|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 30, 2017 0:13:20 GMT -5
Hey Wayne,
Yeah, it's a tangle. I can't really speak to what should have happened, but I do think that the whole household was complicit, in that they all knew, at the very least, that CAL Jr. was being removed from the house. Now, as to what actually took place during and after that event--who discovered what when, whether or not Lindbergh grabbed a rifle or heard a falling-crate noise--I think this was all made up, so who knows what their real movements in that house were, let alone what they should have been? In any case, for this, I think it might be helpful to look at outside observations--police descriptions of the occupants of the house, once they arrived. Not that we can trace anyone's previous actions from that, of course, but were these people behaving as one would expect people under those conditions to normally behave...?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Dec 30, 2017 9:38:15 GMT -5
Michael's book, while bringing to light interesting, new information, also demonstrates examples of the actions of people and has then implied in a sense, this is not the way normal people would or should react under the circumstances that unfolded on March 1 1932, had they been innocent and non-involved. What is this judgment based upon other than personal perception? I choose to put far less importance in all of the examples I've read and seen discussed here. You're welcome to buy into this and use it to further your own agenda, but I would caution you from straying too far from the circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted without so much errant subjectivity. "Good lawyers" in a confrontational justice system love this kind of stuff because it can make or break their case. Cherry picking of this nature to help reinforce an agenda already established, would quickly wear very thin outside the comfort bubble of this board.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 30, 2017 11:24:57 GMT -5
Michael's book, while bringing to light interesting, new information, also demonstrates examples of the actions of people and has then implied in a sense, this is not the way normal people would or should react under the circumstances that unfolded on March 1 1932, had they been innocent and non-involved. What is this judgment based upon other than personal perception? I choose to put far less importance in all of the examples I've read and seen discussed here. You're welcome to buy into this and use it to further your own agenda, but I would caution you from straying too far from the circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted without so much errant subjectivity. "Good lawyers" in a confrontational justice system love this kind of stuff because it can make or break their case. Cherry picking of this nature to help reinforce an agenda already established, would quickly wear very thin outside the comfort bubble of this board. I think you are misusing the word "cherry-picking" here Joe. For example, I think if I had said Wahgoosh did not bark, therefore, it was an "inside job" that would be an example of "cherry-picking." But that's not what I do. I present the issue, then try to evaluate it based upon what everyone involved said, saw, or experienced. So once it can be seen that Lindbergh was at the very least not being truthful, that fact can be upsetting to those who do not like the idea of the implications. However, for what ever the reasons might be - it is true. Had I been able to show Lindbergh was consistent and truthful on this point I am quite sure some would have applauded it. Now continuing, do I stop at there? No. So what happens is I address all of the previous points which clear Lindbergh to show, once one applies the real situation with the facts that were "overlooked," history wasn't quite right. Now take a fresh look at all of these things - which should be a good thing right? I mean there's quite a bit to sift through. So if that is "cherry-picking" then we have a whole basket of cherries. Since that is the case, by it's very nature, it cannot be described by that term.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 31, 2017 22:22:25 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. Obviously, all these sets of footprints did not match Hauptmann's shoe size. Even if (hypothetically) they did match in size, they don't necessarily mean that Hauptmann made them. Unlike fingerprints, footprints are not unique to a specific individual. Then again, we don't know know if any of these footprints were made by "The kidnapper," especially CJ at St. Raymond's, who may very well have been an extortionist rather than a kidnapper. If you are Wilentz, you see this case as a one-man job. But many investigators, both before and after the arrest of Hauptmann, view it as more than one person involved. And, BTW, under today's criminal law, these plaster of Paris casts and their accompanying police reports would have to be turned over the defense as Brady material (exculpatory material in the state's possession).
