jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 2, 2008 0:10:05 GMT -5
The whole thing seemed pretty bogus to me. If she was "involved," and wanted to kill herself because of the death of the baby which she didn't think was going to happen, why not kill herself when she learned of the death? If she was not involved and concerned because of common knowledge of her strayings, she could always walk. Even for her, and by her actions, Septimus Banks was not the greatest thing that could ever happen. She had money - she could go back to England, or she could just untown, she wasn't so famous that most people would ever know of her. My street thinking tells me that she didn't realize how potent cyanide is and simply put too much into her glass of water. There are only two chemicals that will instantly kill you in enough quantity - cyanide and concentrated nicotine - so she may have thought she'd just get sick and show suicidal tendency, and effectively be off the hook from Walsh and other investigators. Today or in 1932, if you attempt suicide, you're under the care of the medical community, and though you may be restrained in some fashion, it's much better than prison. So, I'd be very interested to have confirmation of that cyanide being in her posession for a fairly long period of time, and I'll look that up, but if she was truly suicidal in just, there would be a lot more in her writings and actions than one line of a letter. Hemingway actually tried two times before he did it, and I've always hated the Doctors, whoever they were, that let him out of the Mayo Clinic (that was because of his famousness) for his final completion. It's too bad Dudley didn't look at Violet, though perhaps he did, his book is currently unavailable, so I'm not sure. Kevkon or Dave said the book isn't much. Psychiatrists are firstly M.D.'s who are qualified to look at all physical, then to go beyond to all mental, to basically ascertain why people do what they do - good or bad. They ger a bad rap, and speaking of suicide have a very high rate of that, but they're really dedicated and trying to help people. So Dudly, or any psychiatrist, would have looked at Violet differently than we are obfuscatiously looking at her. They would have seen several physical problems first, tonsilitis (I never particularly believed that) and overweight somewhat, and beyond that they would have found her mysteries. Just thinking how those interviews would go, and looking at her past, I really doubt anyone could find a suicidal nature. She wasn't even in jail or accused - which leads one to think of the staff, and they were protected and wouldn't squalk on oneanother. Bottom line I think she tried tro get just sick intentionally and got too sick.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 2, 2008 6:20:19 GMT -5
It's available Jack, a bit pricey though. The libraries also have it. I never said "book isn't much" and I don't think Dave did either. In fact I would recommend it highly as it has some excellent observations on various people involved in the case. You can decide for yourself on Dr Schoenfelds conclusions, though. I think the man was ahead of his time despite some of those conclusions. He's pioneering criminal profiling and he got it mostly right with BRH.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 8, 2008 1:29:28 GMT -5
Thanks, Kev, I thought you said it wasn't much and I kanow Dave said that, but I could be mistaken. Dr. Shoenfeld, and that is his correct titialization, my faux pas, used much more logic than psychiatry in his analyzation of the suspected criminal. He said, just for a few examples, that the kidnapper would be a German (hmm . . . German in the notes), and that he lived in a certain area of the Bronx (hmm . . . at this time Condon was suspect and that area suspiciously surrounds Condon's house) , he said the culprit revered the Red Baron (what German male didn't?), and said he'd have a single bill with him on capture (hmm . . . would you carry a wad of bad money?). Most badly, I think, The Doctor said the criminal would show no remorse, and I wonder if the Doctor has ever talked with criminals and seen ANY remorse among any of them. That, on his part was just kind of a generalization observation that the local plumber could have correctly made. Dr. Schoenfeld did hit it pretty well, but I think you could have done just as good, Kevin. Did you ever think of becoming an editorialist? You have logic, good writing abilities, and if you have the wherewithall to write every day, probably the ability of promoting a good, make sense touch. Our Country needs that right now!
