|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 12, 2011 1:06:37 GMT -5
Elsie Whately, the maid of the Lindbergh's and wife to Ollie Whately, gave her statement of events to two officers on March 10, 1932. Note in the attachment the order of timing and the usage of words after Elsie and Betty went upstairs to look at a dress and talk. 1. Betty checks watch it's 10:00 and she has to "go to the baby"2. Mrs. Lindbergh then rings for Elsie AFTER BETTY GOES TO NURSERY3. Elsie goes to Mrs. L's room and she ask Elsie to fix hot lemon 4. Elsie leaves room of Mrs. L and now SEES BETTY walking down the corridor5. Betty asks Elsie if Mrs. Lindbergh is there...in her room 6. Elsie says yes, but taking a bath 7. NOTE ELSIE then SAYS, "BETTY WENT BACK TOWARD THE NURSERY and I went toward the kitchen...." So what happened in the time frame that Betty left Elsie's room going to the nursery, and after that: 1. Mrs. L rings Elsie 2. Elsie walks to her room 3. Mrs. L and Elsie converse about hot lemon 4. Elsie leaves the room to go to kitchen 5. THERE"S BETTY IN THE CORRIDOR and she turns and WALKS BACK TOWARD THE NURSERY!!!So where has she been? www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/elsie.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 14, 2011 6:57:12 GMT -5
This is a great way to figure out who was where according to Mrs. Whateley. Now, what's next is to take apart the other statements from Ollie, Mrs. Lindbergh, and Betty. Do they all match up? Is everyone where everyone else says they were? How about Wahgoosh? Is he in the same places at the same times everyone says he was too?
It's important to remember that if no one is expecting to account for their movements times will vary a little. Knowing exactly about everything is also suspicious to me.
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 15, 2011 2:13:25 GMT -5
All statements but Mrs. Lindberghs are in the word doc I hope attached correctly. I colored the differences I noted in red and the things I felt peculiar in each statement. 1. Olly never mentions the phone call from Henry Johnson 2. Olly does not mention call from Lindbergh about being late 3. Olly never mentions what Betty is doing by herself in living room 4. Olly says girls go upstairs to try on dresses
5. Elsie mentions both Lindbergh and Henry Johnson phone calls 6. Elsie says Betty is Reading and Listening to radio alone in living room 7. Elsie shows Betty a new dress upstairs (not trying them on) 8. Elsie says she is the one that says Mrs. Lindbergh can go through adjoining door if she wants to see the baby
9.Betty notes Mrs. Lindbergh is the one to retrieve the scissors and the THREAD (red Herring) for night shirt. 10. Betty stATES SHE AND Mrs. LINDBERGH shut ALL SHUTTERS, THEN Mrs. Lindbergh leaves room, she opens a window...THEN SHE RESTATES all shutters are locked but one, she partially opens rear window and again says Mrs. Lindbergh left the room before her. 11. Betty is careful to mention all lights going off, or on in the order she does it, she also notes later about Mr. Lindbergh's desk light being on. 12. Betty goes to THE CELLAR 13. Betty is the only one to mention the horn blowing with Lindbergh's arrival. 14. Betty feels obligated to tell Elsie why Red called her. Why? 15. Betty says Elsie shows her dresses 16. Betty writes her statement like a storybook tale, she even adds "SUDDENLY" to the fact when she looks at her watch....sounds too rehearsed to me 17. Betty leaves Elsie to go to the baby, she puts on one heater in bathroom, goes to inquire if Mrs. Lindbergh might want to see the baby with her, then RETURNS, and puts on other heater and closes the window and so on. Why doesn't she put on both heaters and rid the room of the chill before she goes to Mrs. Lindbergh? Get it all over with at once, instead of making two different processes of warming the room for the baby to go to the bathroom? 18. Betty says Lindbergh goes straight to closet to get gun. 19. Betty says all searched the house and then call police
20. Lindbergh is the only one to hear a crate sound falling 21. Lindbergh says he goes to nursery and THEN retrieves gun 22. Lindbergh sends Whateley to phone the police. 23. Lindbergh never mentions search, he's going on a feeling something is wrong. 24. Lindbergh tells all in house not to TALK. Why?
