|
Post by rebekah on Dec 9, 2017 20:09:20 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: Thanks, Michael. I didn't think there was anything about her weekend and that it remains a question. Also, showing my ignorance, who is Harry Green?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 9, 2017 20:49:46 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael. I didn't think there was anything about her weekend and that it remains a question. Also, showing my ignorance, who is Harry Green? Green was a lawyer who was good friends with Hoffman. He also did quite a bit of legal work for him. In one of Fisher's books he says something about him being on the "fringe" of the case as a way, I guess, of discrediting him. Of course he's very wrong. Anyone doing just a little bit of research with the Hoffman Collection can see that whatever Hoffman had Green had access to it. Later, once Parker got into trouble, Green took his case along with J. Mercer Davis and former Gov. Silzer. Parker's legal filings, hearings, and trial transcripts brought out a ton of information about this case that researchers will never find anywhere else. For someone who doesn't have these documents I suppose its easier just to say they don't contain anything then hope no one else gets their hands on them. In short, Green COULD have had what Behn claimed he did in his book. However, at 93 it is possible he was confused too. I don't know but without seeing the documentation I can not possibly evaluate it. But I seem to remember Behn claimed they had been destroyed or something? It's been "forever" since I read his book.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 10, 2017 14:42:13 GMT -5
To Michael:
(1) Who wrote those notes you posted?
(2) Was the writer writing to only to himself or was he attempting to advise someone else about what he suspected?
(3) Who was Ely Chilton (mentioned in first note)?
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Dec 10, 2017 19:19:10 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael. I didn't think there was anything about her weekend and that it remains a question. Also, showing my ignorance, who is Harry Green? Green was a lawyer who was good friends with Hoffman. He also did quite a bit of legal work for him. In one of Fisher's books he says something about him being on the "fringe" of the case as a way, I guess, of discrediting him. Of course he's very wrong. Anyone doing just a little bit of research with the Hoffman Collection can see that whatever Hoffman had Green had access to it. Later, once Parker got into trouble, Green took his case along with J. Mercer Davis and former Gov. Silzer. Parker's legal filings, hearings, and trial transcripts brought out a ton of information about this case that researchers will never find anywhere else. For someone who doesn't have these documents I suppose its easier just to say they don't contain anything then hope no one else gets their hands on them. In short, Green COULD have had what Behn claimed he did in his book. However, at 93 it is possible he was confused too. I don't know but without seeing the documentation I can not possibly evaluate it. But I seem to remember Behn claimed they had been destroyed or something? It's been "forever" since I read his book. Once again, thank you. I know very little about a whole lot that surrounded the LK. I never knew who represented Parker (or Curtis, either), only that he ended up in prison because of the Wendel case. Poor ole feller. I still believe he was kept away from investigating the crime because he was smarter than Lindbergh, and Lindbergh knew it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 11, 2017 15:26:37 GMT -5
To Michael: (1) Who wrote those notes you posted? (2) Was the writer writing to only to himself or was he attempting to advise someone else about what he suspected? (3) Who was Ely Chilton (mentioned in first note)? 1. Schwarzkopf. 2. I've always had the impression he was writing this down as coming from someone else. 3. I believe a relative of Connie. It's been over a decade since I pursued this. I did find the name in a couple of reports but nothing important attached to it. Since it was so long ago and there was nothing to be remembered I can understand why I don't have it cemented in my memory like I do have other things that are. If I thought there was something to be found I would drop what I am doing and look but I am positive there isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 11, 2017 15:36:00 GMT -5
I read where she was there that Saturday and was whisked away after they found the baby dead. I don't want to talk anyone out of pursuing this theory, however, I don't personally believe she had anything to do with it. Just the little bit that's in my book makes it hard to believe (see pages 136 & 297). If she killed the child why would anyone, especially Anne, want her in Hopewell at any time thereafter? Why, once the child is found dead, is she answering the phone and giving out information about it? For me, she would be removed from the entire thing if the family was aware it was her and trying to cover it up.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 11, 2017 18:41:14 GMT -5
Well, you may have as many sets of footprints as you will allow, but you only have one pair of shoes with feet in them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 14, 2017 9:51:42 GMT -5