|
|
|
Post by Ana Phylaxis on Jan 2, 2014 18:10:56 GMT -5
Milton also says that Ellerson was born in Denmark, which is not true. He was born in Jersey City. If she gets such simple facts wrong, how can you trust what she says? In his statement to the police Ellerson says that he was born in Jersey City--surely she had access to that? After all, I was able to find it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 2, 2014 19:11:00 GMT -5
Milton also says that Ellerson was born in Denmark, which is not true. He was born in Jersey City. If she gets such simple facts wrong, how can you trust what she says? In his statement to the police Ellerson says that he was born in Jersey City--surely she had access to that? After all, I was able to find it. No one is immune from making mistakes. Honestly - no one is. And while you are right that Ellerson was born in Jersey City one must be careful not to fully accept everything someone claims without checking into it. For example, Ellerson claimed to be English. It was in fact Ellerson's father who was born is Denmark, and the family name was originally "Eilerson." There is also something in his April 12th Statement that is a complete lie.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 2, 2014 20:13:28 GMT -5
What is this complete lie in his 4/12 statement?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 3, 2014 7:54:55 GMT -5
What is this complete lie in his 4/12 statement? Here is the part he is being untruthful (in bold): I then called Mr. Springer at the Morrow home to see if it was true and if they needed me for anything and he said no, and I then drove Tom home at Palisade Avenue and then went to my home in Norwood, arriving there about midnight or a little after. When Springer was interviewed this is what he had to say: ....I remember that I talked with Richard B. Scandrett, Mrs. Morrow's nephew over the telephone, he having called for information and also over the telephone with Henry Ellerson, who telephoned in at approximately 12 o'clock saying that he had heard of the kidnaping over the radio and wanted to know if there was anything that he could do. I remained at the Morrow home until perhaps one o'clock. I did not see Mrs. Morrow as I did not wish to intrude upon her. Now, the fact of the matter is that Ellerson did not go home but went to Englewood. I can only assume that it was Springer, during this call, who summoned him. (As we all know Ellerson had been out drinking and was worried his condition would be detected and get him into trouble - but that's a "side issue" of no consequence to his lying to Police). Once at Englewood he drove Mrs. Morrow immediately to Hopewell - NOT the next morning as History records. Swarming Reporters had seen Ellerson that night and speculation swirled that he had been involved as a result of his denying this fact: Charles Henry Ellerson, employed for the last five years on the Morrow estate at Englewood today denied he drove anybody anywhere the night of the Lindbergh baby kidnaping. Ellison[sic] told an Evening Journal reporter at the Englewood estate of the Morrows that he had been instructed not to talk about the case. He did deny, however, that he did any driving that night. Prior to the trial, PI Frank Pettit (who was working for Reilly) wrote this in one of his Reports: On the night of the kidnapping, he drove the car away with an unknown person to Hopewell, N.J. and returned at 3 A. M. the following morning. He has never accounted for the 6 hours he was away, and all endeavour to have him to say where he spent his time taht night and morn proved useless. On the morning after the kidnapping, Mrs. Morrow ordered him to drive her down to Hopewell to the Lindbergh's home.... In late 1936, after he was laid off by Mrs. Morrow, Ellerson had become very friendly with Gov. Hoffman and agreed to help him. He said this to one of the Governor's men who was interviewing him (as written in the Memo): E. claims he personally drove Mrs. M. to H. from E. on night of kidnapping instead of following morning. This is why it's so important to look at each and every piece of information within the context of the entire situation. Looking at one thing could be meaningless. But when everything is brought together at once it all fits into place. The only thing I have never been able to determine is exactly why this was such a secret. This isn't something that I have shared previously but because I cannot figure out the "why" behind it I decided I could lay it out there in order to gather/discuss ideas with everyone.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 3, 2014 13:34:39 GMT -5
Hm. Breaking this down, it would seem that all he really did was lie about driving Mrs. Morrow to Hopewell, having done it the night of March 1 as opposed to March 2, as claimed. But unless we assume some sort of Behn-type scenario to have taken place, where the timing of who was where exactly when is key, I'm not sure why Ellerson would lie about something like this. I'd say it was a mistake or misremembrance on his part, but you'd remember the difference between driving at night or in the morning, so this looks intentional. Maybe he was told to keep his mouth shut in general about the kidnapping and, out of this secrecy, felt the need to fabricate a completely different story as to his overall movements...? At any rate, a quote you cite has Ellerson returning to Englewood, presumably from Hopewell, at 3AM, having been gone for a six-hour period on the night of March 1 to the morning of March 2. If we assume the unknown person he was driving here to be Mrs. Morrow, then this would obviously be him driving her to Hopewell. But the quote says he was gone for six hours. If he returned 3AM, this means he left Englewood at 9PM, and isn't it true that the kidnapping wasn't even discovered until 10PM?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 3, 2014 14:48:37 GMT -5
Right, I agree the 3AM cannot be correct. Pettit's Report also says he brought Mrs. Morrow down the next morning. So he seems to be combining his sources never considering that it actually had been Mrs. Morrow the "first" trip. Anyway we know, from Ellerson's own admission to the Governor's man, that he did bring Mrs. Morrow down that night and not the next morning. And so it solves what this "secret" was, and proves his denials about it were false. We don't have to get into the confusion over exact timing from secondary sources once he reveals this fact. Honestly, I can tell you from my research this wasn't anything the Governor had been searching for an answer to. It seems obvious he was told not to disclose it - at least to me - then does only after having no job. In fact, in a letter around that time he is basically asking Hoffman to help find him employment. I think another point to be learned from this was the ability for the Morrow Family to control its Staff in this way....to have Ellerson hold onto this "secret" proves it could have been done, and in fact - was done.
