Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2017 12:53:08 GMT -5
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. If we look at the March 1 evening timeline surrounding the vicinity of the Lindbergh house and the vehicles seen at that time what do we have: 6 pm. - Ben Lupica sees dark colored car with ladders in it coming from the north on Wertsville Road traveling south towards the Lindbergh driveway. Once Lupica passes and this care begins moving again where does it go? Does it pass Lindbergh Lane and proceed to Featherbed Lane? 6:30 p.m. - The Conovers see a car on Featherbed Lane. The headlights go dark and they assume the car might be stuck or up to no good They don't see it after that. Is this the ladder car and is it waiting for Lindbergh to pass by on Wertsville? Or is it perhaps waiting for a signal from a car that pulls up on the access road that runs along side of the Lindbergh house? 7:10 p.m. - Whited sees a brown Lincoln pull into Lindbergh's private lane. Does this car pull onto the access road and signal the car sitting on Featherbed Lane that he is present and ready? The ladder car on Featherbed then leaves making a left onto Wertsville Road and proceeds to Lindbergh Lane and up the private drive with the ladder? 8:10 p.m. - Anne hears a car on the gravel driveway road. So between 7:10 and 8:10 p.m. we have the whole kidnap/removal of Charlie and all the staging taking place? It seems like a long time for all this to be happening. But, then nothing about the crime scene suggests anyone was in any hurry except when the car the Moore family sees at 8:22 p.m. passes by driving at a fast pace. Michael's post above offers an interesting twist that Mrs. Hausenbauer claims she saw a car following Lindbergh's auto as he returned home that night. I wonder what time she claimed to see Lindbergh's car that evening? This is a claim that I am not familiar with at all. Oscar Bush is the person who claimed that the access road was used by the kidnappers. Apparently this observation was not made in the police reports which say only footprints were found on the access road. I find myself in conflict over Oscar Bush and the use of the access road by a vehicle only because Bush was claiming that this road was the staging point for the whole kidnapping. He was also claiming that the kidnapping was done by one individual. This is in conflict with what we know about two sets of prints leading away from the side of the Lindbergh house. So how much of Oscar Bush's claims should we believe? Here is a story that appeared with Bush's theory. This was in newspaper on March 2, 1932.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2017 13:02:05 GMT -5
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. My own opinion is that the crib was staged. I think after Charlie was removed that bed was stripped and then arranged as it would be found when the police arrived. The fact that the mattress sheet was missing from that crib, for me, puts into question that Charlie laid in that bed in the condition it was found in. Condon was wrong about how Charlie was removed from the crib. That was shown by one of Wayne's posts on this board. So much of what Condon said about this kidnapping and the negotiations is questionable. I don't think CJ identified any crib pins. I believe Charlie came out the front door.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Dec 28, 2017 13:02:50 GMT -5
But you can't do that Michael. Like life itself, it's all there for a reason. The truths and the mis-truths have to separated and processed, before an isolated set of circumstances can be presented, for others to be "led to water." This case reminds me a lot of the western Bible. (take your pick of the myriad available) Yes, it contain many beautiful truths about the state of our true Reality, but it also reads like a Stephen King story in other areas. Why? Because the teachings and sains spoken by Christ to his disciples, as well as those who rose to prominence before, were widely misinterpreted through the the spiritual ignorance of their followers. Is it any wonder this case developed and continues to develop a huge malaise of its own from the beginning based on what has been witnessed and reported? But like the Bible, you can't just toss away what we already know, because the baby will get tossed out with the bathwater. I know I speak for everyone who studies this case, how much your dedicated effort into learning and understanding more and more is appreciated, but these learnings and understandings all have to be carefully and responsibly integrated into the whole.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 28, 2017 13:05:03 GMT -5
Calling Whayley's statement about Betty, if it ever even happened, a "confession" shows conclusively that there is something very wrong with the thinking of whoever's running this little show.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 28, 2017 19:43:01 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." Michael’s wonderful book proves to us that Betty was “cool as a cucumber” and not the sweet, innocent lady she appeared to be. If Lindbergh convinced her what she was doing was right, it would have been not much of a stretch for her, enjoying her new status as a celebrity, to keep cool and stick to the talking points. Only when really pressed did she break, exclaiming she was promised not to be touched.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 28, 2017 19:45:09 GMT -5