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 1, 2018 20:17:42 GMT -5
The circumstantial evidence in this case speaks clearly of Hauptmann being the main player, and there's a lot of accountability there for him to live up to, and which seems to be largely ignored these days. Still, you won't get much of an argument from me against the involvement of at least two and possibly three other individuals at some point but not necessarily throughout the entire kidnap plan. Those figures are still dancing around the periphery, and it makes for interesting yet still inconclusive reading. What you need is evidence of a direct connection between Hauptmann and the guy you've been after all these years, namely Lindbergh. And I haven't seen anything yet that even comes close to demonstrating that after 17 years of looking at this case. With your own in-depth level of hands-on research, have you? I've seen lots of questionable eyewitness accounts, supposition, innuendo and character assailing, and there's always the compelling go-to argument that Lindbergh was powerful enough to obliterate all traces of his involvement. Again, great reading on a discussion board, but actual real-world proof is still needed.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 1, 2018 20:53:39 GMT -5
Suddenly showed up? Are you telling me that Schwarzkopf and his NJSP, who had law enforcement jurisdiction at Highfields during the investigation, would suddenly allow Murray Garsson and coterie of minions to invade Lindbergh's home without some prior notice approval and then to engage in the course of action they took? Garsson was rightfully tossed from this case that he was never really on, because he acted like an asshat and his personal conclusions were based on the reactions of the household occupants he targeted to that behaviour.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 1, 2018 21:07:38 GMT -5
All well and good Michael, but you haven't addressed the simple and incontrovertible fact that Parker had relatively little first hand access to Lindbergh case information and therefore was well off the mark in many of the judgments he made, especially in the early going when you also claim he was well within his right mind. I'm not blaming the man for being wrong and I'm sure he gave it a go given what he had, but you've chosen to solidly align behind him and his conclusions, lock stock and barrel. How is that done while employing a consistent standard of investigative discernment?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 1, 2018 21:47:16 GMT -5
Wayne, some thoughts on the above. The fact that the east wall sash windows were both closed and the French window had just been closed by Betty when she entered the nursery at 10:00 pm would suggest to me there was no obvious route of escape apparent. Basically, you're dealing with a missing baby you now suspect has been stolen, in a closed room, albeit one of the windows would be a good guess. If Lindbergh believed there may be an opportunity to intervene outside of the nursery, I can understand why he would have wanted to rush outside armed to the east side of the house, first and foremost. His later discovery of the note on the window when he returned to the nursery would seem to support his taking immediate action and not having taken the time to look out the windows.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2018 23:35:54 GMT -5
Amy and LJ, Please help me out on this, I am trying to understand. 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. From what I have read when Lindbergh entered the nursery after being told by Betty Gow the child was gone, he looked at the crib, and by the appearance of the bed clothes he felt that the child could not have gotten out himself, knew something was wrong and then quickly went to his bedroom and retrieved his rifle, told Betty to have Whateley come upstairs and then before Betty left, she said that Lindbergh said to his wife, " Anne, they have stolen our baby." If Lindbergh did see the note the first time he was in the room, he never mentioned it. He knew the child was kidnapped though, didn't he! I don't think looking out the windows would have been a course of action, whether you believe Lindbergh was complicit or not. This has already been noted in a previous post but I think its important to repeat that all the windows were closed and two of them shuttered. I am not of the opinion that it would necessarily have been instinctual to look out the windows. I would have wanted to open the ransom note! According to Lindbergh's March 11, 1932 statement, he left orders " for no one to enter the nursery or to walk around the house until the police arrived." His statement makes no mention of seeing a ransom note and does not mention making a search of the house or going outside, things that are mentioned in the statements of Ollie Whateley, Elsie Whateley, and Betty Gow. Hopewell Deputy Police Chief Charles Williamson did testify at the Flemington Trial that Lindbergh was in possession of his rifle at the time he and Chief Wolfe arrived at the Lindbergh's home.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 2, 2018 9:11:23 GMT -5
