|
Post by Michael on May 19, 2007 7:53:48 GMT -5
I seem to recall reading 'somewhere' that Elisabeth had stayed at a neighbor/friends. I have been trying to find that reference since your post and so far I haven't....
The thing about Elisabeth is all the suspicion could have been generated due to her medical condition and the family's attempts to keep it quiet. The same applies to Dwight Jr. People then viewed this secrecy as having a direct relationship with the crime.
Still though, something strikes me as not being right and that additional information can be developed by chasing down all leads relating to that Family. Someone knew more.
Behn mentions Breckenredge might have been at the Astoria NYU dinner. Even if not I do have questions. (Gary)
Is there a footnote? Give me the page number and I'll see if I can verify this.
I don't believe for a second that Lindbergh "forgot" about this engagement.
It's a good question. The Police pulled phone records from all over the place so I assume they would have verified it. I am looking to see if I have something but I would tend to believe there is. However, Police sometimes did not do what they should have so as "not to embarrass" people - especially Lindbergh.
Anyway, I think Breckenridge was way too smart to lie about such a thing so I have always believed he did - but of course as it stands now that's just my opinion.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 19, 2007 11:35:14 GMT -5
Sorry I can't recall where I read this: There was something Perrone's son said, I think well after the trial, along the lines of regret his father had. Maybe someone else can provide the exact statement. Perrone's ID never did seem quite right to me.
|
|
Rick Grand Teton Park
Guest
|
Post by Rick Grand Teton Park on May 20, 2007 9:05:15 GMT -5
I always suspected that some part of Violet Sharpes faulty memory and deception might be related to her job as Elizabeths personal maid? Something, or many things, she was told never to tell? Then she mixed that up with just lying about everything she was asked? It is also pretty weird that Violet did at least one summer stint at North Haven Island with Charlie in the summer--either 1930, 1931 or both. She wrote a weird poem about having the child of some Admiral....oh but that could never happen to a lowly scullery maid? Her connection to Elizabeth should be checked out? Violet knows.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jun 24, 2007 14:12:25 GMT -5
Am re-reading Behn. CJ's purported description of the others involved, someone with Government connections ( the spy Noso?) Of course we don't know if this is just more Condon malarkey. Has anyone ever seen whether Alex Carrel went to his friend, CAL, or had any other contact at time of kidnapping? I still think about that speeding car which hit the bump and went "air-borne". If the child's head hit the ceiling of the car, I can about see a fracture occurring without breaking the scalp.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 20, 2013 2:05:19 GMT -5
I'm reading through this thread to refresh my memory of Noel Behn's book on the LKC. Nosovitsky's being in the midwest at the time the Crime was committed would, if one wants to apply SOJ's Geo hypothesis to work (albeit loosely), make some sense if one wants to view Noso as a possible Mastermind inasmuch as it puts a huge distance between himself and the events taking place on the east coast. The best and safest place for the prime mover to be is far away as possible from those he is moving around (the ones he hired to do the deed).
Aside from Nosovitsky, I'm now rather fascinated by Lindbergh's missing the NYU dinner the night of the kidnapping. He was a disciplined man. This seems way out of character for him. Rather than go the Ahlgren & Monier route, and without implicating Elisabeth Morrow, this does make me wonder what Lindbergh might have known that caused him to return to Hopewell instead of remaining in NYC for the dinner.
No finger pointing here, just a hypothetical: could Lindbergh have caught wind that something was up in Hopewell, or would be the night of March 1st? If so, this would explain his early return. The problem with this is that if his worries were about his son he ought to have rushed upstairs to see him as soon as he arrived home. On the other hand, if assured that little Charlie was okay, this might have put his mind at ease, maybe even made him feel a bit foolish for having missed the Big Event in NYC. This would also explain his remark to Anne later that "they have stolen our baby". On the other hand, if Lindbergh had some knowledge, any knowledge, that trouble with brewing, he surely would have shared this with the police.
