Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 5, 2022 13:17:37 GMT -5
Michael, I seem to remember this same accusation a few years ago, something to the effect that my posts were being ghost-written. Let me ask you, was this last post of yours written by the Michael who still imagines he's psycho-analyzing inmates, pushing paper at the institute and then projecting his findings on everything he encounters in the outside world? Or is this the Michael who's just bored out of his tree and wishing he could go back to doing more of the same? In fact, it was I alone who wrote my last post. Call it a kind of last ditch effort to try and save this thread from being swallowed up by juvenile debate tactics at the expense of meaningful content. Maybe the next topic will be a little more productive and attract some additional perspective from other discussion board members. My own conclusion (yes Michael) with no thanks to all of your interference and smoke trails as I leave this thread.. Skean was Charlie's little companion and not Charlie's "watchdog." No one, including Charles and Anne Lindbergh, Betty Gow, Henry Ellerson, Alva Root, the Breckinridges, the Whateleys and probably most of the people at Next Day Hill, considered Skean's presence in the nursery to be a critical element towards the safety and security of Charlie, when he was alone in the nursery. Otherwise, Skean would have been there. And if by chance, hell and high water, Skean still couldn't have made it, at the very least, Wahgoosh would have been "filling in" for the absent little Scotty. 20/20 hindsight is not always wonderful..
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 5, 2022 14:40:25 GMT -5
Michael, I seem to remember this same accusation a few years ago, something to the effect that my posts were being ghost-written. Let me ask you, was this last post of yours written by the Michael who still imagines he's psycho-analyzing inmates, pushing paper at the institute and then projecting his findings on everything he encounters in the outside world? Or is this the Michael who's just bored out of his tree and wishing he could go back to doing more of the same? There you go Joe. This is you, and this time without any help. You may not realize it, and I don't know how, but when you get help its quite obvious. It's not just style but also substance. I don't believe I've ever said that I psycho-analysed anyone. What I've done is share my experiences, many of which I can explain while others dealt with intangibles or things I couldn't explain in words exactly "why" I knew something or did not. That isn't unique, and anyone who actually did their job for a good amount of time had the same type of knowledge/experiences as a result. Many of my co-workers, both male and female, would know precisely what I am talking about. Also, once you learn something, it should never be forgotten as you suggest. I don't have expertise in your field so there's certain abilities you may have that I would never experience, know, or understand. It's just how it is. Doesn't make me 100% right about everything but on the inside you wouldn't bet against me - I promise you that. If you were ever with me, and didn't have an "accident," you'd probably ask " how'd you know he was going to do that?" Again, its experience and about half the time I couldn't even answer that question. In fact, it was I alone who wrote my last post. Call it a kind of last ditch effort to try and save this thread from being swallowed up by juvenile debate tactics at the expense of meaningful content. Maybe the next topic will be a little more productive and attract some additional perspective from other discussion board members. It's okay Joe. I've read many posts over the years. You don't have to cover for anyone. Like I wrote above, that was clearly not formulated by you alone. It doesn't matter, because there's no rule that says you can't have help. Now, contact them again, and let's get the second part they were preparing for you on the heels of my response. My own conclusion (yes Michael) with no thanks to all of your interference and smoke trails as I leave this thread.. Skean was Charlie's little companion and not Charlie's "watchdog." No one, including Charles and Anne Lindbergh, Betty Gow, Henry Ellerson, Alva Root, the Breckinridges, the Whateleys and probably most of the people at Next Day Hill, considered Skean's presence in the nursery to be a critical element towards the safety and security of Charlie, when he was alone in the nursery. Otherwise, Skean would have been there. And if by chance, hell and high water, Skean still couldn't have made it, at the very least, Wahgoosh would have been "filling in" for the absent little Scotty. 20/20 hindsight is not always wonderful.. I've debunked this "logic" so many times I've lost track. Of course you never counter-argue... Just repeat it over and over as if its never been challenged. It's bad faith and dirty pool tactics. But its on full display so I guess I'll just have to point it out each and every time you do it. Did the family know there was going to be a Kidnapping? If yes, your point is invalid. If no, why would they consider Skean's presence as a deterrent to something they did not know was going to happen? But what we DO know, again, is that Anne believed Skean's presence would have been a deterrent. Again, we don't even need to know this FACT because its COMMON SENSE that a dog sleeping in the Nursery would have been a major obstacle to a Kidnapper climbing into the nursery thru the 2nd story window. Lindbergh left Skean behind. Skean never missed a previous trip despite your silly position. Yet this time he did, and by your own argument, could have been brought down after Lindbergh left him behind. However, Lindbergh never asked anyone to bring him down or they definitely would have. So this idea that no one thought Skean was needed to prevent a Kidnapping makes ZERO sense. It's not a rebuttal, its nonsense. Now you are saying Wahgoosh could have filled in? For what? Wahgoosh was the dog that barked at everything, not the child's constant companion. Whateley himself blurted out to reporters the crime was committed by someone known to Wahgoosh. Good thing he didn't live to testify or the books on this case might be all saying something very different.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Dec 5, 2022 15:54:30 GMT -5
Seems to me that if Skean was intentionally left behind then Wahgoosh (the barker) would have been as well. Both dogs potentially could have saved Charlie's life. If Lindbergh had planned this wouldn't he have made sure that neither dog was present? Also, Anne's comment was merely a lament that if Skean had been there he would have not been kidnapped.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 5, 2022 19:50:35 GMT -5
Seems to me that if Skean was intentionally left behind then Wahgoosh (the barker) would have been as well. Both dogs potentially could have saved Charlie's life. If Lindbergh had planned this wouldn't he have made sure that neither dog was present? Also, Anne's comment was merely a lament that if Skean had been there he would have not been kidnapped. Wahgoosh stayed at the Lawrenceville home and then later over to Highfields. He never stayed in Englewood. So there was nowhere to leave him because he was already there. And I agree that Wahgoosh would have barked, and probably did. Everyone claimed he was a barker, and that he would have barked had he heard something, well, except Lindbergh who testified he didn't expect "that dog" to bark. So that's how he dealt with him on the stand. So if he was a barker, like everyone to include the cops who were later stationed there, one has to wonder how it was never considered why he didn't hear the supposed orange crate sound that Lindbergh heard, or the cat screaming sound that Anne and Elsie heard. Nor the wind blowing the shutters around and rattling the of the unlocked windows that nobody else seemed to hear either. Police made it easy because they didn't seem to ask the hard questions or the most obvious follow-ups of Lindbergh. There's absolutely no record of Lindbergh, or anyone else, being asked about Skean's absence. Strangely, everything about this weekend was different. Lindbergh didn't come home the night before. Lindbergh was running late the night of March 1st calling at 7 and Anne listening for his car at 7:30. Lindbergh had that engagement that he forgot. If one starts to look at the differences, there are quite a few. So we have this routine and then all of the sudden, that routine and consistency is smashed. Where Lindbergh was on March 1 is anyone's guess. Cops didn't ask, and once asked on the stand he basically can't remember and gives some possibilities. Who doesn't remember where they were on 9/11? I still do to this day, but Lindy can't recall enough to testify to his actions on the day his son was kidnapped less than 3 years later? As far as Anne, yes, she was lamenting that if Skean had been there the child would not have been kidnapped. That's exactly right. And it's pretty much what we'd all expect, except Joe who needs everyone to declare he was a watchdog meant to be in the home to protect the child for that fact to have any weight. And what of the child itself? We have evidence that "it" (as Lindbergh referred to him) had a tendency to scream out if anyone but Betty tried to rouse him. But no, not a peep on this night. In the end, I agree, both dogs could have caused a problem. The one that would have been sleeping by the nursery door wasn't there. The other, the barker, well that wouldn't matter either because Lindbergh didn't expect him to bark and lo and behold he did not. Not at the wind, not at the orange crate sound, not at the cat screaming, not at the shutters, not at the windows, not at the intruder, not at the ladder breaking, not at anything at all. Nope, he was quiet as a church mouse it seems. So even if he was sleeping near the nursery door, he probably would have slept thru everything....according to Lindbergh I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Dec 6, 2022 7:20:46 GMT -5
Thank-you Michael, that makes more sense. We have two dogs and one is a barker. She would never bark at the wind, or a cat, flapping shutters, etc. She reserves all of her annoying habit for people (especially people with their dogs) walking by or coming to our house. The mailman is a particular favorite. Still, if she is a few rooms away she doesn't hear, see, smell anyone different and she's quiet as a church mouse. She's a small dog and we often, jokingly, refer to her as our watchdog.