The circumstantial evidence in this case speaks clearly of Hauptmann being the main player, and there's a lot of accountability there for him to live up to, and which seems to be largely ignored these days. Still, you won't get much of an argument from me against the involvement of at least two and possibly three other individuals at some point but not necessarily throughout the entire kidnap plan. Those figures are still dancing around the periphery, and it makes for interesting yet still inconclusive reading. What you need is evidence of a direct connection between Hauptmann and the guy you've been after all these years, namely Lindbergh. And I haven't seen anything yet that even comes close to demonstrating that after 17 years of looking at this case. With your own in-depth level of hands-on research, have you? I've seen lots of questionable eyewitness accounts, supposition, innuendo and character assailing, and there's always the compelling go-to argument that Lindbergh was powerful enough to obliterate all traces of his involvement. Again, great reading on a discussion board, but actual real-world proof is still needed. Your first point is an important one and outlines what I've been trying to impress upon those who read my posts... There are mainly two sides of debate which those who engage must break out of. One side is the Lone-Wolf and the other being Hauptmann is innocent. I think most of us here don't fit into that mode, however, we must be careful not to slip into the strategies either side might take. One side would never concede that more people were involved because they fear it will be seized upon and exploited to somehow point to Hauptmann's innocence. The other won't admit to Hauptmann's involvement because they don't want that pointed to as a reason to stop searching for the solution - which obviously doesn't end with him. Also I've seen those deny some of the most basic facts as they surround Hauptmann, such as the beating he took, and when it comes to the actual history of what happened or why these are real facts that should never be lost. Yet, the denial is a form of protecting one's position. I've found that by researching some of the most basic facts leads to other unknown facts. Shrugging things off is a huge mistake. Again, whatever the facts, they must be considered and embraced. What one "likes" or does not like shouldn't matter. Now as to the standard of proof. I believe I have seen enough. There is no doubt in my mind someone on the inside was involved and I think it's a hard one to get past if one reads and considers everything, in it's totality, that I wrote in my book. As to eyewitness accounts... one side always believed some, because they assisted in bringing about a conviction. But there's others that have more weight that I've brought up that are suddenly dismissed? So one must apply whatever standard they accept evenly. Although I won't be winning a Pulitzer, I think just looking at what the Cops really believed is hugely important and should not be ignored. But there is so much more than that. Over time most have attributed certain facts to people and places as a way, I suppose, of protecting them or disproving any notion of involvement. Yet, those facts aren't true. So everything must be re-looked at when the real facts are now considered. I've always said it doesn't prove Lindbergh was involved, but it does show something else was going on. I also think it is very clear that Lindbergh obstructed justice. One might argue that he was willing to do whatever it took to get his son back as the reason. Yet, once we look at all of his other actions they do not seem to fit with someone who does. He contradicts himself all over the place and still to this day certain people act like it is crazy to point them out. He lied. Want your son back? Okay... He's found dead... Now what's the explanation? " Well he was a young father and..." No. He was a young father when he took over an investigation. He was a young father playing jokes on investigators only days after the crime. He was a young father walking around the house in a joyous mood. He was a young father who was supposed to be looking for his son then said to hell with it let's play cards. I say enough with the bogus excuses and let's look at his actions for what they really were. He was a young father who strolled into that morgue then sliced open his dead son's face unnecessarily. He wanted to impress the police - and he DID.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 2, 2018 9:26:39 GMT -5
Suddenly showed up? Are you telling me that Schwarzkopf and his NJSP, who had law enforcement jurisdiction at Highfields during the investigation, would suddenly allow Murray Garsson and coterie of minions to invade Lindbergh's home without some prior notice approval and then to engage in the course of action they took? Garsson was rightfully tossed from this case that he was never really on, because he acted like an asshat and his personal conclusions were based on the reactions of the household occupants he targeted to that behaviour. I laid out two versions. One comes directly from an FBI memorandum. That source says it came from Schwarzkopf. So the source isn't me - it's Schwarzkopf. So if one holds a personal bias against the information Garsson revealed, then choose Irey's book as their source because it assists to that end. But it's hard to dismiss Schwarzkopf from where I am sitting. If that information came from a Reporter I'd say it was less creditable. If it came from, say, Frank Wilson I'd say it was a tie. But Schwarzkopf in a FBI Memo dated April 6, 1932? With Lindbergh in the room when the conversation occurred? " Col. Lindbergh promised I wouldn't be touched!" Make any sense in light of the fact Lindbergh told Cowie that everyone in his household should be a suspect?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 2, 2018 10:23:16 GMT -5
