along if Lindbergh was the guy who was supposed to do it? Sure you do, but to everyone else? No. If they wouldn't touch a dead bird they're not going to undermine him concerning his dog. That's how it was. Your position about the dead seagull is whimsical opinion at best, and just another example of how you work 24/7 to keep your house of cards propped up when you feel cornered. Lindbergh was a jerk in many regards plain and simple and this was one of his stupid jokes. Nobody wanted to pick up that dead bird because they didn't want to stoop as low as to "serving him." Providing this is an analogy to the reason for Skean's absence is both ludicrous and laughable. Anne Lindbergh, Alva Root and Henry Ellerson could have brought him on the Saturday afternoon. Betty Gow and Henry could have brought him on Tuesday afternoon. Why didn’t they think of doing this? Was Skean’s apparent “indispensability based on 20/20 hindsight after the crime” even on their radars, before the crime? See above. They could have picked up the Breckinridges too but they didn't. Why not? Because Lindbergh was supposed to. If he told them to bring Skean down, now that's a different story, because they would have. You see, every time you try to make a point, you shoot yourself in the foot. Prove to me that anyone at Highfields or Next Day Hill thought it was important enough for Skean (or Wahgoosh) to be in Charlie’s nursery that evening for his security and protection. The phrase, “Put up or clam up” comes to mind here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 26, 2022 12:49:44 GMT -5
Margeurite Junge got it wrong in her mini-autobiography, when she stated that the “family had to drive off without the dog” on Saturday, February 27, 1932. She had obviously forgotten or inaccurately recollected that Lindbergh had left Englewood on that Saturday morning for work at the Rockefeller Institute prior to him having picked up the Breckinridges at their apartment for the trip out to Highfields. So there was a disruption within the normal process of the family driving together from Next Day Hill to Highfields. Junge's flawed account is the sole source mentioned in Dark Corners 1, and it's clearly not the only one that should be considered. An objective consideration of all the dynamics that shaped events that weekend up to and including Charlie's disappearance, should include the abovementioned points in paragraph 2 as well. All dealt with previously. You have a bad habit of forgetting about previous exchanges. You know, where I offered a rebuttal, never heard anything that disputes my position, then the tired old arguments are resurrected as if they were never neutralized. Dealt with.. right. And you have the worst habit of ignoring and being able to address sound logical thinking and rational argument. Also to consider. At the time of Charlie's disappearance, Wahgoosh lay asleep within his bed in the Whateley's servant quarters, at the farthest end of the house from the nursery. If anyone had truly believed that Skean's presence in the nursery was crucial to Charlie's safety that night, wouldn't it have made sense for Wahgoosh to have been placed in the nursery, instead of a location where he was essentially useless towards that purpose? First of all, do you believe those in the house already knew the child was going to be taken or not? If yes, none of your points matter. If not, then why in the hell would they be worried about it? The windows were unlocked and the shutter was warped. Who didn't get the shutter fixed? Lindbergh. Who left Skean behind? Lindbergh. Who set the rules about when the child could or could not be disturbed. Lindbergh. Who lied about whether or not Wahgoosh would have barked? Lindbergh. And here you are trying to argue that Wahgoosh should have been placed in the nursery as a means to neutralize the fact that Lindbergh purposely left Skean behind? It makes no sense. As far as Wahgoosh is concerned, who hasn't thought about him? There you go again shooting yourself in the foot. Everyone said he would have barked if he heard something except Lindbergh who lied about it. Why? What's the motivation to lie about such a thing? And so, Wahgoosh seems to be tucked away in his basket at about the furthest part of the house from the Nursery. Another stroke of luck for the Kidnappers! And again, if he heard something, he would have barked. Once you start to look at the odds concerning all that HAD to have happened for this thing to work then it doesn't make any sense when considering the Kidnappers struck out on a night the family wasn't even supposed to be there. It's too much Joe. I know you see it, so come up with an alternative scenario because your strategy thus far kinda sucks. Give me something. Blame Whateley. Blame Gow. Blame somebody because we both know Hauptmann didn't blindly strike out into the night and pull this off like we've been led to believe. It's impossible and you know it. Try to calm down and we’ll address each point separately and objectively. (I can just hear Judge Trenchard) Between you and Trojan, you guys have an absolute lock on cloud yelling.I believe the one irresistible truth within this whole thread scenario, is that Skean was not Charlie's "watchdog" and therefore his presence in the nursery when Charlie was there alone, was not considered by the family to be of critical importance. Oh for Christ's sake! Skean was his constant companion. He was supposed to be there but was left behind. Had he been there, Anne herself basically tells us the crime probably wouldn't have occurred. You just do not get it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 26, 2022 20:50:21 GMT -5
Prove to me that anyone at Highfields or Next Day Hill thought it was important enough for Skean (or Wahgoosh) to be in Charlie’s nursery that evening for his security and protection. The phrase, “Put up or clam up” comes to mind here. I just waded thru your BS replies and couldn't find one legitimate rebuttal to ANY of the points I made. Not one. I got a few chuckles imagining you with a box of crayons mapping out what you were planning to say and having a big self congratulatory grin on your face once finished. Unfortunately there's nothing there. What the hell am I supposed to say in response to this nonsense? I quoted your punchline because its very much like your strategy in our last go round. There you demanded I quote someone saying Skean was a "watch-dog" ... remember? Again, if a kidnapper planned to remove the child, would they want Skean, a Scottish Terrier who loved the child, to be there as they climbed through that window? I'll answer that for you: NO! They wouldn't care if anyone referred to it as a "watch-dog" or not as it was biting them in the ass or barking his head off as most terriers will do. So how did the kidnappers plan for Skean? That should be the question you should actually be asking, not this other ridiculous one. Seriously, its meaningless. Next, and this one you will really hate, if Lindbergh was behind the scheme, would he want Skean to be there? I'll answer this for you: NO! By leaving him at Next Day Hill, that solves that. And what about Wahgoosh? How did the Kidnappers plan for him? Would they want him within earshot of their entry thru the window? I'll answer again: NO! How did they plan for him? Well, if you were them, wouldn't you want him in the room the furthest away from the Nursery? I would. You, probably not. My guess is you'd bring a flute and play a tune to soothe the hound into submission. Let's stop with the Beavis and Butthead routine. It's time to get real Joe, because it's hard to take you seriously anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Nov 27, 2022 8:16:32 GMT -5
Hi Joe, “Did Lindbergh ever intentionally steer the investigation into blind alleys? How many example will suffice? 1. He had minor underworld figures Spitz and Vitale (neither of them Don Corleone) investigating “leads” within days of the kidnap. Any casual student of the kidnap epidemic would know that kidnap was not the province of organised crime who were too busy controlling labour unions, legitimising their booze operations, extortion, rigging government contacts etc. Most kidnappers were unaffiliated individuals like the Barker-Karpis gang from the Ozarks. 2. Condon. This Bronx blowhard, embraced by Lindbergh at the outset, was a ready-made source of false leads. Never giving the same version of a story twice, he went to Florida to interview “suspects”, not to mention the Tuckahoe lady story. 3. Curtis. Again accepted by Lindbergh, he claimed to have met some of the kidnap gang face to face. Another false lead. 4. Lindbergh. With his unsuccessful objection to having the serial numbers of ransom bills recorded he behaved as if he didn’t want the perps to be caught. What possible danger to the child’s life was there if, as anticipated, a cash on delivery deal was to take place?