But again, why this? Certainly the first thought would be towards Behn's or Norris's theory. At least it might lend creditability that she was possibly "suspicious" if that were true. Problem is that would be jumping to conclusions. Certainly in the absence of any others what do we have? Well, I've also learned that certain secrets were secrets for reasons OTHER then anything that had to do with this crime. That's why I'd like to brain-storm this to see what other ideas we could come up with.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 3, 2014 19:39:05 GMT -5
Yeah, I didn't really think the 6 hour/3AM discrepancy was really any sort of smoking gun. And if you know that sources were combined or confused on this issue, then that answers that as far as I'm concerned. But it still leaves the overall question of why Ellerson would lie about the timing of driving Mrs. Morrow to Hopewell in the first place. Could it be something like what I believe happened with Violet Sharp (although on a much smaller scale)? What I think about Violet is that she had nothing to do with the kidnapping, but didn't want the police finding out other unrelated but (to her mind) potentially embarrassing things in her background, so she began lying and contradicting herself under questioning, generating suspicion which completely snowballed out of control. Could something like that have happened with Ellerson too (minus the suicide, of course)? He was told to keep his mouth shut, maybe started getting the feeling that not all was as it seemed here and, additionally, didn't want the police to find out certain other things he may've been up to that night. With all this to think about, he may've gotten nervous and started unnecessarily making things up altogether. Barring some evidence of his involvement or guilty knowledge of the crime, might this be a possible explanation? Or might this be a slightly different issue? Was this instead not a matter of Ellerson making up on his own when he drove Mrs. Morrow to Hopewell, but rather being told by somebody to say he drove her over later than he did?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 19:40:14 GMT -5
I truly cannot understand why it would be necessary for Ellerson to keep it a secret that he drove Betty Morrow down the night of the kidnapping. We know that Betty was at home that night. She and Elisabeth were the only two immediate family members at Next Day Hill that night. According to Betty's Trial testimony, Violet Sharpe served dinner to her and Elisabeth around 7 p.m. According to Betty's testimony, she was at home when Violet came in a little after 11 p.m. According to Hopewell Deputy Police Chief Charles Willamson who came to Highfields after getting the call from Whateley that Charlie was kidnapped, he arrived around 10:45 p.m.. During the questioning while in the nursery, Anne interrupts and asks about calling "our mothers". She does go and do this. I would think that this call doesn't happen until sometime after 11 p.m., probably more like 11:30. Once Betty Morrow is told I would think that she would have wanted to get to Hopewell as quickly as possible. This would be a normal thing. Mrs. Morrow wouldn't have left for Hopewell until after midnight arriving in the early morning hours of March 2.
I have only read Ellerson's statement dated March 11, 1932. Can you post his April 12th statement? If it is already posted on this board I have not been able to locate it!
So, are you saying that Ellerson made more than one trip to Hopewell? One in the early morning hours of March 2 and another later in the morning on March 2?
Its rather difficult to leave the crime out of it since we are talking about the evening and morning hours of March 1/2. Maybe the reason Ellerson had to deny driving Betty Morrow down that night was because he needed to bring someone else to Hopewell on the morning of March 2 and this person's identity needed to be kept secret? Betty Morrow was the cover story used for this trip made by Ellerson to Hopewell the morning of March 2.
