|
Post by gap0003 on Dec 12, 2010 16:51:44 GMT -5
Has anyone read this? If, so what is your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 15, 2010 6:53:54 GMT -5
I haven't read it. I am just too busy with my own to read anything new unfortunately. However, like Mairi, I am interested to hear what everyone else thinks.....
|
|
|
Post by gap0003 on Dec 15, 2010 15:11:20 GMT -5
Finished reading Beneath the Winter Sycamores. I've read a lot of books on the subject. To me this fills in the holes. One thing I didn't know was Lindbergh had met Condon earlier at Throg's Neck with Robert Thayer. I thought it odd he would let a stranger sleep in the house after a one hour talk. This theory says that Condon hired Fish, Hauptmann, Schleser and his wife to snatch the baby, on Lindbergh's orders. Betty Gow obstructed Anne's view, while CAL took him to the car. Red Johnson told Violet she needed to ride over with Hauptmann & Fisch. They were taking the baby to a Dr.'s private home. He was still sick, didn't want the press alerted. The Schlesers were at the house, then took the baby to a cabin a few miles from the Lindbergh home. The cabin was unheated, the baby died on March 10. Hauptmann dumped the body where it was found. Hauptmann had told Jones CAL said the baby had rickets, still hadn't walked and had severe hearing problems. He was taking medicine for rickets and a sunlamp was removed before the police got there. The Schlesers were supposed to take the baby to Germany where a family would adopt him. CAL would pay them for their silence. He was a eugenist, so any kind of handicap would not be tolerated. In Murder of Justice, Robert Coine said his aunt was a friend of Gow's and that Gow said the baby had been to John Hopkins and was diagnosed with a hearing problem. In The Great Lindbergh Hullaballo, Laura Vitray said a local woman had led her to a cabin, that had a mattress, shovel and baby's diaper in it. In Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead, Anne writes how Jon is absolutely perfect physically. CAL had told Condon if someone saw him that night , he would just say he was playing another practical joke. That he had pretended the baby was kidnapped 2 months earlier as a cover. How would Hauptmann have known that? I didn't read about it till The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax. H. also said it was Gow that put the muddy prints in the nursery and that she hadn't done a very good job. She was the one who had wiped down the nursery and removed the thumbguard. To me that was illogical. Fingerprints prove you were there, not when. When Condon was asked on the stand if he knew about Johnson's call to Gow he said, "I knew the night of the kidnapping." Reilly didn't catch it though. CAL wrote the first note, Condon wrote the rest using the Mersman table. H. told Jones that he and Fisch had buried some of the money near Summit. Mark discovered the table with a note that said I'm not the kidnapper, but some of the money is buried near Summit. Thayer learned the truth from Breckinridge then cut himself off from the case. CAL had refused the help of a bloodhound club and any kind of search near his home. CAL fought to keep the money unmarked. The letter was on the window instead of in the crib, because CAL had forgot to put there when he took the baby. H. didn't talk because L. had threatened his child if he did. To me this ties up the loose ends. I'd like to hear other opinions though.
|
|
|
Post by ddmr1963 on Dec 16, 2010 3:42:44 GMT -5
I cant wait to read this book is what I am thinking. Sure seems to fill in some of those blanks. Im trying to remember where but seems as if I have read somewhere else besides from Vittray about a nearby shack or cabin of some sort. In fact, I think I have it on my old computer so I will have to look for it. But seems as if one of the men who was staying in a shack near Highfields was the same man who later was arrested of starving his wife & keeping her held against her will at an abandoned estate in Bergen Co. But the thing I remember the most about this shack dweller was that he was a puglist (Think Al Reich & Jafsie). Anyway, this post gave me a lot to think about. Thanks. I will look for that article tomorrow. I remember I found the article about the shack dwellers from newspaperarchives.com
Dena Rush
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 16, 2010 7:02:46 GMT -5
It's listed as a "creative non-fiction" so for me (the one who doesn't have the book), I would need to see the footnotes in order to properly evaluate what is "creative" and what isn't. The idea to tackle Jones is necessary (imo). I've never seen this before and doubt it very much. Again, I don't have the book so its possible he's seen something I haven't. I think the decision to allow him to stay was one meant to psych him out. Placing him in the Nursery could not have been a coincidence. Thayer's "exit" from the Case has always led one to speculate as to the reason. I believe I know why, but of course, my guess is just that - a guess. There's a lot I would like to discuss based upon Gap's outline. Not necessarily about the book but the ideas presented....