Calling Whayley's statement about Betty, if it ever even happened, a "confession" shows conclusively that there is something very wrong with the thinking of whoever's running this little show. Example: " Okay, so I have a confession to make. I have been lying the whole time and I know ( ENTER NAME HERE ) was involved. Now I can die in peace." That my friend is a confession whether you like it or not. 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. Considering something for the only purpose to explain it away isn't really considering it in good faith. I mean look at your explanation... now Whateley is all of "this" in order to cast it quickly aside. What's next? Well, I guess we'll find out when the next set of new facts roll out? I say thank God for Garsson's investigation. Without it we'd know much less. Now your conclusion that Lindbergh allowed him to come to the home comes from Irey's version of events. According the Schwarzkopf's (the other version) Garsson suddenly showed up. (TDC page 67). When taking a neutral look at it we must consider both possibilities. One comes from a book, and the other from an FBI Report. I mentioned both so all information could be considered. Unfortunately you've only considered part of it, or, perhaps you've concluded Irey's book is a better source? Regardless, if you read my whole book you will see where Lindbergh was obstructing justice in so many places it's hard to keep track. 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? The answer lies in my book. Whateley gave his deathbed confession to those people present. My source represents one of them. Somehow the state caught wind. How do I know this? Because of the questions in Dr. Belford's statement. It's why I knew there was something going on myself. Also, how would Robinson know that Whateley voiced his "regret?" Obviously something had leaked. (TDC page 87-88). Now as to how Betty knew.... Seems to me there are many ways. One being Whateley himself. Another being Elsie. Perhaps from the police - or Lindbergh himself. There's a million combinations of possibilities. As far as Dave, you'd have to ask him because all I know is what he told me so I won't speak for him. Do you doubt he spoke to Gow? I do not. I would love to read his transcript because he interviewed many people before they died.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 28, 2017 21:42:28 GMT -5
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. Well there aren't too many people on the planet who have done the research on him that I have. Some examples: I've read all of the Kings County Grand Jury testimony, and the Federal trial transcripts in addition to the 5000 or so source documents that I have in my possession. So yes Parker is definitely a source. Many people have overlooked this fact. Why? It's called "cutting corners" and believe me when faced with the enormity of research that is needed I certainly get it. However, shrugging off facts or disqualifying sources is a double edged sword that cannot be done selectively - meaning it must be done everywhere that it applies. That's why I like this Board. New facts arise, and people don't get angry, upset, or dismissive. They embrace them, consider them, then apply them according to their own personal judgement. You have certain internet "personalities" (none who post here thank God) who pretend to be "experts." They tell people what to believe and what to think. But their main sources are the Flemington Trial Transcripts, FBI Summary Report, both of Fisher's books, and their imagination (not necessarily in that order). Bring up something they haven't seen and they quickly proclaim " it doesn't mean anything." It's a really neat trick to evaluate something one has never seen! Ask if they've read something... " well, it isn't necessary." Really? Why they have Fisher's books and he did research so what's the point? Go to Fisher's book and you'll read about Mary Belle Spencer. To his credit I believe he was the very first to mention her. BUT he could not write or include what he did not know. Why do I say that? Because I have an original letter she penned out. Anger! Rage! " Well, she was a nervous type! She was known to have a drinking problem!" Before that? Why there was nothing at all wrong with her. Anything to dismiss new information that doesn't jibe with one's beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 28, 2017 21:54:41 GMT -5
But you can't do that Michael. Like life itself, it's all there for a reason. The truths and the mis-truths have to separated and processed, before an isolated set of circumstances can be presented, for others to be "led to water." This case reminds me a lot of the western Bible. (take your pick of the myriad available) Yes, it contain many beautiful truths about the state of our true Reality, but it also reads like a Stephen King story in other areas. Why? Because the teachings and sains spoken by Christ to his disciples, as well as those who rose to prominence before, were widely misinterpreted through the the spiritual ignorance of their followers. Is it any wonder this case developed and continues to develop a huge malaise of its own from the beginning based on what has been witnessed and reported? But like the Bible, you can't just toss away what we already know, because the baby will get tossed out with the bathwater. I know I speak for everyone who studies this case, how much your dedicated effort into learning and understanding more and more is appreciated, but these learnings and understandings all have to be carefully and responsibly integrated into the whole. You can do it Joe. You go where the facts lead you regardless of personal bias. Mark's book The Siege at Jutland is perfect example. He researched it then wrote what he discovered. Aside from being a great piece of history, it's creation disproved a main argument those who believe Hauptmann did it alone hold onto with a death grip.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 29, 2017 6:31:22 GMT -5
Well, Whatley misuses the term perhaps because he was stupid, but you're not. When you use it to incorrectly describe something thet's supposedly in a book (which actually isn't in the book) you're being at the least misleading - probably more like lying. You and the rest of the world knows that the term "confession" implies personal disclosed guilt - so I guess you and Whatley can call it what you like, but where are any facts or even inclinations about Bettty's guilt?" What is she supposed to have done?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2017 8:50:01 GMT -5
