jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 15, 2014 11:26:00 GMT -5
The light was a signal?
Betty pointedly stated that she turned the light off while or after putting Charlie to bed, and also that she left it off when she checked the nursery at 10:00. She first called for Anne to ask about the child, and Anne went into the nursery and said she found the light on. Did Betty use the light as a signal that the baby was now asleep (or drugged and out,) forget and leave the light on in her frazzled state from passing the child out the window and was trying to cover for herself?
Also when she informed CAL of the missing toddler she definably used language that was out of character for an employee talking to a boss no matter what the situation was, especially when the boss is one of the most popular men in the world.
Indicates the familiarity and affair mentioned in posts above?
|
|
|
Post by georingoes on Mar 6, 2016 22:10:42 GMT -5
The thumb-guard... The conspiracy theorists aren't going to like this: What happens every year in NJ during March? It happened in 1932, and every year before and after 1932. Birds build nests. And they are prolefic at finding strings/ribbons on the ground to use in building their nests. They especially like it when they are attached to shiny objects. So how does this fit? The thunb-guard falls off or is taken off while running toward featherbed Lane. Between all the people stomping around during the night and/or in the following days (I believe it snowed around this time) it was unknowingly steped on and pushed into the mud. I believe the metal part of the guard was bent flat when found. A couple of weeks later, after rain falls on it and washes some dirt off, a sharp eyed bird picks it up and starts to fly towards its nest. It's a bit heavy and awkard to fly with so it is dropped, maybe more than once, eventually landing on the driveway. Nothing like a driveway to give a bird a clear path toward its nest. And then along comes Betty (and Elsie).
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 7, 2016 1:44:50 GMT -5
This is a very interesting idea, that a bird picked up and dropped the thumbguard where it was found. A couple of things though: the condition of the thumbguard (and the laces in particular) don't seem consistent with having been outside from March 1. Given its dead-center placement in the driveway and the condition when it was found, it looks to me like it was dropped by someone on their way out, and laid there for a short time, at least long enough to be run over by a car. My question is, since Betty and Elsie found it on their walk back up the drive, why didn't they see it on the way down...?
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Mar 7, 2016 2:38:48 GMT -5
I think the nest-building theory is feasible.
Another I've thought of: If the the thumbguard had become lost by being trampled in the mud (as georingoes suggests) or out in the bushes or undergrowth somewhere but just never spotted, I think it is possible that Wahgoosh or Skean, if brought outside there at the Hopewell house, might have nosed it out and maybe taken it to the driveway to lick or chew. It probably would have been very attractive to one of the family dogs, with Charlie's scent on it. But any dog at all would be a possibility, too, I think.
I wonder if a dog was walking that day with Betty and Elsie?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 7, 2016 6:19:46 GMT -5
The thumb-guard... The conspiracy theorists aren't going to like this: What happens every year in NJ during March? It happened in 1932, and every year before and after 1932. Birds build nests. And they are prolefic at finding strings/ribbons on the ground to use in building their nests. They especially like it when they are attached to shiny objects. So how does this fit? The thunb-guard falls off or is taken off while running toward featherbed Lane. Between all the people stomping around during the night and/or in the following days (I believe it snowed around this time) it was unknowingly steped on and pushed into the mud. I believe the metal part of the guard was bent flat when found. A couple of weeks later, after rain falls on it and washes some dirt off, a sharp eyed bird picks it up and starts to fly towards its nest. It's a bit heavy and awkard to fly with so it is dropped, maybe more than once, eventually landing on the driveway. Nothing like a driveway to give a bird a clear path toward its nest. And then along comes Betty (and Elsie). First of all welcome to the Board (we're from the same area). I am not sure what you mean by "Conspiracy Theorist" but I assume it's meant as Fisher used it. For me a "conspiracy" exists once two or more people discuss how they are going to commit a crime. It's not as fantastic when viewed by what the word actually means. Sometimes the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, and I find that much more possible then a bird picking up a thumb guard. I am not knocking your suggestion because sometimes strange things that defy the odds do occur, however, what is the more likely scenario? I'd say pick the top two, then gather the facts which surround what happened, when it happened, and how it happened. Next, take a look at the other situations not related to this one. Do the same as I mention above. After, say about five or six, do they all have something in common? If so, doesn't that fact tend to support an overall look at what happened? And so I think, when it comes to looking at individual mysteries within this crime, when each and every one needs a bird, or something unique to explain it - we have a problem.