|
|
|
Post by gap0003 on Dec 16, 2010 11:59:52 GMT -5
Michael, what is your guess about the Thayer exit?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 16, 2010 18:08:23 GMT -5
He was "burned out" from the whole thing:
Thayer & Rosner were a "team."
My belief is they did really good work together. That is until Rosner went "rogue" causing Thayer to become increasingly frustrated & disgusted. In the end I believe he was under an incredible amount of stress and no longer wanted to be tied down to the Case. It became too much, and being "connected" to someone who he considered no longer reliable or creditable made it even worse.
And so once Mickey exited, so did Thayer's reason for being around and according to what documentation I have it seems he seized that moment.
The Police contacted him a couple of times later... Once in June of '32 then later in Jan '33 but it was just to get more information from him concerning the time he actually did work on the Case.
|
|
|
Post by johno on Aug 6, 2014 18:34:28 GMT -5
I have just read it. It is a poorly written piece of fiction, not even properly proofread, but the author is very familiar with the case, and builds his story around the Arthur Jones story of what Hauptmann told him.
However, it is very useful in one or two ways.
it takes up what I would call the Hoage theory, namely that the crime scene is a setup from the start. It tries to fill out the narrative associated with that, and speculates about who did it and why. The answer is that Lindbergh planned it because he wanted to get his less than perfect son adopted away on the quiet. Little "it" dies in the custody of a couple Frisch knows.
The useful bit is that the narrative makes it painfully obvious just how many people Lindy would have had to keep quiet, and how many he would have known he would have to keep quiet, to get it done.
So inadvertently the book performs a service: it shows the high burden of proof associated with the Lindy planned it in advance hypothesis.
The two questions it makes vivid are:
Why did the staff and others in the plot keep quiet all those years?
How could a control freak like Lindbergh risk them talking?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 21:18:06 GMT -5
Welcome to the Board johno.
I have read Beneath The Winter Sycamores. I also consider it a work of fiction. Although Jim Bahm seems to know about the LKC, it doesn't seem he did too much research on little Charlie. He must not have been aware of the autopsy findings and Charlie's fractured skull and blood clot. He has Charlie dying from pneumonia.
There has been much discussion on this board about whether Lindbergh was involved in some way with Charlie going missing. It is certainly a theory I have looked at. I think your two questions are worthy of discussion.
Why did the staff and others in the plot keep quiet all those years?
As far as staff goes, that would depend on who actually knew something. I don't think the entire Lindbergh household staff would have needed to be in on Charlie's disappearance. It could have been accomplished with the help of only one inside person. I can hardly imagine that this insider would ever admit to any wrongdoing. Why would he/she, especially if they have been guaranteed protection?
How could a control freak like Lindbergh risk them talking?
I think whoever the actual kidnappers were, they were brought into this crime with the understanding that if you talk you die or your loved ones will die. I think this is why Hauptmann never gave any accomplices up. He had Anna and his son to protect.
Personally I don't believe Lindbergh was the planner of Charlie's kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by johno on Aug 6, 2014 21:43:07 GMT -5
thanks for the welcome!
Let's say its Betty Gow...what does Lindbergh say to her, and how does she deal with the death of Little it without eventually talking to someone. She returns to Glasgow, says nothing, never writes a convincing poison pen letter to the cops. How could Lundy reasonably believe that in advance?
Suppose instead it is Oliver Whateley....how does Lindy put it to him.....
You see how it goes.
