|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2014 8:12:52 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. . I think when there is a source that says one thing and then another that says something different it opens the way for a debate. Who said what can be important. Also, is there enough information to end it to everyone's satisfaction? My guess is that Jesus Christ himself could return and tell us the truth and there would be certain people who still wouldn't accept it. Regardless, before I go off on this tangent further, let me ask whether or not a person's past practice should be looked at when evaluating this issue? For example, if a person stands accused of a certain crime committed similar acts in the past, isn't that something you'd want to factor in when debating the matter?
|
|
|
Post by johno on Aug 10, 2014 10:57:00 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. Sorry if we got our wires crossed.. I was trying to raise difficulties for the "Lindbergh as advanced planner with Betty Gow to assist him" scenario. You obviously have your own difficulties with it, which I would very much like to hear.
|
|
|
Post by johno on Aug 10, 2014 11:04:54 GMT -5
Is there a second source on the pillow fight who is as original and credible as Anne Morrow?
in asking this I am not yet factoring in the other so- called pranks. I am looking to see whether this event was a prank at all, or just something reinterpreted by Ahlgren and Monier, et al.as one. That is the rock I am looking under here. With your help, since I have enormous respect for your knowledge of the case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2014 13:53:16 GMT -5
Is there a second source on the pillow fight who is as original and credible as Anne Morrow? in asking this I am not yet factoring in the other so- called pranks. I am looking to see whether this event was a prank at all, or just something reinterpreted by Ahlgren and Monier, et al.as one. That is the rock I am looking under here. With your help, since I have enormous respect for your knowledge of the case. I believe Will Rogers wrote about this in his column in order to impress upon everyone the child was perfectly normal. Something about Lindbergh throwing a "soft" pillow at his son while he was toddling around, the weight of which would knock him over. I think he said he did this (4) times and the child went down the last time before he was hit. And so it seems, according to Rogers anyway, Charles Jr. actually was the "perfect son" the newspapers were reporting he would be before all stories of him being unhealthy or defective in some way made their way across the country. Anyway, I can't remember if this event was before or after the Family concerns over his "Rickets" diagnosis. I also can't remember the source for when CAL put " IT" (as he liked to call him) outside in the cold and wouldn't let Anne bring him in. Anyone know where this is - it's driving me crazy that I have forgotten. From my perspective there are two oddities about CAL. One is his bizarre sense of humor. And the other is this belief concerning how people of a certain caliber should act. I think the pillow episode is probably more of an attempt in "toughening up" his child rather then making him an object of humor. Anyway, its all food for thought in our discussions and debates.
|
|
|
Post by johno on Aug 10, 2014 14:25:31 GMT -5
To Amy, Duncan and Michael among others,
Here is a more substantial question. Gow's being called to Highfeilds on the Tuesday.
Three things are notable...
The timing of the call to Englewood..10.30 am
The request coming from Anne (a non-conspirator in my view)
Mrs Morrow determining that Gow should be driven to Highlands.
So Gow gets to Highfeilds at Around 130 pm, and is pretty much observed tending to the baby through the afternoon and early evening.
When does she get the chance to coordinate with Lindbergh or his agents to plan the last details of the handoff of the baby?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2014 22:33:45 GMT -5
The Will Rogers visit when the pillow tossing knock Charlie down isn't that funny incident took place was about two weeks before Charlie went missing. I believe it was one of the weekends in February that they didn't go to Hopewell, possibly the 20th of February 1932. Here is a link to Rogers article that appeared in the papers March 3, 1932. news.google.com/newspapers?id=adMrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uYQFAAAAIBAJ&dq=ransom%20money%20returned%20to%20lindbergh&pg=2345%2C2062933The other incident you mention is something that I posted awhile back. Here it is: When reading about how he (Lindbergh)grew up, it is clear to understand why he found it difficult to have healthy emotional relationships. He never had anything like that role-modeled for him. He idolized a father who had very little time for him and was raised by a mom who did not believe in demonstrating physical affection. This lack of emotional bonding did leave him unprepared for fatherhood. I don't see him doing his best to be a loving and supporting role model either. He did seem to be amused by Charlie at times but also did things that were not in the best interests of his son's well being. One of the incidents that I find disturbing is best told by A. Scott Berg in "Lindbergh". On