|
|
|
Post by georingoes on Mar 7, 2016 15:55:24 GMT -5
This is a very interesting idea, that a bird picked up and dropped the thumbguard where it was found. A couple of things though: the condition of the thumbguard (and the laces in particular) don't seem consistent with having been outside from March 1. Given its dead-center placement in the driveway and the condition when it was found, it looks to me like it was dropped by someone on their way out, and laid there for a short time, at least long enough to be run over by a car. My question is, since Betty and Elsie found it on their walk back up the drive, why didn't they see it on the way down...? If it was found in the middle of the driveway (thanks for educating me on this), even more support that it wasn't flattened by a car. A car wouldn't likely travel with its tires in the middle of the narrow driveway. Staying with my bird idea, when carrying a somewhat heavy object, a bird wants a clear path for its flight- the middle of a long driveway. Given all the people stomping all over the area around the house and toward Featherbed Lane, I still think it is possible it was flattened when unknowingly stepped on shortly after the kidnapping. Why not spotted by Betty & Elsie on their first walk down the driveway? If you aren't looking for it, it very well might take more then one pass on the driveway. My understanding it was rather dirty and the metal guard looked weathered. Can anyone confirm? Also, what were the laces made of... something that would survive one month outside? Does someone know what day it snowed (after the kidnapping) and how much snow?Thanks
|
|
|
Post by georingoes on Mar 7, 2016 16:14:41 GMT -5
Michael - thanks for the welcome. Reading the detailed and well researched posts by you and so many others on this board is indeed humbling. My naive and somewhat simplistic approach to the kidnapping will never be the same for having discovered this board. Are you from Ringoes/East Amwell area as well? It would indeed be a pleasure to meet you and/or attend an event at which you are speaking. FYI, Lloyd Gardner's reply to my "the bird did it" was: "Yours is one of the more interesting solutions." Now to define "interesting."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 7, 2016 18:49:37 GMT -5
Michael - thanks for the welcome. Reading the detailed and well researched posts by you and so many others on this board is indeed humbling. My naive and somewhat simplistic approach to the kidnapping will never be the same for having discovered this board. Are you from Ringoes/East Amwell area as well? It would indeed be a pleasure to meet you and/or attend an event at which you are speaking. FYI, Lloyd Gardner's reply to my "the bird did it" was: "Yours is one of the more interesting solutions." Now to define "interesting." I think the simplistic approach is a good thing. I've seen many people over the years get creative in order to explain the "Lone-Wolf" position, or to explain away facts pointing to Hauptmann's involvement. Know what I mean? If one disregards any presuppositions or theories but rather simply lets the facts direct them then the true situation will emerge. I'm from Lambertville but played on the East Amwell summer league baseball teams many years ago (although it seems like yesterday). Speaking of which I miss the good old days when the Drive-In was still around. Oh well I guess nothing lasts or stays the same for long.... Flemington being a perfect example. Anyway this Board is my venue to discuss the case, and once my first book comes out I think the facts contained there will show what I've found to be vitally important. I expect discussion and debate about it and think this Board is the place for it to happen. I've attended many of Lloyd's presentations and I think you'll agree with me that he's terrific. Like I said earlier, your suggestion is "interesting" however, I usually play the odds for the percentage of probability. For me the top three (not in any particular order) for the most likely situation is: * It was missed. * It was dropped there by "someone" to misdirect the investigation. * It was brought back there by a "Kidnapper" at a later date. Again, each other possible solution to different mysteries within this crime will usually either compliment or harm one of the three choices above. If all start to point to one thing then the bigger picture begins to take form. That doesn't mean what I believe isn't debatable or that I could be incorrect so by all means if you disagree please feel free to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 8, 2016 20:17:54 GMT -5