It is a theory entertainable in the abstract, but when you fill in the names there is a fairly high barrier of implausibility to hurdle.
i do not say that it could not be met, only the evidence available so far doesn't do it.
As for the death threats to the criminals that might pull it off, how could Lindbergh have confidence that this would be enough?
They would have something on him for the rest of his life.
|
|
|
Post by johno on Aug 6, 2014 22:17:14 GMT -5
Here is another thought.
Mark F has a timeline of events at Highlands up until the announcement that the baby was missing. It includes a comparison of who said what to whom.
it shows no real oddities, which means that if Lindbergh planned things stories would have to have been effectively synchronized.
That is quite something to pull off, especially for some so aloof and distant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 22:35:09 GMT -5
I hear what you are saying. If you helped to have the Lindbergh baby, the most famous baby in the world kidnapped, would you ever admit that? Would you want that attached to you ever? Lindbergh could have been sure of Betty not talking. He was there to protect her from LE and they did, indeed, clear her of any wrong doing. Why would she compromise that in 1932 or ever?
If Ollie Whateley helped with the kidnapping, and like Betty might have, did so willingly, then you have the same situation. Ollie is not going to turn himself in. He will be protected from LE by Lindbergh. Why would he say anything? If Ollie were involved perhaps that might have caused the ulcers that ended up resulting in his death in May of 1933. Keeping silent about what really happened in that Hopewell house on March 1, 1932 might have been too much for him.
I only see the servants being involved if there is a coverup because of an accident that resulted in Charlie's death. Especially if that accident involved Charles or Anne. I think they were loyal people and would have cooperated out of loyalty.
I think Lindbergh had confidence that the person who organized this kidnapping could enforce the necessary silence. Otherwise, I agree. He would have most certainly ended up being blackmailed.
|
|
|
Post by johno on Aug 7, 2014 11:26:04 GMT -5
Who, in your view, gives him that confidence? Someone we already know?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 7, 2014 15:59:48 GMT -5
Why did the staff and others in the plot keep quiet all those years? Conspiracies are always given a bad rap because they are either attached to a "UFO" sighting, or considered something quickly discovered due to some idiot bragging about their role in it. It's common sense to assume the more people are involved the odds are higher someone might talk. But people do beat odds regardless of how high. Let's assume Staff are involved. I would first ask how many would be necessary for this crime to occur? Next, I ask myself if large conspiracies exist(ed) where no one talked. You see this is the problem - we know of the failed conspiracies brought down by loose lips but most of the time don't when those involved have kept their mouths shut. This crime is a perfect example. Take Hauptmann. He's obviously not alone in his involvement and does he name those involved? Yes, the dead one. But those who are alive he protects, and then goes down with the ship. To assume because he doesn't implicate others means there are none is beyond absurd in my opinion. Look at the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. Since no one was ever caught I suppose that means it involved a bunch of Ghosts. Or perhaps it means no one talked. Let's look at this situation. You have the electric chair on one side and Lindbergh on the other. Lindbergh's the guy who took Hoover to task and won - that's how powerful the guy was. Recap: We have the dead guy, the German Machine Gunner, and the "crazy" (like a fox) old guy. Dead men tell no tales. Hauptmann was protecting someone. And the old guy was protecting himself by, in the end, NOT keeping quiet because he was in a Catch-22. Condon's the weak link here and it wasn't as if he didn't try every trick in the book to protect Hauptmann because he did. So what's the motive for anyone else to confess their role, most especially when Hauptmann died for the sins of all involved?
|
|
|
Post by johno on Aug 8, 2014 11:04:24 GMT -5
Totally agree that "most conspiracies fail" or "in most conspiracies someone talks" are bad arguments, precisely because we only see one side of the data, and so have no basis for "most"
My point applied just to the thought that Lindbergh set it up in advance. That very likely involves some coordination between him and the household staff at Highfields.
To test that Run through it from there with each of the few people who were at Highlands...I.e. Specific names...respecting Mark F's Plausible timeline including what each said to investigators.
