Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2017 11:41:53 GMT -5
Similarities of this theory to the novel and movie "COMA." So, I had to google this movie to see what it was about in order to evaluate if Trojanusc's theory is similar to "COMA". From what I read in the wiki page, the movie is about selling the organs of basically healthy individuals on the black market. I really do not see the similarity between the theory presented on this board and the movie you compared it to. Charlie was not healthy and Trojanusc's theory suggests a study of Charlie's organs, not the sale of them. So what am I missing here?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 22, 2017 13:13:09 GMT -5
(2) Amy, I think you are prematurely jumping to conclusions when you speculate that the man who visited Breckenridge's office in the days following the presumed "kidnapping" was indeed Fisch. That MIGHT be be true, but it's far fron certain. I don't think it is far from certain. I think the probability is high that it was Fisch. When Breck saw Fisch's picture in the papers after Hauptmann's arrest in 1934 came out in the news, it immediately triggered his memory about that incident that occurred in his office in March of 1932. Also Breck's physical description of the person is extremely close to that of Fisch. Please review Dr. Gardner's coverage of this in his book, The Case That New Dies, on page 408 (paperback). I feel comfortable in my assumption that the man is, indeed, Fisch. Just reviewed the description given by Breckenridge of his office visitor in Gardner's book. Remember it was two and a half years between the time Breck last saw this man and the time he gave his description to police. Fisch's photos and stories would not have appeared in the papers until after Hauptmann was arrested and gave authorities his Fisch stories in September 1934. So it's certainly possible that Breck's recollection could have been influenced by what he had saw and read more recently in in the newspapers about Fisch. There are still some discrepancies between the visitor Breck described and the real Fisch: (1) Breck identified the visitor as looking Jewish. However, if you look at the photo of Fisch in Gardner's book, he shows no particular clothing identifying him as Jewish -in particular, he has no skullcap or headwear. Just judging by his appearance in that photo and his socializing with many non-Jews (like Hauptmann), one can infer that Fisch was an ASSIMILATED German Jew. (2) Breck described his visitor as "educated." Fisch did not have any higher education that we know of, and his work history would not suggest any professional skills. (3) Breck described his visitor as having "little or no accent." Having not arrived in the US until he was twenty, it would be just about impossible for Fisch to speak English without a noticeable accent. (4) Breck described his visitor as wearing glasses, while the photo of Fisch in Gardner's book shows him NOT wearing glasses. Of course, Fisch could have taken off his glasses when posing for the photo, so that point can go either way. Does anyone have another photo of Fisch where he is wearing glasses? Perhaps Gardner was overzealous in trying to make this strange visitor to Breck's office into Fisch. I suppose we will never know for sure.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 22, 2017 13:17:59 GMT -5
Breckenridge was an officer of the court. He'd have been risking all his wealth, beautiful wife and family, solid position in society by actually lying about a 100% recognizable charachter as Fisch. Most likely he wouldn't risk everything for the little weirdo.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Dec 22, 2017 20:37:52 GMT -5
Personally ten years a go before much of the evidence that we have today we were chasing sightings at a Cape May ferry and ice cream parlor sightings of Sharp, Whately, & Fisch. Carrel hiring thugs to help stage the kidnapping belongs in the same group. If you want to believe and accept it thats fine but you have to realize at this point its weak. There is nothing that suggest Carrel is involved that I have seen and is only acceptable in a the wildest imagination because there is no way else to explain things.