page 234 he writes "And one day that winter, Lindbergh built a huge pen out of chicken wire outside their wing of Next Day Hill. When he had finished, he told Betty Gow to bundle Charlie up, to select one of his toys, and to place him in the pen to fend for himself. For hours, the little boy stayed there alone, sometimes crying. Betty Gow went to Anne, insisting they rescue him. Although Anne was close to tears, she said, "Betty, there's nothing we can do." No one did anything to help that little boy. This is just one of numerous hurtful things Lindbergh did. This was Lindbergh's way of toughening up his son. Charlie is not even two years old when he is getting this lesson in how to be tough!! You will not find these things in Anne Lindbergh's edited diaries. Little Charlie is not alone in getting a lesson of toughening up from his Dad. Their son Jon who was born in August of 1932 got his lessons too. Here is a llnk to an article written by Nigel Nicolson (Biographer Harold Nicolson's son) about a visit he made to the Lindberghs when they were living in Long Barn, the Nicolson home in England. You can read about young Jon Lindbergh's lesson on being tough in the third paragraph. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/opinions.html
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2014 22:58:22 GMT -5
When does she get the chance to coordinate with Lindbergh or his agents to plan the last details of the handoff of the baby? I am having a hard time understanding your question, and I think it has to do with my overall position concerning the crime itself. Firstly, there is absolutely no way on God's green earth this was a "one-man" job. So no matter who is involved they still pull it off, and it boils down to the usual "hows" that are associated with any crime that is successful. But here it's an understatement because there's just way too much that goes right. Even what seems to go wrong looks intentional. Next, this job was not ad-libbed. It was prepared for well in advance. A ladder was built to the perfect specs. A ransom note written. A secret code devised to identify the Criminals. The area had to be known to who ever the Drivers were. If it wasn't Locals then trial runs were needed. The layout of the Home had to be known. The exact layout of the nursery had to be known. The layout of the boardwalk outside had to be known. The timing of events within that house had to be known (e.g. when the child was put to bed). The Dog had to be accounted for and quieted. The Child had to be sedated. The shutter had to be disabled, and those who approached the house had to know exactly which window it was. Someone familiar with this information had to provide it originally. I suppose an argument could be made there was an "accidental informant" where information was leaked innocently but I personally don't buy that. Now it wasn't like there was a plan without anyone considering what their roles were. I don't see why they would have to go over everything that was already known. All that was needed was for an "Outsider" to be informed it was a "go." My guess is there was some method used as an indicator for when the job was to take place (as an example: When a Trooper was out on patrol - they would put out a flag in certain locations to let them know to call their Troop). I've guessed it was to happen the first time the family stayed past the weekend - for whatever reason. Furthermore, the entire Morrow Estate knew Gow was called to Highfields, and she even made Ellerson pull over in Englewood to run into a drug store while on the way. But my position here applies to anyone suspected as an "inside connection" and not just Gow. I think the first step is to accept there was one before a focus can be made concerning who it was.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Aug 11, 2014 6:01:36 GMT -5
Also, Lindbergh honking as he drove up the driveway indicating "I'm Home", even if it was something he always did or just this night, it could be a signal to others involved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 11:14:46 GMT -5
There is also the issue of the ladder to consider. Unless that ladder was in a truck or an airplane the day of March 1, 1932, I would think there must have been a place it was kept closer to Hopewell so when the plan was a "go" it could be retrieved quickly and brought to Highfields.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 11, 2014 13:37:01 GMT -5
I think the reason the ladder was custom built (rather than store bought or stolen) was primarily so that it could be folded into a car for easy transport. Just to get a handle on all this though: Do you think Betty Gow was indeed somehow involved...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 15:54:07 GMT -5
I agree it was built for easy transport in a car. I just think that the ladder was in the Hopewell area before March 1 so it could be placed into a car and brought to the Highfields house without it being brought down during high traffic hours. No one reports seeing a car with a ladder in it until March 1 and all those reports are in the Hopewell NJ area. None from New York. If Hauptmann were bringing that ladder in his car from the Bronx earlier in the day someone would have recalled seeing a car with a ladder in it, don't you think?
