|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 12, 2006 12:02:06 GMT -5
What does everyone think about Anne?
Is there reason to suspect that she was involved either with the death of her son or some kind of cover-up?
Mjr
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,618
|
Post by Joe on Jun 13, 2006 8:50:34 GMT -5
I don't believe Anne would have been capable of participating in anything untowards against her own son or as a coverup in the wake of an unexpected incident. To me, all of her writings, actions and statements from the time of the kidnapping, right up to the time of her death, speak clearly of a mother who never truly got past the grieving.
Charles of course, is harder to read and dealt with his own grief far differently. As I see it, he was on a single-minded mission to get his son back at all costs and for these reason his actions are so liberally dissected today. Aside from some questionable testimony against Hauptmann, the man he truly believed was responsible, I see nothing to even suggest he had intent, motive or was capable of the above.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 13, 2006 20:36:40 GMT -5
Like I've said earlier..... I don't exempt anyone from suspicion. Now on the pyramid of possibility - Anne ranks rather low in my opinion. However, there's always those cases such as.... Post-Partum Depression.... which no one ever suspects a good person to come down with. www.obgyn.net/femalepatient/default.asp?page=leopoldI am not saying this is the case with Anne but I am using it as an example of things that can happen. I can't get the picture of that woman driving her children into the lake to die and then blaming it on a car-jacker. Even the Ex-Husband couldn't believe she had murdered her own children. It should be remembered that Lindy and Anne take off and leave their new child behind. I find that strange. Maybe a Father could get away with it but it seems odd for a Mother to abandon her child in that way. I also have raised an eyebrow concerning Betty Gow's statement that Anne did not "show emotion" after her son was kidnapped. The situation with Lindy explaining to Anne why Hauptmann was guilty is a strange thing, and if Bill Norris's book is even partially correct www.writeronlinebooks.com/book/talenttodeceive.htmthen Anne would have to have known at some point if her brother was involved. I know from the research that I have done that Governor Hoffman was extremely interested in this angle.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic4 on Jun 14, 2006 1:41:51 GMT -5
Michael...you could be onto something about the relationship between ANNE and Charlie Jr.?
When Anne and CAl got back from thier round the world adventure, Charlie "did not recognize his own Mom anymore"? Whats weirder that that? Estrangement from your own first borne? {IT} Charlie now saw BETTY GOW AS HIS MOM? Could this be the reason for Betty's trip to Highfields on 1 March 32?
Maybe this helps explain Charlies slow developement and the "rumors"--as well as the lack of any photos. Maybe they were all destroyed on purpose???
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 14, 2006 12:19:40 GMT -5
<<<It should be remembered that Lindy and Anne take off and leave their new child behind. I find that strange. Maybe a Father could get away with it but it seems odd for a Mother to abandon her child in that way.>>> Michael
I doubt that Anne thought of it as strange or as abandoning Charlie. Remember that she came from a "class" of people who routinely allowed their children to be raised more by nannies than by themselves. It probably seemed perfectly reasonable to her at the time - even if what she found on her return disturbed her.
<<<Charlie now saw BETTY GOW AS HIS MOM? Could this be the reason for Betty's trip to Highfields on 1 March 32>>> Rick 3
As I understand it, this is the reason Betty was not at Hopewell until Anne began to feel the cold on March 1. Anne was trying to get reacquainted with Charlie.
<<<I also have raised an eyebrow concerning Betty Gow's statement that Anne did not "show emotion" after her son was kidnapped.>>> Michael
Elsie Whateley who - even by Betty's description of the events - was with Anne much more that evening described her as seeming to be in a daze and Elsie's comments at the trial about Anne's "oh God" as they searched the house was objected to as "pathetic". Sounds like shock to me.
Remember too that Williamson described Betty as the "coolest of the lot".
Please remember also that - as I am sure you know - different people react differently to situations of stress, crisis, fear, etc. From the biographies of Anne that I have read, she does not sound like a person who wore her emotions on her sleeve. She sounds, rather, like someone who kept them to herself and poured them out in her diary.
If you wish to go solely by the way people appeared to react then you would have to assume that Elsie was more concerned than anyone else - she is the one Williamson describes as crying.
