|
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2010 11:54:03 GMT -5
Sue,
Looks like the person who wrote this really made some of this stuff up. Never have I ever saw any of this stuff anywhere else. In all the various investigations conducted by anyone there is nothing like this in there.
Mark Falzini knows more about Red then anyone - simply reading his book proves that - and this stuff is no where to be found.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jan 4, 2010 13:59:27 GMT -5
Yes, I agree.
And he states Betty had a home near Hopewell where she bred these dogs?
I'd like to know where he got his information from.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 6, 2010 6:57:30 GMT -5
I honestly think he just made it up. I simply chalk it up to the "Allen Syndrome." But that's me... If someone wants to disprove me then I'd be more then happy to eat crow here.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jan 6, 2010 16:38:36 GMT -5
i think this dog raising by gow is false. she mostly stayed at englewood and where did she have the time and the knowledge to raise dogs around that area
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 28, 2010 15:37:24 GMT -5
Betty again? Lloyd Gardner references Thayer as roughly stating, "All was not sweetness and light between Olly and Betty," "The Case That Never dies," p. 35. This may have been covered previously, but I looked around some and didn't see it. Any more on this, Michael? Was it just that Betty refused to do the dishes? Olly hittin' on her?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 29, 2010 7:19:24 GMT -5
Lloyd's book is really good for bringing up "new" stuff. Some of it hurts certain theories so you'll have certain people ignore it. Like the cast in Hopewell. A certain board is pretending they don't know it existed. Unfortunately, you cannot learn the truth by ignoring facts.
I remember something about this. I will look it up then get back to you.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 29, 2010 7:32:56 GMT -5
A lot of this thread has been towards a defense of Betty because there is no evidence against her, only supposition. In light of that, it should be remembered that if it weren't for Hauptmann's slip up at the gas station there wouldn't have been any evidence against anybody, a perfect crime. No one to compare handwriting to, no stash of gold notes, no financial match to $50K, no where to compare the ladder board. If others were involved they simply could have been well covered as Richard almost stumbled towards being.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 29, 2010 19:38:19 GMT -5
When Wheatley [sic] was asked what his opinion was of Betty, he replied that he always had a feeling of irritation towards her since she had never offered to help either him or Mrs. Wheatley with the housework and would never lift a finger to anything except when asked. There was also something about this in the Hume investigation although the NJSP seemed to tone anything like this down in my opinion. I also saw this in a couple of other places but I can't remember off the top of my head..... If I recall or stumble upon them I will post it. Double Karma bonus!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 30, 2010 8:00:05 GMT -5
I'd like to try and understand the logic here because essentially it is the basis for the majority of the theories and arguments in this case. You are comparing Hauptmann with Gow. That comparison would make some sense to me if Hauptmann had been, say for example,employed by the Lindberghs as a handyman. In that case both he and Gow would have been known and subject to the same scrutiny. Would Hauptmann pass this scrutiny? Would the police overlook his past? I doubt it. And then what? They would have done what any investigator would do, look further and dig deeper. Now who knows what additional evidence might have been found in Hauptmann's possession had he been investigated in 32. Perhaps the ransom box, the symbol template, the ink, pre-punched note paper, more clothing from the child, and probably a whole lot more money. Gow, on the other hand, was and still is investigated. What has been found besides innuendo? Where is there any evidence of criminal wrong doing other than wishful thinking? The same holds true for the multitude of other "suspects" constantly being brought up, where is the evidence? As for the "perfect crime", I suppose that depends on your definition of such.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 30, 2010 9:18:44 GMT -5
Kevin,
Gow was investigated but to what end? What we have is what exists now. I see references to so much more that never made it to a real report (that exists). Everyone is "grilled" but where' the report? Just a reference to it. Whateley, Banks, Gow, there's all of this pointing to information gleaned from "grillings" that doesn't exist.
Next, we had Lindbergh step in to protect Gow. He even promised her she "wouldn't be touched."
To take a page from Jack's posts: What if Lindbergh had stepped in like this for Hauptmann BEFORE he's caught with the money? As a result, Hauptann never spends it like he did.
End result? As Jack implies - we don't even know about Hauptmann - to this day. Maybe this leads to a Confederate and this whole piece in History is turned upside down.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 30, 2010 9:35:02 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that had the investigation revealed that Gow had a previous criminal history that it would have been ignored? Sorry, but I just can't buy that. Had BRH been a Lindbergh employee, do you really think the red flags would be brushed aside? No way. The point is, the basis for all investigations is progression. An investigator finds something and digs deeper. Look at Violet for example. Walsh saw something wrong and did what detectives do, he pursued it despite the wishes of Lindbergh. If there was even the slightest evidence of Gow, Whately, or other employees having some possible complicity in the crime, someone would have pursued it whether or not that pleased Lindbergh.