When I do that for specific names, I can't make it fit.
Mark could be wrong, of course.
Can you make it fit?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 14:49:58 GMT -5
What I am currently doing is reviewing as many sources as I can find about Lindbergh, especially from around 1925 forward to 1932 for two purposes:
1)Person(s) who have been consistently supportive and available to him who he might have turned to for help with Charlie disappearing.
2)Person(s) who might have had a personal motivation to strike out at Lindbergh by kidnapping and murdering his son.
Although I find many of Lindberghs actions regarding his handling of the investigation suspicious, I also realize he could have been targeted and not personally involved with Charlie going missing. I try hard not to have tunnel vision about anyone in this case. You can miss important pieces of this puzzle if you do that.
|
|
|
Post by johno on Aug 8, 2014 15:59:27 GMT -5
That is the way to go! There is also a profiling issue...was Lindy the kind of person who would trust a servant that far, someone who is likely to leave his employ and end up in Scotland or England?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 18:17:07 GMT -5
Are you asking me if he would trust Betty Gow to help with Charlie's disappearance?
|
|
|
Post by johno on Aug 8, 2014 22:49:49 GMT -5
Yes, particularly when you realize that she is a classic Glaswegian ...If you understand what I am saying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2014 11:10:42 GMT -5
In order for me to answer you, I will need to do so from the perspective that Lindbergh is the planner of the kidnapping. If he really was, then I do think he would have chosen Betty because of her Glaswegian characteristics. He would have relied on her strength, loyalty, and resilence to carry out what was required of her to prepare Charlie for removal from the nursery. Lindbergh, in return, would protect her and she would never reveal anything.....ever. Loyalty begets loyalty in this case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 9, 2014 11:43:31 GMT -5
My point applied just to the thought that Lindbergh set it up in advance. That very likely involves some coordination between him and the household staff at Highfields. To test that Run through it from there with each of the few people who were at Highlands...I.e. Specific names...respecting Mark F's Plausible timeline including what each said to investigators. When I do that for specific names, I can't make it fit. Mark could be wrong, of course. Can you make it fit? I am not exactly sure what you mean here... I can see various degrees of success being accomplished by specific personalities in the house. It all depends on the circumstances concerning what it is they were trying to do. Was someone to make sure Wahgoosh was in a different part of the house? If so, they were successful. If not, then its a coincidence or it wasn't done. See my point? Just run down the list... Were they to sedate the child? If so, looks like it happened. Perhaps handing the child off out the window? Even this looks possible. Walking through the house and escaping out the front door? Lindbergh believed it could have been done, so when Curtis gave him this story, along with telling him someone on the inside was involved, it was then he accepted Curtis as legitimate. Like Lindbergh said, " I could see no reason why he was not in touch with the Kidnappers." So for my money, if the guy who was in the house and actually ran the investigation thinks it could have been done, then it's hard to dispute the possibility. When looking at a "inside connection" who was able to do to what? To conclude no one could do anything at all doesn't fit for me.
|
|
|
Post by johno on Aug 9, 2014 18:57:45 GMT -5
Just to be clear I meant nothing against Glaswegians...half my family is from there...So let's go with Gow for now...she is mortified when she identifies the corpse. If she had aided Lindbergh ,say, in a scheme to adopt the boy out, I believe she would never be able to look at him again. A fortiori for Anne Morrow...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 9, 2014 19:25:57 GMT -5
Just to be clear I meant nothing against Glaswegians...half my family is from there...So let's go with Gow for now...she is mortified when she identifies the corpse. If she had aided Lindbergh ,say, in a scheme to adopt the boy out, I believe she would never be able to look at him again. A fortiori for Anne Morrow... So playing Devil's Advocate, what if you were incorrect about Gow being mortified? Would that change your mind?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2014 20:35:37 GMT -5
I don't think she would have had trouble looking Lindbergh in the eye. She was working with him. If Anne knew nothing about what was going on with Charlie, I think she would have found herself much more uncomfortable around Anne.
|
|
|
Post by johno on Aug 9, 2014 22:54:43 GMT -5
Yes, of course. I have no fixed theory of the case. But I think if you give me hard evidence I am pretty good at seeing connections and implications.