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 14, 2006 17:59:02 GMT -5
I am right there with you and have considered your points - all of them. It's why I don't place Anne very high on my list. But of course you know.... etc. etc.
BTW...
I've uploaded a video file of Whited's trial testimony in the Member's section. Be sure to download this while the server remains up.
|
|
|
Post by elyssa on Jul 1, 2006 14:48:44 GMT -5
I seem to remember reading that Anne wasn't allowed to cry in front of Charles after the baby went missing. This may be why she didn't wear her emotions on her sleeve. After reading most of Annes diary (books) I still feel that they were edited for content and emotion by Charles before being published, therefore I don't place alot of stock in the words that were written, I think reading between the lines (so to speak) gives a better account of her life. But then again everything to do with this case is answered from reading between the lines and drawing your own conclusions. When it comes right down to it there is NO evidence that is proven true.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 2, 2006 7:53:19 GMT -5
I agree Elyssa.
I am quite sure there was a lot of material on the cutting room floor. It's also surprising to me a family who sought privacy at the level they did would publish their most intimate material.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 2, 2006 12:36:53 GMT -5
Elyssa and Michael.....reading Loss of Eden by Joyce Milton was an eyeopener. she takes a differing slant that the other male authors. Anyway, she claims Anne was the "loneliest woman in the World" and that Anne's friends were glad when CAL died in 1974 that she be released finally from his emotionless control/ Not too surprizeing as we can only begin to estimate CALs many exploits during the years of their marriage?
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Mar 1, 2008 18:01:55 GMT -5
I found it very strange that after all of their years of marriage & children together, when she died they were not buried together. I suspect that AML had learned about Lindberghs other children.
|
|
|
Post by brianne on Oct 15, 2008 17:44:35 GMT -5
I think that more than her child AML was devoted to CAL and would "stand by her man". Not only did the baby die, but Violet Sharpe and Hauptman. I wouldn't want to answer for what she had to when she died.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 15, 2008 19:03:47 GMT -5
Welcome to the board Brianne! It sounds like you have a theory and I am interested to hear about it..... Coincidentally, I found this photo while searching the footnote site last night: [ footnote - dzr130] There are no citations other then the Member's name who posted it (which I noted above). There is a search box below for footnote if anyone is interested.
|
|
|
Post by almab on Mar 12, 2012 9:04:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 12, 2012 17:22:01 GMT -5
Since Anne was in an advanced state of pregnancy with her second child at the time of the kidnapping (and in the above-mentioned footage she's clearly not), my guess is that film was maybe taken around the time she and Lindbergh were engaged or married. Even though the newsreel itself of course pertains to the kidnapping, it doesn't look to me like the specific shots of them are from that time, so I don't know that I see any drugging or sedation going on there, as I don't know what the need for that would've been. To me, she just looks a little uncomfortable on camera, which makes sense considering how young she was and probably unused to that sort of thing (photographers, publicity, etc.). Also, Michael, I know this is an older thread, but I had a question about the Norris book that's mentioned here: What's your take on Dwight Jr. as a suspect? I know Hoffman liked him for the kidnapper/murderer and that Dwight had some mental health issues, but was there ever any real evidence against him?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 12, 2012 18:13:08 GMT -5
My advice to anyone interested in exploring this angle is to read Bill's book A Talent to Deceive. It's got just about everything there is about this angle in there. I say "just about" because I do have something (which could be related) that fits into my outline in more then one place. Does it prove anything specific about DMJr.? No, but its interesting, worthy of consideration, and could compliment this theory.
My personal position concerning DMJr.? The Morrow Family was very secretive. There were problems with both him and Elisabeth. As a result there were lies and misdirection concerning them. And so, the first reaction is to tie it to the Kidnapping somehow. I am still not sure exactly what his problem was. It could have been drugs, alcohol, or mental health - each of which would cause someone to threaten other people. But the complexity of this crime needed advanced planning, someone sober, coherent, and definitely not alone.