You describe CAL as having cutting edge design and mechanical skills among his other virtues, and yet he flunked out of college after only a couple of semesters. “They treat you like children” was his comment. Maybe with good reason in his case.
I believe Lindbergh loved his son. And in a strange way to we non-eugenicists, his decision to end his son’s life was an expression of that love and concern. Much has been made of Dr Van Inghens diagnosis but I doubt whether we have the complete story from that source. I believe the main trigger for the fateful decision was only partly Charlie’s current condition but the prognosis given by experts especially if hydrocephalus was detected. With this the outlook was indeed dire. CAL acted to spare the child increased future suffering from what was an incurable condition in 1932. Speculation on my part, I freely admit. Regards, Sherlock
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 27, 2022 11:14:42 GMT -5
Hi Joe, “Did Lindbergh ever intentionally steer the investigation into blind alleys? How many example will suffice? 1. He had minor underworld figures Spitz and Vitale (neither of them Don Corleone) investigating “leads” within days of the kidnap. Any casual student of the kidnap epidemic would know that kidnap was not the province of organised crime who were too busy controlling labour unions, legitimising their booze operations, extortion, rigging government contacts etc. Most kidnappers were unaffiliated individuals like the Barker-Karpis gang from the Ozarks. Lindbergh only agreed to have Bitz and Spitale enter the case, at Henry Breckinridge’s urging that ‘professionals’, ie. gangsters were involved and so this approach was recommended to him. Congresswoman Ruth Pratt instigated the whole sordid affair the day after the kidnapping by telling Colonel Bill Donovan that Mickey Rosner would be the best man to explore underworld avenues for appropriate contacts who could then act as independent agents in trying to recover the child. Donovan got in touch with Robert Thayer who contacted Breckinridge. Prior to his involvement in the case, Rosner was deemed to be trustworthy through the further recommendation of at least two US Senators. If this is Lindbergh steering the investigation into blind alleys as you imply here, I’m certainly not seeing it. 2. Condon. This Bronx blowhard, embraced by Lindbergh at the outset, was a ready-made source of false leads. Never giving the same version of a story twice, he went to Florida to interview “suspects”, not to mention the Tuckahoe lady story. Both Lindbergh and Breckinridge were suitably impressed with Condon’s ready-made connection to the case, as well as his displayed credentials, character and sincerity when he first came to Highfields. Once on board, Condon’s words and actions often proved to be erratic, at times helpful and other times not. I believe you’ll find that most of these ‘false leads’ originated during what must have been a busy and stressful ransom negotiations period when he, Lindbergh and Breckinridge were not being monitored by official investigators. While I don’t fully understand all of the dynamics within Condon’s conundrums and I’d venture no one really does, I firmly believe he never wavered within his originally-stated intention to serve the Lindberghs towards the safe recovery of their child and having been unsuccessful in doing that, to do all he could to bring what he considered were perpetrators (in the plural), to justice.3. Curtis. Again accepted by Lindbergh, he claimed to have met some of the kidnap gang face to face. Another false lead. John Curtis, who Lindbergh felt was his only remaining option towards the recovery of his son, deceived the latter in a very vile way. Is this Lindbergh, or Curtis doing the “blind alley leading” here? 4. Lindbergh. With his unsuccessful objection to having the serial numbers of ransom bills recorded he behaved as if he didn’t want the perps to be caught. What possible danger to the child’s life was there if, as anticipated, a cash on delivery deal was to take place? I would not have paid the ransom without proof the child was alive, but I see nothing else but to believe Lindbergh naively believed the kidnappers could be taken at their word, after it appeared to him they had delivered on their promises to date. Ultimately, he rolled the dice and took his best shot and he wasn’t the only one within his direct sphere of influence who wanted to see the ransom paid without conclusive proof the child was alive. You describe CAL as having cutting edge design and mechanical skills among his other virtues, and yet he flunked out of college after only a couple of semesters. “They treat you like children” was his comment. Maybe with good reason in his case. I’m not comparing Lindbergh to Albert Einstein, but even the latter took almost two years to find an academic position after failing a number of courses of study, only to find himself in the relatively low station of patent clerk. Lindbergh didn’t agree and do well within the academic and social framework he tried to fit himself into for the formal advancement of his own education. He did find success within the right environment though. In Alexis Carrel’s laboratory at the Rockefeller Institute, Lindbergh’s formidable mechanical design insights drawn from real life experiences, ultimately allowed him to perfect his perfusion apparatus. Lindbergh exceeded even the expectations his mentor Carrel had of him, no small feat there.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Nov 28, 2022 3:04:14 GMT -5
I have the impression from your reply Joe that if Lindbergh took on help via an intermediary then this absolves him of any responsibility for the hired man’s actions. Bearing in mind CAL’s controlling personality I can imagine him demanding full information regarding the plans and next steps of these characters and demanding they act only with his approval.
Yes, Bitz and Spitale were recommended by Breckinridge but CAL approved of them and provided full facilities at Highfield for their work. It led nowhere.
Condon did come with the intro of having been contacted by the kidnappers and no doubt made a reasonable first impression with CAL. But once his eccentricity and unreliability became evident CAL continued to back him. I don’t think CAL can avoid partial responsibility for some of Condon’s behaviour.
CAL cannot avoid responsibility for backing the trickster Curtis even when his claims e.g meeting the kidnappers, were obviously suspect.
I too think Condon was working towards delivery of the living child in spite of any doubts he may have had. I still don’t see how secretly recording the serial numbers of the ransom bills before payment could possibly compromise the child’s chances of survival. Yet CAL opposed it.
I agree that in spite of his anti-academic bias Lindbergh was a gifted hands-on engineer as evidenced by his work on the perfusion pump.
So in summary I don’t think CAL can wriggle out of responsibility for encouraging the actors in these dead end ventures: the non involvement of organised crime, Condon paying $50K for the return of his living child and CAL getting a corpse instead, and Curtis’s vile deceptions. In my view these was smoke and mirrors to conceal CAL’s knowledge that these leads would lead in the right direction - away from himself..
