|
Post by Michael on Jan 10, 2011 8:27:21 GMT -5
It can be frustrating. I have 10+ years of material which I have attempted to file. Unfortunately, there is no system here that is without flaws. Each report, note, memo, letter, etc. usually contains multiple names, dates, and subjects. I usually "choose" which is the most important to me at the time then file it there.
I have quite a bit of material if its not where I think it is then it can take a while.
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 12, 2011 20:23:37 GMT -5
I don't doubt the affair. I had ran that through my mind before. Betty was certainly a pretty woman, the right age, but what really made me think it possible was because she had job jumped so often before going to work for the Lindberghs. What held her there? It could have been the fame. I know she probably grew attached to the baby, babies are hard for women not to fall in love (but her other short jobs were nursemaid jobs as well). BUT, something kept her there longer than any other job???
Ann was obviously jealous about the bond between her and the baby
ALSO, she seemed to be the only one with any contact going on outside of the house that night, and earlier in the day. She used the phone at the Englewood estate, on the road trip to Hopewell, and received a phone call from Red that night, right before Lindbergh got home...
DO WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN IT WAS RED SHE TALKED TO? It could have been another man disguising his voice...like "one who must not be named??"
JUST SOME IDEAS
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 13, 2011 7:01:34 GMT -5
Based upon all the Statements, it seems a lock she did talk to Red. The affair rumor comes thru Lopez by way of his Police source. Like Reporters, there are those among the ranks of Law Enforcement who could be untrustworthy or wrong.
I found there was a degree of BS that went on with many. It would just depend how far some were willing to go. It seems to me those who would not do any still would never try to stop those who did - they just wouldn't themselves get involved.
Betty by all accounts had an "uppity" attitude, but there is documented proof that her, and her Sailor boyfriend, were caught with their pants down in public more then once.
What I've learned about Lindbergh is that if he does something, its usually not for an emotional reason - unless its a joke.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Feb 10, 2011 11:17:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Mar 9, 2013 14:37:53 GMT -5
Speaking about Betty Gow's affair with Red Johnson...
After the baby disappeared...
Is it a "Betty Gow" fact (check out the title of this thread) that she was adamant that she be tested by a doctor concerning her viriginity?
Why was Betty so "hot under the collar," demanding to visit a doctor to prove she was a virigin?
Who were the people saying she wasn't a virgin?
Were the Lindbergh & Morrow servants operating under: "If you see something, then say something"? What exactly might these servants have witnessed going on between Red & Betty?
Maybe the servants weren't the only ones talking about Betty.
Does the fact that Betty may not have been a virgin have an iota to do with the Lindbergh crime?
Maybe so.
Maybe more than an iota.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 9, 2013 14:44:32 GMT -5
I did the rarest of crimes.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2013 19:23:09 GMT -5
Sue - you are going to have to refresh my memory on the source for this. I don't recall it at all.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 10, 2013 13:30:08 GMT -5
I don't recall her ever claiming to be a virgin. The thing that was interesting to me about her was that CAL had to bail her out of jail and why would he even do that?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 10, 2013 13:39:35 GMT -5
Anne was pretty small, and though she seemed to be a good wife, perhaps not much of a hop, so he kept Betty around. And when the s hit the fan Betty seemed to know something. But wouldn't all of the servants know about stuff like irregular sleeping patterns and extra familiarity - no one ever talked except that driver.
|
|
|
Post by ktolks on Mar 22, 2013 19:21:53 GMT -5
The discovery of the thumbguard in the driveway tends to support the argument that the kidnaper examined Charlie before leaving the grounds, realized that he was dead, and stripped off the sleeping suit immediately. I believe the reason that some people are at pains to establish that Charlie died from a fall from the second floor is that they feel a need to explain the rather careless discarding of the corpse on Mt. Rose Heights as the result of the kidnaper's having panicked at the child's death. But the fact remains that even if Charlie had died from the fall as theorized, the kidnaper still had many simple alternatives available to him which would have disposed of the corpse far more securely than we see. The kidnaper could, for example, have carried the corpse a far greater distance into the woods -- or placed it into the burlap sack, weighted it with stones, and tossed it into a pond. Either method would have greatly reduced the chances of the body's discovery.