Another thing is....why did Betty insist on getting there earlier? She was expecting to get in touch with Henry Johnson, (Red), but seemed to be the one to ruch the transfer by car instead of by train.
AND...Why was Henry Johnson apologizing so much to Betty for not seeing her before his trip??? She was the reason the plans had to change because of the unexpected call to go to Hopewell??? SO why was Red so apologetic instead of Betty to Red???
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 15, 2011 2:23:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 15, 2011 8:02:19 GMT -5
I guess I should have told you that only certain file types will attach. With a .doc file you'd have to find a host (e.g. www.scribd.com ) then link it... You've done a great job with this. Now, there are certain variables to consider: 1. Are there other statements made by the same person? 2. Who is asking the questions? 2A. Are they asking the right questions? 2B. Is Lindbergh around when they are? Lindbergh was running the show right from jumpstreet. It's interesting to see that the now infamous (thanks to A&M's book) "closet caper(s)" was revealed when Murray Garsson put the screws to Betty Gow. It was this same interview where Gow exclaimed (Lindbergh) said I would not be touched!And so what happens? Garsson is recalled to Washington for embarassing the Family.
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 18, 2011 8:42:40 GMT -5
In the trial testimony, Anne Lindbergh clearly states that she did NOT get the thread. Why did Betty say she did in the March 10, 1932 statement?
I know this thread and the color seems small, but I think it is a major piece of evidence since it was one of the factors used to help identify the baby.
Some other things I have noticed:
The right foot was the one quoted by the baby's doctor as having the overlapping toe deforminty. The death photo of the baby shows the right leg gone, the toes on the left foot are circled noting the overlapping toe deformity(unless the legs were crossed some way when the photo was taken), another major form of identifying the baby.
I still keep thinking that the most important characters to look at are the ones that were in the Hopewell home the night of the kidnapping. I think everything else involved was props,including the ladder, gangs, Condon, Curtis, .... The reason I feel this way is:
1. Lindbergh's actions to obviously cover something up
Why would he COVER for someone? 1. An accident occured and needed to be covered up because of his fame and glory 2. Someone he loved was involved 3. He, himself invovled
I know it sounds simple in a very complicated case...but I think one of the people involved was Anne or Lindbergh, any other suggestion would not require such a cover up and conspiracy of people brought in, who, for their own selfish reasons. saw an opportunity to make some money or glorious fame from the kidnapping scheme.....OPPORTUNITY.
Quite frankly, the only people who were around the baby after the kitchen appearance, where he spoke to Elsie and Gow took him upstairs....was Betty and Anne. So whatever happened, one or both of these two know. If Lindbergh had an affair with Gow, it certainly would include a reason to help her cover it up...and of course Anne was his wife.... the rest is just chaos, the whole purpose of the chaos was deliberate for obvious reasons, if this is the case........
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 18, 2011 20:16:35 GMT -5
I just read the autopsy and see that the left foot was missing and the toes overlapped the great toe and second toe...so disregard my prior post about the death photos foot.
Anne does not mention Lindbergh going into the nursery in her detailing of events that night...however, Lindbergh says he immediately went to the nursery and could see something was wrong and then retrieved his gun...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 19, 2011 7:05:47 GMT -5
I would tend to agree. However, there are other possible options which could explain his actions:
1. He is afraid they either won't return or kill his son if he doesn't choose whatever course of action he is taking.
2. His ego won't allow him to believe he doesn't know best.
3. There is something "else" going on that requires protection and secrecy which is independent of this kidnapping. So his actions are addressing that, and are being confused by us.
4. (Add your ideas here......)