It has been suggested Lindbergh took control of everything including the investigation. Yet would we believe Lindbergh would allow thugs to come to his house take the child participate in the rogue? This would put things outside of his control. I listen to all the theories and respect the efforts to give an insight perhaps was missed. Still, I remain unless something else is discovered see it comes down if you believe Lindbergh did this then Hauptmann did not.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 22, 2017 21:27:33 GMT -5
Still, I remain unless something else is discovered see it comes down if you believe Lindbergh did this then Hauptmann did not. I think there are many examples which show both could be true. I like to use the Rabbi Fred Neulander case as an example since it happened close by. Did he kill his wife? Yes and no. He hired a congregant name Len Jenoff and some other stooge to murder her in the mid 1990s. So this idea that Lindbergh couldn't have done something like this in 1932 makes little sense most especially since he was so powerful. So powerful that he went toe to toe with J. Edgar Hoover himself during a stage of this investigation - and came out on top. Not too many people can make that claim. There's a term for a "middle man" in the underworld, which I can't think of at the moment, who would be the actual party to hire other criminals to conduct certain crimes. The Mafia back then used to do this a lot so that once the crime happened they could not be connected to it. Lindbergh was powerful and knew a hell of a lot of other powerful people. If he wanted something like this done it could be done. That doesn't mean he did, but there's a lot of evidence to point to him doing things, saying things, obstructing, and lying all in places that does not look good at all. And it's not just researchers who see it, but the police, back then, saw it too. But they knew what would happen to them if it ever "got out" or went public so they kept it amongst themselves. (see Chapter 16 of TDC) These were the men on the ground and closest to the investigation.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 23, 2017 4:28:01 GMT -5
Interestingly, someone has kept Elisabeth's little school going for all these years as if it meant something.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 23, 2017 9:03:12 GMT -5
Breckenridge was an officer of the court. He'd have been risking all his wealth, beautiful wife and family, solid position in society by actually lying about a 100% recognizable charachter as Fisch. Most likely he wouldn't risk everything for the little weirdo. Does this mean you believe it was Fisch? I've got to say that if there was anyone among this group of liars (and that's what they were) I always believed Breck was the guy to rely on for the absolute truth. However, lies were told for many different reasons - some of which we may never know. One of the pitfalls for us (researchers) is that we are laser focused on everything to do with this case. So when "we" spot an inconsistency or a lie it's almost immediately concluded that it was an indication of involvement or guilt, or on the other side of it, there's an immediate attempt to neutralize or excuse it in some way. But sometimes we have to take a step back and remember there are always other issues people could be dealing with simultaneous to the events which surrounded this crime.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 23, 2017 10:27:31 GMT -5
If he was largely truthful, did Breckenridge ever say anything over the course of his life, maybe about the kidnapping not being quite what it appeared to be?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 23, 2017 13:11:56 GMT -5
Michael, if you happen to have a copy of the memorandum that Breckinridge wrote, dated Sept. 29, 1934, now in the Investigative Files of the NJSP, could you please post it? This memorandum is what Gardner cites for his discussion of the visitor to Breckinridge's office days after the purported kidnapping. I am interested in seeing the confidence level Breckinridge had on his capability to identify this visitor as Fisch.
Gardner seems to think that the visitor was definitely Fisch, but some of the descriptors of this man would not match Fisch.
BTW, the most unusual physical feature pertaining to Fisch would be his severely protruding ear lobes, which were not mentioned in Gardner's discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 23, 2017 15:12:33 GMT -5
Hurtelable, Unless Michael has a better copy (and he probably does) try this for now. And I think you mean 'September 28, 1934': Attachment DeletedHere it is again, a little easier to read:
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 23, 2017 18:56:52 GMT -5
Wayne, much thanks for that memorandum.
Earlier on this thread, I pointed out some inconsistencies between Breck's descriptions of his visitor and the real Isidor Fisch.:
(1) The real Fisch, given his background of being raised in Germany, coming over to the US at age 20 and hanging out here with mostly German-speaking people, would almost surely have spoken English with a pronounced German accent (think of Henry Kissinger), inc contrast to Breck's description of little or no accent.
(2) I have seen only 3 different photos of Fisch, 2 from passport applications and one in Gardner's book. (Are photos of him difficult to find?) Fisch is not wearing eyeglasses in any of them, while Breck describes his visitor as wearing glasses. Can someone possibly post a photo of Fisch wearing glasses? Remember that contact lenses had not yet been invented during this period.