Because he didn't cry out I've always assumed Charlie was killed or drugged in the nursery, either by someone in the household or the kidnapper, before being taken away. As you know I'm still on the fence about the "Lindbergh did it" theory and probably will remain sitting there. I do think Joe has a good point about Skean having several other opportunities to be transported to Highfields that weekend and it wasn't necessarily Lindbergh's doing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 6, 2022 9:51:25 GMT -5
Thank-you Michael, that makes more sense. We have two dogs and one is a barker. She would never bark at the wind, or a cat, flapping shutters, etc. She reserves all of her annoying habit for people (especially people with their dogs) walking by or coming to our house. The mailman is a particular favorite. Still, if she is a few rooms away she doesn't hear, see, smell anyone different and she's quiet as a church mouse. She's a small dog and we often, jokingly, refer to her as our watchdog. As you can tell, I was being a little sarcastic. I believe a Fox Terrier, and Wahgoosh's reputation fits this, would have alerted to any sound. They investigate. If behind a door they bark to get past it. I've got a file with so much on the Fox Terrier and it fits with Terriers in general but those especially. I had a Jack Russell and experienced it myself - she could hear everything. If it was from outside, she didn't always immediately bark, sometimes growled, huffed, puffed, or grumbled, but she always wanted to know what was going on and would immediately run to the door and give a single bark to be let out. If she heard any unusual noise in the house all HELL broke loose. So when I read about Wahgoosh's reputation from the source materials, I can relate to the experience. Here again, there were other kidnappings when dogs were "drugged" to prevent them from foiling the crime. I'm not saying that happened here, but its another counterargument that could be made. Anyway, as Anne wrote about how Wahgoosh hadn't barked that night, she added " He has been barking ever since." One cannot make this stuff up. While there could always be another motive for Lindbergh to lie like he did on the stand, I don't see how anyone can dismiss it. For example, one might argue that he was so convinced Hauptmann was guilty that he was attempting to help the Prosecution overcome this point. Of course that doesn't get around the fact the dog supposedly did not alert to anything whatsoever, but at least it's somewhat of a rebuttal. To see anyone shrug it off or ignore it is bothersome to say the least. I'm not saying you are doing that, and I can appreciate any skepticism that you may or may not have. I'm there because there's way too much smoke. Of course that doesn't mean there's always a fire, but as I've tried to explain away things over the years (like the example I gave above for Lindbergh's perjury) I just couldn't do it. There's just too much that had to happen or go wrong for the family and police, while so much goes right for an Immigrant Carpenter from the Bronx. The odds are impossible. Lindbergh controlled everything and as Keaten told Sisk, he could " get anyone." The guy went toe to toe with J. Edgar Hoover and won. Can you imagine any staff doing anything that would cross him? I cannot. And if Lindbergh did he would have dealt with it. Just look at what happened to Coppin. Instead, Lindbergh was defending and protecting his staff throughout the investigation, only later to tell Larimer and Cowie something else? It doesn't add up. Because he didn't cry out I've always assumed Charlie was killed or drugged in the nursery, either by someone in the household or the kidnapper, before being taken away. Right. If this was a legitimate kidnapping, either of these positions absolutely must be true. Both show planning and ability to do what's necessary. So how'd they plan for Skean? For Wahgoosh? Both would have been done. As you know I'm still on the fence about the "Lindbergh did it" theory and probably will remain sitting there It's important to get to a point where one is comfortable and I always say everyone should listen to their gut before making a decision on any aspect of this case. Staying on the fence is a much better place to be than falling on the wrong side. I do think Joe has a good point about Skean having several other opportunities to be transported to Highfields that weekend and it wasn't necessarily Lindbergh's doing. I think he does too, only that it proves Lindbergh didn't want him there. Like I've said, and I believe this 100%, if he did that dog would have been there. He left him behind so I cannot even fathom anyone even questioning anything about it at that point. This is where the police really could have earned their money by asking certain questions but they avoided certain things as it pertained to him. Even the "forgotten event" wasn't addressed as late as May 18th! It's unimaginable, yet there it is, right in the record. Lucky for us, we get to see it for ourselves.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 7, 2022 13:35:16 GMT -5
Michael, I seem to remember this same accusation a few years ago, something to the effect that my posts were being ghost-written. Let me ask you, was this last post of yours written by the Michael who still imagines he's psycho-analyzing inmates, pushing paper at the institute and then projecting his findings on everything he encounters in the outside world? Or is this the Michael who's just bored out of his tree and wishing he could go back to doing more of the same? There you go Joe. This is you, and this time without any help. You may not realize it, and I don't know how, but when you get help its quite obvious. It's not just style but also substance. I don't believe I've ever said that I psycho-analysed anyone. What I've done is share my experiences, many of which I can explain while others dealt with intangibles or things I couldn't explain in words exactly "why" I knew something or did not. That isn't unique, and anyone who actually did their job for a good amount of time had the same type of knowledge/experiences as a result. Many of my co-workers, both male and female, would know precisely what I am talking about. Also, once you learn something, it should never be forgotten as you suggest. I don't have expertise in your field so there's certain abilities you may have that I would never experience, know, or understand. It's just how it is. Doesn't make me 100% right about everything but on the inside you wouldn't bet against me - I promise you that. If you were ever with me, and didn't have an "accident," you'd probably ask " how'd you know he was going to do that?" Again, its experience and about half the time I couldn't even answer that question. Michael, I fully understand your thoughts on specific fields of endeavour, and how each one can provide relevant experience and insights into case topics being examined. That's one of the main reasons I’ve freely communicated with so many individuals of different backgrounds and experiences and considered such a variety of source documentation over the years. Everything you’ve read and will read from me at this site comes from my personal case knowledge base, courtesy of everything I’ve been able to absorb on it since early 2000. No one has ever ghost-written one of my posts or put words into my mouth. My writing has never been dependent on any one specific style, source of content or colour. I believe I will say what has to be said. Certainly, if I was in prison, surrounded by a surly gang of inmates and one of them had a shiv with my name on it, I’d want you by my side for your best read as to which way I shouldn’t run! On the other hand, if you were looking for some cold, grey-light-of-morning discernment and logic, or the very subtlest of technical disparities within one accounting of events to another, and were willing to put the time, energy and thought into each excruciating detail, before contemplating each possible answer ad nauseum and coming to a conclusion, you might want to look me up.
In fact, it was I alone who wrote my last post. Call it a kind of last ditch effort to try and save this thread from being swallowed up by juvenile debate tactics at the expense of meaningful content. Maybe the next topic will be a little more productive and attract some additional perspective from other discussion board members. It's okay Joe. I've read many posts over the years. You don't have to cover for anyone. Like I wrote above, that was clearly not formulated by you alone. It doesn't matter, because there's no rule that says you can't have help. Now, contact them again, and let's get the second part they were preparing for you on the heels of my response. Again with this, Michael? Plain and simple, here’s what needs to be said on this. I’m calling you out here. Fill me and everyone else in on your suspicions or desist with this nonsense. In other words, kindly put up or shut up. My own conclusion (yes Michael) with no thanks to all of your interference and smoke trails as I leave this thread.. Skean was Charlie's little companion and not Charlie's "watchdog." No one, including Charles and Anne Lindbergh, Betty Gow, Henry Ellerson, Alva Root, the Breckinridges, the Whateleys and probably most of the people at Next Day Hill, considered Skean's presence in the nursery to be a critical element towards the safety and security of Charlie, when he was alone in the nursery. Otherwise, Skean would have been there. And if by chance, hell and high water, Skean still couldn't have made it, at the very least, Wahgoosh would have been "filling in" for the absent little Scotty. 20/20 hindsight is not always wonderful.. I've debunked this "logic" so many times I've lost track. Of course you never counter-argue... Just repeat it over and over as if its never been challenged. It's bad faith and dirty pool tactics. But its on full display so I guess I'll just have to point it out each and every time you do it. Your rebuttals for the most part of late, have been erratic, without logical flow and have been very difficult to follow. Many of your points just seem to appear out of left field and are usually tacked will-nilly onto others which somehow might help you out, but only adds to the general confusion. I’ll try to address what I believe to be each one of your points with highlighted additions. Did the family know there was going to be a Kidnapping? If yes, your point is invalid. If no, why would they consider Skean's presence as a deterrent to something they did not know was going to happen? I’ve previously offered my thoughts on this one. No one at Highfields or Next Day Hill knew the kidnapping was going to happen and Skean’s presence in Charlie’s nursery was not pre-emptively considered to be a necessary measure towards the child’s safety and security. Skean’s ultimate potential significance here was not realized until after the kidnapping. But what we DO know, again, is that Anne believed Skean's presence would have been a deterrent. Again, we don't even need to know this FACT because its COMMON SENSE that a dog sleeping in the Nursery would have been a major obstacle to a Kidnapper climbing into the nursery thru the 2nd story window. Anne revealed these thoughts after the kidnapping. Clearly, she is a mother lamenting the loss of her son while coming to this realization after-the-fact. If Anne or anyone else had considered Skean’s presence in Charlie’s nursery as a critical safeguard, I’m sure he would have been there. The nursery shutter would also have been fixed immediately and the windows locked. In 20/20 hindsight, there were many safety and security letdowns which accumulatively contributed towards this kidnapping taking place. Why did these letdowns occur? In large part, because the Lindberghs essentially felt they were safe and secure within Highfields. Having just moved from their Princeton farmhouse where Anne’s little 'fat lamb' napped some afternoons in the barn or yard unattended with no worries or issues into a relative stone-walled fortress, provides important insight into the sense of false security they had gradually developed 'living in the country' before March 1, 1932. Lindbergh left Skean behind. Skean never missed a previous trip despite your silly position. Yet this time he did, and by your own argument, could have been brought down after Lindbergh left him behind. Do you know for a fact that Skean never missed any of the previous family trips to Highfields? Regardless, each one of those previous trips involved Charles, Anne and Charlie driving together as a family unit with Skean towed along as Charlie’s little companion. Not so with the weekend right before the kidnapping. There were extenuating circumstances that prevented that same routine from being followed. You keep repeating this worn-out mantra that Lindbergh left Skean behind because that's what Marguerite Junge said in her mini-autobiography written well after the fact. You've clearly been shown that Junge’s later accounting of the events was inaccurate, and so it was not just Lindbergh who did not bring Skean, or even felt it was critical to Charlie’s safety and security for the terrier to have been at Highfields. The fact is, no one expressed concern that Skean’s presence at Highfields was critical for this purpose, until after the kidnapping. However, Lindbergh never asked anyone to bring him down or they definitely would have. So this idea that no one thought Skean was needed to prevent a Kidnapping makes ZERO sense. It's not a rebuttal, its nonsense. I cannot understand on earth what you’re trying to say here, but I do know you’re attempting to do it in the most difficult way imaginable. Again, no one, including Charles Lindbergh, Anne, Betty and the Whateleys, believed Skean’s presence at Highfields was critical or even necessary towards the safety and security of Charlie when he was alone in his nursery. The actions and inactions of everyone involved are entirely consistent and logical when measured against this point. Now you are saying Wahgoosh could have filled in? For what? Wahgoosh was the dog that barked at everything, not the child's constant companion. Whateley himself blurted out to reporters the crime was committed by someone known to Wahgoosh. Good thing he didn't live to testify or the books on this case might be all saying something very different. Here's what I said. That if anyone really believed a dog’s presence in the nursery was critical towards the safety and security of Charlie when he was alone in his nursery, then they would at least have tried subbing Wahgoosh in for Skean, if the latter dog had been absent for whatever reason. And they would have thought along these lines from Saturday and on, right up until the time Charlie was kidnapped.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Dec 7, 2022 17:06:05 GMT -5
There you go Joe. This is you, and this time without any help. You may not realize it, and I don't know how, but when you get help its quite obvious. It's not just style but also substance. I don't believe I've ever said that I psycho-analysed anyone. What I've done is share my experiences, many of which I can explain while others dealt with intangibles or things I couldn't explain in words exactly "why" I knew something or did not. That isn't unique, and anyone who actually did their job for a good amount of time had the same type of knowledge/experiences as a result. Many of my co-workers, both male and female, would know precisely what I am talking about. Also, once you learn something, it should never be forgotten as you suggest. I don't have expertise in your field so there's certain abilities you may have that I would never experience, know, or understand. It's just how it is. Doesn't make me 100% right about everything but on the inside you wouldn't bet against me - I promise you that. If you were ever with me, and didn't have an "accident," you'd probably ask " how'd you know he was going to do that?" Again, its experience and about half the time I couldn't even answer that question. Michael, I fully understand your thoughts on specific fields of endeavour, and how each one can provide relevant experience and insights into case topics being examined. That's one of the main reasons I’ve freely communicated with so many individuals of different backgrounds and experiences and considered such a variety of source documentation over the years. Everything you’ve read and will read from me at this site comes from my personal case knowledge base, courtesy of everything I’ve been able to absorb on it since early 2000. No one has ever ghost-written one of my posts or put words into my mouth. My writing has never been dependent on any one specific style, source of content or colour. I believe I will say what has to be said. Certainly, if I was in prison, surrounded by a surly gang of inmates and one of them had a shiv with my name on it, I’d want you by my side for your best read as to which way I shouldn’t run! On the other hand, if you were looking for some cold, grey-light-of-morning discernment and logic, or the very subtlest of technical disparities within one accounting of events to another, and were willing to put the time, energy and thought into each excruciating detail, before contemplating each possible answer ad nauseum and coming to a conclusion, you might want to look me up.