So was she not mortified?
|
|
|
Post by johno on Aug 9, 2014 22:57:07 GMT -5
I don't think she would have had trouble looking Lindbergh in the eye. She was working with him. If Anne knew nothing about what was going on with Charlie, I think she would have found herself much more uncomfortable around Anne. Ok...let me have some evidence that she was "working with him". I'm genuinely open to it.
|
|
|
Post by johno on Aug 9, 2014 23:17:03 GMT -5
I have a bias for primary sources. I know Michael has expressed the view that Hour of gold, hour of lead, is an ex post facto selection of letters, but reading the letters that are there and trying to form a view about Anne,s reaction and her description of Lindbergh,s reaction in real time is important to filling in the whole picture.
One thing I can say as someone who has gone through four months of an infant son slipping away is that although she is a weird sort of person, her grief, as expressed through the conventions of her class and historical setting, has an authentic core. Anyone who thinks she is in on the plot is not a credible profiler of human personality.
In the face of the detailed agony (that she dresses up in her pseudo-literary way) anyone playing the role you assign to Gow must have been a fiend in order to be able to keep up the ongoing deception. But, as I believe you would agree, there is a lot of evidence that Gow was not a fiend.
This is what I am saying: we need to try to fill in the full details of the personalities involved, and see just what they were capable of.
|
|
|
Post by johno on Aug 9, 2014 23:43:09 GMT -5
Also her letters put to the sword the myth that Lindbergh cruelly threw pillows at hi son to knock him over. She...the eye witness... describes it as a pillow fight. It is horseplay in her view.
.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2014 0:16:11 GMT -5
This is from Lloyd Gardner book "The Case That Never Dies" pages 32 and 33. His source for this is a Hoover Memorandeum dated March 19, 1932.
When Hoover's agents attempted to question Betty Gow the following occurs:
Betty Gow: "I was promised I wouldn't be touched" she shouted at him.
FBI Agent: "Who promised you?"
Betty Gow: "Colonel Lindbergh."
Anyone who thinks she is in on the plot is not a credible profiler of human personality.(Johno)
I have read all of Anne's diaries and many of her other books. Anne is genuinely grieving the loss of her son in Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead. I was not implying Anne was involved. I have never claimed to be a profiler. Are you one?
I think we need to get something straight. This whole "Lindbergh as planner and would Betty Gow assist him" was your idea. They were your lead ins. You wanted ideas on this possible scenario so I tried to do that for you. That does not mean that I embrace these roles as fact. I most certainly was not implying Betty Gow was a fiend. That is your interpretation of that role, not mine.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2014 7:48:12 GMT -5
Yes, of course. I have no fixed theory of the case. But I think if you give me hard evidence I am pretty good at seeing connections and implications. So was she not mortified? One of the major problems with this Case is that when writing a book Authors tend to "grab" certain pieces of information they accept as fact then repeat it without researching what they are saying. It's almost like if the last Author said it, and the guy before him said it, then it "must" be true. No one is above making this mistake especially if is "sounds" correct. Certain "stories" start in the Newspapers with what the Reporter believes should have been the case, or what the public would both expect & want to hear - then they run with it. I've posted, many times, that there are so many "facts" that never happened, and people who are credited with being in places who were never even there. I think my point with this one is to ask what's the reliable source for her being mortified and if there isn't one then shouldn't we find it? Its pretty important right? After all, look at the weight you yourself are assigning it, and I would agree its important if it happened that way. However, by the same argument, it's equally important (if not more so) if it did not. Believe me there is so much to learn that it never ends once you start. But each and every rock needs to be turned over in order to find the truth. What one finds there could upset everything. Nothing can be just "understood." Absolutely nothing.
|
|