|
Post by thecolonel on Mar 27, 2006 13:58:20 GMT -5
Alhgren and Monier suggest in their book, Crime of the Century, The Lindbergh kidnapping Hoax, that Lindbergh was playing a practical joke on Anne and the ladder broke and the baby died. We know today that 90% of all kidnappings and 85% of all child deaths are caused by one or both parents. Lindbergh quickly seized control of the investigation and was never considered a suspect. He had a reputation as a cruel practical joker prior to the kidnapping. The jokes stopped afterward. He lied in identifying Hauptmann on the witness stand. There is much more in the book,but at least an interesting theory.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Mar 27, 2006 14:14:27 GMT -5
Yo colonel....one thing is fairly certain....Charlie jr had some sort of accident! The leading candidates are:
1. Fell down the stairs, out the window, out of crib backing out of the covers or was hit by a pillow in the house or car in the drive. 2. His head swelled up too big and he had an epileptic seizure.....needed a hospital and doctor's care like Alex Carrell over a Rockefeller Institute. 3. He was snatched in a moment and just disappeared--not down any ladder but down the stairs and out the front door to a waiting car.
Any one of these incidents could have triggered the kidnap hoax followed by the extortion hoax. Accidents do happen.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 28, 2006 3:30:27 GMT -5
To thecolonel, Rick Schwartzkopf covered anything that might have led back to Lindbergh, and his pranks could as well have led to carry out the kidnap hoax.
|
|
|
Post by gap0003 on Mar 4, 2010 19:25:13 GMT -5
Does anyone know when Mrs. Morrow actually went to Hopewell?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2010 11:37:31 GMT -5
According to her statement given to Lt Sweeny & Det. Strong of the Newark Police Dept. she didn't make it down there until 11AM March 2nd.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Mar 8, 2010 20:54:40 GMT -5
Well, if this happened today, the investigators would look at the family early in the process. That much is certain. Whether or not they were involved to any degree, they would be put under the microscope in a way that could never have happened 70 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2010 18:08:13 GMT -5
Absolutely. And every Investigator, to the man, quietly and off the record spoke about how Lindbergh hampered the investigation by his direct involvement.
What we had was an Aviator running the investigation, vetoing strategies/suggestions from seasoned Law Enforcement and blocking their efforts to solve the crime for (when he decided to address why - which he rarely did) irrational reasons.
|
|
|
Post by gap0003 on Dec 18, 2010 22:46:52 GMT -5
How many people outside the family actually saw Charles Jr.? I believe Michael said there was a video of him talking. If so, could you post?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 19, 2010 9:58:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 19, 2010 18:01:09 GMT -5
i think i read that ann lindbergh mentioned that he could say a word or two but didnt actually talk
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 20, 2010 7:45:42 GMT -5
Trial preparation brought out the child was "normal" in every way. This was done specifically to neutralize any attempts at the Defense bringing out that he wasn't. Exactly how did the Prosecution know this? They employed someone to pretend to be a Defense Witness who ran back and told them everything. So you have so far (for anyone keeping score): - A Defense Lawyer who switched sides.
- A Defense Witness who was really a Prosecution "Spy."
- Prosecution Witnesses perjuring themselves.
- The Accused having the crap beaten out of him.
- Defense Witnesses being threatened and/or coerced.
- Exculpatory evidence hidden from the Defense.
- A Biased Judge who through his charge - took away the Juries' neutrality
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 20, 2010 8:05:24 GMT -5
we only know the child had rickets. that dosnt mean he wasnt normal
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 21, 2010 16:38:46 GMT -5
I think what we have is what was released to the public. Even if its a sincere diagnosis it could have been wrong, or in addition to other maladies that were unexplained by all of his symptoms.