I will have to give this whole thing some more thought.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2014 9:02:55 GMT -5
He was told to keep his mouth shut, maybe started getting the feeling that not all was as it seemed here and, additionally, didn't want the police to find out certain other things he may've been up to that night. With all this to think about, he may've gotten nervous and started unnecessarily making things up altogether. Barring some evidence of his involvement or guilty knowledge of the crime, might this be a possible explanation? Or might this be a slightly different issue? Was this instead not a matter of Ellerson making up on his own when he drove Mrs. Morrow to Hopewell, but rather being told by somebody to say he drove her over later than he did? I feel your pain as you grapple with this. I think exemplifies there was a " don't ask - don't tell" type of situation that went on in this environment ... as an Employee with this Family. They would be "told" not to say or do something then that was supposed to be that. I come to this conclusion because it seems to me Ellerson would have given the reason at the point he chose to disclose what he did. To me, it shows he did not know. During the questioning while in the nursery, Anne interrupts and asks about calling "our mothers". She does go and do this. I would think that this call doesn't happen until sometime after 11 p.m., probably more like 11:30. Once Betty Morrow is told I would think that she would have wanted to get to Hopewell as quickly as possible. This would be a normal thing. Mrs. Morrow wouldn't have left for Hopewell until after midnight arriving in the early morning hours of March 2. Good observations Amy. However, it was the Press who alerted Springer at "about 11:15PM." He immediately called Englewood where Mrs. Morrow confirmed it. My point is that I believe Elizabeth was probably in the know before Anne called as the Press were becoming aware of the 10:46PM Police Alarm - Englewood was probably their 1st phone call. I think once Ellerson made that phone call he was informed to report to Next Day Hill, then from there immediately brought Mrs. Morrow to Hopewell. I have only read Ellerson's statement dated March 11, 1932. Can you post his April 12th statement? If it is already posted on this board I have not been able to locate it! Attachment DeletedAttachment DeletedSo, are you saying that Ellerson made more than one trip to Hopewell? One in the early morning hours of March 2 and another later in the morning on March 2? I am not exactly certain because its hard for me to know what the truth is surrounding the BS that he brought her down the next morning - because he didn't. That could have simply been the explanation for her presence there. But there may truth he returned again. What I do know, to my core, is that he brought her down immediately and this fact was lied about. Its rather difficult to leave the crime out of it since we are talking about the evening and morning hours of March 1/2. Maybe the reason Ellerson had to deny driving Betty Morrow down that night was because he needed to bring someone else to Hopewell on the morning of March 2 and this person's identity needed to be kept secret? Betty Morrow was the cover story used for this trip made by Ellerson to Hopewell the morning of March 2. I will have to give this whole thing some more thought. That's an interesting idea. Hopefully we can keep this going.... I've found that I am most comfortable when we have a "best" choice to choose from.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 11:52:08 GMT -5
I never considered the press contacting them first. I am sure this is exactly how it would have gone down. So Springer is home when he finds out and very quickly returns to Next Day Hill. Betty Morrow would bring him up to speed when he arrives and Springer takes over fielding all the calls coming in. At some point Springer and Betty Morrow address Betty's need to get to Hopewell ASAP. So why not wake up Alfred Burke, the primary chauffeur who lives on the property and have him take Betty down? Why is nothing done about this until Ellerson calls in around midnight? I guess when Springer and Betty go over the events it is decided that Betty will go down secretly with Ellerson. That way when a chauffeured Morrow car arrives later in the morning on March 2 at Highfields it is supposed to contain Betty Morrow as the official story goes but it does not. Who is in the car? Or is anyone actually in it? Instead of dropping off maybe it came to pick up someone who was not supposed to be at Highfields? Elisabeth is in Englewood, Constance is away at school, and Dwight Jr. is supposed to be at Amherst but I don't know that this was ever confirmed. Betty Morrow is willing to use her identity as a shield to cover that second Hopewell trip. Whoever is either arriving or leaving must be someone important to the Morrows otherwise why would she do this??
Thanks for posting Ellerson's statement. Ellerson is never asked to address his movements for the night of March 1. He is asked about Monday night, February 29 instead. Why? Reporters were claiming to have seen Ellerson in the early morning hours in Hopewell. He was there. No wonder Ellerson was greatful to Lindbergh for protecting the servants from hard questioning!
So what do we have to choose from so far:
Ellerson brought Betty Morrow down secretly. What time Ellerson actually brought Betty Morrow to Highfields needs to be kept secret. Ellerson is lying to cover up his real activity that night. Someone needs to either get to Highfields or leave from Highfields and this needs to be covered up.
