|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 13, 2014 17:46:56 GMT -5
According to Behn, Donovan's role would've been an advisory one. As someone familiar with investigative work, he would've been brought in to instruct the household on what kind of questions would be asked by police and how to answer them. Exactly how Behn says Donovan became involved, though, I can't remember at the moment. Perhaps as a friend or associate of Breckinridge, but I'd have to check. As to Lindbergh's involvement with Elisabeth: I don't think he ever was. Before Lindbergh and Anne married, there was a newspaper photo of Elisabeth with the caption "To Wed Lindy?", and I think this may've been the source of all the Lindbergh-Elisabeth romance rumors, that it was nothing more than media hype generated by his involvement with the Morrow family: Everyone knew Lindbergh was associated with the Morrows and was getting close with them. The press may've wanted a romance to be going on and, if there was, they assumed it would've naturally been with Elisabeth, as the most outgoing, attractive and visible of the Morrow girls. And Elisabeth's mental health: As we all know, she had serious physical problems, but there's no evidence of any mental unbalance. This is all Behn--who, admittedly, is basing his theory on his conversations with a former investigator named Harry Green, who seems to have been a pretty standup guy with no reason to lie, but still, I don't know that any hard evidence is really there to support any of this. And Elisabeth's movements at the time of the kidnapping: Part of Behn's point is that her whereabouts on 2/27-2/29 (when he says the crime actually occurred) are unclear. That may be, but I don't think it necessarily means anything was being covered up. But either way, like I said, it's an interesting book, and I respect that even Behn, rather responsibly, treats his conclusions with a grain of salt, without sensationalizing, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 14, 2014 13:13:36 GMT -5
This is all Behn--who, admittedly, is basing his theory on his conversations with a former investigator named Harry Green, who seems to have been a pretty standup guy with no reason to lie, but still, I don't know that any hard evidence is really there to support any of this. Harry Green was an Attorney and part of the Parker's Defense Team. His role has been misrepresented in Jim Fisher's book Ghosts of Hopewell which I've made no bones about labeling as one of the worst books out there (that I've read). Green was privy to just about anything the Governor had during his "re-investigation" of this case. So its absolutely likely, if such an Affidavit existed, for Green to have a copy. The question is whether or not you believe Behn - not that Green would or would not possess such a document. So IF Behn was spinning a tale in order to sell his book, he at least did the research Fisher did not in order to come up with a legitimate source for his claim. And Elisabeth's movements at the time of the kidnapping: Part of Behn's point is that her whereabouts on 2/27-2/29 (when he says the crime actually occurred) are unclear. That may be, but I don't think it necessarily means anything was being covered up. But either way, like I said, it's an interesting book, and I respect that even Behn, rather responsibly, treats his conclusions with a grain of salt, without sensationalizing, etc. The NJSP were satisfied that Elisabeth was in Englewood on February 29th based upon several sources. In fact, Burke claimed he drove Elisabeth and a friend "to the home of Mrs. Allerson" prior to leaving for his Sister's home that night. This house wasn't far from Next Day Hill in Englewood. I have found something interesting in the Schwarzkopf file if anyone would like me to post it. I am sure I have in the past but I can't remember how long it ago it was....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2014 22:31:43 GMT -5
I would certainly be interested in what you found in his file!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 15, 2014 6:24:18 GMT -5
I would certainly be interested in what you found in his file!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2014 12:13:54 GMT -5
I need to be clear on something. Did Burke leave to go to his sister's house in New York the evening of February 29 and then return late on the evening of March 1? Also, who is Mrs. Allerson? You have quotations around this pharse so I am asking about it.
The item you posted is very interesting. It does not have a date or any initials so I don't know when and who created this list.
Did Schwarzkopf ever interview Elizabeth Chilton? She could have had some interesting things to share about Elisabeth's presence that last weekend of February and also March 1. Wasn't the person who was Elisabeth Morrow's partner at The Little School named Constance Chilton?