I know, I know. All this opens yet another can of worms: what Lindbergh knew. Anything? Or maybe he really did just forget about that NYU dinner...the night his son was kidnapped. If, for the sake of argument, there was some knowledge, something urgent, that caused Lindbergh to return home that night, it could be something he didn't expect to to end in kidnapping, which he wasn't expecting, maybe related to his family's well being in general, somebody he was in conflict with perhaps, in business, from the past, a grudge, something that set an alarm off in Lindbergh's head: gotta go home tonight. What was it? A phone call maybe, further negotiations about something that had nothing (or so Lindbergh thought) to do with his son. A private matter he had to settle with Them, who became the They: the ones who stole the baby.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 24, 2013 20:10:52 GMT -5
Personally, I think Lindbergh missing that NYU dinner is a huge red flag--one of those things that at first glance seems innocuous enough, but could actually be a key to unlocking the whole thing. Lindbergh (it's become cliche to say it) was a very meticulous, image-conscious guy. As such, it seems highly out of character for him to forget an event at which he was the guest of honor. So I think he only pretended to forget about the NYU dinner. To begin with, I think he wanted his son gone for some reason (health issues I suspect) and returned home to oversee the kidnapping or to make sure it wouldn't be discovered until it was supposed to be. To do that, he would've had to miss that dinner. But canceling or begging off a public appearance followed by his son getting kidnapped might've looked suspicious, like he had deliberately planned something. That being the case, he had to pretend to have forgotten about the dinner. Just my feeling for now though. It was weird too, I think, that he couldn't seem to remember anything else about what he'd done that day--though I could be wrong about that. Michael, can you tell me if that's true? Seem to remember reading it somewhere, that Lindbergh was very vague about his activities that whole day.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 24, 2013 21:05:50 GMT -5
I am experiencing some odd things with the Board right now. Not sure if its an IE issue, Proboards issue, or a Windows issue.( ) This is my recollection as well. In order to get specific I will have to search for it - something I always seem to be doing anyway. For example, I had 3 letters written to the Governor by a woman named "Mary." I thought there might be something to them so I put them aside. I recently found another letter referencing them, and now they've gone missing! Anyway LJ, I agree that something "ain't right" about that. I think an excuse was offered up that Lindbergh had been misinformed as to the actual night of the Dinner. I'll look for that too.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 25, 2013 15:53:40 GMT -5
Given that he and the household staff were basically off limits to investigators from the get-go, I can't imagine there was any way of proving whether Lindbergh forgot or was misinformed of the date for that dinner, even at the time. To do so 80 years after the fact would, I think, be virtually impossible. But if you could find anything on this subject when you get the chance that would be great. And still basing his accidental/on-purpose forgetfulness entirely on my own instincts and conjecture, I suppose Lindbergh could've said he "forgot" about the dinner, then changed it to "misinformed about the date" later on, since the latter would be more in keeping with his usually meticulous, non-forgetful nature. Either way, there's something... off here, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 26, 2013 2:55:48 GMT -5
What you wrote is in a nutshell what's so frustrating (and intriguing) about the LKC, LJ: the Lindbergh household staff was, to a large extent, off limits to the investigators! This is aburd. If some of us, eighty years after the fact, get a bit too fanciful in our speculations on the case, this is one of the many reasons why. That Lindbergh was not himself a suspect (which, as Ahlgren & Monier pointed out, would be SOP today) is absurd. It's true that suspecting the parent or parents of a kidnapped or murdered child sounds cruel, but they are often sometimes themselves the perps (sad but true). Lindbergh should never have been granted the power he had over the case, and quite frankly, for that, among other reasons, if I were a member of the LKC jury I'd be inclined to vote for Hauptmann's acquittal. Lindbergh's missing the NYU dinner the night of the kidnapping ought to have made some experienced, sharp-eyed detective suspicious. Instead, Lindy is allowed to take control of the entire investigation. FWIW: I've read Behn's book, LJ, at least twice, maybe three times, have gone over it many times, but that was a long time ago. It's one of the best written and thoroughly researched books on the LKC, provides a wealth of information. I found Behn's writing style a little difficult at first. The book is non-linear, goes back and forth, relies a lot on whether one believes what Harry Green said. I doubt that Elisabeth Morrow was the perp, though. In the end it was just too fantastic for me to believe. Behn did some solid research into the history of the Morrow family, however, vis a vis mental illness, including apparently Dwight, Sr. Dwight, Jr.'s mental health issues were gone over in detail at the other Lindbergh site years ago (like maybe ten) and I forget the details but I believe he was quite unstable, had been institutionalized.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2013 16:35:06 GMT -5