It's okay Joe. I've read many posts over the years. You don't have to cover for anyone. Like I wrote above, that was clearly not formulated by you alone. It doesn't matter, because there's no rule that says you can't have help. Now, contact them again, and let's get the second part they were preparing for you on the heels of my response. Again with this, Michael? Plain and simple, here’s what needs to be said on this. I’m calling you out here. Fill me and everyone else in on your suspicions or desist with this nonsense. In other words, kindly put up or shut up. I've debunked this "logic" so many times I've lost track. Of course you never counter-argue... Just repeat it over and over as if its never been challenged. It's bad faith and dirty pool tactics. But its on full display so I guess I'll just have to point it out each and every time you do it. Your rebuttals for the most part of late, have been erratic, without logical flow and have been very difficult to follow. Many of your points just seem to appear out of left field and are usually tacked will-nilly onto others which somehow might help you out, but only adds to the general confusion. I’ll try to address what I believe to be each one of your points with highlighted additions. Did the family know there was going to be a Kidnapping? If yes, your point is invalid. If no, why would they consider Skean's presence as a deterrent to something they did not know was going to happen? I’ve previously offered my thoughts on this one. No one at Highfields or Next Day Hill knew the kidnapping was going to happen and Skean’s presence in Charlie’s nursery was not pre-emptively considered to be a necessary measure towards the child’s safety and security. Skean’s ultimate potential significance here was not realized until after the kidnapping. But what we DO know, again, is that Anne believed Skean's presence would have been a deterrent. Again, we don't even need to know this FACT because its COMMON SENSE that a dog sleeping in the Nursery would have been a major obstacle to a Kidnapper climbing into the nursery thru the 2nd story window. Anne revealed these thoughts after the kidnapping. Clearly, she is a mother lamenting the loss of her son while coming to this realization after-the-fact. If Anne or anyone else had considered Skean’s presence in Charlie’s nursery as a critical safeguard, I’m sure he would have been there. The nursery shutter would also have been fixed immediately and the windows locked. In 20/20 hindsight, there were many safety and security letdowns which accumulatively contributed towards this kidnapping taking place. Why did these letdowns occur? In large part, because the Lindberghs essentially felt they were safe and secure within Highfields. Having just moved from their Princeton farmhouse where Anne’s little 'fat lamb' napped some afternoons in the barn or yard unattended with no worries or issues into a relative stone-walled fortress, provides important insight into the sense of false security they had gradually developed 'living in the country' before March 1, 1932. Lindbergh left Skean behind. Skean never missed a previous trip despite your silly position. Yet this time he did, and by your own argument, could have been brought down after Lindbergh left him behind. Do you know for a fact that Skean never missed any of the previous family trips to Highfields? Regardless, each one of those previous trips involved Charles, Anne and Charlie driving together as a family unit with Skean towed along as Charlie’s little companion. Not so with the weekend right before the kidnapping. There were extenuating circumstances that prevented that same routine from being followed. You keep repeating this worn-out mantra that Lindbergh left Skean behind because that's what Marguerite Junge said in her mini-autobiography written well after the fact. You've clearly been shown that Junge’s later accounting of the events was inaccurate, and so it was not just Lindbergh who did not bring Skean, or even felt it was critical to Charlie’s safety and security for the terrier to have been at Highfields. The fact is, no one expressed concern that Skean’s presence at Highfields was critical for this purpose, until after the kidnapping. However, Lindbergh never asked anyone to bring him down or they definitely would have. So this idea that no one thought Skean was needed to prevent a Kidnapping makes ZERO sense. It's not a rebuttal, its nonsense. I cannot understand on earth what you’re trying to say here, but I do know you’re attempting to do it in the most difficult way imaginable. Again, no one, including Charles Lindbergh, Anne, Betty and the Whateleys, believed Skean’s presence at Highfields was critical or even necessary towards the safety and security of Charlie when he was alone in his nursery. The actions and inactions of everyone involved are entirely consistent and logical when measured against this point. Now you are saying Wahgoosh could have filled in? For what? Wahgoosh was the dog that barked at everything, not the child's constant companion. Whateley himself blurted out to reporters the crime was committed by someone known to Wahgoosh. Good thing he didn't live to testify or the books on this case might be all saying something very different. Here's what I said. That if anyone really believed a dog’s presence in the nursery was critical towards the safety and security of Charlie when he was alone in his nursery, then they would at least have tried subbing Wahgoosh in for Skean, if the latter dog had been absent for whatever reason. And they would have thought along these lines from Saturday and on, right up until the time Charlie was kidnapped.First and only time I would agree with Joe, BUT... CAL also never had protection for Charlie when they lived at White Cloud Farm either. Charlie was left outside alone and nurse and Elsie were told to leave him be. Why? If the Lindbergh's were so concerned about privacy, why jeopardize Charlie there? That driveway is not that long. You can see the house from the road. If a dog was there for Charlie could Olly or Anne or Betty have gotten outside fast enough? Remember crazy people showed up looking in windows and demanding to see Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 7, 2022 21:18:57 GMT -5
Again with this, Michael? Plain and simple, here’s what needs to be said on this. I’m calling you out here. Fill me and everyone else in on your suspicions or desist with this nonsense. In other words, kindly put up or shut up. Joe, you must think I'm an idiot or something. I'll let that post do the talking for me. There's nothing else like it in this entire thread. Nothing. You won't see me accusing you of getting help with this one. Why not? Because it's like all of your others - with one exception. Guess which one? You have every right to do it, but I'll be able to tell, so if you want to continue denying it, try to make it sound a little more like you. Nuff said about it. Just know that I know and we'll leave it at that. Your rebuttals for the most part of late, have been erratic, without logical flow and have been very difficult to follow. Many of your points just seem to appear out of left field and are usually tacked will-nilly onto others which somehow might help you out, but only adds to the general confusion. I’ll try to address what I believe to be each one of your points with highlighted additions. Wait what? I thought you were the guy to look at things for a possible answer ad nauseam. Now you are telling me you can't understand my points? Or find them "erratic?" Not a testament to the skills you claim to possess but whatever I guess. I’ve previously offered my thoughts on this one. No one at Highfields or Next Day Hill knew the kidnapping was going to happen and Skean’s presence in Charlie’s nursery was not pre-emptively considered to be a necessary measure towards the child’s safety and security. Skean’s ultimate potential significance here was not realized until after the kidnapping.
Your point is irrelevant. AGAIN, a dog lying in a nursery is a deterrent to any kidnapping attempt. Kidnappers would not want that dog lying in the nursery. Why? Because just as Anne wrote, the kidnapping would not have occurred. And so, if Lindbergh had set this whole thing up, it is a safe bet he'd want to leave Skean behind. It's common sense. Otherwise, its just ANOTHER of the MANY strokes of monumental luck that created a PERFECT STORM for some illegal immigrant carpenter living in the Bronx. Either way, the Dog was always brought down each and every time prior. His normal place was near that child. This time he was left behind. Whether or not someone believed the dog to be a security measure is a moot point because that dog was regardless - as Anne pointed out. Next, the crime was prepared for. How did the "kidnappers" prepared for a dog that would have prevented their crime IF he had been there as they SHOULD have been suspecting he would? I'll bet it wasn't to say the family didn't think he existed for security before the crime - that's for certain. Anne revealed these thoughts after the kidnapping. Clearly, she is a mother lamenting the loss of her son while coming to this realization after-the-fact. If Anne or anyone else had considered Skean’s presence in Charlie’s nursery as a critical safeguard, I’m sure he would have been there. The nursery shutter would also have been fixed immediately and the windows locked. In 20/20 hindsight, there were many safety and security letdowns which accumulatively contributed towards this kidnapping taking place. Why did these letdowns occur? In large part, because the Lindberghs essentially felt they were safe and secure within Highfields. Having just moved from their Princeton farmhouse where Anne’s little 'fat lamb' napped some afternoons in the barn or yard unattended with no worries or issues into a relative stone-walled fortress, provides important insight into the sense of false security they had gradually developed 'living in the country' before March 1, 1932. It doesn't matter "when" she says this. Why? Because it proves she believed if Skean was there this doesn't happen. Guess who else would think this? The kidnappers dude. What don't you understand about this? Anne's thoughts reflect what she believed prior to the kidnapping as well. That is this dog, Skean, was the type that would have interfered with a criminal's plans. Whether or not she contemplated kidnapping might occur matters not. It's a clear indication of her belief about Skean before, during, or after the time she wrote about it. Next, Dwight Morrow warned Lindbergh, that he needed security or his son would be kidnapped. That's a FACT. Hurley approached Lindbergh asking for a job as a Security Guard, something he did for the Contractor. Lindbergh said "no." Was it because he felt "safe" as you've invented as if this was a Lifetime movie? NO. He told Hurley it was because he didn't want " anyone to think he was afraid." Not that he felt safe and secure. How many times was someone caught peering into windows or knocking on the door making demands or inquiries as Mary pointed out? In more than one instance Anne was frightened, and yet, you write this nonsense above? As far as the shutters being fixed. Yup, Lindbergh again. Another part of that PERFECT STORM I wrote about. They brought a chisel for that purpose though... right. Can you imagine the noise that would make breaking the shutter up with a chisel? Never mind, I know you can't, because its a problem so of course it gets shrugged off. As with the shutters that weren't locked, and found open by Police. Windy night wasn't it? Again, there's that PERFECT STORM where no one hears anything EXCEPT Lindbergh despite the fact the child was gone by the time he claimed he heard the orange crate sound from the direction of the kitchen. I wonder what he heard? Do you know for a fact that Skean never missed any of the previous family trips to Highfields? Regardless, each one of those previous trips involved Charles, Anne and Charlie driving together as a family unit with Skean towed along as Charlie’s little companion. Not so with the weekend right before the kidnapping. There were extenuating circumstances that prevented that same routine from being followed. You keep repeating this worn-out mantra that Lindbergh left Skean behind because that's what Marguerite Junge said in her mini-autobiography written well after the fact. You've clearly been shown that Junge’s later accounting of the events was inaccurate, and so it was not just Lindbergh who did not bring Skean, or even felt it was critical to Charlie’s safety and security for the terrier to have been at Highfields. The fact is, no one expressed concern that Skean’s presence at Highfields was critical for this purpose, until after the kidnapping. Is this a serious question? You ask this now after previously agreeing with it? What did you base that on? Whatever it was, go look it up again and you'll have your answer. It won't matter, of course, because you've been shrugging it off this entire time. Just look at how you continued on with your point. You want information, get it, then shrug it off. Why bother? Okay, so Junge forgets that Lindbergh left separately but does not about him leaving Skean behind. What's the issue? The main and major point is about Skean, because that's what everyone wanted to know about and she had the answer. Nobody was asking who left with whom. They were asking Lindbergh where he was on March 1, while on the stand in Flemington, and he supposedly couldn't remember. Ready to throw everything he said out? I didn't think so. This rebuttal you've formulated, shows how desperate you are to distance Lindbergh from the event of leaving that dog behind. She is a valid source whether you like it or not. And here comes this silly argument about Skean again. Right, everyone who owns a dog announces they would thwart kidnappings before they happen. Its asinine. I cannot understand on earth what you’re trying to say here, but I do know you’re attempting to do it in the most difficult way imaginable. Again, no one, including Charles Lindbergh, Anne, Betty and the Whateleys, believed Skean’s presence at Highfields was critical or even necessary towards the safety and security of Charlie when he was alone in his nursery. The actions and inactions of everyone involved are entirely consistent and logical when measured against this point. You can't understand? Are you kidding me? No wonder, you keep thinking anyone who owns a dog must announce previous to any crime they were watchdogs. The dog went down every weekend with the family. Lindbergh left him behind because, according to Junge, he didn't want to wait for him to return from his walk. That's it. If Lindbergh wanted him at Highfields, he would have instructed someone to bring him down. This idea that staff would go behind him and bring the dog down without Lindbergh asking shows you have no idea about how things worked. I know you have this "Leave it to Beaver" scenario in your head but that's not how it was. It was more like a guy throwing a dead seagull under his window and NOBODY dared to touch it as it lay there for days. Or hiding the baby in a closet and pretending it was kidnapped, not once, but TWICE. Does that sound normal to you? Sound like a guy who wasn't thinking about a kidnapping? What about Anne? Do you think that crossed her mind after putting her through hell twice? She didn't think he did it again on March 1 - did she? Didn't cross Betty's mind either did it? Oh, yes it did. But its all after the kidnapping so that's okay? Here's what I said. That if anyone really believed a dog’s presence in the nursery was critical towards the safety and security of Charlie when he was alone in his nursery, then they would at least have tried subbing Wahgoosh in for Skean, if the latter dog had been absent for whatever reason. And they would have thought along these lines from Saturday and on, right up until the time Charlie was kidnapped. WTF? I'm done.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 8, 2022 9:13:22 GMT -5
ILoveDFW, in my view, Charles and Anne saw the farmhouse at 280 Cold Soil Road as a kind of refuge from NYC and urban areas in general, while their permanent Hopewell home was being planned and built. They both took to the place right away, as they would with later places like Long Barn and Iliec despite many shortcomings they had to deal with to make them all livable for their own purposes. White Cloud Farm also appealed to their love of adventure and change and especially Charles’ own upbringing and farm life in Little Falls; they were happy to put up with the inconveniences and joked good-naturedly about them. Above all, they were most definitely concerned about having their privacy and they perceived this as a place that was relatively remote enough to dissuade reporters and curiosity seekers from regularly invading their space. WCF also appealed to them for its open field space which would allow them to take off and land a plane.