As a result, it's not a theory (as it is written) that I personally like. Still though - Bill's book is something anyone interested in this case should read.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 12, 2012 18:38:33 GMT -5
i once had a picture of the mental hospital he was put in upstate new york
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 12, 2012 20:15:39 GMT -5
Yeah, I knew of his nervous breakdown, and, given how private the Morrow family was, I can see where that easily breeds suspicion. But I've never put too much stock in Dwight's guilt myself, since, I agree, everything about this crime suggests organized thinking perhaps gone awry, not the disorganized and/or impulsive thinking of a disturbed individual.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 13, 2012 6:29:07 GMT -5
you will learn that hauptmann supporters will drag everybody into the mix with no proof.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 13, 2012 9:02:46 GMT -5
you will learn that hauptmann supporters will drag everybody into the mix with no proof. Because it always seems to be all or nothing with many people. Some take the Hauptmann was a patsy, so who can we pin this on approach. Others take the Hauptmann did this all by himself approach created by the prosecution. Only some seem to understand that the truth lies in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 13, 2012 10:09:25 GMT -5
Absolutely. For me, there's just too much evidence for Hauptmann not to have been involved somehow, but I think there's also too much evidence to suggest it was just him alone. He was guilty of something, but his trial and conviction were easy, simplified, blanket answers to questions people simply couldn't (and still can't) find the answers to and so chose to ignore, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 13, 2012 16:03:29 GMT -5
Exactly. The Lone-Wolf people will offer up complete fiction in order to explain things then call out anyone who disagrees. It's almost like... if Jim Fisher can invent conversations then "I" can too.
Um, no you can't.
And Fisher can't either then expect to get away with it. Most especially if he's going to point his finger at others for anything less - like speculation. So fiction trumps speculation? This is the logic that's out there. Then there's others who will claim that since they are a Lawyer, or something similar, they are the only ones who understand the Case so we must listen to, and accept what they say.
It doesn't even matter whether or not they've done any real research into this Case themselves. They will just point to what little they have, as if that's all that counts, then turn into the "Thought Police".....
Not going to happen here. You won't see someone TELL anyone of this board what to think based upon that absurd nonsense.
Getting back to DMJr. real quick....
That family had some - what I call strange - "things" going on. Like Elisabeth getting married then all of the sudden wasn't anymore. Then she marries some guy, and dies. Constance, who by all accounts was beautiful and had her pick of just about any wealthy single man in the country, marries her dead Sister's husband. So when I see this stuff going on AND all of the secrecy attached to the family - its easy to see why so many people wondered aloud things being associated with the Kidnapping. However, I do not claim to know everything.
There could be a connection but I have yet to be personally satisfied there is. I encourage anyone interested to seek out all the information you can then let the chips fall where they may.
It's okay to speculate, simply qualify what you are saying or appropriately label it. Conspiracies do happen. In fact they happen ALL the time. Two or more people who plan a crime are guilty of a conspiracy. I see some people attack these two words constantly - but you know what? These are the people I see inventing conversations, misrepresenting newspaper reports as Police Reports, telling us there's no need to research, or just flat out lie about something.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 13, 2012 16:48:09 GMT -5
Yeah, I remember that Lindbergh was dating Elisabeth and Anne almost simultaneously, everyone thinking he was going to go for Elisabeth before he ended up picking Anne, who he'd be seeing on the sly... Kind of an odd arrangement. I wasn't aware Elisabeth had been married prior to Aubrey Morgan, but I did know that when she died suddenly, the youngest sister Constance married him a short time later, yeah. (I've seen pictures of her, and, you're right, she was quite pretty). Again, seems like kind of an eccentric family with some oddball members, but, even throwing in Dwight Jr.'s issues, I'm still not seeing anything particularly sinister. Personally, I think that the Behn theory is the strongest theory of the Morrows-Did-It camp. At any rate, a lot is explained by that, but, trouble is, it's pure speculation, as there isn't a shred of real evidence for it that I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 13, 2012 18:25:38 GMT -5
fiction? show me any proof that hauptmann had help im all ears.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 13, 2012 19:22:43 GMT -5
You were standing on one of them at Highfields. Who do you think was going to take care of the child?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 13, 2012 19:40:31 GMT -5
i dont think hauptmann had any plans to take care of the child, in the way he was taken from the crib roughly. who in there right mind would want to negotiate the ransom at a cemetery? twice? im sure if he had help he would have brought a better ladder. nobody ever came forward
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2012 5:30:56 GMT -5
I would start with the Major Initial Report then work from there. Lindbergh's Statements and Testimony are good sources to show others were involved. How many people were at the Crime Scene and how many at the Cemeteries? Who's this guy running away from the lumber yard with Hauptmann? Who is J. J. Faulkner? Who is spending ransom in the same way its always been passed after Hauptmann is arrested? Who are the people making the phones calls and who are they talking to in the back round? Who was the invisible 2nd Taxi Driver, and how did Condon get that Note? Why did the Scissor Grinder only go to Condon's home and why did Breckenridge think both he and the Needle Salesman were "Scouts" for the Kidnappers? Who is this women at Tuckahoe?