Why not spotted by Betty & Elsie on their first walk down the driveway? If you aren't looking for it, it very well might take more then one pass on the driveway. My understanding it was rather dirty and the metal guard looked weathered. Can anyone confirm? Also, what were the laces made of... something that would survive one month outside? Does someone know what day it snowed (after the kidnapping) and how much snow?Thanks The guard was found "flattened," "dirty" and with "slight oxidation." Morton Maish, of the Baby Alice Thumb Guard Manufacturing Company, claimed the guards were made of a metal consisting of 30% copper and 70% nickel which made them "highly resistant to corrosion." In his trial preparation statement he was asked by Peacock how old this guard was and he replied by saying " probably three or four years old." The State didn't seem to like this answer and it was lined out. Once on the Stand, during cross examination Reilly asked Maish the question: " Now, when do you say this thumb guard was made?" Maish answered: " I couldn't tell exactly when that thumb guard was made"(see TT 1274). While he's not lying, we can see he's evaded the question - in my opinion it was most likely decided upon during his trial preparation how he should answer that question if posed by the Defense in order to avoid giving the number of years he gave them. Next, that thumb guard was missed by hundreds of people. Both the Press and Police searched that lane over and over for clues.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 8, 2016 21:54:16 GMT -5
To All:
Talking about the thumb guard found in a driveway right near the Lindbergh house, does anyone know what happened to the companion thumb guard? Is it ever mentioned in the files on the case? (I'm assuming that there were two identical(?) thumb guards, one for each of the baby's thumbs?)
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Mar 8, 2016 22:32:29 GMT -5
To All: Talking about the thumb guard found in a driveway right near the Lindbergh house, does anyone know what happened to the companion thumb guard? Is it ever mentioned in the files on the case? (I'm assuming that there were two identical(?) thumb guards, one for each of the baby's thumbs?) I know you'll get answers from more knowledgeable folks soon enough, but just off the top of MY head, I don't recall that it was ever located. There is that weird little exchange in Anne's testimony, about her not seeing the thumb guards on that night...? Or not remembering whether they were on?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2016 11:16:27 GMT -5
There is that weird little exchange in Anne's testimony, about her not seeing the thumb guards on that night...? Or not remembering whether they were on? Here is the trial testimony of Anne Lindbergh about the thumb guard that was found. Wilentz would offer it into evidence based on Anne's identification of it. Trial Testimony - Day 2 - Page 71 - Direct examination by AG WilentzQ(wilentz) - Now you have told us about the sleeping suit and if I may be defensively leading for a minute, did the child have any thumb protectors on? A(Anne) - Pardon?
Q(Wilentz) - Did the child have a thumb protector? A(Anne) - Yes he had.
Q(Wilentz) - Will you describe that thumb protector and how it was fastened, if it was fastened? A(Anne) - It is a wire thumb guard which had a piece of tape through the sides of it and was fastened around the wrist of the sleeping suit on the outside.
Q(Wilentz) - How was it fastened? A(Anne) - I did not put it on -
Q(Wilentz) - Well, do you know? A(Anne) - (Continuing) - myself.
Q(Wilentz) - Do you know how it was fastened? Did you see it done that night? A(Anne) - No, I don't remember seeing it done. I know the thumb guard and I have done it myself.
Q(Wilentz) - Do you know whether - A(Anne) - But that night I did not put it on.
Q(Wilentz) - Did you see it on though after it was put on? A(Anne) - I don't remember seeing it on.
Q(Wilentz) - You don't remember. Disregarding this little piece of paper please, Mrs. Lindbergh, will you tell us whether or not you recognize that as being one of the thumb guards that was used for your child? A(Anne) - Yes.