In fact, the location of the corpse only forty-five feet off the Hopewell-Princeton Road is suspicious and highly suggestive of staging. The purpose? To confirm that a murder had been committed and to set the stage for the eventual murder trial!
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Mar 28, 2013 16:07:58 GMT -5
I'm not completely convinced the placement of the corpse was staged, but of course, who knows?
Keep in mind: That area was traversed, combed, scoured...whatever word(s) you want to use to describe it...by numerous people, and nothing was found.
So, that means one of two things:
1) A lot of people missed it, or; 2) The corpse was placed there later.
Personally, I think the latter is more likely, unless you believe a whole lot of people collectively had absolutely no reconnaissance skills.
Jd
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jul 20, 2013 14:55:03 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 20:00:29 GMT -5
When reading about Betty Gow in the various books, I have always had the feeling that she was not that happy with her job with the Lindberghs. She certainly cared about Charlie, I am not questioning that. I read that she was planning to take some time off in April of 1932 and go home to Scotland but the kidnapping happened and she could not leave America until August of 1932. Michael, when did Betty Gow finally end her employment with the Lindberghs? Here is a link to a picture of Betty Gow looking very happy to be back in England on her way to Scotland. The picture is from August 1932 and it says she is pictured with her mother. www.ebay.com/itm/1932-Betty-Gow-Nurse-Greeted-by-Mother-Press-Photo-/111144735156?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item19e0be11b4
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2014 11:51:32 GMT -5
Michael, when did Betty Gow finally end her employment with the Lindberghs? I have a couple of sources that say August 18, 1934. So if it wasn't this day then very close to it. One Report, written by Agent Sisk, quotes John A. Clements (New York Evening Journal, Supervising Field Reporter) as saying it was following an "argument" with someone in the family.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 23:02:07 GMT -5
Michael,
I have started to read other chapters in the Behn book. In chapter 7, page 69, Behn writes that Lieutenant Arthur Keaton disobeyed Lindbergh's edict and engaged Betty Gow in a casual conversation. Behn then says that Betty mentioned to Keaton that her boyfriend (Red Johnson) not only knew she was in Hopewell on Tuesday but had called her around 8:45 p.m. the night of the kidnapping. An alert was then put out for Red Johnson. Behn goes on to say that when Lindbergh learned of Betty revealing this information he then allowed her to be interviewed by other troopers. He also allowed Whateley to be interviewed. About a week later the police were permitted to interview Anne Lindbergh and Elsie Whateley.