Well, Whatley misuses the term perhaps because he was stupid, but you're not. When you use it to incorrectly describe something thet's supposedly in a book (which actually isn't in the book) you're being at the least misleading - probably more like lying. You and the rest of the world knows that the term "confession" implies personal disclosed guilt - so I guess you and Whatley can call it what you like, but where are any facts or even inclinations about Bettty's guilt?" What is she supposed to have done? First of all, if you don't think it was Betty he mentioned that's fine. It's certainly up for debate. But it cannot be debated if you didn't know about it. Dave already knew. In your prior posts you've heaped tons of praise on him, and he told me Betty specifically told him Whateley implicated her. Next, what I wrote below was an example - not a quote. It exemplifies my position that it was a confession. What Whateley said was a "confession." Was Whateley himself guilty of the involvement? We do not know because I don't know exactly what was said. But he confessed to knowing who was. That is a confession. He had been lying the whole time but prior to dying he wanted to get it off his chest. So he confessed to something he always knew despite pretending that he did not. That is a confession. It might not be what you expected it to be, however, it's a confession. If you want to call me a "liar" or "stupid" because my understanding of the word "confession" isn't the same in the Mid-West as it is in the Northeast then I am okay with that. I confess that I used to live in West Yellowstone so I get it. However, everything in the book is true, and based upon the sources in my footnotes. I wrote it in a way that shows everything and I do not tell anyone what to think. Read everything. Not just what's in the Whateley chapter. Everything about Whateley, and everything about Betty. Then just everything. If you cannot see what I do then that's cool too. But most others can. Now whether they embrace it or not is up to them. It could be they are still looking for more which I understand because even after 17 years of Archival research I still do myself. That's why I am here and like our discussions so much because I continue to learn.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2017 9:22:28 GMT -5
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. My own opinion is that the crib was staged. I think after Charlie was removed that bed was stripped and then arranged as it would be found when the police arrived. The fact that the mattress sheet was missing from that crib, for me, puts into question that Charlie laid in that bed in the condition it was found in. Condon was wrong about how Charlie was removed from the crib. That was shown by one of Wayne's posts on this board. So much of what Condon said about this kidnapping and the negotiations is questionable. I don't think CJ identified any crib pins. I believe Charlie came out the front door. This is an interesting discussion! I never thought about it being staged from the beginning, however, I tried to show where some people looked at the crib and saw the blankets undisturbed (TDC p147), then later, others see the blankets in disarray. (TDC p151). You have Wolf, and Bornmann seeing the same thing but by the time Kelly goes into the nursery he's seeing something very different. So someone obviously did something after the police had already arrived. It's easy to think it's a nefarious act but we also have to consider that maybe a cop or someone in the house did it for reasons made in good faith such as looking for clues or double checking etc. It's hard to but it's something I personally like to consider. Later still, during Gow's trial prep she suddenly sees dirty hands prints on the blankets when none had existed before. Again here it is almost irresistible to conclude she was lying because that fact is not in any of the reports. However, we must consider it is what the Prosecution wanted her to say... that is unfortunately something else that was going on too. It's why I am a proponent of looking at everything you can get your hands on in an attempt to get as close to the truth as possible. Now if it was staged from the beginning they certainly did it so the child appeared to have been there that night. But did they re-think it then return to "adjust" it or maybe even obliterate the scene by disarranging it? Perhaps they did so to make it look more believable? Or maybe it was just one of the "innocent" reasons I list above? BTW: I am including tons of new information on Condon in my next volume. If you think something ain't right with Condon now, well.... you'll see! I know Joe has a special place in his heart for Condon so I cannot wait to see how he reacts to these FACTS. Will this be the place where he changes his tune or will he double down? The suspense is killing me! For those who did not like V1 then I recommend you don't buy it. Seriously it will not upset me. For those that enjoyed the new facts, you can look forward to much more of the same excepting the corrected proof will be what's published this time.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 29, 2017 10:46:30 GMT -5