I just don’t believe the Lindberghs considered the local population to be a threat to them at all, even though there were realistic enough in knowing there would be a certain amount of initial inquisitiveness to having someone famous living in their home environment. Rightly or wrongly, they dealt with these kinds of intrusions in a relatively benign sense, not wishing to upset anyone or give the impression they were just “rich snobby hideaways.” They basically wanted to fit into the local fabric as well as they could, and be left alone. And they clearly didn’t consider Charlie’s safety and security to be a concern living “in the country,” otherwise he would have been attended to constantly.
Over time, they allowed themselves to slowly slip into that sense of false security that eventually proved fatal to them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 8, 2022 13:51:27 GMT -5
ILoveDFW, in my view, Charles and Anne saw the farmhouse at 280 Cold Soil Road as a kind of refuge from NYC and urban areas in general, while their permanent Hopewell home was being planned and built. They both took to the place right away, as they would with later places like Long Barn and Iliec despite many shortcomings they had to deal with to make them all livable for their own purposes. White Cloud Farm also appealed to their love of adventure and change and especially Charles’ own upbringing and farm life in Little Falls; they were happy to put up with the inconveniences and joked good-naturedly about them. Above all, they were most definitely concerned about having their privacy and they perceived this as a place that was relatively remote enough to dissuade reporters and curiosity seekers from regularly invading their space. WCF also appealed to them for its open field space which would allow them to take off and land a plane. I just don’t believe the Lindberghs considered the local population to be a threat to them at all, even though there were realistic enough in knowing there would be a certain amount of initial inquisitiveness to having someone famous living in their home environment. Rightly or wrongly, they dealt with these kinds of intrusions in a relatively benign sense, not wishing to upset anyone or give the impression they were just “rich snobby hideaways.” They basically wanted to fit into the local fabric as well as they could, and be left alone. And they clearly didn’t consider Charlie’s safety and security to be a concern living “in the country,” otherwise he would have been attended to constantly. Over time, they allowed themselves to slowly slip into that sense of false security that eventually proved fatal to them. Nonsense. This fantasy doesn't address the people/intruders who caused Anne such concern - all documented by the way. Know what isn't? The yarn about not being concerned " or he would have been attended to constantly." He wasn't because it was Lindbergh's rule not to. Next, everyone should take notice of how Joe avoids the point that Dwight Morrow told Lindbergh if he didn't get security his son would be kidnapped. Once that occurred, Lindbergh had no choice but to consider it. After that, he turned down Hurley to be a security guard as I mentioned last night but Joe in his response to Mary evades this too. Again, Lindbergh didn't say it was because he felt safe, secure, or didn't need it because of where he now lived. No, he said he " did not want people to think he was afraid." Think about that. Most normal people would have heeded Morrow's advice. Most normal people, if they felt safe, would have said it wasn't necessary. Ask yourself why the Construction company felt the need to hire a security guard but that the most famous man on the planet at the time did not. So when Joe tries to spin this into a normal type of situation the facts do not bear this out. More, in all likelihood there was a fake kidnapping in Cuernevaca concerning Dwight Jr. (V4,P385). And there was of course the now famous Constance Morrow extortion involving 50K and threats on her life (V4,P410-34). If the first occurred Lindbergh would have known about it from his wife. During the latter he was actually involved on the family's end, so he definitely knew about that first hand. Furthermore, we have Anne being very frightened by intruders as mentioned above. A guest, Keyhoe, was shook when he spotted a voyeur peering thru the window. Lindbergh merely said he wasn't " worried about intruders." Clearly, since there was one, this proves he accepted there would be. But what we see here is that he was giving off the appearance that he wasn't "afraid." He pulled this same stunt at the Morgue by his treatment of his son's corpse. He was trying to look superior in the face of what should have been his weakest point. That's what was MOST important to him. Think about that. It's not about safety but rather his appearance. It's in line with his transcontinental flight when pregnant Anne was suffering but was even more afraid to tell him to land. These intruders were appearing about " 2 to 3 times a week" prior to the kidnapping so this silly notion that they wouldn't be bothered on a regular basis or that the family believed they were safe due to where they were is disproven by that actual facts which occurred. Next we have Lindbergh hiding the child on two separate occasions, terrorizing Anne, pretending he was kidnapped. Joe evaded these events too. No, no, Lindbergh was "Beaver's" father wasn't he? No, he wasn't. He was the guy who was thinking about kidnapping more than once. We know this by and through his actions, interactions, experiences, and words as briefly cited above. There's even more of course. Let me end this by saying once the child turned up dead, Lindbergh said it himself when speaking to the press. He gave some backward-ass explanation about how they considered the possibility but felt, in essence, because the child was so famous they believed the proposition would be so dangerous, no one would take the risk (V1,P32). Nothing about feeling safe because of where they lived. Absolutely nothing whatsoever.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Dec 9, 2022 9:42:35 GMT -5
When Lindbergh left Englewood to take his family to Hopewell, he could hardly have anticipated that his son would become ill that weekend causing a delay in their return. Two phone calls were made to Next Day Hill,, the first on Monday, Feb. 29, when Anne called to state that the baby was ill and that they would not return until he was better. The next day (March 1) she called to state that she ws not well heself and requested assistance. The kidnappers had an unexpected opportunity to accomplish their purpose (unless someone wants to claim that Lincbergh deliberately made his child ill). Obviously someone on the inside reported all this to the kidnappers. So the dog was left behind that weekend. If the dog had been taken along and assumed his usual guarding duties, the inside confederate would have taken him to another place in the house for a few minutes, whether to the basement as she was washing clothes, feeding him,, giving him a bath, medicating him, whatever way to remove him from the scene of the action, an action that would seem to be the usual for a dog's requirements. It was still evening, not the middle of the night.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Dec 10, 2022 17:09:45 GMT -5
Hi hiram, According to your post a confederate told the kidnappers about the Lindberghs staying at Highfield on Tuesday March 1st, the day it was decided they would stay over one more night. "So the dog was left behind that weekend," but the dog had been left behind on the previous Saturday when the plan had been to leave Highfield on the Monday so Skean being left behind cannot be a result of a communication with the kidnappers on the Tuesday. If Skean had been present and removed from his position under Charlie's bed while the child was taken it would give rise to serious suspicion of "inside help." Much less risky for the insider to remove the child, even with Skean present, and hand him to the kidnapper by prior arrangement at the front door. But we can dismiss this option: if Lindbergh organised this through a chain of intermediates/cut outs it would be essential for the actual hands-on abductors to believe it was a hostile kidnap with no inside help. Things could have been made easier for the kidnappers (Skean's absence, faulty shutter, etc) but I cannot see there being any face to face contact with the insider (if there was one). Such contact would suggest a staged kidnap which could only have been approved by Lindbergh himself - exactly what he wanted to avoid at all costs, hence the chain of intermediates. Best regards, Sherlock
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 10, 2022 18:07:24 GMT -5
Again with this, Michael? Plain and simple, here’s what needs to be said on this. I’m calling you out here. Fill me and everyone else in on your suspicions or desist with this nonsense. In other words, kindly put up or shut up. Joe, you must think I'm an idiot or something. I'll let that post do the talking for me. There's nothing else like it in this entire thread. Nothing. You won't see me accusing you of getting help with this one. Why not? Because it's like all of your others - with one exception. Guess which one? You have every right to do it, but I'll be able to tell, so if you want to continue denying it, try to make it sound a little more like you. Nuff said about it. Just know that I know and we'll leave it at that. How annoying can you continue to be? You may want to see if they’ll take your discussion board profile on this website, where you’ll also find your cherished poster boy Bruno Richard Hauptmann:
amiannoying.com/(S(ncnpoonr02ulxkikwbwe1yqs))/default.aspx
All kidding aside, why don’t you stop being so cagey and just spill whatever these suspicions you have of me, Michael. Are you talking about the post where I italicized and highlighted quotations from Marguerite Junge’s mini-autobiography? The one where I asked you if what I had written so far was correct? (Dec 5, 2022 at 8:58 am) Who on earth do you think is doing my writing besides me? You keep upping the ante here, and you're going to lose. Your rebuttals for the most part of late, have been erratic, without logical flow and have been very difficult to follow. Many of your points just seem to appear out of left field and are usually tacked will-nilly onto others which somehow might help you out, but only adds to the general confusion. I’ll try to address what I believe to be each one of your points with highlighted additions. Wait what? I thought you were the guy to look at things for a possible answer ad nauseam. Now you are telling me you can't understand my points? Or find them "erratic?" Not a testament to the skills you claim to possess but whatever I guess. I never said I was a mind reader, Michael. Most of the time, I get the gist of what you’re saying. As an example of your ability to confuse the issue however, the dead seagull account you winged in to nicely underscore ‘Big Bad Lindy’s’ “nobody better mess with me and bring Skean to High Fields!” really threw me for a loop at first but I eventually caught on to what you were implying. Unfortunately for you, that implication is so far beyond left field, it’s out of town.