Looking at Betty Gows movements at the time of the phone call from Anne Lindbergh, Betty Gow states that Anne called her around 10:30 a.m. and asked her to come by train to Highfields. This is backed up by Septimus Banks statement that he took the incoming call from Anne Lindbergh and summoned Betty Gow to the phone. Banks states that he checked the train schedule and worked out a plan with connecting trains that would have Betty at Highfields sometime after 3 p.m. Banks goes on to say that he became concerned that there could be a missing of trains so he arranged for Betty Gow to be driven down to Hopewell. Betty states that when she talks to Betty Morrow about going to Highfields Betty Morrow suggests that Betty Gow be driven down instead. There appears to be a conflict here about whose idea it was that Betty Gow be chaueffeured to Highfields instead of taking the train. I have thought about this and what I think probably happened is that when Betty Gow went to Betty Morrow to tell her that Anne called and she would be going to Hopewell by train, Betty Morrow suggested that it would be better if she were driven down. Betty Morrow probably talked with Banks who expressed his concern about the possibility of the missing of trains in Jersey City which would have delayed Betty's arrival at Hopewell, so at the request of Betty Morrow he arranged for Ellerson to drive Betty down. After speaking with Betty Morrow, Betty Gow states that she placed a call to Henry (Red) Johnson but he was not home but left a message with Mrs. Sherman the woman who rented a room to Johnson. Betty asked Mrs. Sherman to have Johnson call her at Englewood when he comes home. Betty apparently leaves the house without ever speaking to Johnson. Banks was asked if he had any knowledge whether or not Betty Gow communicated with anyone by telephone or otherwise before leaving for Hopewell. Banks says he does not know. Betty says that she and Ellerson leave for Hopewell about 11:45. Ellerson says that he and Betty have lunch first and then leave for Hopewell about ten minutes after 12 noon. Betty never mentions having lunch before they leave. This all seems cut and dry unless someone has knowledge of Betty speaking to someone else that morning besides Mrs. Sherman. Surely the phone records for March 1 were reviewed by NJSP. Of course this is 1932 so I am not sure how much info you could get besides the phone numbers incoming or outgoing.
The next point about whether Betty Gow saw Elisabeth Morrow after receiving the phone call from Anne to come to Hopewell is interesting. Betty Gow never mentions Elisabeth in her statement. However, Henry Ellerson does mention Elisabeth in his statement. He states that on March 1 he reported for work at 8 a.m., cleaned the Cheverolet and put it at the door for Elisabeth Morrow. This would seem to indicate that Elisabeth was home that morning and planning to go out. Hmmm. I do not know how many cars the Morrows had available or how many of them were Chevrolets. Gardner mentions on page 12 of his book that Ellerson took Betty Gow to Hopewell in the Chevrolet Roadster that morning. I thought that this was the car Ellerson put at the door for Elisabeth to use. Help!!!
The next point sounds like someone is asking if Elisabeth Morrow is in charge of Betty Gow's employment. She wasn't but I am sure she could have influence over Betty's status if Betty's care of Charlie were called into question by Elisabeth.