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
This was something the "Mafia" did back then when they wanted to discuss business and not be overheard. Condon mentioned something about this being an Italian custom in his book - so I followed it up to see whether or not it was true - it turned out to be as it related to the Mob.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 14, 2012 6:36:43 GMT -5
your talking the same stuff i heard for twenty years. still not enough
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 14, 2012 7:53:38 GMT -5
Well Steve, here's an open challenge. Take that replica ladder to any two story house with double hung windows and set it up with two sections 30" down from the sill and 15" to the right. Then find anyone of your choice to climb it, enter the window, then come out with a package of around 30 lbs. The only restrictions are that only one person may set up and handle the ladder at any time. Once you see why this won't work, then go to the three section ladder. Once again only one person may set it up and handle it. One other thing, you may only leave the marks as found on the ground at Highfields. I won't ask that it is done at night or in the wind. You don't have to carry it a half a mile in the dark. You don't have to assemble it 75ft away from the house in the dark. You don't have to fool around with shutters. You don't have to leave a note and close the window. Just climb , get in and get out with the package with absolutely no help from anyone at any point. Cased closed upon successful completion. Almost forgot, you can even use a reinforced ladder so there should be no fear of it breaking.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 14, 2012 19:05:52 GMT -5
can i ask one question, did you ever try this experiment since you know the results already? climbing with a third section looked very shaky i dont care who climbs it
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2012 19:22:35 GMT -5
It could have been that he was never seeing Elisabeth and it was just a guess the Reporters made that "took off."
I was going by memory here so she may not have been. The person in question was the Reverend Clyde Roddy - a nephew of Chief Justice Taft. The story I have is that they were engaged, but Dwight and Elizabeth were against it because he had previously been married. Apparently they were away and something happened to cause them to end the relationship between the Reverend and their Daughter upon their arrival home. I don't have enough information in front of me to say if it was an actual marriage or just an engagement - or neither. The Police interviewed Roddy and all he would say was there was a "friendship" which ended under "mutual agreement."
I don't see a connection to this case (of which I could be wrong) so I am not going to take any time to track down what could be the real story. Anyone else is certainly welcome to....
Another interesting piece of information which I believe first came out via The Snatch Racket was the Constance Morrow Extortion attempt. More about this was written in A&M's Book.
It could be its unrelated but it also could have an indirect connection. Certainly the $50K in this Case has been one point of curiosity.
Anyway, I have 2 full files on the "Other Brother Theory." There is one specific "story" which I find interesting only because I know who all of the parties are and I've been able to track down all of the pieces and put them together. I still don't buy it, but having it all together it makes for an interesting story - especially since there's a confession involved made to someone I deem creditable. Like I said above, I will add it to one of the chapters it fits into that way it will be out there for all to see and judge for themselves.
I understand. That's why there's no point in adding anymore because I have a feeling that won't be enough either. It's funny to see people point to that lumber yard panel as proving Hauptmann's involvement but forgetting he was with someone when it happened.
That's called having your cake and eating it too. All of these things above call for explanation. To simply dismiss or shrug them off isn't rational in my opinion.
How on earth can you ignore Lindbergh's assertion that he saw a Confederate at St. Raymond's?
Can't be done - so it won't be done.
|
|