Who cares if he spent it or not? He would have it. He would probably also have some things in addition to what was found in 34. Hauptmann would never have survived even casual investigation. I would also very much doubt that Lindbergh would protect an employee if something of a criminal nature that had implications toward the kidnapping was presented to him.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 30, 2010 11:12:50 GMT -5
Not specifically. What I am suggesting is that information like what turned up coming from Thayer was probably found out by the NJSP too then promptly disregarded and/or dropped from consideration.....
.....Everything is happy, content, and healthy inside this home - no need to pry or look any further at the problems.
That's not investigation. That's called manipulation.
These are the loose ends and strings that when pulled can unravel much. Whether or not it has anything to do with this crime is another issue - but one that needs to be pursued nevertheless.
I don't think Lindbergh would have allowed it to get that far.
Agreed. Real Detectives not being controlled by Lindbergh. The FBI disregarded "orders" from Schwarzkopf given to him by CAL. They found Brinkert as a result. What did that get them? A call onto the carpet as a direct result of a complaint made by CAL.
And whatever happened to Walsh? Thanks for your help - now goodbye. The best and most productive Detective ejected from the mix.
I do not agree. When someone crossed Lindbergh there were consequences, Resistance, and work done to both prevent and undermine it. Schwarzkopf was Lindbergh's puppet, so Schwarzkopf, for all intent & purposes, was Lindbergh.
His actions prevented it before it got to that point. No lie detector. He trusted everyone, or so he said, and "protected" them. Why would anyone protect people before anything can even be developed?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 30, 2010 14:45:48 GMT -5
The bottom line is that had BRH been a Lindbergh employee no amount of protection afforded by Lindbergh would have kept BRH's past from being discovered. In that case, someone would have gone further and in doing so BRH and the "perfect crime" would have unraveled. This would be true with the other employees as well. Welsh pushed Violet with unfortunate results. Had the result of his interrogations been fruitful in solving the crime as opposed to creating a world affair, I doubt he would have received the same treatment. It's interesting to speculate on just what may have occurred had the police connected Hauptmann to the crime in 1932. I very much doubt that this board would exist for one.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 30, 2010 16:13:52 GMT -5
An excellent way for Hauptmann to have not slipped up would have been if Lindbergh had his way and the ransom payment bills' serial numbers were not recorded.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 30, 2010 18:23:22 GMT -5
Exactly. And even after Hauptmann. With both the "Lone-Wolf" & "Matermind" tucked away in jail, it was just easier to ignore the ransom which continued to be spent in the same pattern as before he was arrested.
I would agree. Or even if they had just simply waited to arrest him after he became known in Sept. '34 to see who he was dealing with. Linking up someone else may have been the key to this, or possibly they would have gone hard too.... But we'll never know now - or will we? Hmmmmmm.
To piggyback on Jack's point: What if Lindy hadn't forbidden Police involvement in the ransom delivery? CJ is nabbed red-handed. Then what?
I believe the Case would have been solved.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 31, 2010 8:58:14 GMT -5
(Gow, et. al.) ". . . was and still is investigated. What has been found except inuendo? Where is there any evidence of criminal wrong doing other than wishful thinking?" (Kevin)
That's exactly the point. Hauptmann was not caught due to the most intensive investigation which had ever happened in history - he was caught because HE majorly screwed up.
Granted investigators were watching the wherewithal of bad bills being passed, but an eight year old would have figured out that should be done and accomplished it, including the finding of BRH's automobile license number.
BRH may have been found out earlier due to comparing handwriting on auto registration cards (the "x" in Hauptmann's "Bronx" writing was written the same as the "x" on a ransom note) especially since BRH's residence fell into Dr. Shoenfeld's area which he believed the kidnapper lived. But remember, "the boss," as Finn described him, INCREDIBLY, and with weak reasoning, would not let Matteson (go-between of Shoenfeld and Finn) and Finn pursue that investigation.
Consequently the capture and execution of Richard Hauptmann was sheer luck - good luck for investigators who eliminated a major thorn in their sides (and closed a huge file by the way) - bad luck and logic of course, for Richard.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 31, 2010 10:34:13 GMT -5
That's usually what leads to any arrest. What good would even modern forensics be if the subject is off the radar? Good for a conviction, but how do you match or trace any forensics if the subject is not on file? In Hauptmann's case, there was a slim chance of discovering him based on the auto registration, but it didn't happen. There were probably also many close calls with the money spending.
Yeah, but that sounds a lot easier than it really is. We are talking NYC here.
I once heard a famous auto racer define luck as the place where preparation meets opportunity. I think if you look, the majority of crimes are solved with some luck.