I’ve previously offered my thoughts on this one. No one at Highfields or Next Day Hill knew the kidnapping was going to happen and Skean’s presence in Charlie’s nursery was not pre-emptively considered to be a necessary measure towards the child’s safety and security. Skean’s ultimate potential significance here was not realized until after the kidnapping. Your point is irrelevant. AGAIN, a dog lying in a nursery is a deterrent to any kidnapping attempt. Kidnappers would not want that dog lying in the nursery. Why? Because just as Anne wrote, the kidnapping would not have occurred. And so, if Lindbergh had set this whole thing up, it is a safe bet he'd want to leave Skean behind. It's common sense. Otherwise, its just ANOTHER of the MANY strokes of monumental luck that created a PERFECT STORM for some illegal immigrant carpenter living in the Bronx. Either way, the Dog was always brought down each and every time prior. His normal place was near that child. This time he was left behind. Whether or not someone believed the dog to be a security measure is a moot point because that dog was regardless - as Anne pointed out. Next, the crime was prepared for. How did the "kidnappers" prepared for a dog that would have prevented their crime IF he had been there as they SHOULD have been suspecting he would? I'll bet it wasn't to say the family didn't think he existed for security before the crime - that's for certain. Yes, I know a dog lying by Charlie’s crib could well have been a deterrent to a kidnapping. Hello! Why don’t you tell me something I don’t know? And if anyone at High Fields or Next Day Hill had considered Skean’s presence in Charlie’s nursery more than companionship before the kidnapping, then I’m sure he would have been there. The fact is, they just didn’t think of it. It’s not complicated really, but that certainly doesn't stop you from overthinking this.
Your main issue here is that you’re starting from the premise that Lindbergh had “set this whole thing up” and so it’s just yet another of the pitfalls you constantly dance around and eventually tumble into. And when you don’t have a clean way out, you burn rubber, create a lot of smoke and point to a whole raft of other factors that are then supposed to support your entirely contentious and impeachable singular point. Skean’s absence from Charlie nursery is a fairly straightforward scenario, one with few actual documentation sources, which is why I began with this one. But that certainly hasn't stopped you from making it into something quite fantastical.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 10, 2022 18:22:10 GMT -5
Anne revealed these thoughts after the kidnapping. Clearly, she is a mother lamenting the loss of her son while coming to this realization after-the-fact. If Anne or anyone else had considered Skean’s presence in Charlie’s nursery as a critical safeguard, I’m sure he would have been there. The nursery shutter would also have been fixed immediately and the windows locked. In 20/20 hindsight, there were many safety and security letdowns which accumulatively contributed towards this kidnapping taking place. Why did these letdowns occur? In large part, because the Lindberghs essentially felt they were safe and secure within Highfields. Having just moved from their Princeton farmhouse where Anne’s little 'fat lamb' napped some afternoons in the barn or yard unattended with no worries or issues into a relative stone-walled fortress, provides important insight into the sense of false security they had gradually developed 'living in the country' before March 1, 1932. It doesn't matter "when" she says this. Why? Because it proves she believed if Skean was there this doesn't happen. Guess who else would think this? The kidnappers dude. What don't you understand about this? Anne's thoughts reflect what she believed prior to the kidnapping as well. That is this dog, Skean, was the type that would have interfered with a criminal's plans. Whether or not she contemplated kidnapping might occur matters not. It's a clear indication of her belief about Skean before, during, or after the time she wrote about it. You’re lost here and I don’t think you can be helped. No, Anne did not realize before the kidnapping that Skean’s presence in Charlie’s nursery was a necessity for her child’s safety and security. Next, Dwight Morrow warned Lindbergh, that he needed security or his son would be kidnapped. That's a FACT. Hurley approached Lindbergh asking for a job as a Security Guard, something he did for the Contractor. Lindbergh said "no." Was it because he felt "safe" as you've invented as if this was a Lifetime movie? NO. He told Hurley it was because he didn't want " anyone to think he was afraid." Not that he felt safe and secure. How many times was someone caught peering into windows or knocking on the door making demands or inquiries as Mary pointed out? In more than one instance Anne was frightened, and yet, you write this nonsense above? What’s your point here? That Lindbergh, from the time of their first visits to High Fields, was gradually and nefariously planting seeds of ill-intent and a grand 'fauxnapping' by these apparent actions? You’re starting to sound more like Chicken Little than Columbo. As far as the shutters being fixed. Yup, Lindbergh again. Another part of that PERFECT STORM I wrote about. They brought a chisel for that purpose though... right. Can you imagine the noise that would make breaking the shutter up with a chisel? Never mind, I know you can't, because its a problem so of course it gets shrugged off. As with the shutters that weren't locked, and found open by Police. Windy night wasn't it? Again, there's that PERFECT STORM where no one hears anything EXCEPT Lindbergh despite the fact the child was gone by the time he claimed he heard the orange crate sound from the direction of the kitchen. I wonder what he heard? Where was the housekeeper, Whateley, from the time the shutters were first recognized as faulty? Lindbergh always kept a very full schedule. Would he have been expected to deal with all of the shortcomings of their new home? How about the guy who was not a butler, but the one expected to deal with the maintenance and upkeep of the home? Why don’t you ever mention Whateley’s duties, and why do you think he wasn't on top of the faulty shutter issue, if Lindbergh wasn’t? Do you know for a fact that Skean never missed any of the previous family trips to Highfields? Regardless, each one of those previous trips involved Charles, Anne and Charlie driving together as a family unit with Skean towed along as Charlie’s little companion. Not so with the weekend right before the kidnapping. There were extenuating circumstances that prevented that same routine from being followed. You keep repeating this worn-out mantra that Lindbergh left Skean behind because that's what Marguerite Junge said in her mini-autobiography written well after the fact. You've clearly been shown that Junge’s later accounting of the events was inaccurate, and so it was not just Lindbergh who did not bring Skean, or even felt it was critical to Charlie’s safety and security for the terrier to have been at Highfields. The fact is, no one expressed concern that Skean’s presence at Highfields was critical for this purpose, until after the kidnapping. Is this a serious question? You ask this now after previously agreeing with it? What did you base that on? Whatever it was, go look it up again and you'll have your answer. It won't matter, of course, because you've been shrugging it off this entire time. Just look at how you continued on with your point. You want information, get it, then shrug it off. Why bother? Okay, so Junge forgets that Lindbergh left separately but does not about him leaving Skean behind. What's the issue? The main and major point is about Skean, because that's what everyone wanted to know about and she had the answer. Nobody was asking who left with whom. They were asking Lindbergh where he was on March 1, while on the stand in Flemington, and he supposedly couldn't remember. Ready to throw everything he said out? I didn't think so. This rebuttal you've formulated, shows how desperate you are to distance Lindbergh from the event of leaving that dog behind. She is a valid source whether you like it or not. And here comes this silly argument about Skean again. Right, everyone who owns a dog announces they would thwart kidnappings before they happen. Its asinine. Junge’s account essentially stands on its own in terms of attempting to explain what happened on Saturday, February 27, 1932. There are no others, yet you play nodding bobblehead here, agreeing with what she’s saying, even though as you’ve previously indicated it was probably written five years after the fact and does contain significant inaccuracies. But you can’t help but proudly point to this flawed piece of documentation, as if to say, “it’s all we got, so we’d better go with it.. Duh yup!” Sorry my friend.. it might represent an epiphany for you and the Like Button whacker, but I don’t buy it as an accurate and reliable source. I cannot understand on earth what you’re trying to say here, but I do know you’re attempting to do it in the most difficult way imaginable. Again, no one, including Charles Lindbergh, Anne, Betty and the Whateleys, believed Skean’s presence at Highfields was critical or even necessary towards the safety and security of Charlie when he was alone in his nursery. The actions and inactions of everyone involved are entirely consistent and logical when measured against this point. You can't understand? Are you kidding me? No wonder, you keep thinking anyone who owns a dog must announce previous to any crime they were watchdogs. The dog went down every weekend with the family. Lindbergh left him behind because, according to Junge, he didn't want to wait for him to return from his walk. That's it. If Lindbergh wanted him at Highfields, he would have instructed someone to bring him down. This idea that staff would go behind him and bring the dog down without Lindbergh asking shows you have no idea about how things worked. Neither Lindbergh nor anyone else at High Fields or Next Day Hill thought it was important enough for Skean to be in Charlie’s nursery for safety and security, which is why he didn’t end up making it that weekend. I know you have this "Leave it to Beaver" scenario in your head but that's not how it was. It was more like a guy throwing a dead seagull under his window and NOBODY dared to touch it as it lay there for days. Or hiding the baby in a closet and pretending it was kidnapped, not once, but TWICE. Does that sound normal to you? Sound like a guy who wasn't thinking about a kidnapping? What about Anne? Do you think that crossed her mind after putting her through hell twice? She didn't think he did it again on March 1 - did she? Didn't cross Betty's mind either did it? Oh, yes it did. But its all after the kidnapping so that's okay? Lindbergh could be a total a**hole to go along with the uncommon kindness, consideration and fair play he regularly demonstrated to others, including criminals. At times, he seemed to feel privileged even within his fame and heightened public exposure, to stage stupid and inappropriate practical jokes, something he hadn’t grown out of since his youth. Look at how he genuinely frightened Breckinridge, Irey and Condon in the amphibious plane they were in while searching for Charlie, or how he treated Frank Mahoney after he came all the way from California to wish Lindbergh a safe flight across the Atlantic. Lindbergh poured a whole box of rough bran down his back. And yes, like the dead seagull deposit and two faked Charlie disappearances, his pranks seemed to know no bounds. Frankly, I wish some pissed off butt of one of his pranks had reflexively cold-cocked him somewhere along the way, as it might have provided the required wake up call. One thing I can tell you with certainty. No one as painfully private and shy as the same man who hid his son in a closet while the entire household frantically searched for him, would have entertained planning and seeing carried out, a ‘real faked kidnapping.’ Lindbergh might as well have painted his own head bright red, if he had ever chosen to be this stupid.