Michael, any update on when Volume 2 might be ready? No pressure. Much. Amy, any thoughts on why the Nursery Note was left on the radiator cover rather than in the crib? Something else bugs me about the March 1 police reports. Think about this. The second CAL enters the nursery and sees an empty crib, his first two reactions are to get his rifle from his bedroom and tell Anne that Charlie's been stolen. Personally, one of my very first reactions would have been to look out the nursery windows. It just seems like a simple reflexive instinct. Even if the kidnappers were long gone, why not look out the window and double check? It would take a couple of seconds top and, who knows, they might have been right outside the house. Yet, nowhere does CAL (or anyone else) look out the windows. And, yes, I'm basing this on the simple assumption that if anyone had looked out the windows soon after discovering Charlie missing, they would have also discovered the Nursery Note (which we know wasn't discovered until sometime later by CAL). Of course, it might simply not be in their police reports, yet both Anne and Elsie bring up the fact that Anne later looked out her master bedroom window when she thought she heard Charlie calling. Why didn't they look out the windows? It was like everyone knew what had already happened.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 29, 2017 12:14:19 GMT -5
Personally, I think the note was left on the windowsill, as opposed to in the crib, to indicate the window as the entry-exit point--that a window had to be used, rather than an insider letting the kidnappers in through the front door--i.e., that there was no insider at all, otherwise why use the window? The note placement, to me, was part of an effort to telegraph this point. And the whole rifle-grabbing business--who knows if that even happened? Either way, it indicates a very heroic and masculine reaction to an apparently genuine shock, but since it sounds utterly phony, I think it was invented to convey the point that the baby was stolen, as opposed to knowingly taken away. Sorry; I know you directed these questions to Amy--just offering my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2017 13:36:54 GMT -5
Personally, I think the note was left on the windowsill, as opposed to in the crib, to indicate the window as the entry-exit point--that a window had to be used, rather than an insider letting the kidnappers in through the front door--i.e., that there was no insider at all, otherwise why use the window? The note placement, to me, was part of an effort to telegraph this point. And the whole rifle-grabbing business--who knows if that even happened? Either way, it indicates a very heroic and masculine reaction to an apparently genuine shock, but since it sounds utterly phony, I think it was invented to convey the point that the baby was stolen, as opposed to knowingly taken away. Sorry; I know you directed these questions to Amy--just offering my two cents. Oh, while I was responding directly to Amy and Rebekah, my questions are always meant for everyone for sure. I agree with you and Ho-age that the note was left there on purpose to show it was an outsider. Do outsiders do that? Perhaps if there's an insider to lead police away from. But I also encourage you to consider alternatives. Like I've thought maybe in the excitement of the situation, they forgot to leave the note in the crib and didn't want to delay by walking back so they left it on the sill. Of course that isn't my conclusion but it's an example of how I try to consider all possibilities first. I eventually ruled that out because the wind would have blown it off, and the fact that both police and Lindbergh theorized the "outsider" entered via the window but left via the front door. Who leaves a note on the window sill if they didn't leave by that route? Not that they did not, but obviously the police weren't buying it at that time either - and that's an important fact. What's also important is that despite hearing a noise that was originally supposed to put a time on the event, Lindbergh reverses his position, and agrees with the cops that it occurred before he got home. He even testified at the Curtis trial it could have occurred at 7:30PM! And if that isn't enough, we know that Lindbergh was aware of the front door issues and uses them to counter Reilly's questioning. So why did he agree with the police that it had been used? So the more one gets into it the less it makes any sense. If I am Lindbergh and I know that door sticks, I tell cops they are wrong, and that everyone in house would have heard that door open (just like he did in court) yet, he agrees! And this despite his own attempts to have it repaired on the 29th the day before the kidnapping. But once it comes up in court - nope, that door didn't open easily. This on its face is suspicious but we have things like this going on just about everywhere we look. Michael's post above offers an interesting twist that Mrs. Hausenbauer claims she saw a car following Lindbergh's auto as he returned home that night. I wonder what time she claimed to see Lindbergh's car that evening? This is a claim that I am not familiar with at all. From my experience the date of the paper is important. I know that once Hauptmann was arrested both reporters and cops made their rounds through the local communities asking residents if they remembered anything strange on March 1st 1932. Cops then showed pictures of Hauptmann to see if he was recognized. I can only imagine if her response to them was " no, it was a little jewish guy driving." I don't think they would have been too happy with that. However, some reporters didn't get what they were looking for so they made up stories. That happened to Lupica, Moore, and Kuchtiak to name a few. So we have to be skeptical of reports post Hauptmann arrest. However, its hard to understand why they'd make it up without Hauptmann being attached to the sighting. I don't know....all speculation and I could be totally wrong. Somewhere out there is another article but I just haven't found it. Michael, any update on when Volume 2 might be ready? No pressure. Much. Hard to say Wayne. I am well past the halfway point. It's already bigger than the V1. My plans are to finish the current section and attack two more topics (chapters) then save everything else I hadn't gotten to for V3. To give you an idea about "how" I am working on it.... I pulled 25 files last night for this mornings topic. However, I got a late start so I can't do it today because I will not finish. If I don't finish today, it's just not possible to pick up where I left off tomorrow. I've tried that before and all I wind up doing is repeating everything I had done the day before. Although everything has been prepped and flagged, I cannot stop in midstream. Hard to explain but its how my brain works.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2017 14:03:00 GMT -5