Well, you may have as many sets of footprints as you will allow, but you only have one pair of shoes with feet in them. Looking at the scene, two sets led away from the window to the ladder, one set was parallel and led to the back of the house. Assuming that set was Anne's, which I personally cannot do, but assuming that set is accounted for - if one person made both sets leading away then what options do we have? They used the boardwalk to get under the window, then walked to where the ladder was found, they walked backwards to the boardwalk, then left via the boardwalk the way they came in. Or they used the boardwalk to get under the window, then walked to where the ladder was found, they somehow walked around the scene from there as to not leave prints then returned under the window the same way they came in - then left by once again walking in the mud to where the ladder was found. And that's just to where the ladder was found AND excluding the mention of female prints in that area as well by both Williamson and Kutcha which is something else I cannot do.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 15, 2017 7:59:24 GMT -5
I've posted these before, but are they basically correct? First of all this is really great trying to work it out this way and I think the time you put into this is well worth it. I personally think its up to the individual to draw their own conclusions how everything shook out. Just about everything I have on the footprints I put in the book (a little more to come). So what you have is what I have. That being said, there are some differences in accounts (e.g. female vs. male). As far as your charts go, I do not believe the car tracks were found there - everyone is free to disagree - but my impression is they followed the footprints all the way to the road and that's where they were. I certainly believe a car pulled up the private lane first, but I believe it wound up on the side of Wertsville Road in an area between the Hausenbauer and Soltesz homes.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 15, 2017 11:02:39 GMT -5
Okay, so... more like this then? It's my belief that there were no tire tracks on the access road itself - only footprints. The position of the parked car in your scenario is very close to where I believe it was but it's a hard thing to give it an exact location.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 15, 2017 13:13:09 GMT -5
I think the only difference is that I'm including the stretch of road in the photo where the car is parked and where I have the tire tracks as a part of the access road, and you're considering the beginning of the access road at about where I have the footprints starting. This means the car would've had to head up the driveway, veer left, pull alongside the house to receive the body, and back out or turn around to get back onto the driveway and then onto Wertsville. Meanwhile, the kidnappers headed off in the opposite direction, on foot down the access road, to where it connected with the driveway. Is that about it? I don't believe the access road was used for anything except for at least two people to walk away from the house to where the car was parked on Wertsville. Here's what I believe the evidence shows us: Anne heard a car approach and we know from my book that a car made noise upon approach because of the sound of the tires on the road. So prior to Lindbergh's official time of returning a car drove up the private lane. When Lindbergh said he came home he claimed he did not see a car on Wertsville or on his private lane or in the driveway. If it was in either place he would have. Lt. Keaten said in no uncertain terms that there was no tire tracks on the access road. All footprints lead away from the house, excepting those that went to the back of the house. The footprints were traced down the access road to a point where there were tire tracks of a car parked on Wertsville Road. If the car was dropping off the ladder it could also have been dropping off "outsiders" as well. If not, they approached the house after the "drop-off" by walking up the private lane, or in a place that did not leave footprints. My biggest "problem" is why they felt safe or comfortable to drive up that lane in the first place, and if so, why not a second time? Hell, why not just park there?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 15, 2017 13:46:33 GMT -5
In my opinion, they felt safe driving up the lane because they knew they were safe, everyone in that house knowing they were coming. The evidence shows two sets of footprints leading away from the house, but none leading to it, so they must've driven up--and if they drove up, why not drive out too? Unless it was to very specifically leave a footprint trail, with a ladder and a chisel dumped along that trail, to really telegraph that a break-in and kidnapping occurred, and that the perps left this way. We know a car was heard by Anne at a little after 8pm; I think this was the kidnappers pulling up to the house. They get out, with the car veering off to the left and parking alongside the house--in a spot far forward of where the car appears in the photo, but along that trail. Meanwhile, the kidnappers have used the courtyard and boardwalk to assemble the ladder and walk it to the nursery window. One gets inside through the front door, goes upstairs, kills CAL Jr. and heads back out the front door. They take the body to the car, which backs out, onto the driveway and then to Wertsville Rd., where their other car is. The two kidnappers walk down the access road. Sorry, for going over and over this; I'm just trying to reconcile everything you're saying with everything else we know.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 15, 2017 18:23:28 GMT -5