I'm sure that Dave spoke to Betty about this subject. I was just wondering how Betty got wind of Whateley's ear-witnessed suspicions and these routes you've suggested make sense to me. What makes little to no sense though is how each member of the entire household could possibly have had even one iota of involvement in a faked kidnapping scheme and then carried on normally with life as they did after the fact. "Whateley's regret" speaks volumes of one person within that household trying unsuccessfully to fathom an answer to a mystery that haunted him personally within the months following the kidnapping. Do you believe that on his deathbed, feeling he was about to meet his meet his God that he would have targeted just one lone individual, (who coincidentally happened to be the household individual he least liked) while knowing full well the entire sordid affair had been a consolidated group effort? In my opinion, your presentation of Whateley's so called "confession" is very revealing, but perhaps not in the way you had intended.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 2, 2018 10:36:48 GMT -5
All well and good Michael, but you haven't addressed the simple and incontrovertible fact that Parker had relatively little first hand access to Lindbergh case information and therefore was well off the mark in many of the judgments he made, especially in the early going when you also claim he was well within his right mind. I'm not blaming the man for being wrong and I'm sure he gave it a go given what he had, but you've chosen to solidly align behind him and his conclusions, lock stock and barrel. How is that done while employing a consistent standard of investigative discernment? I think you are confusing the situation. I trust his conclusions as it relates to what he did have access to. He had access to the Moore family. He had access to Lupica. He had access to the Conover family. He had access to local law enforcement. He had access to the reporters. So when I see the investigating he did do with the resources available it's solid work - then I apply it concerning what I know about the actual investigation. Whether Parker was aware of that or not doesn't matter because if there's alignment then there's alignment. What we have are people ignoring all the man did by associating everything that occurred in his entire career with the Wendel dupe. That's like saying Jim Thorpe wasn't a good athlete because injuries kept him from playing beyond age 41.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 2, 2018 10:46:17 GMT -5
I'm sure that Dave spoke to Betty about this subject. I was just wondering how Betty got wind of Whateley's ear-witnessed suspicions and these routes you've suggested make sense to me. What makes little to no sense though is how each member of the entire household could possibly have had even one iota of involvement in a faked kidnapping scheme and then carried on normally with life as they did after the fact. "Whateley's regret" speaks volumes of one person within that household trying unsuccessfully to fathom an answer to a mystery that haunted him personally within the months following the kidnapping. Do you believe that on his deathbed, feeling he was about to meet his meet his God that he would have targeted just one lone individual, (who coincidentally happened to be the household individual he least liked) while knowing full well the entire sordid affair had been a consolidated group effort? In my opinion, your presentation of Whateley's so called "confession" is very revealing, but perhaps not in the way you had intended. But did they really carry on normally? As to Whateley's "regret," don't you find it interesting that there was so very little about it? Sounds like a big story to me. However, when considering reporters would even invent material, why was this story MIA? I view the fact that whatever he said scared the Prosecution. I also think there's evidence that he was the weak link and that something was bothering him. So it makes sense to me that he let it out knowing he was about to die.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 2, 2018 10:51:53 GMT -5
I understand your point to an extent, although I don't see the red flag. Lindbergh's reasoning against the backdrop of events as they unfolded, seems within the bounds of critical thinking judgment. Perhaps if he had seen the note right away, he may have been compelled to, but he did not see the note right away. More importantly, I see him quickly assessing the situation, (sans the note) having Whateley call the police and then personally taking action with his rifle to see if he could intervene outside, perhaps believing the kidnappers might still be on the property. And remember that he had already cautioned everyone in the household to not touch anything in the nursery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2018 11:23:03 GMT -5
I just want to say that I believe Michael's point that so very little was said about what Whateley confessed as he was dying is so important. If Whateley had said tell my wife I love her or something such as that you can be sure it would have been passed on to Elsie. However, instead he chose to say something about the kidnapping. This is what was weighing heavily on his conscience. For over a year, something was eating away at the health of Whateley. It very well could have been his knowledge of what really happened the night of March 1, 1932 and that eventually someone was going to get blamed for the kidnap and death of Charlie that might not be responsible. Please don't get me wrong. I believe that Hauptmann has involvement in some way but it has never been proven that he actually killed Charlie.