Here's what I said. That if anyone really believed a dog’s presence in the nursery was critical towards the safety and security of Charlie when he was alone in his nursery, then they would at least have tried subbing Wahgoosh in for Skean, if the latter dog had been absent for whatever reason. And they would have thought along these lines from Saturday and on, right up until the time Charlie was kidnapped. WTF? I'm done. Like dinner? This possibility seems to have tilted you like an old pinball machine! Yet, it’s perfectly sound logic for Wahgoosh to at least have been conscripted into duty if anyone truly felt it necessary for him to ‘safeguard’ Charlie in his nursery during Skean’s absence. Fact is, no one really considered this to be a necessity, so he didn’t get the job. And there you have it, Mr. Dinner.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 10, 2022 20:25:24 GMT -5
All kidding aside, why don’t you stop being so cagey and just spill whatever these suspicions you have of me, Michael. Are you talking about the post where I italicized and highlighted quotations from Marguerite Junge’s mini-autobiography? The one where I asked you if what I had written so far was correct? (Dec 5, 2022 at 8:58 am) Who on earth do you think is doing my writing besides me? You keep upping the ante here, and you're going to lose. Again, I'll let that post (you obviously know which one) speak for itself. Unless your middle name is "Sybil," that wasn't you. I never said I was a mind reader, Michael. Most of the time, I get the gist of what you’re saying. As an example of your ability to confuse the issue however, the dead seagull account you winged in to nicely underscore ‘Big Bad Lindy’s’ “nobody better mess with me and bring Skean to High Fields!” really threw me for a loop at first but I eventually caught on to what you were implying. Unfortunately for you, that implication is so far beyond left field, it’s out of town. Big bad Lindbergh flew his wife in the transcontinental flight against the wishes of his in-laws. Lindbergh did it anyway. Big bad Lindbergh hid his baby in a closet and pretended it was kidnapped - TWICE. Sound like someone who wasn't thinking about a kidnapping? Someone who gave a rat's ass about the child, the staff, or his wife? I gave you a direct quote from Sisk's report about how the NJSP felt concerning Lindbergh's power yet you make light of the accusations that he did as he wanted and so did everyone else. You can pretent its not true but the sources disprove what you'd like to believe. See the difference? Truth, facts, and examples, verses a Lifetime Movie or SNL skit. I'll take the legitimate facts. And why don't you? Because you despise where they lead. Not my fault dude. Nobody would have went behind Lindbergh and drove Skean down. Lindbergh left Skean behind, and obviously never asked anyone to do so. Deal with it. Yes, I know a dog lying by Charlie’s crib could well have been a deterrent to a kidnapping. Hello! And why don’t you tell me something I don’t know? And if anyone at High Fields or Next Day Hill had considered Skean’s presence in Charlie’s nursery more than companionship before the kidnapping, then I’m sure he would have been there. The fact is, they just didn’t think of it. It’s not complicated really, but that certainly doesn't stop you from overthinking this. Thank you for acknowledging this fact finally. It's what's called a "given." A dog as a constant companion would give any parent a sense of security. Whether its spoken out loud or not doesn't make a difference. So yes, again, a dog lying near the child prevents the crime. Were they thinking about one? I don't know, again, Betty and Anne seemed to quickly think Lindbergh was at it again, or at least that's the impression they gave to police. But yet you ignore that for some reason - and why is that....? Oh, I see why below. Your main issue here is that you’re starting from the premise that Lindbergh had “set this whole thing up” and so it’s just yet another of the pitfalls you constantly dance around and eventually tumble into. And when you don’t have a clean way out, you burn rubber, create a lot of smoke and point to a whole raft of other factors that are then supposed to support your entirely contentious and impeachable singular point. Skean’s absence from Charlie nursery is a fairly straightforward scenario, one with few actual documentation sources, which is why I began with this one. But that certainly hasn't stopped you from making it into something quite fantastical. This is what motivates you. Because you think you know exactly what I am thinking. You look at everything thru that lens. Basic facts will be rejected if you think I can work with them to support any position against Lindbergh. Do you really think that's a good strategy? Additionally, you do this weird thing attempting to make light of things that are seriously important as a way to neutralize them. That doesn't work and only makes me think its impossible to have a serious debate with you. "Burn rubber." "Puff out youer chest." "Big Bad Lindbergh." This is not a legitimate means of counter-argument. Just ridiculous nonsense I haven't seen since the 7th grade.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Dec 11, 2022 4:52:01 GMT -5
Hello, Sherlock: I may not hae been clear in the making the main point. Lindbergh could not have anticipated that his son would become ill over the weekend. The first call that went from Anne to Englewood was made on Monday, Feb. 29. This was the day the Lindbergh family would usually return to Next Day Hill. On Monday Anne reported that the child was ill with a cold and that they "would not return until the child was better. "This call was made about noon and so would give the kidnappers an opportunity to make preparations for Tuesday if the family stayed at Hopewell-which they had not done before. Anne called earlier on Tuesday to report that the child was better, but she had come down with the cold, and at that point she asked for help from Betty Gow. None of this had been planned previously so the dog's absence could not have been caused by any previous planning about the kidnapping on that date. The message on Monday must have been transmitted to the kidnappers who saw an opportunity for Tuesday the family stayed and the message Anne sent on Tuesday morning indicated that the tentative planning made on Monday afternoon could become a reality on Tuesday evening.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 11, 2022 9:07:46 GMT -5
ILoveDFW, in my view, Charles and Anne saw the farmhouse at 280 Cold Soil Road as a kind of refuge from NYC and urban areas in general, while their permanent Hopewell home was being planned and built. They both took to the place right away, as they would with later places like Long Barn and Iliec despite many shortcomings they had to deal with to make them all livable for their own purposes. White Cloud Farm also appealed to their love of adventure and change and especially Charles’ own upbringing and farm life in Little Falls; they were happy to put up with the inconveniences and joked good-naturedly about them. Above all, they were most definitely concerned about having their privacy and they perceived this as a place that was relatively remote enough to dissuade reporters and curiosity seekers from regularly invading their space. WCF also appealed to them for its open field space which would allow them to take off and land a plane. I just don’t believe the Lindberghs considered the local population to be a threat to them at all, even though there were realistic enough in knowing there would be a certain amount of initial inquisitiveness to having someone famous living in their home environment. Rightly or wrongly, they dealt with these kinds of intrusions in a relatively benign sense, not wishing to upset anyone or give the impression they were just “rich snobby hideaways.” They basically wanted to fit into the local fabric as well as they could, and be left alone. And they clearly didn’t consider Charlie’s safety and security to be a concern living “in the country,” otherwise he would have been attended to constantly. Over time, they allowed themselves to slowly slip into that sense of false security that eventually proved fatal to them. Nonsense. This fantasy doesn't address the people/intruders who caused Anne such concern - all documented by the way. Know what isn't? The yarn about not being concerned " or he would have been attended to constantly." He wasn't because it was Lindbergh's rule not to. Next, everyone should take notice of how Joe avoids the point that Dwight Morrow told Lindbergh if he didn't get security his son would be kidnapped. Once that occurred, Lindbergh had no choice but to consider it. After that, he turned down Hurley to be a security guard as I mentioned last night but Joe in his response to Mary evades this too. Again, Lindbergh didn't say it was because he felt safe, secure, or didn't need it because of where he now lived. No, he said he " did not want people to think he was afraid." Think about that. Most normal people would have heeded Morrow's advice. Most normal people, if they felt safe, would have said it wasn't necessary. Ask yourself why the Construction company felt the need to hire a security guard but that the most famous man on the planet at the time did not. So when Joe tries to spin this into a normal type of situation the facts do not bear this out. More, in all likelihood there was a fake kidnapping in Cuernevaca concerning Dwight Jr. (V4,P385). And there was of course the now famous Constance Morrow extortion involving 50K and threats on her life (V4,P410-34). If the first occurred Lindbergh would have known about it from his wife. During the latter he was actually involved on the family's end, so he definitely knew about that first hand. Furthermore, we have Anne being very frightened by intruders as mentioned above. A guest, Keyhoe, was shook when he spotted a voyeur peering thru the window. Lindbergh merely said he wasn't " worried about intruders." Clearly, since there was one, this proves he accepted there would be. But what we see here is that he was giving off the appearance that he wasn't "afraid." He pulled this same stunt at the Morgue by his treatment of his son's corpse. He was trying to look superior in the face of what should have been his weakest point. That's what was MOST important to him. Think about that. It's not about safety but rather his appearance. It's in line with his transcontinental flight when pregnant Anne was suffering but was even more afraid to tell him to land. These intruders were appearing about " 2 to 3 times a week" prior to the kidnapping so this silly notion that they wouldn't be bothered on a regular basis or that the family believed they were safe due to where they were is disproven by that actual facts which occurred. Next we have Lindbergh hiding the child on two separate occasions, terrorizing Anne, pretending he was kidnapped. Joe evaded these events too. No, no, Lindbergh was "Beaver's" father wasn't he? No, he wasn't. He was the guy who was thinking about kidnapping more than once. We know this by and through his actions, interactions, experiences, and words as briefly cited above. There's even more of course. Let me end this by saying once the child turned up dead, Lindbergh said it himself when speaking to the press. He gave some backward-ass explanation about how they considered the possibility but felt, in essence, because the child was so famous they believed the proposition would be so dangerous, no one would take the risk (V1,P32). Nothing about feeling safe because of where they lived. Absolutely nothing whatsoever. Given all of the above examples that you’ve been able to so adeptly bend, spindle and mutilate into the explanations of your choice, do you really believe Charles Lindbergh would ever have been so stupid and short-sighted as to actually arrange for a ‘real faked kidnapping’ of a son he clearly had no reason or desire to rid himself of in the first place? We haven’t yet delved into your ’Perfect Child’ chapter, but I’m sure that will be coming up soon enough. The Lindberghs’ main concern living at White Cloud Farm, was that Charlie was more exposed to the public and news photographers. They weren’t worried about him being kidnapped, or they would have had more security than a couple of housekeepers there. Do you really believe they would then have felt less secure moving into a relative fortress like High Fields? Look, I totally understand how you’ve allowed yourself to become consumed with 20/20 hindsight here, by dredging up just about every conceivable reference to apparent opportunities that Lindbergh would have had to make his home more secure, according to you. If it was any one of us here, living at High Fields back in the day, we might well have hired some form of security at least part time. Who knows, maybe some here would have opted for electrified fencing and a free-roaming pack of guard dogs. I'd only suggest that you need to start putting yourself in the shoes of those who were actually there, and not continually gesticulating like this from an armchair at the NJSP archives, ninety years later. The Lindberghs simply wanted to live what they considered a relatively “normal life,” free of intrusion from the press and public. Regardless of what actual words were used or purported to have been used, they all reflect feelings and a desire to simply remove themselves from the oppressive public eye by virtue of an isolated location where they would have freedom of access within a large property, be able to peacefully raise a family and carry on their work, while having almost instant accessibility to places they needed to travel to by air. Omniscient, fundamentally naive or somewhere in between as they were, that's what they wanted and pursued, and you're just not ever going to be able to change that, my friend. I will say with certainty that you've continued to make this case an overly-complicated affair through the years!