Q(Wilentz) - And is it one of the thumb guards owned by you and which you used for your child on occasions to affix to the sleeping garment? A(Anne) - It is, yes.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 31, 2016 14:13:32 GMT -5
According to Behn, When Betty Gow was shown the undergarment found on Charlie's body "Gow refused to believe the child was dead, insisting that Lindbergh was about to meet the kidnapper's boat off Cape May. Although unsourced, this is coming from an author whose hypothesis is that Charley was accidentally or intentionally killed on Feb. 27, the Saturday prior to Mar. 1, 1932. Fisher also notes Batty's disbelief of the evidence.
Is she a good actress? If the death had happened on Saturday at a minimum the people who would know would be Anne & Charles, Ollie & Elsie, and Betty who was called to the scene on Tuesday.
For one thing, why call Betty if you're trying to cover up a situation?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 31, 2016 14:16:41 GMT -5
Oops.
For another, why complicate things so greatly by calling in Condon (they could have said his note was a forgery), the Curtis escapades, and other actions if you know in advance it's all just a ruse?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 31, 2016 14:40:55 GMT -5
Poor little Anne couldn't take care of her son for three days (with Elsie's help) without calling in a nurse?
As far as working so hard on her writing goes, nobody can tell me that both Charles and Anne weren't heavily rewritten. They even had at least one professional writer living with them! Probably unheard of in all of the rest of inventive literature.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 1, 2017 9:28:37 GMT -5
Is she a good actress? If the death had happened on Saturday at a minimum the people who would know would be Anne & Charles, Ollie & Elsie, and Betty who was called to the scene on Tuesday. For one thing, why call Betty if you're trying to cover up a situation? Gow was the coolest one of the lot. Although I merely suggest it in the book, I firmly believe she no longer went to Hopewell because of her being thrown out of Princeton. If Anne wanted alone time with the child, then Alva Root doesn't "replace" Betty by babysitting on the weekends. Now once the decision is made for the family to stay over, with Miss Root gone, Betty is called down. If Betty was connected to the crime, then it probably doesn't happen if she's not in the house. Remember, the baby usually cried out when anyone except her picked him up. And if Lindbergh made promises to her about not being touched, then I'd say if these promises were made prior to the crime - then her role had been created well in advance. Like I wrote in my book, Gow was not the woman history recorded she was.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 1, 2017 10:04:52 GMT -5
It seems the promise of "not being touched" by CAL was given to all the employees, not just Betty. I think that's always been a misunderstanding about the case. As far as being interviewed by Lamb and Keaton, I think I'd rather chat with Owney Madden.
My point was only in response the Behn's assertion that the crime happened on the prior Saturday at the Lindbergh residence. The calling in of Betty on Tuesday, which did happen, would seem to eliminate that premise, unless Charley expired at the Morrow residence and everybody knew about it.
Seems it would be pretty hard to cover-up if more people knew.
I keep remembering what Anne wrote in one of her letters, "it was an accident."
Another thing that's always bothered me - why would Donovan be there?
|
|
|
Post by corrine on Jan 6, 2017 14:39:01 GMT -5
I agree 100% with you on that Jack. It also bothered me - those four words. It was an accident.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Dec 5, 2017 20:29:22 GMT -5
Anne's sister did it and they covered up for her. When and where do you think this happened?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 15:06:19 GMT -5
Since she hated being at Highfields and knew that soon she would be there permanently, I can see her involved. If Charlie was gone, CAL and Anne would be afraid to stay there and would move back to Englewood. So are you saying that Betty became involved with the kidnapping because she didn't want to live in Hopewell? Do you think this is her only motivation for involvement or could there be other reasons she would be willing to participate in a kidnap/murder?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 6, 2018 8:40:27 GMT -5
but will the odor last that long outside in those elements
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 6, 2018 8:42:20 GMT -5
they fly here to
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 6, 2018 10:45:56 GMT -5
Probably not. But here's the bottom line on the absence of a Vick's odor from the flannel shirt found near the dead body in the woods. The absence of the odor by it self doesn't rule out the possibility that the flannel shirt found was the one that was sewn for Charlie on the day or evening of his disappearance. But also, the odor that wasn't found doesn't rule out the possibility that Gow or someone else sewed a duplicate shirt and dumped it on the site or gave it to someone else to place on or near the body, perhaps to fake the identification of the corpse as Charlie.
