|
Post by elyssa on Apr 7, 2006 12:34:41 GMT -5
When the Lindberghs left the country they donated the house to the state. What happened to their belongings furniture, clothing personal items that weren't taken with them. What did they do with all of Charlies things, bed, clothing, toys and so on?Were these things stored at the Morrows, where are they now? Were they destroyed at Cals command? It was said in several books that Cal & Anne never told the other children about Charlie, they found out when they were older. Did Cal allow Anne to keep anything to remind her of Charlie? It's seems as though they just washed Charlie from their lives and didn't look back or even share the good memories with their other children. I can't imagine.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 7, 2006 16:45:03 GMT -5
Small wonder considering the horror the Lindberghs suffered through,then the fear from new threats against their child. I would have left and never looked back.
|
|
|
Post by steve romeo on Apr 7, 2006 18:52:44 GMT -5
way back in 1992, i was told atthe lindbergh house, that they burned the babys furniture. i dont know how true is is. plus i heard they sold the other stuff in the house. i cant verify any of this. maybe mike knows more.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 7, 2006 22:07:34 GMT -5
I know for a fact that Whatley burned some things. I too have heard the furniture was burned but I can't remember the source. I'll take a look and if I find anything about it I will post it here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 22, 2017 18:37:37 GMT -5
Michael, are Anne's letters and diaries available to be read by the public in edited? Just finished The Airman and the Carpenter and he only quoted the good things Anne said about Charles interaction with the baby and I know I have read other books that contain the truth. Do you mean unedited? I've never been to Yale but I think copies of her original transcripts might be there.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 23, 2017 9:41:20 GMT -5
I know for a fact that Whatley burned some things. I too have heard the furniture was burned but I can't remember the source. I'll take a look and if I find anything about it I will post it here. Michael, mentioning Whatley, you might have put that fact in "The Dark Corners," since it would seem to fit in with Whatley's deathbed statement. I would assume that Whatley's burning was ordered by CAL Sr. and that Whatley might have thought of it as a cover-up for the "inside job."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 23, 2017 10:20:53 GMT -5
I know for a fact that Whatley burned some things. I too have heard the furniture was burned but I can't remember the source. I'll take a look and if I find anything about it I will post it here. Michael, mentioning Whatley, you might have put that fact in "The Dark Corners," since it would seem to fit in with Whatley's deathbed statement. I would assume that Whatley's burning was ordered by CAL Sr. and that Whatley might have thought of it as a cover-up for the "inside job." Well you are right in that I could have mentioned it. But I have always tried to "measure" what I include as a way to show something. It's hard to explain. Here I don't know if it means anything. It could. Then again I don't really know. Also, I had forgotten about that and although it refreshed my memory, it could take me months to find that source. I'm not kidding. Just right now I am writing about one event that I hadn't planned to and it's already 3 weeks. I keep remembering different sources that I want to consult and that sources triggers a memory of another and then another... It snowballs out of control but in the end I've found it's worth it to avoid any regrets or omissions. One thing is for sure, nobody will be offering any more excuses for John Condon once they read V2!
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Nov 23, 2017 17:57:08 GMT -5
I, for one, can hardly wait for Version 2!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 25, 2017 11:25:19 GMT -5
I, for one, can hardly wait for Version 2! Thanks Norma. I hope it's as good as I believe it to already be. I sometimes go back then re-read and can't believe what's there myself. I can see where some might find it boring - but to any of us it won't be. It is already bigger than the first book so I am going to have to make some decisions about where to end it by saving things I wanted to include in the next volume. Believe it or not, just yesterday I found an extremely important piece of information that I have missed all these years. I've read this report hundreds of times and cannot believe I've skimmed or skipped over it somehow. I am just glad I chose to add this subject or it would probably would never have come out. I've also stumbled onto a reference to a report made by Ho-age that I do not have but know where it will be at the Archives. And so, I will be heading back down there soon to retrieve it!
