|
Post by rmc1971 on Mar 26, 2024 21:45:32 GMT -5
I stumbled across a novel at my local library called The Lindbergh Nanny. Decided to put a hold request on it. Has anyone heard of this novel before, or actually read it? Curious to see what I may be getting into.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 26, 2024 22:45:18 GMT -5
I read it and thought it was quite well done. There was a thread about it in here about a year ago.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Mar 27, 2024 3:25:30 GMT -5
I stumbled across a novel at my local library called The Lindbergh Nanny. Decided to put a hold request on it. Has anyone heard of this novel before, or actually read it? Curious to see what I may be getting into. It's fiction, but a really good book.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Apr 6, 2024 20:53:56 GMT -5
Just finished the book. Not a bad read.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Apr 7, 2024 7:05:06 GMT -5
I stumbled across a novel at my local library called The Lindbergh Nanny. Decided to put a hold request on it. Has anyone heard of this novel before, or actually read it? Curious to see what I may be getting into. It's a great read, but remember that it's fiction.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 7, 2024 8:19:05 GMT -5
I stumbled across a novel at my local library called The Lindbergh Nanny. Decided to put a hold request on it. Has anyone heard of this novel before, or actually read it? Curious to see what I may be getting into. It's a great read, but remember that it's fiction. And it's a good idea to read it right until the end as the author essentially disclaims at that point by detailing what is fact and what is fiction. While I appreciate the entertainment value of this publication, notably the Audible audiobook, it can also be very misleading, especially for anyone not as familiar with case specifics as she might be. While citing many historically acknowledged accuracies, Fredericks can't seem to help herself, personally theorizing at the worst of times. As an example, she points the finger at Ollie Whateley as a willing conspirator towards the kidnapping, when there is not a shred of evidence to conclude as much.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 7, 2024 9:08:25 GMT -5
And it's a good idea to read it right until the end as the author essentially disclaims at that point by detailing what is fact and what is fiction. While I appreciate the entertainment value of this publication, notably the Audible audiobook, it can also be very misleading, especially for anyone not as familiar with case specifics as she might be. While citing many historically acknowledged accuracies, Fredericks can't seem to help herself, personally theorizing at the worst of times. As an example, she points the finger at Ollie Whateley as a willing conspirator towards the kidnapping, when there is not a shred of evidence to conclude as much. I haven't read the book so I cannot really comment on it. I try to stay away from fiction because I've got too much information in my head so, in essence, the hard drive is full. So I don't want to jam incorrect information in my brain to cloud things up. Anyway, I am going to comment on Joe's position above and disagree with his point about Whateley. While dying in the hospital, he implicated at least one person in the house. The Captain Maines source ( TDC, V4, P7) goes so far as to say Whateley claimed he " and others" played a role. So what's a "shred?" Well, having this knowledge, or believing he did, but never sharing it in the official statement he gave to police qualifies if you ask me. He believed he had this information the whole time the police were at Highfields but he waited until he was almost dead to say anything about it. Regardless if one accepts what he said or not, that means he was willing to withhold evidence which would lead to the solution of the crime.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 10, 2024 11:24:28 GMT -5
Yeah the first I had heard Whateley being intentionally involved. Can I see him inadvertently giving one of his tours that may have included Hauptmann? Possibly. But it seems a leap even for the book to have him getting a kickback somehow after the fact. The original source for the unauthorized tours comes from the FBI Summary. Any book or magazine article that mentions it relies on this source. Quite frankly, there is nothing that actually proves this to be true. In fact, just the opposite. Everything I've found had Whateley chasing people off the property or refusing salesmen entry into the home. In my first book, I used the example of Forben Schmidt, a vacuum salesman, who came to Highfields multiple times. On each occasion Whateley told him no one was allowed in the house and forbid him entry. I think, if Whateley was accustomed to giving these tours, the suggestion would have been made since the Lindberghs were not home on any of these occasions. There were also the workers from the Quirk Moving Company who brought the furniture from the Lindberghs temporary home in Mount Rose to Highfields. They usually worked from a map of the home but in this case, they weren't given one but instead Whateley personally showed and directed them where to place the items instead. Of course Red Johnson accompanied Betty Gow to Highfields on three occasions and was able to tour the property. I believe this whole issue arose from a misunderstanding concerning their friends, the Humes, who came over to visit at times. Another possibility concerns those people who filled in as caretakers for the Whateleys when they were absent. Anyway, I believe the idea that Whateley would be, in essence, paid by any random person who merely showed up to give them a tour is bogus. (TDC, Volume I, P78-80).
|
|