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Dec 24, 2010 0:43:29 GMT -5
What about Autism? I noticed in the home reels posted by Michael that the baby never smiled and seemed fussy. Most toddlers smile and laugh a lot at this stage and before...this baby does not appear to be a happy camper. If I remember correctly, I read in another post that Betty Mowell had mentioned that he did not like to be held. Autism declines if untreated ( that time period would not have knowledge of this disorder). He seems to exhibit abormal behavior for the average toddler stage he had reached. I know one can not compare and some babies develop slower or faster with different development areas. But, my thoughts are, with the "missing year" photos unhappy appearance displayed on home reels not wanting to be held and speaking only a couple of words at this stage are signs that Autism could have been a part of his developmental problems..and the time period did not allow the understanding necessary to help the baby progress instead of declining and disappearing inot his own little world. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 24, 2010 8:38:09 GMT -5
We have to remember that what we have is what they gave us. And I think we are lucky to have that.
There is no doubt in my mind the Toddler suffered from something other then rickets. He may have had that too, or in the alternative, was misdiagnosed. I've consulted everyone and anyone who would field my questions about my thoughts.
Lloyd's book has some interesting facts on this subject.
Autism isn't anything I ever considered but think its something to pursue as a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 7, 2011 2:19:20 GMT -5
Betty Gow said in her police statement on March 10, 1932, (I am paraphrasing) that the baby came into the kitchen where she and Mr. and Mrs. Whately were, ran around the table a couple of times and spoke to Elsie. This statement makes the baby appear normal. He's not only walking, but running around the table, and he spoke to Elsie. I think in one of the Whatley's statement, the baby said, "Hi Elsie." (again, I am not quoting) but similar if not word for word...so by there statements, he was speaking at least two word sentences and strong enough to run in his deteriorating state??? Right??
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 7, 2011 2:36:57 GMT -5
Also, I thought of this too, in "Jafsie Tells All," Condon has 3 wooden animals from the baby's toy chest. He asks Lindbergh how the baby would pronounce each one. Lindbergh told JFC that he would pronounce elephant, "elepant" (?) but the other two he could pronounce correctly. Jafsie said he needed this info in case the kinappers allowed him to see the baby in the future ( to insure his life and safety before ransom drop). Since he had never seen the baby in life, at least, he would know it was Lindbergh's instead of a stand in or look alike. Sadly, he never waas given that alternative...
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 15, 2017 16:36:06 GMT -5
What about Autism? I noticed in the home reels posted by Michael that the baby never smiled and seemed fussy. Most toddlers smile and laugh a lot at this stage and before...this baby does not appear to be a happy camper. If I remember correctly, I read in another post that Betty Mowell had mentioned that he did not like to be held. Autism declines if untreated ( that time period would not have knowledge of this disorder). He seems to exhibit abormal behavior for the average toddler stage he had reached. I know one can not compare and some babies develop slower or faster with different development areas. But, my thoughts are, with the "missing year" photos unhappy appearance displayed on home reels not wanting to be held and speaking only a couple of words at this stage are signs that Autism could have been a part of his developmental problems..and the time period did not allow the understanding necessary to help the baby progress instead of declining and disappearing into his own little world. Thoughts? I agree with the above totally. I had thought he had autism because he never, ever smiled. He always grimaced. He also startled and yelled too easily. If you watch the videos of him crawling, look at his face - he strains and his eyes bulge out. He cannot crawl and change direction easily at all. Possible but does not account for the somewhat severe and striking physical abnormalities, including the skull which came apart like an orange at autopsy.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 16, 2017 10:44:20 GMT -5
Possible but does not account for the somewhat severe and striking physical abnormalities, including the skull which came apart like an orange at autopsy. Over the years I've accumulated a couple of letters here and there where it was alleged Lindbergh blamed the Morrow side of the family for the child's condition. These aren't proof of anything but it sure as hell sounds like him. And considering the Morrow siblings being afflicted with both physical and mental issues, it gave him a scapegoat in Anne as a way out from the crazy situation he forced her into during that trans-continental flight.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Nov 16, 2017 14:04:51 GMT -5
Ilovedfw, I thought CJr might have autism as well and I noticed how he didn't smile. But he is looking directly at and responding to the person who is filming. At one point he is shaking his head "no", I assume in responce to a question. He does not appear to be in his own world, so to speak. After his one year old birthday I think his health changed both physically and emotionally.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Nov 16, 2017 14:59:08 GMT -5
Ilovedfw, it depends on the severity I would guess. A lot of parents of children with autism say they were completely normal as babies and symptoms appeared around 2 years old. I also think the amount of time that he was away from his mother and left with a series of nannies affected his development. One of CAL SR's granddaughters thought Lindbergh may have had Aspergers due to the way he focused on his work and was uncomfortable around people. I'll try to find where I read that.