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 27, 2017 9:46:06 GMT -5
I have a lot on condon also, he was a bad boy. if reilly did his homework condon wouldn't have been a good witness. I think it would have been the most important lane for the defense to address. but it dosnt clear Hauptman at all
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 27, 2017 9:56:40 GMT -5
I have a lot on condon also, he was a bad boy. if reilly did his homework condon wouldn't have been a good witness. I think it would have been the most important lane for the defense to address. but it dosnt clear Hauptman at all But it's not about "clearing" Hauptmann is it? It's about getting to the truth. "History" records this was a one-man job perpetrated by an Immigrant Bronx Carpenter. But all of the evidence proves otherwise, so the counter-argument that Hauptmann wasn't "innocent" has no effect on the fact this crime was never solved by his execution. His involvement does not disprove others weren't involved. In fact, it proves others were.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Nov 27, 2017 15:52:47 GMT -5
Michael, when the book comes out, you'll have to point out that piece of information that you overlooked for so long. I certainly admire your dedication to this subject, and yours too Steve. I can't understand how Condon was able to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Nov 27, 2017 16:35:56 GMT -5
I think the answer to your question is that Condon really didn't pull the wool over anyone eyes. I think it was basically an open secret that he was full of crap, but there was nothing that could be done about it. Lindbergh was protecting Condon, because, indirectly and unwittingly, Condon's BS was protecting Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 28, 2017 8:16:33 GMT -5
Michael, when the book comes out, you'll have to point out that piece of information that you overlooked for so long. I certainly admire your dedication to this subject, and yours too Steve. I can't understand how Condon was able to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. I will but you might have to remind me... Honestly, this happens more than I care to admit. If each time I've said to myself " how'd I miss this?" was a buck I'd be rich. However, it is also fairly clear that it happens to everyone in one way or another. The Whited information is an example from a different angle of it. You have something where people split three ways: They believe he saw Hauptmann, believe he lied, and others who say it doesn't matter either way. So having drawn a conclusion they did not pursue the available documentation which showed he saw Lindbergh coming home early. Gee, how they'd miss that? Because they never looked! It's just another pit-fall. Or explaining something away to oneself is another issue. Like Lindbergh calling at 7PM to say he'd be late. I think I spent about a week combing through the various books to make sure this hadn't been mentioned before I put it out there. But why not? Actually because no one else ever raised it, or they "missed" it, or perhaps they were either scared or embarrassed to question something like this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 29, 2017 10:36:22 GMT -5
Something else I want to add while it is on my mind...
Over the years I've seen several people say, in essence, "everyone" can't be a liar. I suppose this is meant to dissuade others, and perhaps themselves, from buying into any situation where someone they "like" may have been involved in some way - even tangentially. However, there are lies all over the place coming from just about everyone. So while it sounds like a reasonable position, the facts contained within the source material completely ruin this point. The key, for me at least, has been to find out "why" someone might lie about something. As I've said before, many see a lie then jump to the conclusion that it can only mean one thing. But that's not true either. The motive(s) for why someone might not be truthful could be anything, and it is a trap to believe there's only a "black" or "white" option in explaining them.
So it makes everything to do with this case that much harder. To sift through just about everything to sometimes get to the bottom of a lie which may have nothing to do with what could be a "smoking gun." But it is important this be done, otherwise, history records either someone who lied did not, or if the lie is exposed - incorrectly attach that lie to "guilt" of some kind.
All of this while at the same time could actually be a link. But it must be pursued in order to find out right? Denial, or shrugging it off won't get us there.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 30, 2017 11:01:37 GMT -5
but mike I think the crime was solved, im just saying if they looked into condon better, it might have made wilentz work harder to stop the discredit of condon. I don't know if reilly had access to the fbis investigation of condon, we know he was shady and stole money from a womans poctetbook and he may have did something to a child and did shady business in city island
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 30, 2017 13:45:29 GMT -5
Michael - quick question. Do you think the "blue flannel petticoat shirt" Betty made for the baby was made to ensure the body could be identified? Well the blue thread was something that made me consider it could have been used for that purpose. I was able to see it at the Archives before it was removed and it still had its (what I consider) unique color. It's something I believe helps to prove his identity regardless.... but mike I think the crime was solved, im just saying if they looked into condon better, it might have made wilentz work harder to stop the discredit of condon. I don't know if reilly had access to the fbis investigation of condon, we know he was shady and stole money from a womans poctetbook and he may have did something to a child and did shady business in city island The Defense did not have any of the FBI reports. It wasn't until Kimberling replaced Schwarzkopf that Hoffman had access to their reports which they had previously shared with the NJSP - and not before. Since multiple people were involved, then it I don't think it can be said the case was "solved." Condon was guilty of, at the very least, obstruction of justice. Now considering this how can anyone place any weight whatsoever on his testimony? And that's in addition to the points you are making above.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 1, 2017 9:53:27 GMT -5