I have a couple of FBI sources that say Lindbergh's secretary, Betty Sheetz, rec'd the invitation to the speaking engagement for March 1st. According to these sources, she rec'd a 2nd letter which changed the date to a couple of days later but apparently never informed Lindbergh of the change. Then, in yet an even stranger twist, this original date was the correct one. But since Lindbergh was only ever aware of the first date none of this matters. During the "Board of Strategy Conference" on May 18, 1932, Colonel Schwarzkopf is quoted as follows: Colonel Lindbergh was scheduled to make a talk in New York that night and he tells me that unintentionally he completely forgot that talk and returned home. To complement the fact Lindbergh told Schwarzkopf he completely forgot, Lindbergh tells Agent Larimer during a confidential interview that: He had a dinner speaking engagement for Tuesday night, March 1, 1932, in New York City, but forgot the engagement and returned to his family at Hopewell about 8:25 P.M. on Tuesday, March 1, 1932. As far as where Lindbergh was.... He answers this during the trial: Q [Wilentz]: On that day particularly, March 1, 1932, I take it you were at business?
A [Lindbergh]: Yes.
Q: What is your occupation-what was it on March 1, 1932?
A: My occupation is aviation. On March 1, 1932, I spent the day in New York. On cross examination: Q [Reilly]: Now, will you give us an outline of your movement on Tuesday?
A [Lindbergh]: Tuesday I was in New York during the day.
Q: Where?
A: I don't recall in vivid detail where I went. I think I went to the Pan-American Airways offices, probably to the Transcontinental Air Transport offices. I was at the Rockefeller Institute during a part of the day and I believe that I stopped at my dentist's that afternoon late, to the best of my recollection.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 26, 2013 17:15:31 GMT -5
I remember hearing about the dentist appointment before, but was the dentist ever questioned as to if, in fact, Lindbergh did see him that day? Seems like it would be easy enough to find out. Either way, I dunno, the testimony still seems very vague to me. At any rate, thanks, as always, for the information. The lack of detail from Lindbergh is--of itself, I think--interesting and helpful. And John: I absolutely agree that Behn's book is a good one, with much to be learned from it. I have something of a soft spot for that book, since, as I wrote in my first post on this board, that was the first one I read on the LKC. I sort of lump it in with the most recent book on the case, by Robert Zorn: Well written and, I think, an honest stab at the truth, but I believe both ultimately miss the mark. Part of what I like about Behn's book though, as I've said many times, is that even he takes his conclusions with a grain of salt, flat out admitting there's no smoking gun which links Elisabeth Morrow to the death of her nephew, only that a lot falls into place if you accept his conclusions as a working hypothesis. His conclusions are highly speculative, but he comes to them almost as an afterthought, with everything preceding it being very well written and thorough. I think his main source, Harry Green, was a good one--at least, he didn't seem like some sort of crackpot with an ax to grind or something--but I just don't think he was right about Elisabeth. As has been said before, I think the understandable secrecy surrounding her medical condition (her father and brother's too) is what gave rise to rumors there was something more sinister afoot with them. Happens all the time and muddies much water as a result. I also believe that Lindbergh never being a considered a suspect and not allowing his family members or household staff to be questioned--the fact that what he said here went--was, as you say, absurd. It can only beg the question of why: Not just why did LE obey him, but, even if he trusted them completely, why wouldn't Lindbergh have wanted his employees questioned? Why wouldn't he want the police to talk to them, if for no other purpose than an off-chance that they might have some information that could help the investigation (they might suddenly remember having seen a strange car around Highfields on such-and-such a day, for example)?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 27, 2013 8:21:09 GMT -5
Knowing what I know about Lindbergh after studying this case as long as I have: I find it very hard to believe he "forgot" the dinner. It's even less likely, in my opinion, that he could not say with any degree of certainty where he had been March 1st.