I am certainly interested in what other choices are possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 12:34:47 GMT -5
Working with that idea let me fill it out a little further:
Betty Morrow needs to go down to Highfields ASAP but needs to make the first trip secretly. Ellerson is chosen for this run. He is sworn to secrecy about making this trip. Betty arrives but is actually there to pick up someone who is not supposed to be at Highfields. This would be the best time to remove someone whose presence needs to be kept secret. She does this and returns to Englewood. She then is chauffeured down later on March 2 by Alfred for her official arrival at Highfields.
Perhaps this is a choice we should consider.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 4, 2014 13:40:56 GMT -5
Could she have been removing the baby?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 4, 2014 20:31:31 GMT -5
Amy, It sounds like we're drifting more and more into Behn territory here. Who, in your view, could Betty Morrow have been picking up at Highfields?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 23:29:43 GMT -5
LJ, I have never read Behn's book so I don't know how it would apply here. Can you give me a quick synopsis so I could consider how it might be connected to this situation?
Stella7 If Charlie were being picked up alive from that house I would consider your suggestion as an option.
I do want to say that this whole idea of the secret trip to Highfields by Betty is based on the belief that what Ellerson claims he did is actually true. He was seen there that night by reporters so I am going to assume that he really did take her. I am not sure at this point who Betty Morrow might have been picking up. I would like to wait a bit before I put a name out there.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 5, 2014 11:15:02 GMT -5
I do a lot of talking about not getting stuck in the "Black or White" explanations for these individual mysteries. I do that because I've learned, over time, the answers I have come to accept aren't usually found at these extremes. However, that's not to say it isn't a possibility that is where the true solution lies. I simply want to impress upon everyone else what I have seen over the years is the "one or the other" type of reason. So while I do not rule them out, I've come to see the odds are stronger in the millions of possibilities found within the grey area that most people, for whatever reason, tend to exclude from consideration. When one ventures into this area, it isn't as attractive - and that might be a big part of the reason. Still though, by the same philosophy, we cannot exclude the "Black or White" positions either. In short: I believe we absolutely must consider each and every possibility - from 0 all the way to 10. So here I go... What we now know happened was odd, and in light of the many theories, at face value seems to indicate something "devious" is going on. As LJ pointed out, the natural tendency would be to apply it to either the Behn theory or the Norris theory in order to make sense of that. Norma's idea is an example, that if it did apply, then that would be something to consider. Or it could be as innocent as Ellerson being drunk, Mrs. Morrow knew he was drunk, but chose to utilize him to drive her down anyway. Examples of "Black or White." So without an answer they must be considered. So why not wake up Alfred Burke, the primary chauffeur who lives on the property and have him take Betty down? Good question, and I believe we need to try to answer it.... Burke was in NY at his Sister's home. Both he and his Wife drove to their home at 11:30PM, and he wasn't aware of the crime until 7:40AM the next morning. It seems to me that during the state of chaos at Next Day Hill Ellerson happened to call in so the opportunity presented itself. Not only that he had just driven Gow down earlier in the day. It makes sense to me to have the guy who's available rather then try to track down Burke. So here we are. Since its accepted that she went down the next morning then it is definitely the timing they wish to keep "private." That adjective might be important. Again, naturally the first word I want to use is "conceal." They're interchangeable of course - but one implies deviance. But what if there is no deviant intent? If that is the case then "private" seems better suited to describe it. Right now, as I sit here, I honestly believe Mrs. Morrow wanted this immediate trip kept quiet to spare her daughter the ridicule and abuse which would have surely come her way from Lindbergh once the Press made public she immediately ran to her Daughter's side. The world revolved around Lindbergh and his perception of strength - where most others would be weak, seems to me at least, to be more important then even his own son's life. The proof of it is exemplified everywhere throughout this case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2014 13:09:36 GMT -5
I must say I certainly like your choice for this secret trip best. I was not really comfortable with Betty Morrow appearing to be doing something devious. I do believe that she valued privacy highly and used it as a way to protect her family. I am glad that she didn't hold back and came quickly to Anne's side. It was the right thing to do. I would like to think that coming secretly to Highfields would have spared Anne from Lindbergh's taunting but I wouldn't bet on it. I don't think he let too many opportunities pass by him.
If Betty never came down on March 2 how did this become the accepted story? There would have been no chauffeured Morrow car arriving that day. No reporters seeing a car leave Englewood or arriving at Highfields.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 5, 2014 17:45:16 GMT -5
I don't think Betty was there for any nefarious reason, either. If I remember correctly, Behn's theory is interesting and even plausible, until the ransom and extortion and then it fell apart for me. I read it a long time ago and should reread it.