This final point mentioned is serious. Did Elisabeth know of a threat to kidnap Charlie? I have never read anything about something like this. Or could this be suggesting that Elisabeth made a kidnap threat against Charlie? Michael, have you encountered this possibility? Was this followed up on by NJSP? Did Gov. Hoffman uncover any such known threat in his investigation?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 16, 2014 18:49:23 GMT -5
I need to be clear on something. Did Burke leave to go to his sister's house in New York the evening of February 29 and then return late on the evening of March 1? Yes. Also, who is Mrs. Allerson? You have quotations around this phrase so I am asking about it. I have been searching for a source that I recall answers this question. However, I have been unable to locate it. From memory, this was a friend of the family, and Elisabeth and Constance Chilton went there for a visit. When I stumble onto this source (and I will), I will quote it if anyone is interested. I originally believed in was in my T. J. Cooney file but it wasn't. Once again I have to use this as a platform some may refer to as a diatribe.... Cooney was a PI working for The Thiel Sevrice Company. This company was reputable enough to have the confidence of the FBI who, in this case, actually hired them to investigate many of the Englewood Angles. In fact, some of the information in Cooney's Reports are word for word written into the FBI Summary Report. One must have both to know this. So when I see certain "people" create a false dichotomy by saying, in essence, the FBI was "good" and Gov. Hoffman was "bad" I absolutely know they don't possess the knowledge required to make such an assertion. Because if they did, how on earth can they reconcile the fact Cooney helped Hoffman during his re-investigation? The item you posted is very interesting. It does not have a date or any initials so I don't know when and who created this list. In my opinion its in Schwarzkopf's handwriting. However, he appears to be writing it down from another source (possibly someone reading it to him?) Did Schwarzkopf ever interview Elizabeth Chilton? She could have had some interesting things to share about Elisabeth's presence that last weekend of February and also March 1. Wasn't the person who was Elisabeth Morrow's partner at The Little School named Constance Chilton? I can't answer this. All I can say is that after searching through each and every collection at the NJSP Archives, multiple times, I have never located such an interview. It may have existed at one time but its not there now. The next point sounds like someone is asking if Elisabeth Morrow is in charge of Betty Gow's employment. She wasn't but I am sure she could have influence over Betty's status if Betty's care of Charlie were called into question by Elisabeth. I've taken this to mean Elisabeth was the reason Betty was hired in the first place. The credit goes to Mary Beattie who was Elisabeth's personal Maid. So this insinuation does make sense. This final point mentioned is serious. Did Elisabeth know of a threat to kidnap Charlie? I have never read anything about something like this. Or could this be suggesting that Elisabeth made a kidnap threat against Charlie? Michael, have you encountered this possibility? Was this followed up on by NJSP? Did Gov. Hoffman uncover any such known threat in his investigation? I've encountered it but nothing from an Official Source. And to my knowledge - no - there's no evidence it was followed up. Have you Dorothy Herrmann's book? She is no proponent of either the Elisabeth or DMJr. "theories" but if you go to pages 65-6 you will see she claims in the months prior to CJr.'s birth Elisabeth is depressed then suddenly decides to leave Next Day Hill to recuperate in North Haven instead. These are the types of things that can give rise to a rumor (if one thinks it was).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2014 12:21:01 GMT -5
Yes that does make perfect sense. I will add this to my notes on Betty Gow.
Have you Dorothy Herrmann's book?
Not yet. Should be here in a few days. Will check out those pages!
Although nothing is set in stone with me yet, I am not very inclined to either theory myself. This was a family that valued privacy and no doubt this would often give rise to rumors. There are times that rumors can have an element of truth to them but that truth becomes distorted and buried once the rumor gets rolling.
Thanks Michael for the answers!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2014 23:03:16 GMT -5
I would be very interested in seeing this posted if you please, Michael.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 18, 2014 9:49:22 GMT -5
I would be very interested in seeing this posted if you please, Michael. Sorry about the suspense! I believe this is new since I hadn't uploaded it before. Also (to everyone), I know I am beating a dead horse, and I do not personally believe Elisabeth was the Murderer, but I absolutely hate the way Fisher tries to eliminate this theory. It's the old, in essence, believe me or your an idiot or something routine. Saying Green only had a "brush" with this case, when this only demonstrates his ignorance, annoys the hell out of me. Then you have something like this that's right in Schwarzkopf's File. Anyone willing to guess whether or not I've found other things I have chosen not to share yet? Research everything. By doing so one can add or subtract from any theory until you are personally satisfied. When someone TELLS you what or what not to believe be skeptical....be very skeptical. "Buying into" a directive will only serve to stunt your research. There is something to be learned in each and every corner concerning this crime. Again, my best advice is to come to your very own conclusion by working through everything you can get your hands on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2014 12:16:25 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael for posting the additional page. Whether dictated to Schwarzkopf or told to him over the phone and these are his notes, it does seem to point suspicion onto Elisabeth. What I am not sure it is doing is actually accusing her of harming Charlie. I tend to see this as indicating that Elisabeth knows what really happened to Charlie and that further investigation should be conducted along those lines. Just my take on this.