I don't think that Whateley's confession should be blown off as having no real value. The people who heard what Whateley said as he lay dying chose never to speak about it to anyone. Keep the secret of the confession within the confines of those in the room. That says volumes about the seriousness of Whateley's final words.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 2, 2018 19:17:13 GMT -5
As expressed many times by many above, in a nutshell, Whatley had no "deathbed confession" as was advertised about the Melskey book. There was a suspicion, more like an inclination because there was no evidence, that Betty Gow had "something" to do with the crime. He felt that way along with millions of other Americans who suspected Betty, so there probably were millions of "death bed confessions" which Michael missed reporting on.
I personally believe that Ollie was simply mad about what he and the rest of the staff suspected was a sexual relationship between Betty and Charles which gave her special treatment. So Ollie, RIP, who knows? Probably Anne.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 4, 2018 3:13:23 GMT -5
Well, ta ta - oh, one more thing, I understand you've never been at the Lindbergh's residence. Kind of a strange thing for a "researcher" in your locality and "position." Also, I can't recall you ever coming to a conclusion on anything except that wood stuff which you and Kevin tried to steal from that guy. Thank goodness he wrote and was researched well so you guys didn't get away with it. I'm convinced that you wouldn't know a conclusion if you stepped in it. I have come up with good stuff on here, can't think of anything that you have. I remember when I first came on here, I posted why not quit all the dribble about the ladder and just conclude that it had something to do with the crime. Well, you and your minions would have none of that, so here the ladder still sits! I miswrote about making friends on here, I meant that I don't come on here to make enemies, theogh it sure seems to happen. Now, ta ta.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2018 9:39:38 GMT -5
Well, ta ta - oh, one more thing, I understand you've never been at the Lindbergh's residence. Kind of a strange thing for a "researcher" in your locality and "position." Also, I can't recall you ever coming to a conclusion on anything except that wood stuff which you and Kevin tried to steal from that guy. Thank goodness he wrote and was researched well so you guys didn't get away with it. I'm convinced that you wouldn't know a conclusion if you stepped in it. I am having a hard time with this one Jack. When I first read it I wondered who it was directed to. Then I read it again, and still tried to figure out who it was meant for. Then I read it a third time and it seemed it could only be directed to me. So let's address what you've written... I've been to Highfields so many times I've lost count. On one occasion I was given permission to dig soil samples under the window. On another I walked from Featherbed Lane through the woods to Highfields. I've also walked the entire private lane etc. etc. I did these things because I felt it was necessary. Now as far as being inside, no, I haven't. There were a couple of times where I couldn't get inside but honestly I did not and do not see the point. I mean I would have on those occasions if I had been allowed but the inside is different now, and I have the blueprints, so I don't see the big deal. Maybe it's just me but I don't. Same goes for the sites in the Bronx. I don't need to go inside of Jafsie's house or tour St. Raymond's Cemetery because I have everything I personally need. Years ago I was in the Union Hotel but had no desire to go upstairs. So if I didn't have something I needed you don't think I could get it - or in this case see it? If so, then you don't know me. As far as "trying to steal" something... I've never stolen nor tried to steal anything from anyone. So your accusation is not only completely false it's libelous. Certain personalities believe that if they "find" something then put it on the internet that somehow means no one has ever been there before them. I don't have time for anyone who thinks that way because I am not going to defend myself against an accusation that could just as often emanate from a mental institution. Again, I've been through every single document at the NJSP Archives multiple times. I've been through material that no other researcher has - EVER. This idea that people know what I've seen when they've never been there themselves is completely insane. I've missed stuff myself only to find it the 2nd or 3rd time around. Furthermore, I have a computer and I data mine too. So this idea that Google doesn't exist for everyone is completely absurd - I even have Google notify which I am sure everyone else does too. Honestly Jack I don't have time for this. This Board isn't meant for this type of nonsense and it's starting to get old.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 10:19:15 GMT -5
Michael,
Since this thread is about Charlie's things, I wanted to ask you about something that is not in your book or anyone else's book on this case.
In Anne's diary book, Hour of Gold Hour of Lead, in a letter to Evangeline Lindbergh (dated March 10, 1932), Anne mentions she is working on Charlie's record and would like Evangeline to send any letters she containing facts she (Anne) had written to her about Charlie during November and December 1931 and January and February 1932. She felt this would help refresh her memory.