Having said that, as I've pointed out before, people could have a million reasons why they are being vague, deceptive, and/or stupid. So its important to consider and run down any other options which might exists. Let's not forget this man kept 3 Families completely secret for 30+ years from everyone on the planet.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 27, 2013 13:06:09 GMT -5
LJ: I know what you're saying about Behn's book, as it was your first on the LKC. My first and favorite is Ludovic Kennedy's The Airman and The Carpenter, wonderfully written, elegant at times,--odd for a book about a crime--it contrasts BRH with Lindy, and it shows how different people live (the very rich, the working poor, cops, government officials) in a way that gives the book a kind of grand historical sweep that puts it into the context of the time the Crime occurred. Today, nearly thirty years after its publication, it's probably somewhat dated (I hate that word!), but as a piece of work, of writing, I believe it shall stand the test of time; and it's a wonderful introduction to the LKC as an Event, a piece of history.
Michael: Lindbergh's tendency to compartmentalize could give Hauptmann some serious competition in the same area; and from my experience people who are so extreme at keeping things private and separate, do so with the ease and naturalness of Lindbergh, often have sociopathic tendencies,--not necessarily criminal, I'm not accusing the guy--but such a callous disregard for the truth, for other people's feelings, is telling, reminds me of those sadistic pranks Lindy used to play on his fellow airmen. None of this makes Lindbergh guilty of anything related to the Crime but it does beg questions regarding this master of concealment; of what it was Lindbergh was concealing, and why.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 27, 2013 14:29:21 GMT -5
Yeah, I read Airman and the Carpenter too, a long time ago, and I agree that, as picture of a time and place, it's very well done. I also think your comments about compartmentalizing, concealment, and not-necessarily-criminal-sociopathic tendencies are spot on.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 27, 2013 23:27:44 GMT -5
I am a big fan of considering all of the options. I am also a fan of considering the odds of things - most especially when multiple events, when factored together - point to something specific.
Too often the things we "know" are either embraced or ignored depending upon what we would prefer to be the end result.
Nothing we know can be ignored.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 28, 2013 17:23:21 GMT -5
Yeah, I read Airman and the Carpenter too, a long time ago, and I agree that, as picture of a time and place, it's very well done. I also think your comments about compartmentalizing, concealment, and not-necessarily-criminal-sociopathic tendencies are spot on. Thank you, LJ. The Airman and the Carpenter was an excellent book overall, and indeed more than most books on the LKC it captures the time and place, a moment, actually moments, in history, has a kind of epic sweep to it the other books don't have (and for a good reason: that wasn't their intent). Ludovic Kennedy was a "generalist", an all-round journalist and author of some renown prior to writing his book, which is at times quite dramatic. More than most author of LKC books, Kennedy really puts the Crime in the context of its time. He comes down hard on Hauptmann when he has to, doesn't pull punches, but then Lindbergh isn't presented as an angel, either. It's a solid, objective piece of work. As to Lindbergh's sociopathic tendencies, they wren't widely known at the time, and besides, bringing them up would have been seen as bad taste (and in the context of the Crime and Trial surely would have been). Much of what we know about Lindbergh today comes from information gathered much later. He was such a national hero at the timr I wouldn't be surprised that anyone who claimed otherwise would have been subjected to death threats.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 28, 2013 19:29:05 GMT -5
Not being a psychiatrist or anything, I don't know that I'd claim Lindbergh was a sociopath or even that he had those tendencies. I just don't know. While it would probably be pretty inconclusive, it would still be interesting to see some sort of current psychiatric workup done on him, with everything we now know about his personality, to give us an indication if he was in fact some kind of sociopath or had those tendencies. Either way, there was, shall we say... weirdness on his part. A real nasty streak, coupled with a proclivity and obsession with secrecy and control. The phrase "moral compass" has been used--that Lindbergh's "north" wasn't quite the same as most other people's. I think this is a good way to look at it, and I can readily see how this may've somehow factored into the crime (beyond just Lindbergh's known control of the investigation). But absent new evidence, all I have right now are suspicions about his involvement. Strong ones, but still just suspicions. In any case, John, I think you're absolutely right that whether Lindbergh was an out-and-out sociopath, or just a rather callous and unfeeling cold fish, or something in between--either way, everyone back then seemed to give it a free pass of one kind or another.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 29, 2013 15:20:52 GMT -5