(3) Fisch's complexion appears dark in only one of these photos I've seen, while Breck describes his visitor as having dark complexion.
(4) The real Fisch had no higher education that we know of and lived in a blue-collar environment, yet Breck describes him as "educated."
(5) Although the marked protrusion of Fisch's earlobes are his most unusual facial feature, Breck makes no mention of this in the memorandum.
So in contrast to Gardner, I would not take it as a fait accompli that Fisch was the guy who visited Breckinridge in his office.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 10:01:12 GMT -5
Earlier on this thread, I pointed out some inconsistencies between Breck's descriptions of his visitor and the real Isidor Fisch. Just a few things in response to your post: This is a shocker, Hurt, so I hope you are sitting down - Not all German Jewish people talk exactly like Henry Kissinger! Moving on, Fisch was a smart man. This should not be overlooked when evaluating him. He had a better developed skill with the English language than say Hauptmann did. An accent can be downplayed by a person. Actors do this all the time when necessary. Fisch was very good at creating impressions. He presented himself according to how he wanted a person to "see" him. This becomes very clear the more you read about this man and how he conducted his life. I am not aware if Fisch wore glasses ever. However, this is hardly a point of identification that is solid. Glasses can be used as a prop, which could have been done for this visit. They became something for Breck to focus on about Fisch's face instead of his ears, which is what Breck obviously did. Pictures are not always the best source for stuff like this. I will cover this later in the post. As I said previously, I believe Fisch was a smart man. He may not have been college educated but that doesn't mean he couldn't present himself as such. Fisch was comfortable dealing with business people. One of his "identities" was that of a successful business investor. He was able to con people out of a lot of their money very effectively! As far as education goes, I compared Hauptmann and Fisch: Hauptmann left school after the required period of attendance was met (around age 13/14) and apprenticed out. Fisch, however, remained in school longer, until the age of 17 before he began an apprenticeship which was directed towards the family business which was in furs. Fisch was much more proficient with the English language. Just reading one of Fisch's letters, written in English, makes this abundantly clear. He wanted to impress Breck that he was dealing with smart kidnappers, regardless of how the ransom notes looked. I covered this in my response to point two. In a previous earlier post you mention the hair color as black. Hair, too, is something that can be altered to create a false impression. Probably done for this visit to Breck. Things like, accent, glasses, hair color and the appearance of being educated are not a solid identification of someone as these can be altered and misrepresented by a skilled manipulator (like Fisch). Lets take a look at some of the things which you left out of your posts that physically make up a strong ID and how they really reveal the identity of this visitor as highly probable of being Fisch. Height - Breck Statement says 5'6" or 5'7" - Fisch's Citizenship Application says 5'6" Weight - Breck Statement says 120 to 125 lbs. - Fisch's Citizenship Application say 130 lbs. Eyes - Breck Statement says Dark - Fisch's Citizenship Application says Brown Hair - Breck Statement says Black - Fisch's Citizenship Application says Brown Complexion - Breck's Statement says Dark - Fisch's Citizenship Application says DARK Fisch's application for citizenship was made in August of 1931, less than a year before that visit to Breck's office. Breck's statement makes it very clear that he strongly believed that the man who came to his office looked like the picture of Fisch he saw in the newspapers in Sept. 1934 and that is what triggered the memory of that office visit. This is the way Breck felt so why should this not be trusted? He met with this man, he would know. I think Dr. Gardner is right on the money with his call that the man in Breck's office could have been Fisch. I stand with that. However, I know that we all have opinions and I respect yours on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 24, 2017 12:02:55 GMT -5
Let's assume that the man who came to see Breckenridge was Fisch, which it seems there's a high probability that it was. What would this prove? Why would Fisch go to see Breckenridge?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 16:03:01 GMT -5