Did Betty's conversation with Keaton actually result in all the other Lindbergh household members being interviewed? Wasn't Betty the one who said Lindbergh promised she would not be touched? If she had this assurance, why does she start telling Keaton about Red Johnson to begin with? I don't understand Betty's actions here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 8, 2014 19:19:47 GMT -5
Michael, I have started to read other chapters in the Behn book. In chapter 7, page 69, Behn writes that Lieutenant Arthur Keaton disobeyed Lindbergh's edict and engaged Betty Gow in a casual conversation. Behn then says that Betty mentioned to Keaton that her boyfriend (Red Johnson) not only knew she was in Hopewell on Tuesday but had called her around 8:45 p.m. the night of the kidnapping. An alert was then put out for Red Johnson. Behn goes on to say that when Lindbergh learned of Betty revealing this information he then allowed her to be interviewed by other troopers. He also allowed Whateley to be interviewed. About a week later the police were permitted to interview Anne Lindbergh and Elsie Whateley. Did Betty's conversation with Keaton actually result in all the other Lindbergh household members being interviewed? Wasn't Betty the one who said Lindbergh promised she would not be touched? If she had this assurance, why does she start telling Keaton about Red Johnson to begin with? I don't understand Betty's actions here. I am honestly confused about what Behn says here, and my best guess is that he is jumping to conclusions. His source seems to be the March 3rd Statement which Keaten had nothing to do with. I assume then that he supposedly 'disobeyed' Lindbergh before this Statement? It's hard for me to prove or disprove something in the absence of his source. Lindbergh told Schwarzkopf what the rules were and he kept his Troopers in line. The only person that I am aware of who violated his rules was Garsson and he was immediately recalled to Washington once Lindbergh complained. The next time he complained about anything was when Schwarzkopf ran to him saying the FBI went rogue during the Violet Sharp investigation. And so with this in mind, I know that some of Garsson's Reports were marked " Copy for Lt. Keaten." It's possible that Behn saw Garsson's report concerning his interview with Betty Gow then assumed it was Keaten who conducted the interview because of that notation. If I am right he's not only wrong about Keaten but the timing of it as well. And yes, Betty did scream at Garsson: " Lindbergh promised I wouldn't be touched!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 22:09:42 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for your thoughts on this. You are probably correct about Behn seeing that notation and mistakenly thinking the report was Keaton's. Betty wasn't just conversing when she spoke about Red Johnson. She was being questioned but by Garsson and not Keaton. I appreciate your clarification regarding this.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jul 18, 2014 22:39:38 GMT -5
I am a little troubled by Betty Gow. She did have contact with a number of people and informed them she was going to Hopewell. I think we have to consider the possibility that Betty may have used something to put the child in a deep sleep for the kidnappers or, possible killed him in his crib. It makes more sense that the child was killed before being taken. That way there is no chance of the child awakening and making any noise.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 19, 2014 9:21:35 GMT -5
I am a little troubled by Betty Gow. She did have contact with a number of people and informed them she was going to Hopewell. I think we have to consider the possibility that Betty may have used something to put the child in a deep sleep for the kidnappers or, possible killed him in his crib. It makes more sense that the child was killed before being taken. That way there is no chance of the child awakening and making any noise. Hi Lisa. I think its a smart position to consider that possibility. Somewhere within the files the Police noted there was no smell of ether - which I believe we discussed some years ago. So for me, its not only significant they didn't smell it, but moreso they were thinking along the same lines in order to make a note of it. Know what I mean? As a result I think your suspicions should be placed upon each and every person who could have done such a thing but certainly Betty seems like the best suspect since the child trusted her and was least likely to cry out whenever she was around. Since the pins were still on the sheets and it looks like the child was yanked from under the covers, it's probably a safe bet he was "out" at the time, and the "Kidnappers" had no regard for his habit of crying out - or for his health and safety. It's amazing how these guys seemed so prepared and at the same time not at all for things they should not have known anything about. And yet it all went their way. Nothing happened as it should have, and would have, on any other normal night. Luck happens, but too much luck points to only one thing.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jul 23, 2014 22:01:31 GMT -5
Yes I know no ether smell was detected in the nursery but that is not the only way to subdue a child. I know the autopsy stated Charlie wasn't strangled but I read the autopsy report. They could not determine the sex of the child, I do not believe they could tell if he had been smothered, strangled, drugged, or suffered a skull fracture in his crib. Unfortunately the gross skull fracture could have been inflicted without a trace of blood. We see it in the ER once in awhile. So many possibilities here.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 24, 2014 19:31:53 GMT -5
Can someone please post a copy of the autopsy report?
One issue could possibly be resolved from it. It has been contended by some that the body found in the woods was that of another, slightly older child. If the autopsy reports the dimensions of the dead child's skull, the age at death can be determined with a fairly narrow range. In other words, barring some unusual anatomic abnormality, skull dimensions can be used almost as a proxy for chronological age.