Excuse me while I don my other hat:
A significant number of killers experienced head trauma in their earlier years. Apparently judgement and risk-taking are affected. Hauptmann suffered concussion as a gunner during WW1. Has his angle ever been explored?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 29, 2022 10:13:30 GMT -5
There's so many things that its hard to keep track of. It's one of the motivators that caused me to finally write the books. Even still, there's things I sometimes forget about that are written there. And besides all of that, there are things I didn't write about. I notice Joe didn't address the Lie Detector test. Can't say I blame him. Lindbergh prevented it because he had faith in the staff and didn't want to embarrass them. It's obstructing the investigation for sure, but Schwarzkopf allowed it. Strange once considering what he told Agent Larimer about his suspicions, or the possibilities at least, concerning staff. If he had this attitude, it makes his rejection of such a test all the more suspicious. Then there's what he told Cowie: Colonel Lindbergh told me that there was no other deduction to be made; that it could not have been done by one man and one man alone, and that he would even go so far as to say that until this crime was solved, he and every member of his family and household, was a legitimate subject. (TDC, V1, P326) Red flag anyone? When someone says something like this you should always believe them. Yet, he was the guy who prevented the lie detector? Didn't want to "embarrass" the staff? Had complete "faith" in them? With this in mind, the nursemaids have always been very interesting. The very attractive Cummings was shown a lot of attention by Lindbergh who he even shared the plans for Highfields with. However, the child was "declining" under her care and she suddenly decides to quit. Miss Coppin takes over and by everyone's account was a great nursemaid. The child starts to do better. But Lindbergh didn't like her, so she gets fired, and that leads to Gow. Gow is the one who hoped to latch onto a rich family, marry a rich man, and retire to a life of luxury. During the investigation, certain Police and Reporters suspect Gow is Lindbergh's "mistress." Tpr. Kelly overhears Lindbergh telling Gow to " keep her mouth shut" on the night of March 1. While interviewing Gow without Lindbergh present, Garsson pressed her causing her to proclaim: " Lindbergh promised I wouldn't be touched." It's no wonder Cummings wanted "out" and Gow got the "blues" on her way to Highfields. Heck, I'd get the "blues" too if I knew my whole life was about to be turned upside down. There was an investigation concerning a man named Sylvan Ortleib. A lawyer named Dudley Kohler called in the tip, and spoke to Lindbergh personally. This tip provided circumstantial evidence that Cummings crossed paths with this man by frequenting the same speakeasy Ortlieb was always at. Later on in the investigation there were insinuations about Gow as well. However, Lindbergh had attempted to keep this information from law enforcement. He told the informant, a lawyer named Dudley Kohler, not to tell the police but to keep it confidentially between to two of them. That's why when police originally approached Kohler he refused to divulge what he knew. Then there's the whole FBI thing, when they were being kept in the dark. We could blame Schwarzkopf, of course, but Lindbergh had the ultimate say. If, for example, he wanted them to have access to the secret symbol - they would have. And we have evidence of them giving their professional advice concerning areas of investigation and/or actions that Schwarzkopf seemed pleased with until he conferred with Lindbergh. After which he'd return and let them know they weren't going to do any of it. Lindbergh presence, as another example, when staff were being questioned. That should have never happened. His influence could be felt even after the child was found dead. Why no lie detector then? We also have what Lt. Keaten told his grandson Michael, or what Walsh told Jim Bahm's uncle. Heck, this was recorded by Agent Sisk during a conversation with Capt. Lamb and Lt. Keaten: considerable talk about how powerful Col. Lindbergh is, that he could get anyone, including government employees, in plenty of trouble if they interfered in any way with the investigation.(V1, P332)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 29, 2022 14:20:17 GMT -5
From your first reply within this specific discussion thread Michael, you’ve done little more than offer interference, deflection and hyperbole towards an objective and constructive path forward on the subject.
Essentially, you began with a "disclaimer" of sorts to promote the premise that a list of entirely debatable and often half-baked interpretations of factual events, when trotted out simultaneously, somehow creates a damning accumulative effect, the obvious inference on your part being the finger of suspicion pointed expressly in Charles Lindbergh’s direction. So you set your tone.
My intention here was to promote a unique discussion thread for the purpose of exploring each one of these “laundry list” items in a full and objective light so that they’re not given short shrift (as is this topic in your books) or intentionally / unintentionally snowed under by other unrelated facts and events.
Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery is just one example of such an event. There are many more and perhaps I’ll address another from the generic list of grievances often recited here, for the next thread. This one’s certainly not getting far and perhaps with a little encouragement, the next one will move beyond being compromised so intently and quickly. Look, we all know you know more about this case than anyone else on planet earth Michael, but there’s a time and place for all of it. And there’s no need to try and impress anyone here with your vast storehouse of case knowledge, especially when it’s irrelevant to the discussion.
Think about this analogy and what your reaction to it might be.
Your supervisor, tells you you’ll be doing a focused interview with one of the inmates, while reviewing his case files. You sit down with the inmate alone in your office and are just starting the interview, when another supervisor suddenly walks in, throws the files of a dozen other inmates on top of the one you’re reviewing and tells you to read and consider them as well during your interview.