Let me give an example for #3.... Dwight Morrow Jr. is put away in a mental institution. The entire Morrow/Lindbergh families attempt to guard this personal secret and protect DMJ. Elisabeth Morrow is dying. The family lies about where she is or what is going on with her. Rumors start to fly that DMJ is "angry" and "crazy" and that Elisabeth is on "drugs." This could all be true, but without full knowledge of their situations what do we have? People may have mis-interpreted these actions as evidence DMJ and/or Elisabeth was involved. Now I am not trying to say we shouldn't look at either, but we MUST consider all angles of every possibility.
I think this is what happened with Rail 16. Everyone, including myself, looked at this as either being "black" or "white." The facts were in the grey area middle and found by combining a little of the white and a little of the black. In the end, no one really likes it - but that's what really happened.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 19, 2011 8:17:14 GMT -5
Well put, Michael
I always try to follow this advice:
Ps Watch the next episode of Pawn Stars for some LKC material
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 21, 2011 8:15:44 GMT -5
It's a real hard thing to do - especially here Kevin.
By all accounts Lindbergh was a strange character. I suppose if you didn't know him then that too could be misleading. Or, in the alternative, give rise to something real as it pertains to this Case. There's much "behind the scenes" that isn't contained within the run of the mill Police Report. No Police Officer dared record some of Lindbergh's actions that reflected a care-free attitude, or a bizarre act that seemed counterproductive. It was either omitted in the Official Reports or some kind of positive spin attached to it.
The "Elisabeth" and "Dwight Jr." theories are both worthy of a book, as we see with Bill Norris's A Talent to Deceive.
Does anyone doubt with even a book devoted to it that I have found more information to investigate about it? I have, shrugged it off, then found more to resurrect it. I spent my last two days searching for an old Letter that I filed away in a place I have yet to re-discover. Ugh! It's so frustrating some times. Even if its bogus, at this point (once I find this other report) it ties together nicely enough to raise an eyebrow or two.
The idea is to search, pursue theories but don't hold onto them with with a death grip. Let the information you discover lead you to where it leads you. Know what I mean? This idea that Hauptmann acted alone is a perfect example. NO ONE connected to this Case ever really believed that. NO ONE. But people who want to believe he actually did will attack anyone who dares say otherwise because they do not want Hauptmann's guilt questioned.
Do not fall into this trap no matter what position you currently hold.
Each and every avenue yields more and more information - even if its not what you originally set out to find.
Hunley's approach is a really good one. It's a methodical evaluation of the facts as they are contained in the original statements then compared with the trial tesitimony. There then is a range of conclusions which can intelligently can be drawn. With more information, and differing perspectives - the best possible conclusion can be found.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 21, 2011 11:06:30 GMT -5
I think it's always a hard thing to do in any circumstance and with anyone, not just CAL. That's why it's not always wise to anylize the actions of others who are acting under extreme conditions. Everyone has their own way of dealing with trauma and it doesn't always manifest itself in the way we might suppose. I can't even for a moment claim to understand what it must be like to have a loved one abducted. To not know what fate has become of them. To not know what result may come of my actions or inactions. I suppose that's why I try to avoid reading too much into some of the responses of those involved in this case. Still, if that's your cup of tea then I believe you really have to attempt getting into those shoes and walking around a little.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 21, 2011 17:05:55 GMT -5
I think I'll convince you, after reading my book, that I've placed everyone in a position where they will be walking in someone else's shoes and not like very much what they are doing.
No, no - absolutely not.
It will be impossible to remain neutral or convince yourself its simply a reaction to a traumatic event. There is only so far you can go with that explanation, and you can apply it to just about anything if you'd like. Murder for one.
On either side of it.
And so it may attempt to explain an action but it doesn't excuse it. There's a difference. Just like there's a difference between a lack of emotion and the presence of an emotion that is inconsistent with the situation OR the usual emotions that are consistent with the person who has NOT suffered a traumatic event.