But why the secrecy from the press or LE. Certainly having your mother-in-law there is no more embarrassing than having your child stolen right out from under your nose. Is there anyone who saw Betty at Highfields on either March 1 or 2?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 5, 2014 20:18:49 GMT -5
I think Michael's explanation makes a lot of sense. But I don't know that Lindbergh would've out-and-out ridiculed Anne for her mother rushing to her side. That would've been seen as incredibly callous and Lindbergh would've realized this. That being said, I certainly think he would've been highly irritated by Anne's mother hurrying right over. To his mind, as Michael says, this would've been perceived from the outside as weakness. But I can see Betty Morrow saying to herself, "Yeah, well, he can get as irritated as he wants; I'm not interested in all his little rules and hangups right now. No way I'm staying home at a moment like this. Even so, there's no need to make this harder on my daughter, so if anyone asks, you didn't drive me to Hopewell till the following morning--to avoid the perception of panic that'll piss Lindbergh off and thereby add more stress for Anne."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 6, 2014 9:36:17 GMT -5
If Betty never came down on March 2 how did this become the accepted story? There would have been no chauffeured Morrow car arriving that day. No reporters seeing a car leave Englewood or arriving at Highfields. I am sure she came and went multiple times. I believe it was the immediate timing of that night which led the Press to observe this. As the Press invaded the grounds so many cars arrived. Believe me, the Press still asked about "mysterious" cars containing "unknown" people all the time. But why the secrecy from the press or LE. Certainly having your mother-in-law there is no more embarrassing than having your child stolen right out from under your nose. Is there anyone who saw Betty at Highfields on either March 1 or 2? The NJSP had to be aware. Your other point makes sense, unless you apply it to Lindbergh. It's the reaction to a tragedy that shows what kind of people they were. That is - were they mentally strong or weak? The mentally weak were inferiors, and he had exemplified time and time again that his Wife was going to live up to his standards. I think Michael's explanation makes a lot of sense. But I don't know that Lindbergh would've out-and-out ridiculed Anne for her mother rushing to her side. That would've been seen as incredibly callous and Lindbergh would've realized this. That being said, I certainly think he would've been highly irritated by Anne's mother hurrying right over. To his mind, as Michael says, this would've been perceived from the outside as weakness. But I can see Betty Morrow saying to herself, "Yeah, well, he can get as irritated as he wants; I'm not interested in all his little rules and hangups right now. No way I'm staying home at a moment like this. Even so, there's no need to make this harder on my daughter, so if anyone asks, you didn't drive me to Hopewell till the following morning--to avoid the perception of panic that'll piss Lindbergh off and thereby add more stress for Anne." Exactly. Anyone during this time, who was honest, always said Lindbergh was "odd," "different," or "strange." It's kind of like someone who has a mental problem and you know that by acting normally at a specific time it would set them off. And so you do the right thing but try your best to mitigate the damages. I think support for my theory may come from the Press Questions to Schwarzkopf. Anytime they asked about Anne's health or mental state he refused to answer then reprimanded them not to ask theses personal non-crime related questions. But when they asked about a rumor concerning Lindbergh being sick & bedridden the question was answered in no uncertain terms.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 6, 2014 19:56:19 GMT -5
Funny how this All-Roads-Lead-To-Rome pattern keeps emerging. That is, Lindbergh's odd behavior almost always seems to crop up as a common denominator in almost every discussion on this board...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 10:01:15 GMT -5
I am assuming that the above information came from Alfred Burke's statement to police. Since he said they didn't know anything about the crime until the next morning(March 2), when he and his wife traveled from New York back into New Jersey they must not have encountered any check point crossing into New Jersey from New York. Was LE only checking cars going into New York and not coming from New York? Hypothetically, if Charlie was being taken into a neighboring state such as Conneticut were cars being checked coming out of New York into other New England states? Were check points for car searches limited to only incoming traffic from New Jersey into New York? I am trying to understand the dymanics of the check points. Alfred and his wife obviously didn't encounter any or they would have known sooner about the kidnapping. Also, what is an all-points bulletin? Is it limited to just the state where it is issued or is it more extensive. Did they use these in 1932?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 7, 2014 19:54:07 GMT -5