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Dec 11, 2022 10:14:19 GMT -5
I think Hiram's point is an interesting one regarding Skean. Joe, if not Lindbergh, do you consider any possibility of inside help with this crime as Ollie Whately purportedly intimated on his deathbed?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 11, 2022 10:46:43 GMT -5
You’re lost here and I don’t think you can be helped. No, Anne did not realize before the kidnapping that Skean’s presence in Charlie’s nursery was a necessity for her child’s safety and security. See my previous response. You are trying to get around this. Lindbergh left Skean behind. This benefited the kidnappers because, if he had been brought down, his presence would have thwarted the crime. A crime that was obviously planned for. You can continue to divide by zero if you like, but it doesn't change the facts. Like I wrote before, and you keep making me repeat myself, this is just ONE circumstance that allowed for this thing to occur. One could say they were all due to bad luck if they like, but it doesn't square with the evidence this was a planned event. It's why Fisher, I believe, suggested the kidnapping was supposed to occur at Next Day Hill but when it was learned the child wasn't there only then struck out for Highfields. That's wrong, of course, but it makes a helluva lot more sense than what you are doing. What’s your point here? That Lindbergh, from the time of their first visits to High Fields, was gradually and nefariously planting seeds of ill-intent and a grand 'fauxnapping' by these apparent actions? You’re starting to sound more like Chicken Little than Columbo. Classic. And you expect me to believe you wrote that other post? I'm still waiting for the follow up by the way, which never came since I called you out. Strange how that happened. Anyway, my point was to completely obliterate your position - which I did. Avoiding, shrugging off, or sweeping under the carpet what you think makes him look bad tells me you see it too. Know what I mean? You say something, I prove its incorrect, and next thing I know I'm "Chicken Little." Where was the housekeeper, Whateley, from the time the shutters were first recognized as faulty? Lindbergh always kept a very full schedule. Would he have been expected to deal with all of the shortcomings of their new home? How about the guy who was not a butler, but the one expected to deal with the maintenance and upkeep of the home? Why don’t you ever mention Whateley’s duties, and why do you think he wasn't on top of the faulty shutter issue, if Lindbergh wasn’t? Oh boy. Whateley worked for Lindbergh. He did what he was told. Did Whateley call about the front door repair - or was it Lindbergh who did? On the same weekend no less. And what did Lindbergh say about it? Did he blame Whateley? Say he forgot to call? Nope. Said the house was " too new" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. And so, try as you might, this one's on Lindbergh too. There's a pattern, with both Lindbergh's actions and your efforts to wish them away. Junge’s account essentially stands on its own in terms of attempting to explain what happened on Saturday, February 27, 1932. There are no others, yet you play nodding bobblehead here, agreeing with what she’s saying, even though as you’ve previously indicated it was probably written five years after the fact and does contain significant inaccuracies. But you can’t help but proudly point to this flawed piece of documentation, as if to say, “it’s all we got, so we’d better go with it.. Duh yup!” Sorry my friend.. it might represent an epiphany for you and the Like Button whacker, but I don’t buy it as an accurate and reliable source.
Yes, I did point out the 5 years. Just like I pointed out that Lindbergh (which you purposely avoided in your response) while on the stand less than 3 years later, supposedly couldn't remember where he was on the day his son was kidnapped. See how that works Joe? So if you take something that was incorrect and try to invalidate everything as it pertains to Junge then you must apply this same logic to Lindbergh. You've placed yourself in a Catch-22. This difference here, again, is that Junge's mentioning of Skean was the main point - not who left with whom. It's easy to see how that mistake occurred while also understanding it had nothing to do with this reveal as to why Skean wasn't at Highfields. So Junge's mistake is trivial and not even comparable to Lindbergh supposedly not knowing where he was on March 1. Yet, you say nothing about Lindbergh but want to throw out everything in Junge's manuscript. And yet, you have the nerve to tell me you " look at things for a possible answer ad nauseum?" No, you do not. I hate to break it to you but I feel like I have both the duty and obligation to let you know. I've seen where you have, so you have the ability, just not when it comes to Lindbergh or Condon. Neither Lindbergh nor anyone else at High Fields or Next Day Hill thought it was important enough for Skean to be in Charlie’s nursery for safety and security, which is why he didn’t end up making it that weekend. Lindbergh left him behind and obviously did not arrange for anyone else to bring him down. You don't "know" what his motive was. Could have been, as Junge wrote, he didn't want to wait then never gave it a second thought. So we'd have to chalk it up to the 20-30 suspicious things and/or occurrences that allowed for this crime to occur. That includes things like the shutter being warped and Lindbergh never calling about it. And the fact he called at 7PM to say it was too late to come to Hopewell but called 7PM the kidnap night to say he'd be a little late with Anne listening for him starting at 7:30PM, etc. etc. etc. Probably more than 30 actually. Many in my books but definitely not all. It's quite a chore to ignore but you've seemed to have. Bully for you! Lindbergh could be a total a**hole to go along with the uncommon kindness, consideration and fair play he regularly demonstrated to others, including criminals. At times, he seemed to feel privileged even within his fame and heightened public exposure, to stage stupid and inappropriate practical jokes, something he hadn’t grown out of since his youth. Look at how he genuinely frightened Breckinridge, Irey and Condon in the amphibious plane they were in while searching for Charlie, or how he treated Frank Mahoney after he came all the way from California to wish Lindbergh a safe flight across the Atlantic. Lindbergh poured a whole box of rough bran down his back. And yes, like the dead seagull deposit and two faked Charlie disappearances, his pranks seemed to know no bounds. Frankly, I wish some pissed off butt of one of his pranks had reflexively cold-cocked him somewhere along the way, as it might have provided the required wake up call. One thing I can tell you with certainty. No one as painfully private and shy as the same man who hid his son in a closet while the entire household frantically searched for him, would have entertained planning and seeing carried out, a ‘real faked kidnapping.’ Lindbergh might as well have painted his own head bright red, if he had ever chosen to be this stupid. Uncommon kindness? Consideration and fair play? Joe, re-read what you've written above. The guy did all kinds of things you'd say he would never do if you didn't already know about them. He was strange. He was a controller. He was a risk taker. He believed he was superior. He had power. And he was an Eugenicist. All the ingredients are there. So once one takes a step back and looks at everything, ad nauseam, it is impossible to ignore the possibilities. Like dinner? This possibility seems to have tilted you like an old pinball machine! Yet, it’s perfectly sound logic for Wahgoosh to at least have been conscripted into duty if anyone truly felt it necessary for him to ‘safeguard’ Charlie in his nursery during Skean’s absence. Fact is, no one really considered this to be a necessity, so he didn’t get the job. And there you have it, Mr. Dinner. Gee whiz Wally! It makes no sense Joe. It was Skean who was the obstacle to the kidnappers. Wahgoosh wasn't the child's companion. No, he just happened to be in the furthest part of the house at the time. That does make some sense, but what does not is that he never barked - and of course the part when Lindbergh lied on the stand about him.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 11, 2022 10:48:54 GMT -5
All kidding aside, why don’t you stop being so cagey and just spill whatever these suspicions you have of me, Michael. Are you talking about the post where I italicized and highlighted quotations from Marguerite Junge’s mini-autobiography? The one where I asked you if what I had written so far was correct? (Dec 5, 2022 at 8:58 am) Who on earth do you think is doing my writing besides me? You keep upping the ante here, and you're going to lose. Again, I'll let that post (you obviously know which one) speak for itself. Unless your middle name is "Sybil," that wasn't you. In almost 23 years of posting probably close to 5000 individual messages on three LKC discussion boards, including a couple of iterations of yours, I have never once done what you accuse me off here. What is it exactly within that particular post that leads you believe this someone else ”wrote if for me?” By the way, I only re-discovered it based on the timeline of when you said it appeared. Is it the underlining, emboldened entries, my question to you about the content of Junge’s statement, to make sure we were essentially on the same page? I’m not certain, but perhaps this represents an example of how you’re able to fabricate images and scenarios in your own mind that you feel somehow relate to your past employment and dealing with criminals. So you think something fishy is going on here, when there isn’t? I really don’t know, and it’s a bit disconcerting. I’d just like to get to the bottom of this perception on your part which now you’ve begun creatively dancing around to save yourself some embarrassment. Bottom line as yet, you still haven’t put up or shut up. I never said I was a mind reader, Michael. Most of the time, I get the gist of what you’re saying. As an example of your ability to confuse the issue however, the dead seagull account you winged in to nicely underscore ‘Big Bad Lindy’s’ “nobody better mess with me and bring Skean to High Fields!” really threw me for a loop at first but I eventually caught on to what you were implying. Unfortunately for you, that implication is so far beyond left field, it’s out of town. Big bad Lindbergh flew his wife in the transcontinental flight against the wishes of his in-laws. Lindbergh did it anyway. Big bad Lindbergh hid his baby in a closet and pretended it was kidnapped - TWICE. Sound like someone who wasn't thinking about a kidnapping? Someone who gave a rat's ass about the child, the staff, or his wife? I gave you a direct quote from Sisk's report about how the NJSP felt concerning Lindbergh's power yet you make light of the accusations that he did as he wanted and so did everyone else. You can pretent its not true but the sources disprove what you'd like to believe. See the difference? Truth, facts, and examples, verses a Lifetime Movie or SNL skit. I'll take the legitimate facts. And why don't you? Because you despise where they lead. Not my fault dude. Nobody would have went behind Lindbergh and drove Skean down. Lindbergh left Skean behind, and obviously never asked anyone to do so. Deal with it. You have a very difficult time seeing the many sides of Charles Lindbergh, which is why I’ve previously suggested you first try to understand the player here. Picking and choosing each one indiscriminately as you so often do, in order to have it fit crudely into your own particular version of the ‘Lindy Did It’ theory, clearly shows that while you might have read a lot about him, you certainly haven’t gotten much bang for your buck..
You say: “Nobody would have went behind Lindbergh and drove Skean down. Lindbergh left Skean behind, and obviously never asked anyone to do so.” I say: The totality of the evidence demonstrates that it was not Lindbergh’s call either way to bring Skean to High Fields, only something that happened as general routine for weekends previous to the weekend of February 27th. It also demonstrates that no one really understood the potential significance of Skean’s presence in Charlie’s nursery, until after the kidnapping. Try dealing with the facts as they pertain to this singular event.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 11, 2022 10:52:07 GMT -5
Your main issue here is that you’re starting from the premise that Lindbergh had “set this whole thing up” and so it’s just yet another of the pitfalls you constantly dance around and eventually tumble into. And when you don’t have a clean way out, you burn rubber, create a lot of smoke and point to a whole raft of other factors that are then supposed to support your entirely contentious and impeachable singular point. Skean’s absence from Charlie nursery is a fairly straightforward scenario, one with few actual documentation sources, which is why I began with this one. But that certainly hasn't stopped you from making it into something quite fantastical. This is what motivates you. Because you think you know exactly what I am thinking. You look at everything thru that lens. Basic facts will be rejected if you think I can work with them to support any position against Lindbergh. Do you really think that's a good strategy? Additionally, you do this weird thing attempting to make light of things that are seriously important as a way to neutralize them. That doesn't work and only makes me think its impossible to have a serious debate with you. "Burn rubber." "Puff out youer chest." "Big Bad Lindbergh." This is not a legitimate means of counter-argument. Just ridiculous nonsense I haven't seen since the 7th grade. Michael, I wear this case like a light jacket, not a lead blanket as you appear to. Don’t for a minute, confuse my own position with a lack of interest, attention or understanding. If someone tomorrow, showed me incontrovertible proof in the form of something like a signed confession from Charles Lindbergh that he had engineered his son’s kidnapping, I’d come to terms with that and move on to any one of a dozen or so other things that bring me enjoyment in life. And I can guarantee you that each and every one of those interests in some way allows me to infuse a certain amount of valuable perspective towards the case. Try infusing your own argument with some perspective and understanding that draws upon more than your previous employment. Yes, there were a certain number of criminals in this case, but not everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 11, 2022 11:09:05 GMT -5
In almost 23 years of posting probably close to 5000 individual messages on three LKC discussion boards, including a couple of iterations of yours, I have never once done what you accuse me off here. What is it exactly within that particular post that leads you believe this someone else ”wrote if for me?” By the way, I only re-discovered it based on the timeline of when you said it appeared. Is it the underlining, emboldened entries, my question to you about the content of Junge’s statement, to make sure we were essentially on the same page? I’m not certain, but perhaps this represents an example of how you’re able to fabricate images and scenarios in your own mind that you feel somehow relate to your past employment and dealing with criminals. So you think something fishy is going on here, when there isn’t? I really don’t know, and it’s a bit disconcerting. I’d just like to get to the bottom of this perception on your part which now you’ve begun creatively dancing around to save yourself some embarrassment. Bottom line as yet, you still haven’t put up or shut up.