|
|
|
Post by mufti on Jan 23, 2018 17:18:11 GMT -5
Would you pay 50,000 to a phoney kidnapper, or see a random guy to his death when he could have backed down on hauptmann at any time? Unlikely without a much better motive. A fake kidnapping is much more likely to get you caught then simply blaming one of the staff or passing it off as an accident.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 23, 2018 17:25:37 GMT -5
Would you pay 50,000 to a phoney kidnapper, or see a random guy to his death when he could have backed down on hauptmann at any time? Unlikely without a much better motive. A fake kidnapping is much more likely to get you caught then simply blaming one of the staff or passing it off as an accident. This makes zero logical sense. Once Hauptmann was caught, it was a state case. Lindbergh didn't really have a choice in the matter, as it wasn't him "going after" anyone. Family members of murder victims don't have a choice whether someone is prosecuted. He could have denied the voice ID, I guess, but looking sympathetic to Hauptmann would go against his "strong man" facade. Blaming a member of the staff would be problematic as they could give interview to how sick and weak the child was. Passing it off as an accident also doesn't work because then it would make the Lindbergh's seem like poor or absentee parents.
|
|
|
Post by mufti on Jan 23, 2018 17:49:34 GMT -5
Would you pay 50,000 to a phoney kidnapper, or see a random guy to his death when he could have backed down on hauptmann at any time? Unlikely without a much better motive. A fake kidnapping is much more likely to get you caught then simply blaming one of the staff or passing it off as an accident. This makes zero logical sense. Once Hauptmann was caught, it was a state case. Lindbergh didn't really have a choice in the matter, as it wasn't him "going after" anyone. Family members of murder victims don't have a choice whether someone is prosecuted. He could have denied the voice ID, I guess, but looking sympathetic to Hauptmann would go against his "strong man" facade. Blaming a member of the staff would be problematic as they could give interview to how sick and weak the child was. Passing it off as an accident also doesn't work because then it would make the Lindbergh's seem like poor or absentee parents. You are implicitly claiming Lindbergh pretended to recognize Hauptmann's voice from 100 feet away when he knew he was not responsible, and therefore murdered him. And that he gave away a million in 2017 dollars to some fake kidnappers he himself hired just to get off on a murder charge no one had made towards him. So you have an accidental death and so you bring in half a dozen criminal accomplices and let them know what happened and give them a huge amount of your money, then betray one of them (or worse yet a guy who is in wrong place and wrong time). Zero logical sense indeed. It's unlikely back then anyone is going to get convicted of killing their own kid because of an accident anyways, let alone Lindbergh who was an insanely popular hero of the day. If he had defects or was mentally retarded then he would likely have ended up lobotomized and in a home like the Kennedy kid, and with no further mentions of him in the press (which had more limits back then about what was considered fair game). It's even crazier to accuse Lindy of intentionally killing the kid off due to a defect, this is nothing short of propaganda falsely accusing him of being a nazi.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 23, 2018 18:12:34 GMT -5
Amen!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 23, 2018 19:03:46 GMT -5
You are implicitly claiming Lindbergh pretended to recognize Hauptmann's voice from 100 feet away when he knew he was not responsible, and therefore murdered him. And that he gave away a million in 2017 dollars to some fake kidnappers he himself hired just to get off on a murder charge no one had made towards him. I am not trying to jump into the discussion but you seem to be moving from point A straight to point Z. The first step would be whether or not Lindbergh was testifying truthfully. Well since I've proven he lied in multiple places it demonstrates he was more than willing to do so. So the next step is to ask if he lied about this specific point? It's hard not to determine this since he testified he could not identify it himself before the Grand Jury. Honestly though, we really only have to rely on common sense on this point. Or if not, I can point out where he is unsure of many things much less than 2-1/2 years out - which would have been harder for me to resist if I didn't have the documentation to prove it. So the final question should actually be: What changed his mind? Or why did he decide to lie about it? To your next point.... Was Lindbergh like the Kennedy? Or was he different in some way? I think he was a lot different. And if he was, is that a fair comparison?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 23, 2018 19:05:46 GMT -5