I certainly hope you’ll understand the point made here. Try staying focused and on topic.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Nov 29, 2022 16:26:40 GMT -5
As far as your analogy goes, I see your point. In that situation, my initial response would be, "Are these other files in some way connected to the inmate I'm interviewing?" If the supervisor says yes, I would postpone the interview and study those other files first. Also, Michael, why, in your view, would Lindbergh tip his hand by suggesting that he and the rest of the household should've been suspects? Because he knew police would never go down that road anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 29, 2022 18:04:33 GMT -5
From your first reply within this specific discussion thread Michael, you’ve done little more than offer interference, deflection and hyperbole towards an objective and constructive path forward on the subject. Jeeze, somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed... Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery is just one example of such an event. There are many more and perhaps I’ll address another from the generic list of grievances often recited here, for the next thread. This one’s certainly not getting far and perhaps with a little encouragement, the next one will move beyond being compromised so intently and quickly. Look, we all know you know more about this case than anyone else on planet earth Michael, but there’s a time and place for all of it. And there’s no need to try and impress anyone here with your vast storehouse of case knowledge, especially when it’s irrelevant to the discussion. This is odd. I wasn't trying to "impress" anyone. What I did was follow the discussion and watched it veer somewhat, as these discussions often do, between you and Sherlock. I then merely followed YOUR lead. In fact, I just went back and re-read them and yup, there it is just as I had remembered. Your supervisor, tells you you’ll be doing a focused interview with one of the inmates, while reviewing his case files. You sit down with the inmate alone in your office and are just starting the interview, when another supervisor suddenly walks in, throws the files of a dozen other inmates on top of the one you’re reviewing and tells you to read and consider them as well during your interview. Happened every day at work and my guess is something like this sounds very familiar to most. Welcome to our world Joe. I certainly hope you’ll understand the point made here. Try staying focused and on topic. See above.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 29, 2022 18:06:20 GMT -5
As far as your analogy goes, I see your point. In that situation, my initial response would be, "Are these other files in some way connected to the inmate I'm interviewing?" If the supervisor says yes, I would postpone the interview and study those other files first. Also, Michael, why, in your view, would Lindbergh tip his hand by suggesting that he and the rest of the household should've been suspects? Because he knew police would never go down that road anyway? I'd be happy to answer this but, since Joe's a little out of sorts, I don't want to run the risk of upsetting him any further.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Nov 29, 2022 18:43:08 GMT -5
Hm. Well... humor me?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 30, 2022 10:40:40 GMT -5
Not upset at all Michael and if you guys don't mind me jumping in here, Lindbergh did consistently express that he hoped those responsible for his son's kidnapping and death would be brought to justice. Following Hauptmann's conviction, he also told Harold Nicholson his one fear about the case was that an innocent party would be tried and convicted. While he seemed pretty adamant about the complete innocence of household staff in the beginning, I believe he came to realize the possibility that someone close to the family may have tipped off the perpetrators either intentionally or unintentionally.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 30, 2022 13:49:42 GMT -5
Also, Michael, why, in your view, would Lindbergh tip his hand by suggesting that he and the rest of the household should've been suspects? Because he knew police would never go down that road anyway? First, I'm not a psychologist and I'm sure whatever I tell you someone who is will have their own opinion on the matter. Whether they agree with me or not I have no idea. That said, I've had interactions with felons for almost three decades on a daily basis. I wasn't one of the staff who hid in my office either, I actually wanted to communicate with them. I enjoyed the interaction and tried to learn something from them each and every day. Fact is, I started to get almost too comfortable and preferred to be at work, which isn't normal, and I was so in tune with how 99% of these men thought, many gave up lying to me in the end. May sound like I'm patting myself on the back but that's how it was. Anyway, when someone came to me and indicated I should be interested in a certain room or area they were in or attached to concerning things like drugs, weapons, or cell phones, if they ended it with something like " you can't trust anyone in that room," or " if I were you, I'd search everyone in that room," I automatically knew they had something they shouldn't. Automatic. It might not be exactly what I was looking for but definitely something, always, 100%. One might suggest these are Fruedian slips of some sort but I disagree. What's going on is they think they are smarter than the next guy. The idea is to outsmart the person they are talking to by making them think they'd never say such a thing if they themselves actually had (or did) something. Once they were called down about the contraband found in their locker, under their locker, in a floor/wall safe, or sewn into their mattress, the first thing they would say was it "wasn't theirs" because they "wouldn't be stupid enough to implicate themselves" when they told me where to look. Every time, bar none. What Lindbergh was saying contradicted his actions throughout the investigation. If Schwarzkopf had been standing next to him when he spoke with either Cowie or Agent Larimer, I'd bet a million dollars he wouldn't have said what he did. Not that it mattered because Keaten said Schwarzkopf saw what he did, but I'm positive he wouldn't have. Next, ask yourself about this. How would you act? Would you have blocked lie detectors for your staff - or anything similar? Even if you thought doing so might lead to the child's death, after he's found murdered, wouldn't you then immediately lift all the restrictions to find out who killed him? Would you tell someone you should also be a suspect in your own child's disappearance and murder? For me, these actions scream "better search this guy."
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 1, 2022 7:42:31 GMT -5
Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery is just one example of such an event. There are many more and perhaps I’ll address another from the generic list of grievances often recited here, for the next thread. This one’s certainly not getting far and perhaps with a little encouragement, the next one will move beyond being compromised so intently and quickly. Look, we all know you know more about this case than anyone else on planet earth Michael, but there’s a time and place for all of it. And there’s no need to try and impress anyone here with your vast storehouse of case knowledge, especially when it’s irrelevant to the discussion. This is odd. I wasn't trying to "impress" anyone. What I did was follow the discussion and watched it veer somewhat, as these discussions often do, between you and Sherlock. I then merely followed YOUR lead. In fact, I just went back and re-read them and yup, there it is just as I had remembered. Actually, the discussion started veering almost immediately, well before Sherlock entered it. What I'd really love to know and believe is most important for starters within this thread, is where exactly does this belief emanate, that it was within Lindbergh's domain only for Skean to have made if to Highfields? Is it only from Margeurite Junge's inaccurate recollection within her "mini-autobiography?" The reason I ask this is that no other household member seems to provide a lucid account of what might actually have happened relative to Skean being brought to Highfields on Saturday, February 27, 1932. Again, I just don't see anyone at Highfields or Englewood who, before the fact, considered it a critical action towards Charlie's security while he was alone in the nursery, including Charles Lindbergh. Therefore, at the current time, I see no malintent within Skean having been left behind. Your supervisor, tells you you’ll be doing a focused interview with one of the inmates, while reviewing his case files. You sit down with the inmate alone in your office and are just starting the interview, when another supervisor suddenly walks in, throws the files of a dozen other inmates on top of the one you’re reviewing and tells you to read and consider them as well during your interview. Happened every day at work and my guess is something like this sounds very familiar to most. Welcome to our world Joe. The key word here Michael, was focused.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 1, 2022 8:33:24 GMT -5