Apparently Evangeline did respond to Anne's request and sent her those letters because in Anne's diary entry of a letter Anne sent to Evangeline on April 8, 1932, she acknowledges receipt of the letters and thanks for saying she was able to piece together "a pretty good account of the last three months for the baby's record."
I am assuming when Anne speaks of the baby's record, she is speaking about a baby book. People often kept these of a baby's development.
I am wondering if you ever encountered anything anywhere during your extensive and meticulous research of this case that mentions the baby record book that Anne speaks about in her diary.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2018 10:58:50 GMT -5
I am wondering if you ever encountered anything anywhere during your extensive and meticulous research of this case that mentions the baby record book that Anne speaks about in her diary. I don't think so. I say that because Wayne showed me something (not from the NJSP Archives) that could be related so I'll defer to him about this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 14:14:33 GMT -5
I don't think so. I say that because Wayne showed me something (not from the NJSP Archives) that could be related so I'll defer to him about this. So, Wayne, Michael says that you are the man when it comes to this baby book. What can you share on the board about the baby book?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 14:26:10 GMT -5
WOW - that is neat that you found that reference. It would be wonderful if it could be found, but I would bet it is with the family? Or at Yale or wherever her diaries and letters are? The existence of this baby book is something that I have had in my notes on Charlie for quite some time. I have never encountered the baby book's existence in the works of any author on this case. I thought I would check with Michael just in case in his research he might have come upon some reference to it. One would expect in a normal situation that the extended family would have retained this book. However, since Charlie's actual existence was never revealed by CAL and Anne to Charlie's siblings and the "NJ business" as Lindbergh described in was never to be spoken about, I am not sure whether the family ever saw such a book. Hopefully Wayne can add something to this book mystery!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 4, 2018 15:06:24 GMT -5
Oh, man, no pressure here I hate to be a downer, but I haven't been able to find anything about the baby book except for what is said in Hour of Lead. I think there are 3 options: 1) The baby book is long gone (destroyed or lost). 2) Reeve or one of the family members might have it. 3) It's at Yale and I wasn't able to locate it. Because you guys have piqued my interest, I will give Yale another try.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 15:45:46 GMT -5
Oh, man, no pressure here I hate to be a downer, but I haven't been able to find anything about the baby book except for what is said in Hour of Lead. Sorry Wayne! I did not intend to pressure you. Since Michael deferred to you, I thought (was more like hoping) you might know something you could share on the board. Its all good, Wayne. I have numerous notes on this case that have question marks at the end of them. I fully understand that we will never have answers to everything! Thanks for all you do share from all your great research on this case.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 4, 2018 16:12:17 GMT -5
Since there are no pictures of CAL Jr. for the months leading up to the kidnapping, it would make sense that a baby book, if one existed, is long gone. I think the absence of these sorts of things is very telling, especially the lack of photos after Summer 1931.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 16:27:24 GMT -5
I kind of understand that Anne was a "hands off" mother - she said she read in the books of the time not to coddle or show much affection to their babies, but it seems so strange to me that she is asking for those specific time periods and how can she not remember things about her own baby? And not have six months worth of current photos of him? I hope the book was not burned with some of the other items. That is so, so sad. In Anne's Hour of Gold portion of her diary, she does say she read a number of sister Elisabeth's books on childrearing. The books did caution against over fondling a child, etc. so as not to spoil a child. Anne herself says in a letter to her sister Elisabeth dated July 30th, 1930, that she holds Charlie once or twice each day and talks to him. She later says in the same letter that she doesn't want to fondle it at all and questions whether there is something wrong with her. Ugh! Why is Charlie referred to as it?? So impersonal and sounds so disconnected. If the child is to be reared so as not to spoil him, then how did he get so spoiled? Isn't that what Dr. Van Ingen said Charlie was, spoiled and that is why he wouldn't stand upright to be measured?? You mention something that is in my own notes about this request for letters and it is the specific time period (Nov. through Feb.) Anne asks her mother-in-law to return the letters she wrote to her. Anne is