This makes zero logical sense. Once Hauptmann was caught, it was a state case. Lindbergh didn't really have a choice in the matter, as it wasn't him "going after" anyone. Family members of murder victims don't have a choice whether someone is prosecuted. He could have denied the voice ID, I guess, but looking sympathetic to Hauptmann would go against his "strong man" facade. Blaming a member of the staff would be problematic as they could give interview to how sick and weak the child was. Passing it off as an accident also doesn't work because then it would make the Lindbergh's seem like poor or absentee parents. You are implicitly claiming Lindbergh pretended to recognize Hauptmann's voice from 100 feet away when he knew he was not responsible, and therefore murdered him. And that he gave away a million in 2017 dollars to some fake kidnappers he himself hired just to get off on a murder charge no one had made towards him. So you have an accidental death and so you bring in half a dozen criminal accomplices and let them know what happened and give them a huge amount of your money, then betray one of them (or worse yet a guy who is in wrong place and wrong time). Zero logical sense indeed. It's unlikely back then anyone is going to get convicted of killing their own kid because of an accident anyways, let alone Lindbergh who was an insanely popular hero of the day. If he had defects or was mentally retarded then he would likely have ended up lobotomized and in a home like the Kennedy kid, and with no further mentions of him in the press (which had more limits back then about what was considered fair game). It's even crazier to accuse Lindy of intentionally killing the kid off due to a defect, this is nothing short of propaganda falsely accusing him of being a nazi. Hauptmann may have been involved. Lindbergh was being extorted for the money, imagine if the public had discovered he'd lied about the kidnapping? His reputation would be ruined. His interest in eugenics is well documented. The man fathered multiple children and had multiple families abroad for the sole purpose of spreading his superior seed. Beyond that, his sympathies with the nazis are well documented, including the award he received from them. You must remember this was 1932 and kidnappings were relatively common in that era, much more so than now. Sending the child "away," whether it was supposed to be to a medical facility or to death, via a fake kidnapping plot, was a way to garner public sympathy, allow the family to remain in the highest esteem and move on relatively quickly with a new child. It is not in doubt the child was ill with something, that there were more than one set of footprints, that Lindbergh returned home earlier than he admitted to the police and that he steered the investigation in every possible way that pointed away from solving it.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 23, 2018 22:54:31 GMT -5
Amen!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 24, 2018 1:19:23 GMT -5
Jack for Michael:
Considering the complexity of the signature on the notes and the fact that one and two were once adjoined, it seems to me that this is beyond Hauptmann's "bovine" mentality. Especially remembering that he's supposed to be a zero experienced kidnapper. Your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 24, 2018 9:49:39 GMT -5
Jack for Michael: Considering the complexity of the signature on the notes and the fact that one and two were once adjoined, it seems to me that this is beyond Hauptmann's "bovine" mentality. Especially remembering that he's supposed to be a zero experienced kidnapper. Your thoughts? I think he had the skill to create this symbol, but I do not believe he invented it. It's like the writing in the note. IF he penned it he's using certain phrases or words that he could not be inventing himself. This idea that he's looking up words in the dictionary, like "hazardous" (and using it correctly), in order to keep police from believing he's a foreigner is completely absurd because the note clearly indicates an attempt to look that way IF by design. But if not, how does looking, for example, "hazardous" up in the dictionary make it less so? So did they want to look like a foreigner or didn't they? So the explanation is like having one's cake and eating it too. He's smart enough in one respect but an absolute idiot in the other. It's a clear indication that more than one mind is at work. Now I have a question for you (and everyone else) which I will not follow up: Pretend you are Lindbergh. Wilentz comes to you and proposes that with your blessing he could get Hauptmann to name his confederates and confess his involvement for a Life Sentence. Do you... A) Give your full blessing because you want everyone who had a hand in your son's death caught?
B) Veto the idea because you don't want people to think you have any doubts concerning Hauptmann's guilt? The second part to this question would be how you think Lindbergh actually would have answered.
|
|