Actually, the discussion started veering almost immediately, well before Sherlock entered it. And yet, you still castigated me. What I'd really love to know and believe is most important for starters within this thread, is where exactly does this belief emanate, that it was within Lindbergh's domain only for Skean to have made if to Highfields? I've answered this already. A couple of times in fact. It's in this very thread. I know you read them. Is it only from Margeurite Junge's inaccurate recollection within her "mini-autobiography?" The reason I ask this is that no other household member seems to provide a lucid account of what might actually have happened relative to Skean being brought to Highfields on Saturday, February 27, 1932. Again, I just don't see anyone at Highfields or Englewood who, before the fact, considered it a critical action towards Charlie's security while he was alone in the nursery, including Charles Lindbergh. Therefore, at the current time, I see no malintent within Skean having been left behind. Skean was left behind. Junge, who was there, recorded in it no uncertain terms, that it was Lindbergh who didn't want to wait for him. Who she believed he left with is of no consequence but I see you are once again grasping at straws. Since there is no other recourse I certainly get why because it looks pretty bad for him considering everything else he did or did not do throughout. Next, once again, I've repeatedly answered this. Acting like I haven't doesn't help your cause. Your point here makes no sense whatsoever. Anne wrote in her diary, and I've written about this already, that in essence, if Skean was there this crime probably doesn't occur. What more do you need? It's an after the fact account but reflects her before the fact belief concerning Skean's presence. Besides, its common sense. A dog sleeping near the nursery door creates a major obstacle for anyone who wanted to kidnap that child. Most especially if they were climbing in thru the window. This idea that everyone must proclaim this in writing prior to the event or it can't be true is damn near juvenile. If Lindbergh was behind this whole thing, as I've already said before, it makes sense he would leave this dog behind because its one less issue to deal with and later try to explain away how it occurred with Skean there. The key word here Michael, was focused. Good advice Joe. Maybe if there was a little more focus, I wouldn't have to remind you that I've answered these questions already?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 1, 2022 9:13:13 GMT -5
Actually, the discussion started veering almost immediately, well before Sherlock entered it. And yet, you still castigated me. I’ll lay it on the line here as I can see you’re deflecting again.. you began veering immediately.Is it only from Margeurite Junge's inaccurate recollection within her "mini-autobiography?" The reason I ask this is that no other household member seems to provide a lucid account of what might actually have happened relative to Skean being brought to Highfields on Saturday, February 27, 1932. Again, I just don't see anyone at Highfields or Englewood who, before the fact, considered it a critical action towards Charlie's security while he was alone in the nursery, including Charles Lindbergh. Therefore, at the current time, I see no malintent within Skean having been left behind. Skean was left behind. Junge, who was there, recorded in it no uncertain terms, that it was Lindbergh who didn't want to wait for him. Who she believed he left with is of no consequence but I see you are once again grasping at straws. Since there is no other recourse I certainly get why because it looks pretty bad for him considering everything else he did or did not do throughout. Next, once again, I've repeatedly answered this. Acting like I haven't doesn't help your cause. Your point here makes no sense whatsoever. Anne wrote in her diary, and I've written about this already, that in essence, if Skean was there this crime probably doesn't occur. What more do you need? It's an after the fact account but reflects her before the fact belief concerning Skean's presence. Besides, its common sense. A dog sleeping near the nursery door creates a major obstacle for anyone who wanted to kidnap that child. Most especially if they were climbing in thru the window. This idea that everyone must proclaim this in writing prior to the event or it can't be true is damn near juvenile. If Lindbergh was behind this whole thing, as I've already said before, it makes sense he would leave this dog behind because its one less issue to deal with and later try to explain away how it occurred with Skean there. You clearly don’t understand my point or are trying desperately to avoid it. You’re basically hanging Lindbergh because of Junge’s account and Anne’s lament after the fact that the kidnapping probably wouldn’t have happened if Skean had been in Charlie’s nursery. There’s certainly more to this than meets your own eye as I’ve clearly demonstrated via the multiple potential opportunities for Skean to have otherwise made it to Highfields. It seems quite apparent that Skean's presence in Charlie's nursery just wasn't considered important enough before the kidnapping happened, Michael and this avenue needs to be explored further. You seem content though in just throwing a big band-aid over your own conclusions in the form of a dead seagull(!), puffing out your chest and saying, “There you have it!” Ridiculous.The key word here Michael, was focused. Good advice Joe. Maybe if there was a little more focus, I wouldn't have to remind you that I've answered these questions already? Oh boy thanks.. let the acute insight, objectivity and general enlightenment be uncontained...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 1, 2022 19:46:58 GMT -5
You clearly don’t understand my point or are trying desperately to avoid it. You’re basically hanging Lindbergh because of Junge’s account and Anne’s lament after the fact that the kidnapping probably wouldn’t have happened if Skean had been in Charlie’s nursery. There’s certainly more to this than meets your own eye as I’ve clearly demonstrated via the multiple potential opportunities for Skean to have otherwise made it to Highfields. It seems quite apparent that Skean's presence in Charlie's nursery just wasn't considered important enough before the kidnapping happened, Michael and this avenue needs to be explored further. You seem content though in just throwing a big band-aid over your own conclusions in the form of a dead seagull(!), puffing out your chest and saying, “There you have it!” Ridiculous. I'm basically what? As you've previously stated yourself, this discussion spans back before you even created this thread. But since my recent reply only contains two of the many points I've been making, over and over, again and again, which you've chosen to ignore - now you hold me to just these two? I'm speechless about these tactics because they exhibit very bad faith on your end. However, I get it because you really have no choice ... other than to concede. Next, you've demonstrated what exactly? Your original point behind all of this was to show Lindbergh couldn't have left Skean behind - remember? And that position was completely dashed by yours truly - remember? So please, give me a break. And yes, you insist that other people could have brought Skean down to Highfields but did not. And I've shown, repeatedly, no one crossed Lindbergh. They were all afraid of him. His Staff. The Morrow Staff. His Wife. The Cops. I'll say it again, IF Lindbergh asked someone to bring Skean down you had better believe they would have done it. So, you see, your point completely backfires and blows up in your face - AGAIN. What you are doing is actually assisting my argument. Next, I completely understand this other silly point you are trying to make. I say silly because, as I've said about a thousand times, its absurd. I've already walked you through exactly why but you've ignored most of it - like everything else. In short, again, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference for someone to proclaim Skean to be a watch-dog before the "kidnapping." ZERO. With that said, this makes your point completely worthless. Most especially because Anne DID believe if Skean had been at Highfields the crime was likely to be thwarted. Not just Anne either, but she's the most important source. Regardless, AGAIN, a dog lying near the nursery door would have been an obstacle to any kidnapper attempting an abduction - that's COMMON SENSE! We don't even need Anne to tell us something every person on the planet already knows. So let's recap: 1. Lindbergh was in charge of bringing Skean down. 2. Lindbergh left Skean behind. 3. Staff did not interfere with things Lindbergh was in charge of. 4. Staff followed Lindbergh's rules. 5. If Lindbergh asked someone else to bring Skean down they certainly would have. 6. Skean never missed a weekend with the family previously. 7. Anne believed if Skean had been at Highfields the night of March 1, this crime likely would not have occurred. 8. This is but just ONE of the many suspicious "components" that "allowed" this crime to have occurred.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 3, 2022 7:21:28 GMT -5
You clearly don’t understand my point or are trying desperately to avoid it. You’re basically hanging Lindbergh because of Junge’s account and Anne’s lament after the fact that the kidnapping probably wouldn’t have happened if Skean had been in Charlie’s nursery. There’s certainly more to this than meets your own eye as I’ve clearly demonstrated via the multiple potential opportunities for Skean to have otherwise made it to Highfields. It seems quite apparent that Skean's presence in Charlie's nursery just wasn't considered important enough before the kidnapping happened, Michael and this avenue needs to be explored further. You seem content though in just throwing a big band-aid over your own conclusions in the form of a dead seagull(!), puffing out your chest and saying, “There you have it!” Ridiculous. I'm basically what? As you've previously stated yourself, this discussion spans back before you even created this thread. But since my recent reply only contains two of the many points I've been making, over and over, again and again, which you've chosen to ignore - now you hold me to just these two? I'm speechless about these tactics because they exhibit very bad faith on your end. However, I get it because you really have no choice ... other than to concede. You previously did nothing to acknowledge the fact that others, including Anne, Alva Root, Betty Gow and Henry Ellerson (on two occasions) had equal opportunity to bring Skean to Highfields as did Charles Lindbergh, until I brought this fact forward and into play. And of course, in Skean’s absence, Wahgoosh’s location could easily have been shifted to Charlie’s nursery if it had even been considered that his presence there would assist Charlie’s safety and security. Obviously, no one did. Just try accepting such a possibility and see how much brighter your day will become.