Why didn't they look out the windows? It was like everyone knew what had already happened. I think one could argue that how Lindbergh reacted was instinctive. Right? But is it instinctive to NOT open the ransom note? I know we've discussed this before, but what if that note told him to show up at Hillbilly Hall with $100 by Midnight or the kid dies? Not opening that note is another red flag. It was one of the reasons police were suspicious believing any parent would have immediately ripped it open.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 29, 2017 16:35:37 GMT -5
The point is you're saying there is what's normally known as a deathbed confession in your book ang no matter how much BS you come up with to try and support you and your pal Whatley it si not even close to being there. He did seem to make a deathbed suspicion of what Dave said was Betty, but isdn't even clear about that. It's like the rest of your book - where's the beef? there isn't any. just tons of BS.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 29, 2017 16:48:58 GMT -5
I've been on here a long time and that's the first time I've seen you mention someone's residential area. You must be fuming. Somebody else knows you're a self protecting liar bother you? Well at least I'll know what class of people the shots come from. If you would come up with something besides your BS inclinations, like say well, Whatley and I believe Betty passed the baby out the window, or opened the front door, there would be some substance here, but your going on and extending so many years of nothing is beyond belief!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 29, 2017 17:04:37 GMT -5
And further, Dave's an old friend of mine. He told me he talked to me for a while, but as a source, he's no better than Betty herself and her denial of any involvement. Admit it, Betty was suspect since 3/2/32 and nobody, investigators or independent researchers have found any involvement by her. Like after eighty years has anyone considered they may be barking up a wrong tree? Same with CAL> Give one fact of incrimination instead of all the babble about how he should have been, etc. Then you'll have substance for a new book on TLC!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2017 17:40:14 GMT -5
I've been on here a long time and that's the first time I've seen you mention someone's residential area. You must be fuming. Somebody else knows you're a self protecting liar bother you? Well at least I'll know what class of people the shots come from. If you would come up with something besides your BS inclinations, like say well, Whatley and I believe Betty passed the baby out the window, or opened the front door, there would be some substance here, but your going on and extending so many years of nothing is beyond belief! Gee whiz Jack tell me how you really feel. Guess you missed that point too? Anyway, if you pay taxes or receive mail your residential area is a matter of public information. Would you like me to remove it? Say the word and I'd be happy to. I promise not to pretend I don't understand what you mean regardless of whatever word you choose. Now liar is something I get. I've been called worse. If that's what you think then so be it because how you feel is beyond my control. I'd like to say that I am sorry you feel that way but that would be a lie. I honestly do not care.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 29, 2017 17:45:38 GMT -5
bnnnnnI know that's a foul serious, Michael, so Rav or whoever's in charge of this place should throw you off. Cya
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 29, 2017 17:50:55 GMT -5
Well I care about you, been trying to be a friend and fellow researcher for years, but letely you've been going to extremes, like you can't believe after so many years people don't believe you. Remember, all your hoopla about the NJSP, they didn't solve a damn thing in spite of so much work. So your seventeen years in the basement is nothing to brag about.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2017 17:52:00 GMT -5
bnnnnnI know that's a foul serious, Michael, so Rav or whoever's in charge of this place should throw you off. Cya I take that to mean you'd like it removed. It's not a foul and it wasn't even meant as a slight in any way. Well I care about you, been trying to be a friend and fellow researcher for years, but letely you've been going to extremes, like you can't believe after so many years people don't believe you. Remember, all your hoopla about the NJSP, they didn't solve a damn thing in spite of so much work. So your seventeen years in the basement is nothing to brag about. Thanks Jack, its nice to be cared about. Even the worst of the worst need positive reinforcement. I've re-worded the earlier post. Hopefully the way in which I re-worded it meets your expectations. Check it out.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 29, 2017 18:08:10 GMT -5
Thanks for that - no bad intention here. We been through worse junk than this. You've done incomparable work with the files - found tons, especially the things nobody else was aware enough to see. Good luck always!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 29, 2017 18:22:21 GMT -5
All cool.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 29, 2017 21:07:15 GMT -5
Hi Jack7,
I completely agree with your stand that there is no physical evidence that links Lindbergh to the kidnapping. I'm with you, there simply isn't.