Let me rephrase... I believe you had help formulating that post. I have nothing to be embarrassed about because it's what I believe. The fact you seem overemotional and butt-hurt about it doesn't change my position. If that was all you then I'd like to see more of that version truth be told. I like that Joe better. I'm going to go back and answer the rest in order, but I just wanted to let you know its not the big deal you are making it out to be. In the meantime, could you answer Norma's question? I'd like to see where this goes.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 11, 2022 11:54:12 GMT -5
In almost 23 years of posting probably close to 5000 individual messages on three LKC discussion boards, including a couple of iterations of yours, I have never once done what you accuse me off here. What is it exactly within that particular post that leads you believe this someone else ”wrote if for me?” By the way, I only re-discovered it based on the timeline of when you said it appeared. Is it the underlining, emboldened entries, my question to you about the content of Junge’s statement, to make sure we were essentially on the same page? I’m not certain, but perhaps this represents an example of how you’re able to fabricate images and scenarios in your own mind that you feel somehow relate to your past employment and dealing with criminals. So you think something fishy is going on here, when there isn’t? I really don’t know, and it’s a bit disconcerting. I’d just like to get to the bottom of this perception on your part which now you’ve begun creatively dancing around to save yourself some embarrassment. Bottom line as yet, you still haven’t put up or shut up.
Let me rephrase... I believe you had help formulating that post. I have nothing to be embarrassed about because it's what I believe. The fact you seem overemotional and butt-hurt about it doesn't change my position. If that was all you then I'd like to see more of that version truth be told. I like that Joe better. I'm going to go back and answer the rest in order, but I just wanted to let you know its not the big deal you are making it out to be. In the meantime, could you answer Norma's question? I'd like to see where this goes. I guess you're just misreading things again here, Michael, while projecting your own emotions onto me. I’ve certainly seen that done before. Know that I just like getting to the bottom of things, which I feel is an asset towards this case and something you seem to avoid at times, as we’ve seen roundly within your superficial interpretation of Marguerite Junge's inaccurate accounting of events relating to the weekend before Charlie's disappearance.
Did I have help writing that post? No, I didn’t in any way relating to its content, form or even spirit. Unless of course you’re fancifully claiming that having acquired a copy of Marguerite Junge’s mini-autobiography from someone else, while I was out of town away from my case files, now constitutes that person then having written my post for me! By extension of that flawed logic, does that mean the NJSP archives wrote the vast majority of your posts? Comprendez? Anyway, I accept your lukewarm apology in the interests of moving forward here, in spite of how well you’ve managed to ‘Teflon Don’ your way through this little embarrassment from its beginning. You certainly didn't disappoint in that regard.
Now onward and upward, please remind who Norma is, and which question you’re referring to. I don’t have access to peoples’ names here other than how they’ve chosen to represent themselves in their avatars. I do see cross-references from time to time, and believe Mary and Norma are ‘IloveDFW’ and ‘stella7’, but wouldn’t want to bet on that, respectively.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Dec 11, 2022 16:46:14 GMT -5
As JFK’s 1961 Presidential limo rolled through Dallas on November 22, 1963 it really should have had a protective bubble top on. At Kennedy’s insistence it came off the car after he landed in Dallas, and was stowed.
That’s a detail Lee Harvey Oswald must not have considered.
Would Oswald have attempted the shot if the bubble top had been on the limo? It wasn’t bulletproof but it might have deflected a bullet, and better yet might have deterred Oswald from the attempt.
There is no doubt somebody snatched Charlie from a second story bedroom using a ladder Hauptmann made. There is no doubt Hauptmann had lots of the ransom money in the same garage where an attic board was used to build the ladder.
If Lindy or anybody that knew two dogs were supposed to be in the house that evening had tipped or arranged the snatch,,,.
What about the problem of the dogs?
Those dogs, are what Hauptmann got lucky about, among many other things.
He didn’t consider dogs, and luck smiled on him anyway.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Dec 11, 2022 17:13:54 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I'm Norma! No way that you would know that. Stella was my dog, mother of my current barker, hahaha.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Dec 11, 2022 17:18:04 GMT -5
Charles Lindbergh had an interesting and unusual personality. He may have had two personalities, actually. The alias he used when he visited his German famiilies was "Careau Kent," the name known to his seven illegitimate children. "Careau" is a French surname, specifically found in Quebec. The name reminds me of "Clark Kent," Superman's alias. Superman, an displaced alien from outer space, few through the air on his own and acted under his own power. He was invincible. Clark Kent, on the other hand, was a mild news reporter with nothing special to call attention to himself. Lindbergh has the two personalities. The boyish, innocent person who courted Anne Morrow was the Clark Kent. The Superman side was very self-controlled, admitted to no flaws, and believed he would prevail in any situation. Anne Marrow was unwittingly his Lois Lane, or he hoped so, only to suffer disappointment when Anne told him she needed a psychiatrist. Perhaps he thought this a fatal flaw, for he locked her out of his bedroom for what he perceived was a serious weakness in her personality. Because he thought he was superior, he tried to take over the investigation initially, making serious mistakes. For example, the mob did not kidnap children but made their money through the sale of alcohol and drugs and also through prostitution. So Lindbergh made assumptions that were inaccurate. He also prided himself on his self-control and his ability to deny physical needs for long periods of time. In some cultures this may have made him a hero, and perhaps did so here in the US for a time., demonstrating once again that all men are fallible. Lindbergh did not measure up to become the ideal Superman. And while, yes, his sense of humor became sadistic, that does not prove that he was capable of committing crime to reach his ideal of perfection.
A very flawed individual certainly, not a pleasant person or an ideal husband. Perhaps he would have fared better on another planet, and while lacking true heroic qualities, would not likely stoop to kidnapping or killing those he believed to be less "perfect" than himself.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Dec 11, 2022 17:22:48 GMT -5
Interesting parallel though Superman and Clark Kent were created in 1938. The dual peraonality may have been present though.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 11, 2022 18:38:47 GMT -5
Did I have help writing that post? No, I didn’t in any way relating to its content, form or even spirit. Unless of course you’re fancifully claiming that having acquired a copy of Marguerite Junge’s mini-autobiography from someone else, while I was out of town away from my case files, now constitutes that person then having written my post for me! By extension of that flawed logic, does that mean the NJSP archives wrote the vast majority of your posts? Comprendez? Anyway, I accept your lukewarm apology in the interests of moving forward here, in spite of how well you’ve managed to ‘Teflon Don’ your way through this little embarrassment from its beginning. You certainly didn't disappoint in that regard. Now onward and upward, please remind who Norma is, and which question you’re referring to. I don’t have access to peoples’ names here other than how they’ve chosen to represent themselves in their avatars. I do see cross-references from time to time, and believe Mary and Norma are ‘IloveDFW’ and ‘stella7’, but wouldn’t want to bet on that, respectively. Before we go onward and upwards.... I'm not apologizing for my belief, but the fact you're upset about it wasn't my intended goal by pointing it out. So for that I do apologize. Having said that, in reading your reply I can't help myself but to add my two "cent." You are doing that thing again where you pretend to know what I am thinking then craft a counter-argument against it. Fact is, I had no idea you acquired a copy of Jung's manuscript from somebody else. How in the hell would I know that? This I find interesting because you are, in essence, answering a question I never asked. So - let me ask you this: Did you discuss the topic with said person who gave you the manuscript? Could you possibly be, unconsciously or otherwise, injecting some of that discussion into your post? You don't have to answer that ... just thinking out loud. Yes Stella7. Click on the recent post link and scroll down or just go directly there thru this link: lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/post/35145If Lindy or anybody that knew two dogs were supposed to be in the house that evening had tipped or arranged the snatch,,,. What about the problem of the dogs? Those dogs, are what Hauptmann got lucky about, among many other things. He didn’t consider dogs, and luck smiled on him anyway. Well, this is something I've never seen before... Hauptmann didn't expect there to be dogs (!!!) and just got "lucky?" He sure must have. How did he know there wasn't security? How did he even find the home? How did he navigate the boardwalk in the dark carrying that ladder? How did he find the Nursery? How did he know the height of the window from the ground? How did he know the shutter wouldn't be locked? How did he know the window wouldn't be locked? How did he know the family would even be there? With the shutters closed, how did he know the child would be in that room alone - or at all? How did he know he wouldn't be crawling into a window where someone was sitting with a loaded shotgun? There was either surveillance or there wasn't. Both are very problematic upon considering the actual scene and situation. "Hauptmann" seems to know things he shouldn't or couldn't while also knowing things that could only happen from surveillance and preparation or inside information.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 11, 2022 20:08:30 GMT -5
If Lindy or anybody that knew two dogs were supposed to be in the house that evening had tipped or arranged the snatch,,,. What about the problem of the dogs? Those dogs, are what Hauptmann got lucky about, among many other things. He didn’t consider dogs, and luck smiled on him anyway. Well, this is something I've never seen before... Hauptmann didn't expect there to be dogs (!!!) and just got "lucky?" He sure must have. How did he know there wasn't security? How did he even find the home? How did he navigate the boardwalk in the dark carrying that ladder? How did he find the Nursery? How did he know the height of the window from the ground? How did he know the shutter wouldn't be locked? How did he know the window wouldn't be locked? How did he know the family would even be there? With the shutters closed, how did he know the child would be in that room alone - or at all? How did he know he wouldn't be crawling into a window where someone was sitting with a loaded shotgun? There was either surveillance or there wasn't. Both are very problematic upon considering the actual scene and situation. "Hauptmann" seems to know things he shouldn't or couldn't while also knowing things that could only happen from surveillance and preparation or inside information. Exactly. The footprint evidence makes it quite clear that someone (or, more likely, a group) approached that house from the driveway, navigated the boardwalk without stepping off it, placed the ladder down in one attempt then left via a totally different direction. What's most baffling is that the kidnappers, approaching from the driveway, never would have had a view into the house or nursery, even if the shutters and windows were open. There was absolutely no way to know that it was 1) the nursery 2) that the nursery was occupied by the baby 3) the room was empty otherwise. What if the nanny or Lindbergh himself were in the room? On top of this, any normal kidnapping would happen late at night while everyone is sleeping or during the day - not at 8PM when the whole house is home and awake. It's all absolute nonsense. It's easy to rely on the "Hauptmann must have done reconnaissance" theory but if he did he would have known the family wouldn't be home on a weeknight. There's only so many lucky breaks one can buy before it starts to smell rotten. If this was anybody else but Lindbergh and the father of a kidnap victim "happened" to miss a much-publicized engagement for reasons unknown, you can be damn sure they'd be the first person investigated, even if they were innocent, yet Lindbergh wasn't at all.
|
|