Next, you've demonstrated what exactly? Your original point behind all of this was to show Lindbergh couldn't have left Skean behind - remember? And that position was completely dashed by yours truly - remember? So please, give me a break. Sometimes, I think you've taken on Jafsie’s persona. No, that wasn’t my point, and this is just another example of you misrepresenting what I said and then taking credit for something you didn’t do. Fantastical stuff.
And yes, you insist that other people could have brought Skean down to Highfields but did not. And I've shown, repeatedly, no one crossed Lindbergh. They were all afraid of him. His Staff. The Morrow Staff. His Wife. The Cops. I'll say it again, IF Lindbergh asked someone to bring Skean down you had better believe they would have done it. So, you see, your point completely backfires and blows up in your face - AGAIN. What you are doing is actually assisting my argument. Well, at least you now seem to acknowledge the fact that others had the opportunity to bring Skean to Highfields. Congrats on that. But typically, you assume right up front that Lindbergh didn’t want Skean at Highfields and in Charlie’s nursery, in order to ensure there was less resistance for a potential fauxnapper. Of course, you’re able to justify this by exaggerating Lindbergh’s true personality, character and influence on others into some kind of all-menacing troll-under-the-bridge. Assumptions like this are a common mistake made by LKC novices who then simply tack such half-baked notions not fully explored, onto others of the same type. It’s just plain bad detection and interpretation. You really should know better to hang your hat on this technique, but you’ve been doing it for so long now, I’m sure you’re only half aware of this fact.
Next, I completely understand this other silly point you are trying to make. I say silly because, as I've said about a thousand times, its absurd. I've already walked you through exactly why but you've ignored most of it - like everything else. In short, again, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference for someone to proclaim Skean to be a watch-dog before the "kidnapping." ZERO. With that said, this makes your point completely worthless. Most especially because Anne DID believe if Skean had been at Highfields the crime was likely to be thwarted. Not just Anne either, but she's the most important source. Regardless, AGAIN, a dog lying near the nursery door would have been an obstacle to any kidnapper attempting an abduction - that's COMMON SENSE! We don't even need Anne to tell us something every person on the planet already knows. No one, including Charles, Anne and any other individuals who had the opportunity to have Skean at Highfields between February 26, 1932 and the hour Charlie got kidnapped, considered the black terrier’s presence in the nursery to be critical for his safety and security. Ultimately, that’s why Skean wasn’t there. Was it an unfortunate non-event? Yes, and of course after Charlie was kidnapped, the “what-if” and “if only” laments came pouring out. And why wouldn’t they? That part is only human nature.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 3, 2022 7:28:29 GMT -5
So let's recap: 1. Lindbergh was in charge of bringing Skean down. And your source for this is Marguerite Junge’s flawed and inaccurate accounting of events of that day?2. Lindbergh left Skean behind. As did others who would had the opportunity to bring Skean to Highfields, none of them harboring any malice of forethought or "fear of Lindbergh."3. Staff did not interfere with things Lindbergh was in charge of. Lindbergh wasn’t “in charge” of bringing Skean to Highfields.4. Staff followed Lindbergh's rules. You oversimplify things when you’re not overthinking them. Skean’s presence or non-presence at Highfields had nothing to do with “Lindbergh’s rules.”
5. If Lindbergh asked someone else to bring Skean down they certainly would have. If Lindbergh had considered Skean’s presence critical to Charlie’s safety and security at Highfields, I can agree with this. Clearly, he did not, nor did anyone else. If they did, Skean would have been at Highfields.
6. Skean never missed a weekend with the family previously. Correct, and every one of those previous weekends involved Charles, Anne and Charlie driving to Highfields together as a family unit, towing little Skean along by convenience, because he was Charlie's companion. Not the case on the weekend in question though and you know this. Before too long though, I’m sure you’ll latch on to Lindbergh deliberately choosing to deviate from the family routine for the purpose of ensuring Skean was MIA that weekend. A couple more 2 X 4’s will then come into play to prop up that sagging wing of the old house of cards..
7. Anne believed if Skean had been at Highfields the night of March 1, this crime likely would not have occurred. Correct, a mother’s lament and pure 20/20 hindsight. But she’s not blaming anyone here. Skean’s absence was a non-event that in part, led to a very unforeseen tragedy. His potential importance, ie. being more than just Charlie’s constant companion, was only realized after-the-fact.
8. This is but just ONE of the many suspicious "components" that "allowed" this crime to have occurred. Each and every one of your “suspicious components” is subject to scrutiny in its entirety before any reasonable person can conclude what actually took place. That’s why I established this specific thread, the same one you’ve essentially attempted to derail and dismember from the outset through deflection, hyperbole and juvenile debate tactics.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 3, 2022 12:29:18 GMT -5
You previously did nothing to acknowledge the fact that others, including Anne, Alva Root, Betty Gow and Henry Ellerson (on two occasions) had equal opportunity to bring Skean to Highfields as did Charles Lindbergh, until I brought this fact forward and into play. And of course, in Skean’s absence, Wahgoosh’s location could easily have been shifted to Charlie’s nursery if it had even been considered that his presence there would assist Charlie’s safety and security. Obviously, no one did. Just try accepting such a possibility and see how much brighter your day will become.