Is it really a "reaction" if nothing at all changes? Hopefully, I will remove the guess-work and the philosophical arguments.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 22, 2011 8:20:13 GMT -5
As long as it's applied universally and not selectively as most other authors choose to do.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 22, 2011 9:12:23 GMT -5
I am going off on a tangent here, and hopefully won't be hijacking Hunley's thread but the way my 1st Chapter is set up is something like this: It retells the factual account of what really took place. It explains the who, what, where, and when - some of which we all thought we knew because of the often repeated, but erroneous, historical accounts of it. Then I get into specifics (e.g. actions, circumstances, etc.), much of those which were avoided, omitted, or just unknown by any public source on the matter. Armed with this knowledge that no one else possess, I think, you will have a different position then you presently hold about ANYONE or ANYTHING I choose to take up (if I can find my stuff that is). Let's take Bill Lewis and Frank Kelly as examples. Which of the two is "good" and which is "evil?" Currently, that depends on which "side" you fall. - Lone-Wolf: Kelly is an upstanding Officer who's integrity is beyond reproach / Lewis was a disgraced Trooper who was fired for selling crime scene photos.
- Innocent: Lewis is the Governor's Champion relentlessly investigating and telling him all the "dirt" concerning other Troopers / Kelly helped frame some evidence.
The Truth: Kelly gave crime scene photos to Lewis to sell. They got greedy and didn't believe they would get caught. When it was discovered Lewis sold the photos he would not rat out Kelly. As a result, Lewis was "let-go" during the round of lay-offs for budgetary reasons. Both were honest sometimes and both at times were not. There is a TON here to explore then figure out, but its easier just to pick a side then move on. You cannot solve the Case in this way.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jan 22, 2011 11:34:53 GMT -5
this stuff is nonimportant to me. . i think some of the wood in hauptmanns attic was sold to people also. it was brought up in a [police meeting. wasnt kelly let go also?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 22, 2011 13:47:27 GMT -5
But that's what I am saying.... it should be. That is unless you've looked into it to the point where you are satisfied there's nothing more to be learned from it.
I am telling you, from experience, there is much to be learned. If you shrug something off be prepared to miss important things. It's how I am re-writing the history of what happened. What really happened. How about someone supposedly doing something important - but in reality - they weren't even there!
Pretty important right? Yet some 80 years later the same story has this person there doing the same thing.
Or the what the Police were saying amongst themselves behind the scenes. And its not what everyone presented publicly.
Important?
It changes everything in my opinion. Unless you are someone who is "locked in" on a position "no matter what."
It was said that Hauptmann's Landlord sold pieces of wood to those willing to pay for it. It's possible, but the NJSP did get everything - even going back for the little piece later. Then Hoffman got board #26 and sections of the joists. So I am satisfied that nothing important was lost.
I believe sometime after the Trial Kelly was demoted. I never looked into why but chances are I have that information in my files.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 22, 2011 15:05:09 GMT -5
Catholic school teaches you the world as good or evil Then the real world shows you that it's more like The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly. There's a lot of grey out there. What makes it even more difficult is that the LKC took place in another era when many values were different than today. Not necessarily better or worse, just different. That can make it difficult, if not impossible for contemporary evaluation to be rendered fairly. It's another reason I try to avoid making too much of some the actions and words of the primary LKC characters unless there is solid evidence to support some conclusion. It's too bad BRH wasn't a suspect earlier, then we may have the benefit of know much more of his doings during a critical time.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jan 22, 2011 16:05:40 GMT -5
i have the magazine that tells you what happened to people involved in this case, i think kelly was in it. i will have to dig it out. i think gov hoffman took the chisel and it was never recovered
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jan 22, 2011 17:55:07 GMT -5
according to look magazine feb 27,1940 in a article called " 8 years after the lindbergh case its said trooper frank kelly no longer holds thje job of fingerprint expert for the njsp. this dosnt mean he was fired altogether. since i have it out the lost jobs were dr walter swayze, harry mccrea warden of hunterdon county jail, charles williamson the first police officer on the scene, and schwarzkopf. ernie brinkert was murdered dec 15, 1939
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 23, 2011 20:27:56 GMT -5
Michael, May I ask what household staff and family members we are referring to?
a. Next Day Hill, adding or taking away b.) Hopewell, adding or taking away
Don't feel pressured to answer, I know you do not want to give away your book surprises...