Let's assume that the man who came to see Breckenridge was Fisch, which it seems there's a high probability that it was. What would this prove? Why would Fisch go to see Breckenridge? Working under that assumption this man is Fisch and is there about the kidnapping, then I think it proves that there are others besides Hauptmann involved with the kidnap/extortion of Charlie. My own thoughts on why Fisch went to Breck's office are twofold: 1) The ransom note that Breck received at his office. This note told Breckinridge that in the future he would receive additional notes. In other words, they were going to use Breckinridge as the go-between and future notes would be mailed to his office at 25 Broadway. 2) Fisch came to Breck's office pronto to change this position. I think he came to inform Breck that someone else had been chosen to be the middleman and alert him that a communication would be forth coming in the March 8 edition of the Bronx Home News as to who this person was. Negotiations would now move to the Bronx!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 24, 2017 19:48:36 GMT -5
No matter how brilliant or not Fisch might have been, it's an observation that people who grow up speaking another language and do not speak English before their early teens will not be able to speak English without a detectable foreign accent. I'm not saying that Fisch would sound exactly like Henry Kissinger (who, BTW, was a native German speaker who came to the US at a younger age than Fisch did), but I guarantee - barring some English training in childhood in Germany of which we are not aware - that he could not speak English without a detectable accent and could never learn to do so. Such is a function of the normal chronological development of the human brain: youngsters can imitate what they hear better, and thus are better able to learn a new language than even a young adult. Past the early teens, completely new languages can be learned, but the pronunciation in the new language will, with perhaps some very rare exceptions, always leave telltale signs that he/she is not a native speaker of the second language. I'm just using Kissinger as an example of this point. Heck, I could have used Einstein (native German speaker) as another.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 24, 2017 19:57:41 GMT -5
Agreed, he could have used glasses as a prop, but why? To make himself look like an intellectual? If so, Breckenridge may have fallen for it.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 26, 2017 13:59:10 GMT -5
I agree, Michael, never considered Breck a liar so to conclude, it probably was Fisch scouting the places and peoplethat would come up. But this, like the rest of the comments about a Fisch sighting (there really were two) is not evidence. Just opens a door to evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 26, 2017 15:47:33 GMT -5
About Breck… When I first started researching Breck, my first impression was the guy was beyond reproach. However, when you start looking at the files at the NJSP Museum, you find our exactly what a liar he was. These are just a few examples, but they are all supported by Breck’s own statements: 1) BI Agent Keith's April 9, 1932 report: Page 3. Breckinridge lied twice to BI Agent Connelley: Breckinrige said that two meetings had been arranged with the kidnappers...the first on March 16th and the second on March 24th (not even close to Condon's 2 meetings). This was too close after the two meetings to be a mistake. Page4. Lamphier tells Connelley that he was told by Breckinridge that he (Breckinridge) met with the kidnappers on March 30th. 2) If Breckenridge was such the honorable lawyer, why is he then advising CAL to continuously break the law? He’s CAL’s lawyer and advisor. Why is he allowing CAL to: • Order the NJ State Police around . • Obstruct the investigation by sending false information to the NJSP and BI. • Pay the ransom (which is illegal) . • Communicate with the kidnappers without letting the police know? 3) In a letter dated March 22, 1932, Schwarzkopf asks the NJ Attorney General what possible legal actions he could take against Breckinridge: 4) Here's the big one. Breckinridge's 1934 Grand Jury testimony, page 6, regarding the listing (or not) of the ransom money serial numbers. He takes responsibility for lying saying he knows he might go to jail or be disbarred --
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 26, 2017 16:26:33 GMT -5
Similarities of this theory to the novel and movie "COMA." So, I had to google this movie to see what it was about in order to evaluate if Trojanusc's theory is similar to "COMA". From what I read in the wiki page, the movie is about selling the organs of basically healthy individuals on the black market. I really do not see the similarity between the theory presented on this board and the movie you compared it to. Charlie was not healthy and Trojanusc's theory suggests a study of Charlie's organs, not the sale of them. So what am I missing here? Not completely the same, but the basic similarities would be gross indifference to human life and perverse killing of defenseless victims under the pretense of achieving a higher moral purpose. This touches on the crux of eugenics, and is also consistent with some of the Nazi atrocities, like grotesque medical "experiments" on concentration camp victims (almost all of whom died as a result) and euthanasia of some deemed "defective." Also Carrel, as well as the doctors in "COMA," worked out of a prestigious "INSTITUTE."