As far as Betty Gow being involved, I have to consider it. She did say Col. Lindbergh promised she would not be touched to the FBI agents who wanted to question her. That does not mean I think she definitely was. I think the Whateleys have to be looked at too. Like Michael says in his post there were a number of things that needed to be covered so this kidnapping could be executed. Not all of it could be accomplished with just outsiders involved.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 11, 2014 17:11:33 GMT -5
amy what made you determed that the ladder was already in Hopewell before march 1?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 18:14:49 GMT -5
I suppose it is the lack of anyone seeing this car with a ladder in it except in the Hopewell area. If Hauptmann is bringing it from his garage during the day and driving from the Bronx all the way to Hopewell why are there no reports of a car seen driving with this ladder in it anywhere but Hopewell. Do you know of any reports coming out of New York reporting a car being seen anywhere else with a ladder in it, especially in the Bronx? I would sure like to know about them. Its daytime and that is a long drive. The car should have been noticed by someone outside of the Hopewell/Princeton area. I don't think it was a common sight to see people with ladders inside a car.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 11, 2014 20:48:55 GMT -5
whos going to see it on major highways? we know lupica saw a ladder in a car in the back roads of hopewell
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 22:21:18 GMT -5
Right. Ben Lupica sees this car around 6pm. It is coming in at a northerly direction which would work. If we back up this time by the 2 to 3 hours it would take to get to Hopewell from the Bronx that puts this car enroute between 3 and 3:30 in the afternoon in daylight. If the Holland Tunnel is going to be used to cross into New Jersey then there is going to be traffic in the Manhattan area. How is his not noticed with this ladder in the car by other drivers? I don't think this would be a common thing to see in the New York City area. Why not bring that ladder down to Hopewell late at night a day or two before and then stash it somewhere in the Zion area.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 20, 2015 13:28:35 GMT -5
A copy of this should be in my mailbox today. Looking forward to it and trying to tighten my seat belt for a bumpy ride.
|
|
|
Post by wendyrite on Oct 23, 2017 23:20:01 GMT -5
What about Lindbergh chocking the baby? Anne mentions it in a letter to her mother. Does she? Which letter? This guy seemed to be pretty terrible to his son. I wonder if any of the other kids have ever come out with any stories of mistreatment.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Oct 24, 2017 7:52:20 GMT -5
What about Lindbergh chocking the baby? Anne mentions it in a letter to her mother. Does she? Which letter? This guy seemed to be pretty terrible to his son. I wonder if any of the other kids have ever come out with any stories of mistreatment. Wendy, I agree. My husband has no interest in the LKC but I asked his opinion (he's an engineer) about the high altitude flight two months before the baby's birth. His comment was "It sounds like someone didn't want that baby!" Cruel to both mother and child!
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Oct 26, 2017 19:59:34 GMT -5
Does she? Which letter? This guy seemed to be pretty terrible to his son. I wonder if any of the other kids have ever come out with any stories of mistreatment. Wendy, I agree. My husband has no interest in the LKC but I asked his opinion (he's an engineer) about the high altitude flight two months before the baby's birth. His comment was "It sounds like someone didn't want that baby!" Cruel to both mother and child! When I first read about the chicken wire pen incident, it made me really angry. What was worse, though, was when Anne told Betty Gow (I believe) that there was nothing that could be done. They could have gone out and got that baby and brought him in where he belonged. What could Lindbergh have done? Beat them? He was an ass. I hope he knows that now. I apologize to his children.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 27, 2017 9:28:20 GMT -5
You are looking at the matter from a twenty-first century perspective. Bear in mind that back in 1930, air travel was in its infancy, and no one had any idea about potential hazards of air travel to pregnant women and their fetuses.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 26, 2018 10:18:54 GMT -5
But there is still a good deal of doubt as to whether that body found in the woods and autopsied was in fact that of CAL Jr.
I, for one, have pointed out a critical discrepancy between the respective descriptions of the right toe abnormalities in the autopsy report and in Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow describing the living Charlie. If both these reports are accurate, there is no way that the corpse found in the woods was CAL Jr
Then, too, Dr. Van Ingen refused to identify the body. And why the rush to cremate the body as soon as it was released from the mortuary?
|
|
|
Post by Instadulcelol on Dec 30, 2023 7:58:25 GMT -5
Wow, phenomenal review of the book! Obviously was a set up & inside job prob & the baby probably was taken when she no doubt was in the tub. I thought he put the ladder up when he drive in then honked after yo say let’s move in place—thought the nanny wiped the room down when she went in at 10:00– bet he took him at what 9:15 when she was in tub? So the baby was murdered. It was hit in the head & died on the 10th? That night? It obviously was a ruse— how good they get that toddler to Europe in the ‘30’s? Was it easy to do then? And the part of it to me I’d say I was playing a prank again was actually the only genius move. The baby didn’t die thete so that’s why it was all wiped down? Huh.
|
|