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 24, 2011 13:33:52 GMT -5
Times vary for staff on March 1
Olly 1. Phones Betty for 3:30 train. 2. Talks to Betty personally 3. Betty calls Olly and is coming in auto with Ellerson 4. Arrival time 1:30 5. Betty and Ellerson eat 6. Ellerson leaves
Ellerson 1. 11:30 Got call in garage from Sept to arrange auto ride to HW for nurse Betty 2. Showered and went to house 3. Pulls up at 12 sharp to Englewood 4. He and Betty eat soup 5. 12:10 lev for HW 6. Stop at drug store in ENGLEWOOD, Betty goes in for 3 minutes and comes out with candy 7. Arrive 2:15 and eat lunch 8. Stays an hour and leaves 9. Returns to Englewood 5-5:15
Elsie Claims phone call from Olly to Betty, but same call Betty also talks to Ann...(Not two separate calls) 1. 1:00 arrival of Betty and Ellerson (HUGE GAPS) 2. Betty and Ellerson eat 3. Ellerson leaves (no mention of hour visit from Ellerson statement.)
Betty 1. 10:30 MRS. L Calls (not Olly) requesting Betty to come 2. Betty calls back and again talks to Mrs. L. not Olly 3. Called Red and told Mrs. Sherman to tell Red to call her at HW..(could this be a hint that plans need to change?) 4. No time frame given for leaving , but notes drugstore stop along the way 5. 2:00 arrive at HW. 6. Claims Henry left at 2:30 (no mention of hour visit)
Sept claims Betty and Ellerson left at 11:30 Ellerson claims they left at 12:10 Betty quotes no time
The wording of Betty getting approval from Mrs. Morrow suggests it was not Mrs. Morrows idea, but Betty asking to or implying that she, herself, wanted to take the car instead of the train...why would she want to take the auto if she wished to see or talk to Red first?? Why was she in such a rush to leave Englewood before speaking to Red? Red's landlord said she was expecting him any minute.
Still, Septimus claims he made the arrangement for the auto woth no mention of Mrs. Morrow's suggesting or approving the action. Maybe he lied to Betty an told her it was Mrs. Morrow's idea instead of his own. If so, why?
Not only the times are different, and some more than an hour, the train times are also different from Olly(3:30) and Sept (2:40).
Betty claims Mrs. Morrow arranged or approved car ride Sept never mentions Mrs. Morrows approval for car, instead claims to arrange it himself because of time and train missing worries.... Why should Sept worry about train misses and times? WHY WOULD THAT MATTER TO HIM? That is supposedly why he arranged car ride. If the baby only had a cold, why not wait for the train...it seems that there was some sort of Emergency for them all to be trying to get Betty there as soon as possible.
Betty calls for Red and relays to his landlord to call her at HW, is this a hint? Why stop for candy at a drugstore (Ellerson claims Betty came out with candy) if timing was of essence? Did she buy some sort of ? Use the phone in the drugstore, and if so why, they were still in Englewood...she had just put in a call for Red and left a message. It seems pertinent she get ahold of Red (if she used store phone).
Betty claims to have talked to Mrs. Lindbergh in both calls, not Olly Olly claims he talked to Betty in both calls Elsie claims Betty talked to Ann and Olly in the SAME call.
Everyone says Ellerson left right after eating. Ellerson claims to have stayed another hour, SO WHERE WAS HE WHEN THE OTHERS THOUGHT HE HAD LEFT?
Ellerson met a car facing Hopewell, had to go around it after blowing his horn was unsuccessful.
Elsie and Olly seem to constantly inform one another of phone calls and conversations. Olly says his wife said so and so, Elsie says her husband said so and so. I overheard... blahblahblah
Not only do they know of phone call conversations, Elsie seems to also know what Betty is doing with the baby in the nursery, even if she is not in that part of the house. She says after eating lunch, Betty went to the nursery and bathed and fed the baby and remained in the nursery playing with the baby, however, she doesn't go to nursery until 4 or so....So how does she know what and where Betty is doing??