i've addressed it, numerous times, since you tried to pretend it had something to do with his absence. The reason I didn't bring it up is because, as I've previously stated, it makes no sense. It's merely a desperate attempt to skew the event because you don't "like" how suspicious it looks. Well, at least you now seem to acknowledge the fact that others had the opportunity to bring Skean to Highfields. Congrats on that. But typically, you assume right up front that Lindbergh didn’t want Skean at Highfields and in Charlie’s nursery, in order to ensure there was less resistance for a potential fauxnapper. Of course, you’re able to justify this by exaggerating Lindbergh’s true personality, character and influence on others into some kind of all-menacing troll-under-the-bridge. Assumptions like this are a common mistake made by LKC novices who then simply tack such half-baked notions not fully explored, onto others of the same type. It’s just plain bad detection and interpretation. You really should know better to hang your hat on this technique, but you’ve been doing it for so long now, I’m sure you’re only half aware of this fact. At least now? I addressed it immediately after you originally injected it. Get that memory supplement Joe. You know which one I mean, its made from jellyfish or something. Next, I'm not exaggerating Lindbergh's personality at all. It's you who has this Lifetime Movie fantasy about everyone you happen to "like." That's not real life. Reality includes the dead seagull example I gave. Your reaction to it tells the tale. You seemed hurt and upset about it. It's the most ridiculous reaction I've ever witnessed. Your rebuttal? To say I "puffed out my chest" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. It's like I'm debating a mental patient who thinks they are someone they're not. Nothing works. Not facts, not common sense, not sources, and certainly not a mirror. In the end, they still believe what they believe and nothing, no matter how reasonable, will ever change their mind. Go back and re-read that Keaten quote I posted from Sisk's report. And you think people were going to go behind Lindbergh and do something he purposely did not? It's laughable. Again, staff were afraid to pick up a dead seagull because Lindbergh left it there. That's a fact and has nothing to do with my chest. What Sisk wrote is a fact and has nothing to do with my chest. No one, including Charles, Anne and any other individuals who had the opportunity to have Skean at Highfields between February 26, 1932 and the hour Charlie got kidnapped, considered the black terrier’s presence in the nursery to be critical for his safety and security. Ultimately, that’s why Skean wasn’t there. Was it an unfortunate non-event? Yes, and of course after Charlie was kidnapped, the “what-if” and “if only” laments came pouring out. And why wouldn’t they? That part is only human nature. In short, again, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference for someone to proclaim Skean to be a watch-dog before the "kidnapping." ZERO. With that said, this makes your point completely worthless. Most especially because Anne DID believe if Skean had been at Highfields the crime was likely to be thwarted. Not just Anne either, but she's the most important source. Regardless, AGAIN, a dog lying near the nursery door would have been an obstacle to any kidnapper attempting an abduction - that's COMMON SENSE! We don't even need Anne to tell us something every person on the planet already knows.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 3, 2022 13:16:56 GMT -5
And your source for this is Marguerite Junge’s flawed and inaccurate accounting of events of that day? This is interesting. What evidence do you have that Junge's account as it relates to Lindbergh leaving Skean behind is "flawed." As I pointed out before, there's nothing in it that attempts to make Lindbergh look "guilty" or "negative," she was merely revealing first hand information concerning why Skean was left behind. It was something everyone wanted to know and she had the answer. Skean was the topic here. And she states, in no uncertain terms, that Lindbergh left him behind. This other issue about who drove with whom wasn't the topic and has absolutely nothing to do with why and who left Skean behind. Your assertion that since she misremembered that trivial aspect of her story then her entire account should be discarded would lead to each and every book on this case being relegated to the trash can. All facts therein would be considered flawed by that logic. As did others who would had the opportunity to bring Skean to Highfields, none of them harboring any malice of forethought or "fear of Lindbergh." No, actually they did not. Junge's firsthand account claims Lindbergh left him behind. He obviously never asked anyone else to bring him down or they certainly would have. Lindbergh wasn’t “in charge” of bringing Skean to Highfields. It was Lindbergh's decision to leave him behind, therefore, he was in charge of Skean. He never requested anyone else to bring him down because, as you've said, they could have but did not. Thank you for pointing that out. You oversimplify things when you’re not overthinking them. Skean’s presence or non-presence at Highfields had nothing to do with “Lindbergh’s rules.” Of course it did. No one ever wanted to be on the wrong side of Lindbergh. You act like he made the decision to leave him behind but that everyone you've mentioned was free to overrule his decision. That's absurd. If Lindbergh wanted Skean in Hopewell he would have been. He left him behind. The reason Junge gave was that he didn't want to wait for him. It's obvious to me you find it troubling or you wouldn't be inventing all of this other nonsense to cover for the suspicion it raises.
If Lindbergh had considered Skean’s presence critical to Charlie’s safety and security at Highfields, I can agree with this. Clearly, he did not, nor did anyone else. If they did, Skean would have been at Highfields. Again, this point is worthless as I've pointed out several times. This idea that one had to publicly announce this prior to the fact is a ridiculous position. One doesn't have to declare such a thing. A dog lying near the nursery door would have been a major obstacle to a kidnapper climbing thru that window. Skean was supposed to be there but was left behind. It's pretty simple, but you'd rather make this convoluted argument as if it upsets this basic fact. Would any normal person believe a dog in the nursery would be a problem for the kidnappers? Yes, to include the kidnappers. So of course, they'd want him left behind for MORE reasons than one. What you are doing is akin to saying it did not rain because no one mentioned seeing a cloud.
Correct, and every one of those previous weekends involved Charles, Anne and Charlie driving to Highfields together as a family unit, towing little Skean along by convenience, because he was Charlie's companion. Not the case on the weekend in question though and you know this. Before too long though, I’m sure you’ll latch on to Lindbergh deliberately choosing to deviate from the family routine for the purpose of ensuring Skean was MIA that weekend. A couple more 2 X 4’s will then come into play to prop up that sagging wing of the old house of cards.. Huh? No, I'll stick to what actually occurred. Skean was always there but on this weekend, the one where the supposed kidnapping happened, Lindbergh left him behind. There were A LOT of deviations and anomalies on this particular weekend and Skean's absence was but just one. Correct, a mother’s lament and pure 20/20 hindsight. But she’s not blaming anyone here. Skean’s absence was a non-event that in part, led to a very unforeseen tragedy. His potential importance, ie. being more than just Charlie’s constant companion, was only realized after-the-fact. Hindsight reflecting what she truly believed prior to the event. That dog being there, like he was supposed to have been, would have prevented the crime. You are trying to wiggle your way past this observation by making an argument that has little value. No, scratch that. No value whatsoever. Each and every one of your “suspicious components” is subject to scrutiny in its entirety before any reasonable person can conclude what actually took place. That’s why I established this specific thread, the same one you’ve essentially attempted to derail and dismember from the outset through deflection, hyperbole and juvenile debate tactics. Of course everything should be scrutinized. Just as long as that supposed scrutiny is not coming from a cartoon character named Beavis or Butthead. If you would simply acknowledge what looks suspicious you might be less reluctant to whip up these silly positions. Admitting the obvious but still considering it all a result of circumstance is a little more reasonable then denying whats in front of you.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 5, 2022 8:58:38 GMT -5
Why don’t we let Marguerite Junge have a voice here, Michael? After all, hers is one of the two pieces of source documentation referenced in Dark Corners – 1, where we learn from you that: “Lindbergh did not bring the baby’s dog Skean—a black Scottish terrier—who hadn’t returned from his walk in the park, and Lindbergh was apparently in no mood to wait for him.”