I am assuming that the above information came from Alfred Burke's statement to police. Since he said they didn't know anything about the crime until the next morning(March 2), when he and his wife traveled from New York back into New Jersey they must not have encountered any check point crossing into New Jersey from New York. Was LE only checking cars going into New York and not coming from New York? I don't recall ever seeing where someone had been stopped looking for the Baby immediately coming into NJ from NY. I could be wrong, and it may have happen - its just that I haven't read about it in the files (at least that I recall). I think Burke's own account supports the notion that, at least, he wasn't stopped for this specific reason. I know there were always Police at the tunnels. Like, for example, when Wendel was transported to New Jersey one (Parker) Defense question was "why" he didn't call out to them from help. Hypothetically, if Charlie was being taken into a neighboring state such as Conneticut were cars being checked coming out of New York into other New England states? Were check points for car searches limited to only incoming traffic from New Jersey into New York? I am trying to understand the dymanics of the check points. Alfred and his wife obviously didn't encounter any or they would have known sooner about the kidnapping. It's my understanding that cars going into NY from NJ were stopped and searched prior thereto. Lloyd Fisher had been stopped himself - while driving in NJ (I believe this is in Lloyd's book The Case That Never Dies). Also, what is an all-points bulletin? Is it limited to just the state where it is issued or is it more extensive. Did they use these in 1932? An "APB," or "All Points Bulletin" did occur here. Only that I do not believe they used this specific term back then. I could be wrong, and I am certainly not a historian, but from everything I read I saw many things said or referred to .... it is this but never literally deemed that phrase.... They had something called a "Police Wire." From what I can tell the NJSP could send out "Police Information" or "Messages" to individual Troops, or to any Chief of Police in New Jersey that had a Teletype Receiver. Or they could send something that went to ALL New Jersey Law Enforcement Receivers. It appears to me that, if directed, different liaison troops for each state would relay Messages to a specific Receiver in one or more States who would then begin their own relay process. For example, the original "Alert" went everywhere, and there was a reply from Phila which shows they sent out their "Alert," via relay, at 11:31PM (note: it says 10:31PM but that is obviously because their time is off by one hour). Hammonton was PA's liaison which meant any alert to PA had to go through this troop first. There's others that have this note on it: NOTIFY ALL ADJOINING TOWNS THAT DO NOT HAVE TELETYPE RECEIVERS. Here's one from Major Schoeffel sent specifically to the New York City Police AND New York State Police. Notice that it went from Trenton to Newark, then relayed from Newark to New York. Again, this is my understanding of the process only through my limited experience with these documents.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Jan 7, 2014 21:00:09 GMT -5
Amy35 asked,"Hypothetically, if Charlie was being taken into a neighboring state such as Conneticut were cars being checked coming out of New York into other New England states? Were check points for car searches limited to only incoming traffic from New Jersey into New York? I am trying to understand the dymanics of the check points." *My grandfather was arrested on kidnapping charges (I believe in Washington DC), after they saw my father sitting in the back seat. My aunt was also in the car. The officers originally caught him stealing gasoline. *It was my "Uncle Max Boyer" the Lawyer for the New Jersey Police Department who was able to get all charges dropped.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 9:34:11 GMT -5
I was just wondering if Alfred mentioned anything about seeing police stopping and checking cars when he was coming back into New Jersey from New York. Since it was late at night when he and his wife would have approached Next Day Hill, I wondered if he would have encountered either police or reporters at the estate which would have alerted him that something was happending.
Thanks so much for taking the time to help me understand about the check points and the equivalent in 1932 of an APB. I have looked at old news footage in the past and that was my main impression about the cars being stopped and searched. They always refer to it as being done all over the country. Amiee's post above mentions Washington DC so the wire system did work for getting the word around about the kidnapping.
The bulletins you posted are interesting examples of how law enforcement communicated with each other. Both items are dated March 2, 1932 with evening hours noted. Are these bulletins based on Ben Lupica's description of what he saw?