mike I don't believe multi people were involved
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 1, 2017 11:28:30 GMT -5
mike I don't believe multi people were involved The footprint evidence alone proves there were multiple people involved. Everyone who says there was only one set obviously haven't done their homework. Richard Cahill attempted to explain this by saying it was Reporters. However, I have proven these prints were followed before any of the first reporters arrived. The only other explanation is that one guy was walking backwards. The two sets leading away from the house to the ladder, then from the ladder to the road, only changed once the trial against Hauptmann began.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 5, 2017 9:57:46 GMT -5
mike I still don't believe, the footprints are taken in so many ways that I look at the way the case unfolded and the police never could find anybody else. people over the years tried to connect fisch with flimsy evidence.if you were a partner with hauptmann why on earth would you want to negotiate in a cemetery, and have him spend the ransom money foolishly like he did.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 5, 2017 10:00:34 GMT -5
but mike that's what people try to do clear hauptmann with absurd scenerios and assuming this one did it and that happened here and there I heard it all
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 5, 2017 10:04:56 GMT -5
thanks stella since I have so many pictures id like to do a picture book on the case titled before and after. people over the years told me these Lindbergh kidnap books don't have enough pictures. that's what id like to do since ive been to most of the sites and was lucky enough to photograph in hauptmanns house and attic
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 5, 2017 13:07:37 GMT -5
Wolf,
I wish you would do this. I'd be first online to buy a copy.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Dec 5, 2017 19:18:56 GMT -5
Wolf, Great idea, before and after photos. I would definitely buy your book too.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 7, 2017 9:45:09 GMT -5
id like to do it because if I die most of my stuff will go in the garbage
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 7, 2017 9:47:33 GMT -5
also reading dedmans book which is great it covers the hearing in the Bronx and the trial, he said that Fawcett not turning the documents over to reilly till he got paid may have hurt the defense in preparing for the case
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 7, 2017 9:49:00 GMT -5
thanks I wont do it to make money or debate the case, just show before and after pictures of all the sites and inside the house
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Dec 8, 2017 18:19:18 GMT -5
The footprint evidence alone proves there were multiple people involved. Everyone who says there was only one set obviously haven't done their homework. Richard Cahill attempted to explain this by saying it was Reporters. However, I have proven these prints were followed before any of the first reporters arrived. The only other explanation is that one guy was walking backwards. The two sets leading away from the house to the ladder, then from the ladder to the road, only changed once the trial against Hauptmann began. What if it is true that Elisabeth killed the child. I read where when the Whately's came home from their errand the dead child was on the ground outside and Elisabeth was upstairs sceaming her head off. There would be footprints because the people AT THE HOUSE would have gone out there. When did this take place, ilovedfw? Was she at the Hopewell house the weekend of the crime? I don't think her where-abouts were ever established, but I could be wrong. Michael, is there a report about where she was? Seems like I remember something about her being in New York.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 9, 2017 10:13:14 GMT -5
Ilovedfw,
The theory that Elisabeth "did it" was presented in Noel Behn's book. Do you have any other supporting documents that she was responsible?
I'm not discounting it, but here are some statements about the weekend previous to the kidnapping (Saturday, February 27, 1932 and Sunday, February 28, 1932):
1) I have a 4-page statement from Yale University authored by Mrs. Breckinridge. She goes into great detail how she, her husband (Henry Breckinridge), and CAL arrived at Highfields late on the afternoon of Saturday, February 27th. She tells about playing with Charlie (especially his ark and animals), having supper with him at his nursery table with Anne, Elsie, and Alva Root (Mrs. Breckinridge's daughter), helping to put Charlie to bed, playing with Charlie on Sunday, again helping to put Charlie to bed on Sunday night, then being driven by Charles and Anne to the train station to make an 8:00 PM train.
2) Owen Root, Mrs. Breckinridge's son, was also in Highfields over the same weekend (Persons and Persuasions, p. 202).
3) Anne's two police statement confirm Mrs. Breckinridge's statement.
4) Elsie's police statement confirms Anne's and Mrs. Breckinridge's statement.
So, the known people at Highfields on the weekend prior to the kidnapping include: CAL, Anne, Mr. Breckinridge, Mrs. Breckinridge, Alva Root, Owen Root, Elsie Whateley, ad Olly Whateley.
Unless everyone was lying and covering up, when and how could Elisabeth have killed Charlie on the weekend of Feb. 27/28?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 9, 2017 18:01:08 GMT -5
Michael, is there a report about where she was? Seems like I remember something about her being in New York. No. Behn's source is Harry Green. He was definitely in a position to know this stuff. However, I have every letter that he's written which is currently at the Archives and there's nothing about Elisabeth in them. In fact, there's nothing about Elisabeth anywhere except in the phone logs where she's calling for her mother who was in Hopewell after the crime from Englewood - constantly - and the handwritten notes which I found in the Schwarzkopf file - that's it. I believe if Hoffman thought it was her we'd have a treasure trove of documentation about her in his collection but there's absolutely nothing. Here are those notes for those who haven't seen them:
|
|