What I find interesting is that most people acknowledge that Hauptmann almost escaped from capture and that it had nothing to do with being "protected" or dismissed. He simply wasn't on the radar. Yet it seems quite common to hear other names ( too many) brought up as possible suspects who were. As I said, had the cursory investigation of Gow or Whately revealed something of a criminal nature relating to the kidnapping, no amount of protection afforded by Lindbergh would suffice. Just imagine Hauptmann as the Highfields handyman or even a day worker on the construction of the house. Do you really think he would have been overlooked?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 1, 2010 8:24:48 GMT -5
This is a healthy & necessary debate of varying ideas. Anything I post is not intended to end it so by all means continue to call those things into question you, or anyone else see.....
I think your question is a good one. But in what context can it be properly answered? The people working on that house were not intimate with the family. They weren't under Lindy's "protection."
So that's one variable to consider.
Next, under what circumstances were the Construction Workers investigated? Well, I have a rather large file on it. Since there were many of these Workers, much was looked into. But then again, much was not.
Even when it became known.
Case in point - in Lloyd's book, The Case That Never Dies, he was the first Researcher to find then point out that Watson informed the NJSP before he was interviewed - that this shutter had not been warped. And so once the NJSP "got around" to him what do you think the investigation revealed?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They didn't even ask him about it. And why not? Could it be because Lindbergh, his family, and his help had already said it had been warped, therefore, there was no need to investigate it further?
You be the judge. Bottom line is....that angle had apparently been dropped before it could even be developed.
Next, take Bill Norris's book as an example. Every time someone brought up DMJr. it was proclaimed it had been "thoroughly investigated" and there was "nothing to it."
Where? Was CAL the source here too? No such investigation exists, excepting everyone commenting they have never seen one.
If one wants to look, there is stuff like this all over the place. Granted, most people don't have the time to invest in this that I do, or have, but its there. It might all be unrelated, but then again, something might.
Know what I mean?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 1, 2010 9:12:04 GMT -5
Good points. I remember the shutter statement, and wondered about that - still wondering. Another shutter issue, and this was brought up by Reilly at the trial, and never resolved as far as I know, wouldn't unlatched shutters be blowing and banging in the wind? Was there a non-locking way to secure them? You'd think, especially in a nervous baby's nursery that noise would want to be kept at a minimum.
Further, regarding the window, obviously it was not locked the night of the kidnapping. Anne said that usually the French window was kept open, but that she had left before the room was secured and wasn't sure what window was left open on 3/1. Did Anne say more than that about how she found the windows after the crime? Once the child was found missing and not believed to be in the house the windows would be of most concern; in fact she said she went and looked out the mster bedroom window very soon after the discovery, but did she say how she found the nursery windows.
Charles said the windows were closed but he could feel a chill - had window(s) just been closed?
Since this is a Betty link, was the SE window left open that evening?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Feb 1, 2010 9:42:20 GMT -5
i find it hard to believe that watson can remember that shutter being the fact there was alot of them attached to the house. what was the shutter made out of? did it warp later? was it slight?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 2, 2010 8:10:23 GMT -5
Watson didn't say that particular shutter was not warped. He said that he had installed all of the shutters on the house, and "it would be impossible for them to be warped now." It seems to me that I've read he changed his original statement in some way. Perhaps Michael can recall about that.
A revision on Betty and the windows. Betty did say that upon entering the nursery she closed the French window which could have been the source of Lindbergh's chills. Confusingly though, Lindbergh has Betty speak for himself about how the windows were positioned when he entered the room. Regarding that time Betty says the windows were closed but the SE window had been opened and then closed by the kidnapper.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 2, 2010 8:23:52 GMT -5
Jack -
The window situation can be confusing. But when you read through everything it seems everything falls into place.
As far as Watson is concerned... I don't recall any reversal concering his position. If I am missing/forgetting something please let me know so I can look into it. Kevin presented a very interesting theory behind this shutter being "warped" that doesn't include it actually warping after it was installed.
Steve -
What would motivate the call if he truly didn't believe this?
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jan 6, 2011 12:17:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 7, 2011 0:32:03 GMT -5
Quote:My question is how many times was Charlie sick at Hopewell? (Gary)
Excellent question! My guess is he would get sick all the time. She was probably annoyed that he was being brought down there under those circumstances (knowing he was going to probably get sick again). Michael
Does anyone think it strange the baby ailed often while at the farm? Maybe someone was intentionally harmiong the baby during this time. Ann was jealous of the bond between Betty and little Charlie (Munchism maybe?? Not known or heard of then but possible? ) OR maybe (this is awful) Charles could have been slowly poisoning the baby because of the ill health??? Nowadays these things go on and have been discovered, but at the time of the Lindbergh kidnapping it was unimagineable for people to think that parents were capable of harming their own children???