On the whole, the body, from what I read, seems to have been so badly decomposed that identifying it would probably have been more difficult than some accounts would have the reader believe.
And CAL Sr., perhaps being clairvoyant in his own way, denied future generations the opportunity to determine by DNA testing whether the baby in the woods was indeed CAL Jr., by cremating the remains and scattering them over water from his airplane.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2014 20:46:59 GMT -5
Here is a link to the autopsy report on Charlie. Not the most impressive considering this was the remains of the most popular baby in the world. It says "unknown" child because the autopsy was done before there was a positive ID made of the remains. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/autopsy.jpg
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 24, 2014 23:40:13 GMT -5
To All:
Thanks, Amy, for your link to the Lindbergh baby autopsy report.
I don't know how autopsies were usually written in rural areas back in 1932, but this report seems to be missing some data that would be standard for autopsies done today. What may be the most significant statement in the report is "...cranium apparently greater in circumference than would be found in a child this age." Strange that he didn't give a numerical measurement for the cranial circumference. And how would he know the child's age if this was presumably done before any identification was made. After all, the body didn't arrive with a birth certificate. Now, if the cranium was abnormally large for the age, would that be caused by brain swelling before death? Could have been from trauma, but also could have been from some ongoing condition from which the baby suffered in life. (It would be interesting to see the baby's medical records. Has anyone ever seen them?) Also of note is the indication of a "fontanel" in the skull. Fontanels are little gaps between bones in the skull that are present in fetal life and in infancy, but which should have been gone by 20 months with the normal fusing of the relevant bones. So the persistence of a fontanel (most likely the anterior fontanel) at 20 months might suggest some developmental abnormality of the brain or skull.
BTW, the presence of eight upper and eight lower teeth and the height of 33 1/2 inches would be normal findings for a boy of 20 months.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 8:33:01 GMT -5
It was the anterior fontanel. Charlie was being treated for rickets. They were using the supplement Viosterol daily and also a sunlamp. The fontanel wasn't closing so maybe something more serious was going on with Charlie's health than just rickets. In 1932 they were just learning how to handle rickets. Anything else would have been beyond what the medical community would have been aware of at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Ann on Jul 25, 2014 12:27:18 GMT -5
I am new to your discussion and my interest in the Lindbergh kidnapping just came about recently. So, please excuse my ignorance on so many levels. I can say I have found your discussion more than interesting. I will say I have an idea of how the baby might have been "quieted." Back in that day it was quite common to use a , "Paragoric" for colic. It was a liquid that contained opium. It could be purchased then without even needing a prescription, all you were required to do was sign for it. A miniscule amount of this would be mixed on a teaspoon with warm water and given to the baby by that same spoon. Not in a bottle or mixed with anything else. I think that was because only such a small amount was required. Let me tell you it was an instant cure for colic. I actually think it could have been right there on the shelf in the baby's medicine cabinet. It was so commonly used I doubt much notice would have been given to it. However, not only would it have had the power to cure colic, "upping" the dose so to speak would put a baby out like a light. Could that have been the reason for Betty's stop at the pharmacy. With the amount of access she had to the baby, she could have prepared and administered it in two minutes.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 25, 2014 17:59:51 GMT -5
Yes, I was aware of that. I suppose rickets could have been a cause for the dead child found in the woods to have had a delayed closing of his anterior fontanel and a greater head circumference than might be expected, but the autopsy report mentioned nothing specific about suspected rickets.
As you might know, there was an issue about whether the corpse was in fact that of "Charlie," beginning with the irregularity of the autopsy being done by a mortician, and not by the county physician who was unable to perform it because of arthritis in his hands. That could account in large measure for the lack of completeness and the lack of professionalism in the autopsy report.
Behn goes into large detail on questions relating to the ID of the corpse ("Lindbergh: The Crime," paperback edition, pp. 191-196). He claims, contrary to some other material I've seen, that little Charlie's private pediatrician, Dr. Van Ingen, was present at the funeral parlor but was unable to specifically identify his patient. Then, too, the well-known NJ detective of the time, Ellis Parker, Sr., was consistent in his theory that the corpse was that of another child.