However on the flip side, there is absolutely no physical evidence that Hauptmann entered the nursery, kidnapped Charlie, killed him, and then hastily dumped his body. There isn't any evidence of any of that.
I am 99.99999% sure that Hauptmann built the ladder, but that doesn't prove he was in Hopewell on the night of March 1st.
Here's my biggest problem (out of several thousand). The NJSP had two plaster of Paris cast made of the kidnapper's footprints (one taken at the base of the ladder and one taken at St. Raymond's).
Definite. Physical. Evidence. Reports of both can be found at the NJSP Museum.
So, why didn't Wilentz use them at the trial?
Only one answer.
Somebody besides Hauptmann was at the base of the ladder and also at St. Raymond's.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Dec 29, 2017 22:20:48 GMT -5
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. My own opinion is that the crib was staged. I think after Charlie was removed that bed was stripped and then arranged as it would be found when the police arrived. The fact that the mattress sheet was missing from that crib, for me, puts into question that Charlie laid in that bed in the condition it was found in. Condon was wrong about how Charlie was removed from the crib. That was shown by one of Wayne's posts on this board. So much of what Condon said about this kidnapping and the negotiations is questionable. I don't think CJ identified any crib pins. I believe Charlie came out the front door. I don't know where I read it, and I don't remember which meeting it occurred in, (probably the first where Condon and CJ had their long chat), but Condon said he showed CJ those pins and asked him if he recognized them. Supposedly, CJ replied that they were pinned to the blankets. Condon had removed them when he was allowed to sleep in the nursery. I'm not sure, but this account may have been in Waller's book. (Or maybe I dreamed it. )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2017 22:25:22 GMT -5
I never thought about it being staged from the beginning, however, I tried to show where some people looked at the crib and saw the blankets undisturbed (TDC p147), then later, others see the blankets in disarray. (TDC p151). The two places in your book that you reference above are in my written notes made while I was reading your book. I also had added them to my notes about the nursery room. I intended to ask you about this but was side-lined for a bit from the board. Bornnman saying that the covers in the crib looked "almost undisturbed" has a footnote referencing the source as his testimony at the Flemington Trial. Did Bornmann mention the condition of the covers in his March 9, 1932 police statement? Trooper Frank Kelly's description of the bed covers being "disarranged" comes from his police statement of March 16, 1932 according to your footnote. The condition of how the bed covers actually were has never been consistent. Betty Gow said that when she entered the nursery at 10 pm to awaken Charlie she felt all over the bed for the boy when she couldn't hear him breathing. When Lindbergh came into the nursery after being alerted by Betty that the child was gone, he said the bed covers still had the impression of the child's body from having been sleeping in the bed. That can't be right if Betty had searched with her hands over the covers for the child. You have a discrepancy in the condition of the bed covers with these two people just like you have with the Troopers. Being the skeptic that I am, and because I believe the nursery room to be staged to mislead investigators to draw a certain conclusion about what took place that night, I don't believe Betty felt around the bed for Charlie because she knew he wasn't there and I don't believe the covers looked the way Lindbergh described them either. I believe that Ellis Parker figured it right that Charlie was gone by 8 pm. I think maybe a little earlier even but no later. I believe the bed covers were arranged as part of the wipe down of the room to make it appear that Charlie had been put to bed that night and subsequently stolen from the bed while he slept in it. As I said in an earlier post, the mattress not having a sheet on it is troubling as most people do not put a child to bed without a sheet covering the mattress. Could the sheet have been removed at some point that night and that is why the condition of the bed coverings changed from the time the police first arrived until the time Trooper Kelly arrived? I agree that the covers could have become disarranged quite innocently. My main concern was the apparent lack of a crib mattress sheet. That is very odd for people such as the Lindberghs to not have the crib properly made up. The sheet just doesn't appear to be present at the time the crib was photographed. This is awesome, Michael. I can hardly wait for your next volume to be finished and released!! I have always felt that Condon was not on the level from the very first book I read about this kidnapping. I am so glad that you will be revealing facts that we all need to know about this man.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2017 23:07:27 GMT -5