I believe that Lindbergh's second family in Germany nails him as a sociopath, LJ, which, diagnostically, doesn't necessarily have to imply criminality as such but rather an individual who breaks the rules regarding moral/social conduct without conscience or regard for the feelings of others. This was the case with Lindbergh, if the anecdotes surrounding his youth are true, early on, and he apparently never gave up his fondness for cutting against other people's expectations of him, sometimes to the point of outright cruelty. Lindbergh the Prankster never really went away, he just went undergound, got more sophistictated.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 29, 2013 17:06:55 GMT -5
I've always felt these families existed because Lindbergh felt it was his duty to help with a gene-pool which had been devastated by war. This "love story" is a bunch of BS as far as I am concerned.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 29, 2013 17:40:25 GMT -5
Couldn't agree more, John. It's just that when I hear the word 'sociopath' I automatically think... Hannibal Lecter, or some similar image of smoothly masked insanity or criminality. But a sociopath does not have to reach those extremes, very true. But I think the German families are a perfect example of these tendencies of Lindbergh's, whatever they were--his ability to conceal and compartmentalize, to the point of living a double life.
|
|
|
Post by john on Feb 3, 2013 13:08:23 GMT -5
Yes, LJ, and Lindbergh's sociopathic tendencies are evident as early as 1932, when his exerted his control over the investigation of his son's kidnapping.
He had no experience in law enforcement whatsoever, and one might think that he'd have yielded to the authority of those best equipped to handle the case if he really wanted to see justice done. His take charge attitude began the night of March 1st.
I'm not of the Lindy Did It persuasion, yet Lindbergh's conduct during the investigation from the start raises issues with me as to whether he really wanted his son back safe and sound or if it was more important for him to control as much of the investigation into his son's abduction as possible, and of so, why.
One might think that under such circumstances loving parent Lindy would have trumped control freak Lindy, but this was not the case.
|
|
|
Post by rose21 on Apr 12, 2013 20:47:55 GMT -5
whether he really wanted his son back safe and sound or if it was more important for him to control as much of the investigation into his son's abduction as possible, and of so, why. I do not view these two things as mutually exclusive. Given the type of person Lindbergh was (a control freak), the rescue of his son may have aligned very closely with his feeling that he needed to control the situation. I agree that there are many odd things about Lindbergh's behavior in all of this, but I think that most of them can be attributed to his personality and circumstance. Being under a great deal of public scrutiny might also cause some odd responses as well.
|
|
|
Post by john on Apr 16, 2013 13:15:46 GMT -5
I know where you're coming from, Rose, yet can't one as easily put the (proverbial) shoe on the other foot? Indeed, I agree, Lindbergh was under all kinds of stress from the time he discovered his son's empty crib onward, however one can as reasonably make the case for this control freak kind of guy to swing the other way. Lindbergh was, after all, an aviator, not a detective. He never finished college, had no background in law, thus he had to rely on experts for all manner of things related to his son's abduction. To me this ought to have made him less of a control freak (i.e. yield to the authorities, let those best equipped to handle the case do their job) rather than more of one. As an aviator and self-made celebrity Lindergh's controlling nature made sense. In those early days of aviation his type of personality was well suited to flying (now let's try to imagine him in the team playing Air Force of today! ) But kidnapping and criminal justice were way outside his range and, presumably, experience, yet he took control of the kidnapping case like he was piloting a two engine plane.
|
|
|
Post by G. Arkadin on May 30, 2014 11:43:09 GMT -5
- Nosovitsky would make a credible CJ and fool Condon
- Nosovitsky might hire out the money laundering to Fisch?
- Nosovitsky is also a good candidate for "Doc" in Condons gang
- How did JJ know John Condon well enough to sue him?