Suppose this will have to remain a mystery within a mystery. It was not at issue in the Hauptmann trial because the defense accepted the prosecution's contention that the body in the woods was indeed that of "Charlie."
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 25, 2014 19:38:49 GMT -5
Don't see Betty Gow as having the kind of sick mind necessary to willfully kill or injure little Charlie, for example, via poisoning. If she contributed to the plot at all, it would be some information she gave to the kidnappers/murders inadvertently that tipped them off to the opportunity to harm the child.
Ann, since you are a newbie to the LKC, I would recommend to you the book "Lindbergh: The Crime" by Noel Behn," which was published in both hard cover and paperback in the 1990s, but is probably still available. It gives the basic history of the case with surprise and unconventional conclusions by the author. This is just one of many books out there on the LKC, and they seem to be continuing to come out even in the last few years. That's why another book by Lloyd Gardner published in 2012 is titled, "The Case that Never Dies." Just this past January, PBS did an hour-long documentary about the Lindbergh case as part of its "NOVA" series. It's probably still available as video on pbs.org. There is a heck of a lot out there to read and see and discuss! It can become addictive.
|
|
|
Post by Ann on Jul 26, 2014 11:36:53 GMT -5
Thank you for the response. I will see if I can find they are available. I did just finish reading, "The Cases that Haunt Us" by John Douglas. In it he recommends a book by another former FBI agent and later a professor named Jim Fisher. Douglas says it is the ultimate authority on the crime. I personally have a few problems with Douglas so I'm asking here if you have heard of that one or read it before I waste any time on it.
As far as the Paregoric goes, I didn't mean that she had poisoned the baby with it at all. Anyone like Betty who had child care experience would have known how to use it without causing the baby any distress at all ! If she were just helping the kidnapper, she could have put the baby in a sound sleep allowing him to be moved around a little without crying.
Thanks for the reading tips !
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 26, 2014 17:56:16 GMT -5
"I did just finish reading, "The Cases that Haunt Us" by John Douglas."
Yes, I read that as well, cover to cover. About 100 pages on the LKC, maybe 400 pages on other infamous crime cases.
John Douglas, unfortunately, makes a significant error in his discussion of the LKC: he describes the deposit of a couple of thousand dollars of ransom money in May 1933 by "J. J. Faulkner," then states that "J. J. Faulkner" kind of drifted out of the case from then on. But the fact is that "J. J. Faulkner" surfaced again when he wrote a letter to NJ Gov. Hoffman in 1936, when Hauptmann was on death row. "Faulkner" stated that Hauptmann had no connection to the kidnapping or murder of the Lindbergh baby, and therefore urged the governor to commute Hauptmann's death sentence. He said that Hauptmann was guilty only of greed.
It turns out that "J. J. Faulkner" was one of the many aliases used by a character whose real name was Jacob Nosovitsky. Noel Behn's book describes Nosovitsky and his strange life in great detail, and comes to the conclusion that Nosovitsky was likely "Cemetery John." There is a discussion thread titled "J. J. Nosovitsky" in this forum which you might wish to check out.
|
|
|
Post by deedee1963 on Aug 20, 2014 14:06:42 GMT -5
I have been looking at photos of Betty today & something occurred to me. She seemed to be wearing some very fancy furs around the time of the trial. I know that often the wealthy passed down their used clothing to their staff. But furs? How did Betty afford furs on her salary? I do not think that faux fur had yet been introduced (although I would need to research this further) so I am assuming they are real.
I am looking at Betty through much different eyes than I used too. And the furs just struck me as kind of showy now as I look at these old photos.
Could they have been a gift from a man? I guess we might never know for sure. But I plan on doing some more research on the lovely Betty.
|
|