In my opinion, they felt safe driving up the lane because they knew they were safe, everyone in that house knowing they were coming. The evidence shows two sets of footprints leading away from the house, but none leading to it, so they must've driven up--and if they drove up, why not drive out too? Unless it was to very specifically leave a footprint trail, with a ladder and a chisel dumped along that trail, to really telegraph that a break-in and kidnapping occurred, and that the perps left this way. We know a car was heard by Anne at a little after 8pm; I think this was the kidnappers pulling up to the house. They get out, with the car veering off to the left and parking alongside the house--in a spot far forward of where the car appears in the photo, but along that trail. Meanwhile, the kidnappers have used the courtyard and boardwalk to assemble the ladder and walk it to the nursery window. One gets inside through the front door, goes upstairs, kills CAL Jr. and heads back out the front door. They take the body to the car, which backs out, onto the driveway and then to Wertsville Rd., where their other car is. The two kidnappers walk down the access road. Sorry, for going over and over this; I'm just trying to reconcile everything you're saying with everything else we know. What is your explanation for the female footprints that go back to the house then? We know the Anne "pebble" story was spun out of whole cloth towards the trial.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 15, 2017 18:49:43 GMT -5
No idea. It wasn't Anne, so... Betty Gow? What was she doing outside? Handing off CAL Jr. to the kidnappers? If so, why not just do that from the front door? Was there a female kidnapper? And where did these footprints lead? Is it possible they had nothing to do with the kidnapping? Anyone have any ideas on this?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 15, 2017 21:15:42 GMT -5
No idea. It wasn't Anne, so... Betty Gow? What was she doing outside? Handing off CAL Jr. to the kidnappers? If so, why not just do that from the front door? Was there a female kidnapper? And where did these footprints lead? Is it possible they had nothing to do with the kidnapping? Anyone have any ideas on this? My assumption was she perhaps did hand him out the door, then accompanied the kidnappers to show them which window was the child's.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 15, 2017 21:51:54 GMT -5
Interesting. I have to say though, I do think that CAL Jr. was dead before he left the house, that the kidnappers got in and killed him before taking him away. I base this on Michael’s suggestions and the idea that CAL Jr. was meant to be killed all along, meaning that the easiest thing would’ve been to have killed him right away, right there in the nursery. Could it be that Betty...? I don’t know, kind of a wild idea. In any case, I think the kidnappers were given detailed instructions beforehand as to where the nursery window was, so if Betty didn’t go outside to show them that, what was she doing out there? I can’t think of a reason, so... maybe the prints belonged to a female kidnapper? But even then, what would that person have been doing straying off the boardwalk?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 17, 2017 9:14:03 GMT -5
My assumption was she perhaps did hand him out the door, then accompanied the kidnappers to show them which window was the child's. There's no doubt in my mind whatsoever that she was involved. She was in the nursery when the crime occurred. When pressed like never before she pulled out her ultimate shield. Whateley, the weak link, seems to indicate she was during the course of the investigation. Interesting. I have to say though, I do think that CAL Jr. was dead before he left the house, that the kidnappers got in and killed him before taking him away. I base this on Michael’s suggestions and the idea that CAL Jr. was meant to be killed all along, meaning that the easiest thing would’ve been to have killed him right away, right there in the nursery. Could it be that Betty...? I don’t know, kind of a wild idea. In any case, I think the kidnappers were given detailed instructions beforehand as to where the nursery window was, so if Betty didn’t go outside to show them that, what was she doing out there? I can’t think of a reason, so... maybe the prints belonged to a female kidnapper? But even then, what would that person have been doing straying off the boardwalk? It's my belief he was always meant to die. Not sure how it was "sold" to others who were brought in to assist in any capacity. I know that most people who "want" to believe this was a Lone-Wolf case will shout "conspiracy theory!" but the reality is that they happen all the time. We find out about those who are caught but do not know about those that were not EXCEPT by the evidence which shows more than one person was involved. Next, over the years as I've researched this case, I found so many tangential conspiracies that spun out of this crime. Just look at Hauptmann's beating for example. Authorities denied it occurred. Conspiracy anyone? There's things like this going on all over the case where lies, unethical behavior, cover-ups, and even crimes are being told/committed where everyone and their brother is involved. Or where there was no "crime" just simple basic facts that were not spoken about despite that several people witnessed them occur. Then we can go outside of this case for evidence. Just look at the Meaney case and Mark Falzini's book for that. Many of the Troopers involved in that case were involved in the Lindbergh Kidnapping investigation, yet, we're told they are above reproach by those who hold onto the "Lone-Wolf" theory with a death grip. Beware of people like this who claim to know much - but know a lot less than most.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 17, 2017 13:40:00 GMT -5
Betty was in the nursery when the crime occurred?? How do we know this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2017 18:16:55 GMT -5
Just wanted to jump in quickly here. It would not surprise me if Betty was present in the nursery at the time of the crime. It really would not surprise me at all if Lindbergh was up there with her at that time. After all, Whited saw Lindbergh pull into his private lane not long after 7 p.m. on March 1. I don't think he sat in his car until 8:25 pm. when he "officially" came home.