Also, the bulletin sent by Major Schoeffel to the NYC police is requesting a list of all Hudson Sedans bearing a N.Y. license #4-U-99-??. Ben Lupica had said that the car he saw had a N.J. plate that started with an "L". Would you know who the source was for this N.Y. license plate number? This is right at the beginning of the investigation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 9, 2014 18:39:44 GMT -5
I was just wondering if Alfred mentioned anything about seeing police stopping and checking cars when he was coming back into New Jersey from New York. Since it was late at night when he and his wife would have approached Next Day Hill, I wondered if he would have encountered either police or reporters at the estate which would have alerted him that something was happending. He doesn't say. The bulletins you posted are interesting examples of how law enforcement communicated with each other. Both items are dated March 2, 1932 with evening hours noted. Are these bulletins based on Ben Lupica's description of what he saw? Only the Bulletin concerning the Dodges. His account resulted in an effort to locate that car. Also, the bulletin sent by Major Schoeffel to the NYC police is requesting a list of all Hudson Sedans bearing a N.Y. license #4-U-99-??. Ben Lupica had said that the car he saw had a N.J. plate that started with an "L". Would you know who the source was for this N.Y. license plate number? This is right at the beginning of the investigation. There were countless clues flowing in at this time from all over the State - and beyond. This was merely the NJSP following up on a "Suspicious Vehicle" reported with a partial tag. They did their best to try to identify and/or eliminate these tips, and this Bulletin is an example of this.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 13, 2014 4:00:47 GMT -5
Hey Amy, Sorry I'm only noticing your question on Noel Behn's book now. It came out in the mid-90s and postulates that Anne's sister Elizabeth was at Highfields that weekend, that she was unbalanced and killed CAL Jr. in a fit of jealousy because Lindbergh was supposed to have married her but chose Anne instead. Behn theorizes that the whole thing happened a day or two before it was reported and that that's how long it took for Lindbergh and Breckinridge (with "Wild Bill" Donovan, future head of the OSS, advising) to spirit Elizabeth away from Highfields and make the whole thing look like a kidnapping--all to spare the Morrow family a huge scandal. Later, according to Behn, JJ Nosovitsky got involved and extorted Lindbergh for the phony ransom, which Lindbergh had no choice but to pay in order to maintain the idea that this was an actual kidnapping. Can't remember at the moment how Behn says Hauptmann got caught up in the whole thing, but, at any rate, it's a very interesting book and, though I don't buy Behn's conclusions, even he seems to arrive at them as a sort of grain-of-salt afterthought. And the rest of the book is a very extensive and well-written account of the case, which also occupies something of a special place for me, being the first book I ever read on the LKC. Worth at least a look, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2014 9:53:29 GMT -5
Hey LJ, Thanks for the summation of Behn's book. Its an interesting theory. I have never been clear on why there was a need for someone like Donovan to be involved to begin with unless they suspected there might be some kind of connection to a foreign politcal/radical group. Even then, I am not sure why Lindbergh would have been targeted by such an element at this particular time.
I think I have read pieces of this theory on some of the threads on this board. When you read what Anne Morrow Lindbergh puplished in her diaries (edited of course), Anne thinks that Lindbergh and Elisabeth get along so well and enjoy being in each others company. Because the diaries are edited, you never get a clear picture of whether or not CAL and Elisabeth actually were building a true romantic relationship. All three of the Morrow girls did find CAL attractive and enjoyed whatever attention he did give them. It seems when the press started to pick up on the rumors that Lindbergh was seeing one of the Morrow girls it was Elisabeth the older sister who was thought to be the one. I have not been able to find anything (yet) that confirms an actual date between the two. If there is such confirmation that CAL and Elisabeth had a real relationship beyond the rumors, I would sure like to see it posted. Does Behn's book have any sources that CAL and Elisabeth were seeing each other? Not just rumored to be. Jealousy can be a strong motivator, especially if coupled with a mental illness.
I have always thought that Dwight Jr. was the one with the mental issues. When did Elisabeth become the imbalanced one?
My understanding, according to Betty Morrow's trial testimony is that Elisabeth was in Englewood on March 1. However, whether Elisabeth was in Englewood over the weekend of February 27 and 28 is less clear. Betty Morrow was away that weekend not arriving back at Next Day Hill until the evening of February 29. Betty only accounts for Elisabeth's presence at Next Day Hill on March 1. Does this mean that Elisabeth was at Highfields the end of February? Don't know for sure but at this point I doubt it. There is a letter to Elisabeth written by Anne dated March 18, 1932. Her salutation is "Darling Elisabeth" and Anne goes on to talk about how comforting her Mother's presence at Highfields is for her plus other things. It is hard for me to equate a letter like this with Elisabeth being the cause of Charlie's demise.
Behn's book does sound interesting, however, and I try not to wear blinders in this crime but instead to weigh all the options.
|
|