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 24, 2011 14:07:13 GMT -5
Ellerson changes his own times, one report by the same officer, says he got to the house at 12:00 sharp, left at 12:10, arrived 2:15, stayed hour and came back about 5-5:15
the other says: Left at 11:45, (by other statement he was not even at the house let alone leaving) arrived at 1:45, stayed an hour and returned at 5.
Two different time frames given by the same person to the same officer...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2011 16:31:59 GMT -5
Honestly, no one is exempt from this.
I don't have a problem with slightly varying times. That is something we should expect if no one is keeping track at the time. But at what point does the word "slight" cease to apply? Next, I have a problem with people claiming to have spoken with people who claim they spoke with someone else.
That is a red flag for me. For what exactly I don't know but its something worthy to note.
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 27, 2011 11:04:04 GMT -5
Michael, I am with you on time variations. Exacts, much like Betty used because she had a wrist watch and also conveniently noted times to Elsie, are suspicious. But there are some huge gaps in some of the statements...smaller frames would be more likely but the huge gap from earliest to latest if too much..
As their statements varied, so did their timing...which moved closer together with each newer version statements.
Also, I think these people must have had a script to study before making their statements. Many of them seemed to phrase things exactly like the others...at times the only differences was the confusion of who said what phrase. Like Elsie getting her and Betty's "parts" confused.
Example: Betty says she said Mrs. L could go through the adjoining bathrrom door, Elsie says the opposit, that she told Betty Mrs. L could go through the adjoining door.
The parties Betty and Ann and Olly and Septimus all claimed to have talked to on the phone Olly to Betty Betty to Mrs. L. Elsie says both but in one call, (but I think poor Elsie is going on hearsay and gets confused)
Betty and Ann both claimed that Ann left the room to gather the thread and scissors...but in court testimony Ann blatantly says she "DID NOT GET THE THREAD" why the change? More than one of her own statements she says she did. The thread is a MAJOR CLUE ... I feel it was definitely an unmistakenable and definite pre-planned way to identify the corpse as baby Charley... period.
THE ONLY PERSON I NOTICE in everyone's statements being consistent with persons in the house is Elsie...all of them seem to have Elsie in their sights or helping them do something. But...Ann, Olly, and Betty, all are alone or unaccounted for at times, however, very short times.
I am still thinking that maybe the reason Elsie called Betty upstairs (for nearly an hour) is to maybe divert attention away from other things happening in the house...
My thoughts on this change like the weather...as do my suspicions of people involved. One minute I think one is involved, and then, I think the are blind to what is happening...
Do you find it odd that the Morrow staff seems to leave and arrive home really close to each other's timing in their alibi's? This could in fact be one way of providing alibis. Even though they were not together in between, they all see eachother upon arival home that night. It makes them appear less suspicious
Seems the only people making calls, at least calls that were admitted, that day were: 1. A lot of calls early from house to house over train times and auto rides 2. Later, Violet and Earnie, Betty and Red's Landlord, Betty and Red
What do you think about the train times varying from Olly and Septimus? (2:40 and 3:30)
Also, have you tried to distinguish the time of Red's call to Betty using Betty's recall of it, and the Jung's recall of when he left and returned from calling Betty?? Is there a gap in the length of the conversation?
Why did Mrs. Morrow say she GOT A MESSAGE from Ann, but...in the same statement claim SHE TOLD HER ELLERSON could bring the auto... Septimus claims it was his idea about the auto and never mentions Mrs. Morrow???
Your thoughts on early statement of Betty says they went straight to Hopewell, later statment says stopped at drugstore?
What do you think about Olly and Elsie knowing every phone conversation? How does Elsie know other peoples movements in portions of the house where she was not? Sound like a script study to you?
What did Betty buy in the drugstore? Candy(Ellerson) or something for the baby's cold that Mrs. Lindbergh told her to get (Betty)? Could have been rock candy maybe for home elixer? Why doesn't Betty say what she got, seems avasive here?
Again, why all the fuss over a cold? Why not take the train? Why such an emergency?