Michael,
I believe it was Oscar Bush who said there was car tracks on the access near the house. He said he also saw small footprints he thought might have been made by a woman which joined up with the footprints where the ladder was discarded.
Were any of the findings Bush shared ever checked by the authorities? If they (authorities) didn't find them credible, should we be giving them any serious consideration?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 17, 2017 18:46:54 GMT -5
Amy!!! Thank God, I was getting worried. Where you been? In any case, it wouldn’t surprise me either, but it’s still a pretty stunning implication.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 18, 2017 9:17:03 GMT -5
Betty was in the nursery when the crime occurred?? How do we know this? Based upon Ellis Parker's position that the car that the Conover and the Moore family saw being the same (TDC p18) AND the fact Gow was in the nursery at 8PM (TDC p48). Just wanted to jump in quickly here. It would not surprise me if Betty was present in the nursery at the time of the crime. It really would not surprise me at all if Lindbergh was up there with her at that time. After all, Whited saw Lindbergh pull into his private lane not long after 7 p.m. on March 1. I don't think he sat in his car until 8:25 pm. when he "officially" came home. It's funny Amy because Whited is such a dubious source right? He's a known liar, but is heavily relied upon by authorities to place Hauptmann in the area. However, once the Governor got involved and asked him why he said he didn't see anything originally, his response peaked my interest. I thought if I could find something...anything that might show this it could help support his eyewitness account (and doom Hauptmann). Honestly I think the biggest question would be "why" all previous researchers never bothered to pursue this? So once I found the report (cited in TDC) it clearly shows WHY his earliest report of seeing something was buried and WHY cops might be inclined to tell him not to say anything. It's ALL in the source material and frankly, outside of this Board, is still being ignored as if it's not real. And believe me when I say I've got a whole bunch of documents like this which completely destroy any historical narrative everyone thinks is real. Pick a subject, a point, or a person. So in V2 there will be much more for them to ignore or say is somehow false or untrue. I believe it was Oscar Bush who said there was car tracks on the access near the house. He said he also saw small footprints he thought might have been made by a woman which joined up with the footprints where the ladder was discarded. Were any of the findings Bush shared ever checked by the authorities? If they (authorities) didn't find them credible, should we be giving them any serious consideration? Everything that exists on him I put in the book. There's one adjustment/correction coming in V2 which has no affect on the footprint observations, however, many different things are attributable to him, and I tried to put them all out there. But when looking at the actual scenario, then it shows which of them are true, and that his tracing ended on Wertsville. I'm not telling anyone what to think but once all sources are sifted through it shows me that's the situation.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 18, 2017 10:18:44 GMT -5
I wouldn't rely on ellis parker for anything in this case
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 18, 2017 10:29:24 GMT -5
in a ny times obit article I have its says that green was hoffmans lawyer. if anybody is in new York city he died in a apt at 142 west 44th street. a lot of articles and books said he died in a hotel but I think it was a apt owned by the saints and sinners clown club Hoffman belonged.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 18, 2017 10:40:44 GMT -5
I wouldn't rely on ellis parker for anything in this case I would when what he did concerning this evidence was simply based on common sense. No one - ever - disputed what Moore or Conover said they saw. Parker simply rolled up his sleeves and did old fashioned detective work. Why didn't the NJSP do it at the time? Who knows? Maybe for the same reason they were saying Lupica wasn't reliable? Parker believed he was, and wasn't until later that NJSP jumped on that bandwagon. Before that not so much.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Dec 18, 2017 13:49:28 GMT -5
I believe the 8:10 pm car that Anne heard was dropping off the ladder and supplies. It was able to exit before Lindbergh drove up the driveway, and could well have been the car seen by Wilmer Moore outside his house at 8:23 pm. The second car which parked on Hopewell-Wertsville Road arrived very shortly afterwards. REAL kidnappers, who were not expecting Lindbergh to be home until much later, walked up the driveway and approached the nursery window walking along the east side of the house, essentially following the general outline of the walkway. They departed in the way that's been proven by the presence of their footprints back to their vehicle. There's no question that fortuitous timing was on the side of the kidnappers relative to Lindbergh's actual arrival time at 8:25 pm but sadly, it does happen in true crime. I'm curious under what conditions and details Whited would have been able to positively identify Lindbergh's brown Lincoln sedan at his driveway entrance location at 7:10 pm on that very dark and starless evening.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Dec 18, 2017 14:01:22 GMT -5