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 27, 2017 9:45:50 GMT -5
theres no credible evidence linking anybody besides hauptman to this crime
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 27, 2017 9:48:12 GMT -5
parker would do anything to discredit the njsp they were fighting at the hall mills case before this one.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Dec 27, 2017 20:15:10 GMT -5
I do think that Lindbergh helped stage the ladder. I know Ben said there was only one occupant in the car he saw, and I think he's right. But, there could have been two people in the car that drove into Lindbergh's private drive around 7:10. (I also think it was Lindbergh who planted the mud smudges in the nursery.) Also, I believe Charlie left the house by the front door, drugged, but still alive. Interesting positions! The car Whited saw entering the Lindbergh private lane around 7:10 pm March 1 was Lindbergh's by the description he gave to the police and no doubt the authorities recognized it as such and told Whited to keep quiet about this (not telling Whited that the car he described was one that Lindbergh drove). The fact that the police did not want Whited to speak about this is what validates it for me. I am aware that Whited is a liar. However, I do believe that he was just telling what he honestly saw that night. Going with the 7:10 pm car being Lindbergh's, your suggestion that someone might have been in the car with Lindbergh is something I have not considered. A couple of questions: Do you think Lindbergh picked up the driver and possibly the ladder also from the ladder car which parked on Wertsville Road and drove him up the driveway? Or do you think Lindbergh had a different person with him that night in his car who also assisted in the kidnapping along with the person in the ladder car? I do think the mud smudges are part of the staging of the nursery. I think the crib is also. If you believe that Betty made a stop at a drug store to pick up something to drug Charlie so he would sleep through the removal, then it makes sense to assume that the child was alive when he left. Otherwise, why give him something like that if you are going to kill him in the nursery? I have studied LJ's diagrams. There were only two sets of footprints leading east to Wertsville Road, and if the tire tracks were on the access road parallel and not too distant from the house, this car might have been Lindbergh's. I can't see one man carrying the ladder all the way from the road, so it could well be that Lindbergh picked up the driver and the ladder and made his way up the drive. The three then staged the ladder and the two strangers made their way down the access road and back to Wertsville where the car was parked. There's a problem with the timing, though. Whited didn't say that he saw another car in the area around 7:10. I suppose it might have pulled into the private lane before then and sat there waiting. I suspect that the car over on Featherbed was the ladder car having missed Lindbergb's private drive. It would be interesting to know just when that car left Featherbed Lane after the Conovers spotted it. It's interesting that you mention the crib. I don't think Charlie was ever put to bed that night. Then, we can question Condon's account of CJ identifying the safety pins as holding the blankets. Did Condon make this up? I wouldn't be surprised. But, I don't think CJ (whoever he was) was ever in the nursery.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 28, 2017 9:52:31 GMT -5
Here's something I found in a New York Evening Journal sketch from 1-2-35. It was something I was hoping to develop but over the years I've given up. It fits in nicely doesn't it? Unfortunately, it's hardly enough. There's nothing about it at the NJSP Archives, but perhaps someone with more data mining skills than I apparently possess might be able to dredge up another article?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Dec 28, 2017 10:56:12 GMT -5
Oh, I have considered each and every person in and beyond that household in terms of their potential complicity over time. But there comes a point when the jigsaw puzzle has become much too complete begin entertaining compelling, but flawed scenarios. Those plus a couple of bucks will get you a good cup of coffee and a wonderfully intriguing read down yet another rabbit hole. Case in point with this whole Murray Garsson debacle, consider that Lindbergh himself welcomed Garsson's intrusion. That doesn't sound like someone who wanted to keep his "fauxnapping" apple cart from being tipped over. As for Whateley, he was a nervous, phlegmatic, highly judgmental and introverted type of character who lacked the control and discipline to retain his professionalism when it was truly required the most. And given his role as housekeeper to arguably the most famous man and woman on the planet and the entirely unexpected kidnapping of their son, the invasion of the media and you have the recipe for a major meltdown on his part.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Dec 28, 2017 11:08:00 GMT -5