Nosovitsky seems to have initiated three different legal suits in >1938: one in NJ against "detective" John J. McNally for comments >(charges made) against him, and two in NYS, against John F. Condon >and MacFadden Publications. From surviving documentation, at least on >the NY side, his cases were dismissed and costs assessed against him. (Lindykidnap #8937: PDoyle)
- Nosovitsky works as a prohibition agent under Gaston B. Means
- JJ Nosovitsky fooled Hearst News and JEHoover at the same time. Quite an accomplishment.
- Most LKC related books, including Gardner, overlook JJN completely!
Can you elaborate on the suit Nosovitsky filed against Condon please?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 1, 2014 7:41:32 GMT -5
Can you elaborate on the suit Nosovitsky filed against Condon please? G. - Since Rick hasn't posted in a while I didn't want you to think you were being ignored so I'll share with you what I have. There were many legal actions brought in the aftermath of this crime. I think the two most attention getting were Gov. Hoffman's (Boake Carter and the Trenton Times). In 1938, there seemed to be many libel suits against MacFadden Publications probably because that's where the money was. As far as Nosovitsky was concerned, there are a few mentions of this specific matter scattered throughout the files at the NJSP Archives. I have never pursued the actual legal documentation knowing that whatever material he had in his action I would already have it too. There was a man out of Detroit named " William D. Bell" who I believe was a Private Investigator. He started to write Gov. Hoffman in the Spring of '36 with different leads originating from Detroit. By 1938, he was in direct communication with Nosovitsky: J.N. has explained to me how he became involved in this matter. I have been surprised and was interested to ascertain the inside story of his past and present connections, and I am rather inclined to believe that this party has something on the ball in view of the fact that he has already started legal proceedings against the famous twister of twists Dr. John (Jafsie) Condon, J.J. McNally and the McFadden publications. No doubt you have been advised of his action in this regard, I have read the bills of complaint and the newspaper articles in this connection. I fully appreciate the fact that J.N. has only a right in civil action in connection with this matter, but the outcome of this move may twist the affairs in such a manner that a great deal may be learned or enough brought to light to create considerable interest in this distorted list of happenings and accusations which the public has been unable to unravel or in any way comprehend. This party has shown me certain data that has the ear marks of being enough to cause Dr. Condon to blush when the time comes to produce the material he has to offer.
|
|
|
Post by G. Arkadin on Jun 8, 2014 16:12:19 GMT -5
This party has shown me certain data that has the ear marks of being enough to cause Dr. Condon to blush when the time comes to produce the material he has to offer. m Nothing you have could indicate what that material was? Also, elaborate further on this McFadden Publishers, if you could- they were a front or a fence for the money? Whose? Gold Certs?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 8, 2014 16:48:57 GMT -5
m Nothing you have could indicate what that material was? Also, elaborate further on this McFadden Publishers, if you could- they were a front or a fence for the money? Whose? Gold Certs? I do know I have more on this but I can't remember off the top of my head what the specifics were, and where my sources that include them might be. I got "lucky" finding what was in my Bell file because it's filed in my alphabetical drawer and not with my Nosovitsky material. If I do stumble onto it I will certainly post, but I have no idea which file its contained in.... These were the crime magazines that were doing many of the articles on the Lindbergh Kidnapping related material (e.g. Liberty, True Detective, etc.) When I said this is where the "money" was I meant the payout for those filing the legal action. www.bernarrmacfadden.com/macfadden5.html
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Jun 23, 2014 20:08:13 GMT -5
has anybody read the new book on the case by William cook? just checking if its worth buying
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 24, 2014 5:35:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 5, 2015 18:07:33 GMT -5
I am rereading Noel Behn's book as there has been a lot of discussion recently about JJ Nosovitsky. Anyway, after the ransom payment, the book mentions on page 147 that Lindbergh and Condon flew out of Bridgeport Airport on a large amphibious Sikorsky aircraft to search for the baby near Martha's Vineyard. Bridgeport Airport was actually in Lordship, CT, near where I grew up until I was 8. On the Lordship History site I found a photo of this Sikorsky seaplane used in the 1930's www.lordshiphistory.com/FlyingBoat.jpgI wonder if this was the plane they were on. My dad was best friends with Igor Sikorsky's youngest son Niki as they were both Violin students growing up in Bridgeport together. They kept in regular touch until my dad passed away a couple of years ago.
|
|