I have not read any of Fisher's books on the kidnapping so he has had zero influence on my thinking. Nor have I read the books of other authors such as Behn. I do have Scaduto's book but have not read it in total. Kidnap by George Waller and Crime of the Century by Ludovic Kennedy and also The Case that Never Dies by Lloyd Gardner are the three books I have read completely. I am not sure if this is a good thing or not, however. I like to think that by not filling up my head with other theories I am able to stay more open minded when I approach different possibilities in this crime. I guess I like to weigh all the options. I sit here with notes and questions on all kinds of theories from Lindbergh being culpable on down to the lone-wolf Hauptmann being responsible. My gut feeling about this case is that the whole story is not out there and it really should be. This is why I am so looking forward to your book, Michael. It will, by far, be the most comprehensive and detailed look at this crime ever.
I have absolutely no doubt that you have many, many things that have not been shared. So I am going to ask you this question:
Was any investigating ever attempted by any source after this crime occurred about the possibility that Charlie died as the result of experimental surgery being performed to try to improve his quality of life?
I ask this because of two statements made by two important people close to Charlie.
1) In Gardner's book on page 408 he refers to a conversation Breckinridge reveals after Hauptmann's arrest. Breck mentions a man who looks like Fisch coming into his office and during the conversation says "the needs of science must be served over and above human life."
2) In Anne's diary Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead, on page 249, the entry dated May 14, 1932 she tells how her and Charles have never been so close as at the birth of Charlie and now at Charlie's death. She goes on to say how Charlie has made something tremendous out of their marriage that can't be changed now. And then she says "And for the world, too, perhaps the sacrifice will bring something."
Science and sacrifice. How does this equate with kidnapping and murder?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 18, 2014 18:59:13 GMT -5
Good eye, Amy, with regard to those excerpts. It casts a whole new light on that neat little hole found in the skull--could it have been the result of a surgical procedure? I think you suggested that before, and while I still believe it was indeed made by a stick as the police tried tried to pry the head up to get a look at the face, it's definitely a possibility. But even allowing for decomposition, why would the skull be so soft as to allow for a stick to poke through, unless there was something physically wrong with the bones to begin with, or there was some procedure before death during which the hole was made? I'm curious though--when would this procedure have been performed, in your view, and where?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 19, 2014 11:20:51 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael for posting the additional page. Whether dictated to Schwarzkopf or told to him over the phone and these are his notes, it does seem to point suspicion onto Elisabeth. What I am not sure it is doing is actually accusing her of harming Charlie. I tend to see this as indicating that Elisabeth knows what really happened to Charlie and that further investigation should be conducted along those lines. Just my take on this. I think it could mean both. I am also interested in the last line: " alec only suspects." This could mean Lindbergh only suspects Elisabeth or that Schwarzkopf should only focus on the Lindbergh circle as Suspects. What else that's interesting is the use of Lindbergh's code name. Was this Schwarzkopf abbreviating, or as it was being told to him this way? I have not read any of Fisher's books on the kidnapping so he has had zero influence on my thinking. Nor have I read the books of other authors such as Behn. I do have Scaduto's book but have not read it in total. Kidnap by George Waller and Crime of the Century by Ludovic Kennedy and also The Case that Never Dies by Lloyd Gardner are the three books I have read completely. I am not sure if this is a good thing or not, however. I like to think that by not filling up my head with other theories I am able to stay more open minded when I approach different possibilities in this crime. I guess I like to weigh all the options. I sit here with notes and questions on all kinds of theories from Lindbergh being culpable on down to the lone-wolf Hauptmann being responsible. I think there's value in any book. It gives rise to material for research. Know what I mean? Are these "facts" or can they be challenged? If so, can they stand alone? If something