Amy, any thoughts on why the Nursery Note was left on the radiator cover rather than in the crib? LJ has very nicely covered what I would have written myself. As you well know, Wayne, I believe the kidnap is a cover up for Charlie's removal from the house. I believe there is staging both inside and outside to mislead authorities and the public about what happened to Charlie. There was a creation of a false reality that the child was kidnapped. This was necessary for both Charlie and those who were present in the house to redirect the investigation away from an inside job to one of outsiders taking Charlie. The police were primed from the start before they ever set foot on the Lindbergh estate that Charlie had been kidnapped. When authorities entered the nursery the empty crib spoke for itself. The ransom note being placed on the radiator cover directs investigators to the window that must have been used (didn't Lindbergh say this that night) to enter and remove the child so attention is called to its presence there. Then when Lindbergh takes the police outside, this scene just reinforces the one being communicated on the inside. The ladder marks in the dirt under the window where the ransom note was left and then the discarded ladder guide investigators to the initial judgment that all the staging is suggesting - a kidnapping by an outside source.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2017 23:30:42 GMT -5
I don't know where I read it, and I don't remember which meeting it occurred in, (probably the first where Condon and CJ had their long chat), but Condon said he showed CJ those pins and asked him if he recognized them. Supposedly, CJ replied that they were pinned to the blankets. Condon had removed them when he was allowed to sleep in the nursery. I'm not sure, but this account may have been in Waller's book. (Or maybe I dreamed it. ) You did not dream it. It is in Waller's book on page 55. Condon shows CJ the pins (so he claims) and this is how Condon verifies that CJ must be the kidnapper because CJ recognizes the pins. Sorry but I think Condon made this up. In this same conversation Condon would claim that CJ said he put the ransom note in the crib. Huh?? Wasn't it on the radiator cover window sill of the southeast window in the nursery?? CJ can recognize pins but can't remember where he put the ransom note? No. Its just that Condon did not know that the ransom note had been found on the window sill. So when Condon had CJ talk about the ransom note, Condon had him say what would logically have been the place to put a ransom note after the removal of the child, which would have been in the crib. CJ was never in the nursery the night of the kidnapping, in my opinion. I can't wait until Michael's second volume comes out and everyone can see what a liar Condon was!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 29, 2017 23:36:03 GMT -5
Amy and LJ,
Please help me out on this, I am trying to understand.
So it's all planned by CAL and everyone in the house is in one it... I follow your dots so far.
But then CAL (complicit) comes into the nursery at 10PM. Shouldn't his pre-planned script (what he's going to tell the police) read something like: CAL discovers Charlie missing from crib, CAL suspects a kidnapping, CAL surveys the room, CAL sees that there are only 3 viable modes of exit (the 3 windows), CAL quickly looks out all three windows (no kidnapper is observed), CAL does, however, discover the Nursery Note, CAL calls police with the presence of mind not to open the ransom note.
But that's not what happened. CAL (we think, but are not sure) discovered the Nursery Note after exiting and entering the nursery a number of times. If this was all CAL's plan, wouldn't he have "discovered" the note on the first entry, nice and tidy? And he never mentions looking out any of the windows, which to me would have been instinctual, on the off chance that Charlie was just on the outside of the window.
It's so bizarre, when I close my eyes and try to visual all the possibilities, all I end up with is a need for a couple pounds of aspirin.
|
|