Was that auto carrying something back or forth that could not be exposed on a train?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 27, 2011 13:04:31 GMT -5
This is all great stuff. It's real hard for me to give you specific answers because each question requires consulting multiple sources in order to do so properly.
There are some lies. Definitely. There are also other things to consider. For one, the lack of information available such as there being only one short interview with Banks. When you look over Sharp's questionings you see the Police reference information coming from an interrogation of Banks that simply doesn't exist. So maybe in their notes, but never onto an official report, or at least, one that is at the Archives.
Stuff like that hurts our efforts. But doing what you are allows us to get that information from other sources.
Ok. Banks says he arranged the car and Ellerson say Banks instructed him to take the car to drive Betty to Hopewell. So without looking at any other sources, it could be that Banks came up with the idea then got the okay from Mrs. Morrow before making the arrangements. Or it could be someone is lying.
Other information that is consulted may add to this or solve it.
What I would do is create a sheet for each question. Then add information to that sheet each and everytime you come across a new source which addresses it. Books, newspapers, documents, trial transcripts, etc.. Both Ho-age AND the Governor did this very same thing. If you don't you'll wind up like me forgetting or "misplacing" my sources. This of course will generate new questions - but that's the nature of the Beast.
Here's the thing of it....
No one employed by either Household would ever say anything they thought they were not supposed to reveal - no matter what that was. Naturally, we instantly suspect its connected to the crime but it could just be the Servants attempting to protect the Family's privacy in some way. That was a collateral duty and it was drilled into their heads to never forget it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 30, 2011 8:50:58 GMT -5
Just wanted to thank Hunley here real quick. This thread forced me to open my Gow files and in doing so I discovered there is a Statement Gow made that I hadn't been aware of. I've assumed certain things in the past that directly caused me to miss it.
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 30, 2011 18:15:28 GMT -5
Just wanted to thank Hunley here real quick. This thread forced me to open my Gow files and in doing so I discovered there is a Statement Gow made that I hadn't been aware of. I've assumed certain things in the past that directly caused me to miss it. Michael can you pleas share the topic of the statement you are referring to? Just out of my own curiosity...
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 30, 2011 19:24:21 GMT -5
Who is lying here?
Mrs. Morrow said she suggested the auto right away to Ann.
Ann says she called to ask Betty to come by train, Betty calls back and ask if it will be alright for Henry to bring her by car.
Why would either one of these two be lying about the person who suggested the car? Again, lies are told to hide something ...why would these two be confused about the story of who suggested the auto? Something as simple as this should not be different in the stories...
Again, this is small, but important. Stories don't change if the truth is being told...
Certainly Ann would have said her mother suggested the car right off if that were true...so why the inconsistency?
There's a reason for the seemingly small differences. Especially when EVERYONE in both households has varying details of what happened that day.
When something traumatic happens, that event and the places and people are forever etched in a memory (I can still tell you the place, time, and ciscumstances about the day Elvis Presley died and my mother's reaction to it) (My husband can tell you every detail of when Dale Earnhart got killed) (Think of 911, my kids can name every detail of their day that day) ... so why did so many stories change within a month of different interviews by the same people?
time who says what who talks to who and EXACT TIMES CHANGE to suit someone else's versions....
Staff variance is one thing.
BUT HERE THE MOTHER AND GRANDMOTHER ARE VARYING...WHY?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 31, 2011 8:26:17 GMT -5
There were Statements covering the period when the crime occurred. Here is Gow's (compliments of Ronelle's site) March 10th as an example: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/gowstatement.htmlThere is also a Statement covering the corpse. One of the others covers both, because it is a trial preparation statement.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 31, 2011 8:36:34 GMT -5
Ok. In my opinion I think I know who is lying and why. I'd rather not reveal this information because its something slated to be included in my book.
As of right now, I can't figure out the need to lie about, or to cover it up. There must be a reason but I have yet to find out what it is.
The biggest thing it proves is that information could be hidden, and many people were on board to make it happen. And if it weren't for (1) person making a remark about it in 1939, then I'd still be in the dark.
|
|