Here is what Junge actually says in her mini-autobiography which contains a summary of diary accounts (pdf attached) she began writing on March 2, 1932, the day after the kidnapping: (pages 10 and 11) “As Colonel L. had to commute to New York every morning he and his immediate family lived at Mrs. Morrow’s house during the week, and mostly Saturdays in the morning they would leave for Hopewell, taking little Charlie with them… … Another little passenger that went along was the little, black Scotty called “Scium”, (Skean) Charlie’s own dog. 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. This is just another fact that so many people do not know and ask puzzled, why just that night was the watchdog not sleeping under Charlie’s bed? Scium was in Englewood, and not in Hopewell.”
Here, it’s evident that Junge was familiar with the normal routine for Charles, Anne, Charlie and Skean to make the trip together to Highfields, something they did on many Saturday mornings between October 31, 1931 and the last such occasion prior to the weekend before the kidnapping. Unfortunately, her account does not reflect what actually happened on the weekend of February 27, 1932. That particular one started out with Charles driving to the Rockefeller Institute on Saturday morning to continue work he was doing on a medical procedure. Therefore, Charles was unable to drive Anne, Charlie and Skean to Highfields on that particular day. Following his work at the RI, Charles then drove to the Breckinridge apartment for a visit with Henry and Aida, before the three of them drove on to Highfields. Anne and Charlie (no Skean) were driven to Highfields by Henry Ellerson on Saturday afternoon. Is this correct so far, Michael? Marguerite Junge Mini-Autobiography.pdf (894.18 KB)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 5, 2022 10:48:34 GMT -5
Why don’t we let Marguerite Junge have a voice here, Michael? After all, hers is one of the two pieces of source documentation referenced in Dark Corners – 1, where we learn from you that: “Lindbergh did not bring the baby’s dog Skean—a black Scottish terrier—who hadn’t returned from his walk in the park, and Lindbergh was apparently in no mood to wait for him.” Here is what Junge actually says in her mini-autobiography which contains a summary of diary accounts she began writing on March 2, 1932, the day after the kidnapping: “As Colonel L. had to commute to New York every morning he and his immediate family lived at Mrs. Morrow’s house during the week, and mostly Saturdays in the morning they would leave for Hopewell, taking little Charlie with them… … Another little passenger that went along was the little, black Scotty called “Scium”, (Skean) Charlie’s own dog. 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. This is just another fact that so many people do not know and ask puzzled, why just that night was the watchdog not sleeping under Charlie’s bed? Scium was in Englewood, and not in Hopewell.” First things first... I don't think you have multiple personalities Joe, so someone else has assisted you in drafting this response. It's certainly not all you - if at all. Of course, this is okay, and if I were you I'd seek help with this too. I'd just like to know "who" so that they can step out of the shadows and we can level the playing field a little ... or not, that's fine, just know that I can tell its not all you. Next, your position about the diary is based on conjecture. We know she had a diary and used it as a source. That's all. I can state that I wrote my books based on notes and outlines too without being wrong to say that. Of course, much more went into it. This manuscript, for lack of a better word, incorporates what she wrote in her diary but its plain to see it wasn't anything at all like Anne's books which actually did do such a thing. So - it's misleading to state it is a " summary of diary accounts" because we do not know that without seeing the actual diary. My guess is the diary contained certain written passages and she used them in a couple of ways. One as a source, and another to jog her memory about other things. You know, things like saying it took four hours to get to Hopewell from Englewood by car. Something that would help your timeline concerning Mrs. Breckinridge's account, but I notice you avoid this like the plague. Okay, so the selected quotes you've cited are correct. Let's finish the first one shall we? As Colonel L. had to commute to New York every morning he and his immediate family lived at Mrs. Morrow’s house during the week, and mostly Saturdays in the morning they would leave for Hopewell, taking little Charlie with them. As Mrs. Lindbergh loved to take care of Charlies herself during these weekends, the nurse Betty Gow would stay behind in Englewood and take the time off for herself during these weekends. Reminder: This was written before any other book mentions this fact about the baby's attachment to Betty. So, at the time, it is one of the hidden pieces of legitimate information. Same thing about the man who was caught peering in the widow. Another account which predates other sources. So we know these two gems of information were true because of sources that came out later that substantiate them. Let's continue... … Another little passenger that went along was the little, black Scotty called “Scium”, (Skean) Charlie’s own dog. 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. This is just another fact that so many people do not know and ask puzzled, why just that night was the watchdog not sleeping under Charlie’s bed? Scium was in Englewood, and not in Hopewell.” I believe this indicates what I wrote in my book so I'm not sure what your point is. If he was in the mood to wait, he would have. And here is your "watchdog" reference you demanded. That's obviously her opinion, or perhaps merely reciting what others were referring to Skean as. Here again, it doesn't matter which, or even if she believed he was or not. Clearly, it was written after the fact too, but it indicates a belief that existed prior. Whether or not it was actually hers, as I've written above, I cannot say with 100% certainty. It appears that way but an argument could be made to question that position. Here, it’s evident that Junge was familiar with the normal routine for Charles, Anne, Charlie and Skean to make the trip together to Highfields, something they did on many Saturday mornings between October 31, 1931 and the last such occasion prior to the weekend before the kidnapping. Unfortunately, her account is misleading and does not reflect what actually happened on the weekend of February 27, 1932. That one started out with Charles driving to the Rockefeller Institute on Saturday morning to continue work he was doing on a medical procedure. Therefore, Charles was unable to drive Anne, Charlie and Skean to Highfields on that particular day. Following his work at the RI, Charles then drove to the Breckinridge apartment for a visit with Henry and Aida, before the three of them drove on to Highfields. Anne and Charlie (no Skean) were driven to Highfields by Henry Ellerson on Saturday afternoon. I wouldn't call it misleading at all. The point was about Skean, not about the drive down. She may have misremembered, writing this manuscript at least five years after the fact, about something trivial to her. The point about Skean was obviously not trivial. It was something everyone wanted to know about and she had that information to share. If she had someone proofed this manuscript, they may have been able to say " Hey Marguerite, you got this wrong, Lindbergh went into the city on this day." Her possible reply? " Oh, you're right, I forgot about that." Big deal? It could also be that she was merely attempting to simplify the scenario. Or maybe if she thought we would be having this discussion about it, she may have been more careful I suppose, but it doesn't affect the fact that she was crystal clear about who left Skean behind. Again, the argument you are attempting to make is flawed. By this logic, Mrs. Breckinridge's statement should be ruled misleading as well because it doesn't mention any stop off after departing NYC. Or - she was just wrong about that time. Pick your poison. Do you really believe we should consider the whole statement invalid because its missing something or could be wrong in a certain place? Like I wrote earlier, if this is your rule everything gets tossed.
|
|