Maybe Betty planned on stealing the child herself, for the betterment of his health...and the bond the two had between them??? (Her and little one)...
Any thoughts about these ideas?
Where can I find the information about the Lindbergh Sr. and Betty Gow affair?
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 7, 2011 0:42:50 GMT -5
Andrew Scott Berg, author of Lindbergh, published this month, last week recalled his first encounter with Miss Gow. "She was smaller than I expected and there was something pretty about her. She was tough and feisty though. She was the one who was going to be in control here." For three hours, Miss Gow, then 88, restricted the conversation to small talk. Mr. Berg sensed there would be no chance of breaking the reserve of a woman who could offer a unique insight into his subject. "We avoided the difficult topics. Then, I suddenly remembered that Mrs. Lindbergh had asked me to pass on her regards." He told the old lady and her demeanour switched in an instant. "I told her: 'Anne Lindbergh sends you her greetings,' and she just burst into tears." For more than half a century, Miss Gow believed she was hated by her former employers and blamed for their child's death. She told Mr. Berg that, after the trial was over and she had returned home, she wrote to the Lindbergh's. They never replied and she assumed that was because they wanted nothing to do with her. The truth is that almost certainly, the Lindberghs never got the note. At the time, they were receiving thousands of letters a week - good and bad - and rarely opened more than one in 20 of them. Mr. Berg was in a position to set the old lady's mind at rest. Reference: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/scotsman.htmlI know I read somewhere that she actually took up the nanny position with Jon, the Lindbergh's second son...this seems to be a major conflict with that story...I am unsure of this source presently. Maybe another member may recall??? Sorry. I have read a lot over the past month about this, it get's confusing.
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 7, 2011 1:33:33 GMT -5
I just read Betty's statement from the Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax. Notice how she says some things over to make sure her point is taken correctly...like for instance when she and Mrs. Lindbergh close all the windows, and AFTTER MRS. LINDBERGH leaves the room, Betty then OPENS a window....does this make sense? A STORMY NIGHT....and chilly as well because at the 10:00 p.m. check on the baby she turns on the heater to knowck the chill off the room... here it is.... it's long. "I put this on him and put him under covers to sleep. Mrs. Lindbergh and I went around to the windows, fixing the shutters, and when she left the room I opened one window in the rear. This window opens inward. I opened the window half-way Mrs. Lindbergh left the room before I did. This was about seven-thirty. Mrs. Lindbergh and I locked the shutters, except one and we fixed it as best we could. Before I left I put the light out, closed the door light. Both doors to the room were closed. I went Into the bathroom and washed some of the baby’s clothes and stayed asleep, went into his room, found that he was fast asleep and he seemed to be very comfortable. He was breathing very easily with no sign of chest trouble. I then fastened the covers to his mattress with two large safety pins. This would be about ten minutes to eight. Then put the bathroom light out and put out the light in my own room and went downstairs to the cellar to hang up some of the clothes I had washed. Then I came upstairs to sitting room for my supper. I Had supper with Mrs. Whateley. Around eight-thirty I heard Colonel Lindbergh blow his horn and Mrs. Whateley got up to attend to the supper. I finished eating. About a quarter of nine Mr. Whateley came and called me to the phone. I answered the phone and it was Johnson. He told me how sorry he was to miss me at Englewood and that he would have liked to have seen me before I left Englewood. When I passed through the kitchen I told Mrs. Whately it was Johnson and later on I told her that he said he was sorry that he didn’t see me as he was going to Hartford. I Went into the sitting room after I came from the telephone and put One the radio. Mr. and Mrs. Whateley came into the sitting room...." Bessie Mowat Gow (This statement stenographically taken and transcribed) by Samuel B. Finklestein, Newark Police Department. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/gowstatement.html
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 7, 2011 17:15:12 GMT -5
This information was in a letter written by Adrian Lopez. I spoke to his son recently - what a great guy! Anyway, I found this letter in the Hoffman Collection at the NJSP Archives.
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 7, 2011 19:31:12 GMT -5
Michael, Is there any way you can post this letter to the members section so I can view it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 8, 2011 11:49:38 GMT -5
I will see if I can find it. Part of my "problem" is having so much material I file it away only to be "lost" because of it. I have a Lopez file so it will be the first place I look. If it isn't there it could take a while. Cross your fingers. The other thing is that it might not be a "letter." I seem to recall it was an interview of some type but I suppose that will be solved once I find it.
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 9, 2011 22:31:52 GMT -5
Michael, No need to go out of the way looking for it. I, like you, get off on someting totally different than the topic I begin to research.
|
|