I'd say it's actually more a case of Betty Gow being hounded unduly by a Sherlock Holmes wannabe and then finally expressing with considerable exasperation that her employer believed in her loyalty. You're simply reading this scenario to support your pet position. I may be too.. but only one of us is right here. Whateley's statement, your so-called deathbed confession, means very little other than to show his state of mind at the time and his general dislike for Gow.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 18, 2017 14:34:22 GMT -5
I'd say it's actually more a case of Betty Gow being hounded unduly by a Sherlock Holmes wannabe and then finally expressing with considerable exasperation that her employer believed in her loyalty. You're simply reading this scenario to support your pet position. I may be too.. but only one of us is right here. Whateley's statement, your so-called deathbed confession, means very little other than to show his state of mind at the time and his general dislike for Gow. Your explanations are one way of looking at it. However, Garsson treated everyone the same way that night and no one but Betty exclaimed that " Lindbergh promised I wouldn't be touched!" A very specific statement - if not warning. That sounds like someone repeating something they were told, and not a mere expression of loyalty from their Boss. As far as Whateley is concerned, it very well could be that he did not name Gow. However, what I found seems to indicate she most likely was, most especially since Dave spoke to her and she herself said he named her. So I think it is a required consideration, but instead of considering it I see you shrugging it off then chalking it up to merely one guy disliking somebody else. Make any sense? Every time Whateley seemed to slip there was a reaction. From his wife, and from Whateley himself. And it was more like fear than anything else. So in the middle of this whole thing you have Whateley pissed about Betty not doing the dishes... There's obviously more going on. Of course that doesn't mean she is guilty but ignoring what's there doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 18, 2017 14:43:18 GMT -5
There's no question that fortuitous timing was on the side of the kidnappers relative to Lindbergh's actual arrival time at 8:25 pm but sadly, it does happen in true crime. I'm curious under what conditions and details Whited would have been able to positively identify Lindbergh's brown Lincoln sedan at his driveway entrance location at 7:10 pm on that very dark and starless evening. "Fortuitous timing" is one thing, but it is not singular but rather very plural. " FORTUITOUS TIMINGS." Too many coincidences for my blood. Even one raises a red flag but how many does it take for you to give pause? 5, 10, 15? Whited didn't implicate Lindbergh and he had no idea who's car it was. He told the cops what he saw, and they immediately knew the car he was describing. ***Good to have both you and Amy back!!!
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Dec 18, 2017 22:29:45 GMT -5
I am sorry I don't get a motive that Betty Gow would have? The line "I am not to be touched" is not specific enough. If she was guilty of a crime how short sighted could one be not to be expected to be questioned? To me it is a suspicion that Gow would immediately be blamed for bad care and safety of the child. Lindbergh's confidence in her that she is not to blamed prompted Lindbergh's protection. Now I am reading she was definitely in the room during the kidnapping ? A deathbed confession from a probably heavily medicated Whately. Perhaps Whately does blame poor care and protection of the baby on Betty but to say involvement in a scheme is rather presumptuous.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 19, 2017 6:48:53 GMT -5
I am sorry I don't get a motive that Betty Gow would have? The line "I am not to be touched" is not specific enough. If she was guilty of a crime how short sighted could one be not to be expected to be questioned? To me it is a suspicion that Gow would immediately be blamed for bad care and safety of the child. Lindbergh's confidence in her that she is not to blamed prompted Lindbergh's protection. Now I am reading she was definitely in the room during the kidnapping ? A deathbed confession from a probably heavily medicated Whately. Perhaps Whately does blame poor care and protection of the baby on Betty but to say involvement in a scheme is rather presumptuous. She worked for the biggest celebrity and most trusted man on the planet at the time. It's not hard to believe that her desire to stay in his good graces combined with his assurances led to a belief that she was on safe ground. It's also possible that she was unaware the extent of the plot (believing the child was just to be removed).
|
|