I'm curious as to how Betty Gow knew that Whateley named her at any given time. If this secret statement made by Whately on his deathbed was subsequently protected by Alyle Schutter, how did Betty Gow get wind of it? And how did Dave Holwerda conclude he named Gow if he was not aware of Whateley's statement at the time he interviewed her?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Dec 28, 2017 11:23:08 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. Parker might have rolled up his sleeves and did his old fashioned detective work, but let's face it Michael, he had relatively little to go on with the LKC and he made some big mistakes from the get go. These were not his younger halcyon days, in which he had free reign to consider all evidence and extract whatever information he needed. He was looking for scraps where he could find them and knowing enough about him, I can understand his ego-driven desperation to solve the case based on the name he had created for himself. The NJSP wasn't capable of solving this case on it's own, at least not right away. I contend that Parker could have solved it single handedly.. IF he had been given the opportunity. I know you're a huge fan of Parker, but your unwavering support of his conclusions based on the amount and quality of evidence he uncovered and then attempted to cement into factual theory, seems to fly in the face of the standards and checks and balances you've created everywhere else in this case. It's a preferred treatment of the significance of his conclusions that you've been giving the man.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 28, 2017 11:38:33 GMT -5
I think the fact that Garsson, or any outside investigator, was initially welcomed by Lindbergh doesn't necessarily mean he couldn't have been involved. If Lindbergh was behind this, I think he had to be seen as cooperating, as doing anything possible to work with authorities to get CAL Jr. back. Then, when Garsson started hitting too close to home, by saying the whole household belonged in jail (i.e., that this kidnapping wasn't what it appeared to be and the whole family was complicit in... something), that's when Garsson was booted out and reprimanded, not because he was some kind of insensitive crackpot badgering the household. (Though he very well could've been that too, it doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong in his assessments here.) I'm still not convinced that this kidnapping was what it appeared to be, given the kidnappers' beyond-incredible good luck, their apparent knowledge of the house (both its location and layout), the obviously staged crime scene with its breadcrumb trail of evidence left behind, gifted to investigators, and the strange anomalies about CAL Jr.'s health (the lack of photos, the things mentioned in the doctor's report, the unusually soft bones).
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Dec 28, 2017 11:56:29 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!!! You might be able to give me a hundred potentially-related events or seeming "coincidences" that surround The Event, but they are meaningful to me only if they have a circumstantially-provable and direct bearing on The Event, relative to the potential intent and complicity of those present, without which The Event would not be the same. Police immediately knew the car Whited was describing? Do you have the actual transcription of the interview? Where was Whited standing or in a vehicle? Why was he there? How close to the vehicle? Lighting conditions, etc.? Details please. I'm never too far away.. life just has a habit of getting in the way! And I find the time away is helpful and sometimes needed for images and thoughts to clarify more fully.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Dec 28, 2017 12:13:20 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. It continues to develop a life of it's own.. this event reminds me of Elsie at first, believing the baby was dead when Betty rushed down to fetch Whateley and shouted that the baby was "gone." One certainly does have to be careful about how they express themselves when it most matters! I can only imagine how Murray Garsson would have jumped all over that statement!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Dec 28, 2017 12:29:53 GMT -5
This is convenient reasoning at it's best. In the event, Betty had even the slightest inkling as to what was about to happen when she tucked in CALjr that night, she would certainly have to be in the conversation for the most dedicated and cherished, albeit scumbag employee award in history. How she possibly could have maintained her composure and feigned innocence through the long days leading up to the body's discovery, identifying the undergarments, being questioned and finally withstanding the trial, while remaining devoted to her employers and their next born son, would truly have made her the "most exemplary of employees."
|
|