BTW, we have already noted that the deformities of the toes of the right foot on the autopsy report of the child do NOT match the description of those toes given by Dr. Van Ingen of the living Charlie in his letter to the child's grandmother written eight days before the discovery of the body.
|
|
|
Post by Gérardo on Apr 13, 2022 21:10:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Apr 14, 2022 14:10:07 GMT -5
umm...
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Apr 14, 2022 15:25:41 GMT -5
Hi Gérardo, This is a serious case and humour is a rare commodity therein. However I laughed out loud at the account of of the kidnap/murder in the blog which you kindly posted above. The best part, for me, was the fiendish killing of Betty Gow with poisoned cake. I mean, you have to respect this guy's research. Was it ginger cake or apple strudel? Maybe Ludovic Kennedy who interviewed Betty in her old age was the bearer of the poisoned confectionery. Thanks for a very entertaining contribution, Best regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Joseph F. Condon on Apr 14, 2022 19:44:37 GMT -5
Throwing a little mud at some new names. I think you should throw some at the name S. Campbell as there was a can of soup in the house.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 15, 2022 6:30:35 GMT -5
theres also alot of mud to throw at dr condon
|
|
The Stones Unturned Podcast
Guest
|
Post by The Stones Unturned Podcast on Oct 10, 2023 16:08:07 GMT -5
A tollbooth operator reported a green Chrysler Coupe with two men, and woman, and a small child going though his tollbooth at Perth Amboy. The license number as he remembered it was very similar to the plate on Johnson's green Chrysler coupe. Police searched Johnson's car in Hartford CT (where he lived with his brother) and found a milk bottle. A postcard addressed to the Lindberghs, purporting to be from the kidnappers, had been intercepted by the Hartford post office that morning.
Boy--just think how LUCKY some people are. First, Schippel is let off the hook, even though the body was found spitting distance from his shack--the one with all the scrap lumber--and sure a sugar, he IS that "semiliterate German immigrant carpenter" the whole country wants to hang for the Lindbergh baby snatch. But, nothing happens to Schippel. Eeeeeevvvvvery body just waits a couple of years until ONE 10-dollar gold note turns up in a gas station register. Remember how The Colonel did NOT want the "cops" to write down the serial numbers? If they hadn't, then Schippel and Johnson and Gow would still be THE prime suspects today.
I just can't imagine why, given the desperate effort to railroad Hauptmann (guilty or not, he was railroaded like Casey Jones) didn't they frantically try to railroad Schippel and Johnson 2 1/2 years sooner? What were they waiting for? And why couldn't they at least convince The Colonel to at least allow them to polygraph Gow and the Whatelys? What was The Colonel afraid they might say? What COULD he be afraid of them saying? The Colonel didn't even hire them. His in-laws hired them. Gow had worked for several wealthy families back in Grosse Pointe/Detroit. Where the Lindberghs were from. Is that it? Why did The Colonel pull every string he could pull to STOP the real "kidnappers" from being caught?
Maybe it was an accident. Maybe The Colonel needed to make $50,000 "disappear" and decided to just pull ANOTHER PHONY KIDNAPPING "PRANK." And something went tragically, if conveniently, wrong. He wasn't the slightest bit attached to the kid....how much did The Colonel lose in the crash of '29? Does anyone know?
Or...maybe Red Johnson was just pulling a little "prank" of his own...
|
|