only 25 at the time she is making this request for those letters. She should be able to remember better about milestones in Charlie's development at this time period because she is home with him and supposed to be more involved with his care. After all, isn't that why she didn't bring Betty Gow along on weekends when the family would go to Hopewell. She wanted to foster a closer relationship with her son. At least that is the reason CAL said was behind Betty not being included. I currently have two lines of thinking about why Anne requested those letters back from Evangeline: 1) The meds Anne was given during this time were giving her recall issues so she wanted the letters back. 2) Those letters contained sensitive info about Charlie's health and CAL wanted all this info back in his hands. The fact that there was no current photos available of Charlie goes right along with controlling the narrative about the health of this boy. Maybe the book was burned with the crib and other items from the nursery. Like you, I hope it wasn't but I wouldn't bet on it!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 4, 2018 16:31:09 GMT -5
Hi Amy, I was joking about the pressure! I live for this stuff. And I honestly don't know why I quit looking for the baby book! You were a big help referencing it to me in the first place (and thank you). Let me check back with Yale and I'll keep everyone posted if it's there. One other thing that we're so close to but no cigar is a recording done by Gregory Coleman of his stay at Condon's home during the ransom phase. Coleman supposedly authored a manuscript called "Vigil" which is interesting, but I would love to hear this recorded account. (Factoid: Coleman later named his parrot "Jafsie" because it talked so much Coleman's daughter had the recording on cassette a couple of years ago but she moved recently and cannot find it! Arggg! She also had the two safety pins! Lightning, Yale has 4 photos of Charlie taken in October. Those are the latest that I have found of Charlie. All of the photos at Yale of Charlie are meticulously indexed (I think by CAL himself) and after October (when CAL and Anne returned to Englewood), the index abruptly ends. I'm with you, very strange. No Christmas 1931 pics? Do you know one family who doesn't have photos of their 1-year-old at Christmas?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 4, 2018 16:47:50 GMT -5
I kind of understand that Anne was a "hands off" mother - she said she read in the books of the time not to coddle or show much affection to their babies, but it seems so strange to me that she is asking for those specific time periods and how can she not remember things about her own baby? And not have six months worth of current photos of him? I hope the book was not burned with some of the other items. That is so, so sad. In Anne's Hour of Gold portion of her diary, she does say she read a number of sister Elisabeth's books on childrearing. The books did caution against over fondling a child, etc. so as not to spoil a child. Anne herself says in a letter to her sister Elisabeth dated July 30th, 1930, that she holds Charlie once or twice each day and talks to him. She later says in the same letter that she doesn't want to fondle it at all and questions whether there is something wrong with her. Ugh! Why is Charlie referred to as it?? So impersonal and sounds so disconnected. If the child is to be reared so as not to spoil him, then how did he get so spoiled? Isn't that what Dr. Van Ingen said Charlie was, spoiled and that is why he wouldn't stand upright to be measured?? You mention something that is in my own notes about this request for letters and it is the specific time period (Nov. through Feb.) Anne asks her mother-in-law to return the letters she wrote to her. Anne is only 25 at the time she is making this request for those letters. She should be able to remember better about milestones in Charlie's development at this time period because she is home with him and supposed to be more involved with his care. After all, isn't that why she didn't bring Betty Gow along on weekends when the family would go to Hopewell. She wanted to foster a closer relationship with her son. At least that is the reason CAL said was behind Betty not being included. I currently have two lines of thinking about why Anne requested those letters back from Evangeline: 1) The meds Anne was given during this time were giving her recall issues so she wanted the letters back. 2) Those letters contained sensitive info about Charlie's health and CAL wanted all this info back in his hands. The fact that there was no current photos available of Charlie goes right along with controlling the narrative about the health of this boy. Maybe the book was burned with the crib and other items from the nursery. Like you, I hope it wasn't but I wouldn't bet on it!
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 4, 2018 16:56:30 GMT -5
Amy, Anne's unwillingness to hold her baby and disconnect sounds almost like post-partum depression on her part to me. There could well be a simpler explanation for the return of the letters in that she ia so grieved that she wants anything that helps her remember him or she feels enormous guilt.
|
|