doesn't fit I am not an advocate of shrugging it off, or shaming someone into never getting to that point in the first place. One has to look, search, then compare. There are, for example, MANY things represented as facts in The Ghosts of Hopewell that are simply false. Yet its these very mistakes Fisher uses like a sword to convince others who ever believes otherwise is wrong. I do have to be honest and say while I encourage all to read every book I certainly haven't done so. Zorn's book won't be in my collection any time soon, but of course there might be something in it worth discussion. That's where I will rely on whoever chooses to read it to bring questions about such a point here for discussion. My gut feeling about this case is that the whole story is not out there and it really should be. This is why I am so looking forward to your book, Michael. It will, by far, be the most comprehensive and detailed look at this crime ever. Not to bore you with the details but as I've previously said I am not a "Writer." The other problem is this whole process is extremely difficult for me. My goal is to write about new material and/or correct old material which has been misrepresented as history - when it ain't. I've previously boasted the 1st "chapter" solves the case, and in my mind it does. I am willing to bet the facts contained therein will have even the diehard "Lone-Wolf" fans reconsidering (after they get past their denial concerning my facts which I prove with source and citation). This 2nd "chapter" has really turned into a black hole of sorts. It's not about 'solving' the crime but it will shock anyone who reads it. What concerns me the most, as it relates to this part, is with so many people writing books someone might actually stumble onto what I have found (here). If that happens, it could get posted on a message board, or added to a new book in which case years of effort will have been for nothing. Heck, it could be in Richard's book for all I know! Anyway, when I sit to actually write I need hours of time that I can dedicate to it. So if I have just 2 hours then I usually don't. I also "hold off" on certain things expecting to find new material. And I do even at this date.... I was given advice by a close friend who told me I could wait forever so I need to stop waiting... It's why I'd like to see it in a series like what Hoffman did in Liberty. That way I would be forced to do an article a year. In my mind that would be the best way to deliver this new material. I have absolutely no doubt that you have many, many things that have not been shared. So I am going to ask you this question:Was any investigating ever attempted by any source after this crime occurred about the possibility that Charlie died as the result of experimental surgery being performed to try to improve his quality of life? No, and if any Cop did they would have found themselves unemployed in my opinion. However, a friend of mine who is a researcher brought up this very point some years ago for discussion - so you aren't alone in at least considering this. Science and sacrifice. How does this equate with kidnapping and murder? A perfect example of what questions can be brought out by looking at everything. I like how you are looking for "themes" and/or common denominators. Be careful though - it can drive you mad with all the possibilities!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 19, 2014 15:11:17 GMT -5
Maybe this has been suggested before, but have you ever thought of publishing online? Like, on this board or by creating a separate blog (a sort of online Liberty series)? Rather than wait to find new stuff, that's the kind of format that allows things to be added to or amended as you do find new information. You can also, of course, copyright the material so it won't get stolen. Further, you can charge a membership fee to read it--a fee which (and I think I speak for others) I know I would gladly pay. Then, one day, when you're satisfied all your information has been put out, that it's solid and expressed the way you want to express it, take the blog/site down and publish the whole thing in book form. I suggest this because a cousin of mine has a book coming out in two years, and I watched as it took him over a decade to not only finish, but then to find a publisher. And speaking for myself, I have my own theory on the crime, but have reached something of an impass in terms of research, especially with the resources available. I'm ready to hear something new, to know what really happened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 21:57:57 GMT -5
To be honest, I have not yet done enough research on this to be able to answer you. It would be pure speculation on my part to say what, if any, kind of procedure would have been done. This would depend on what Charlie's true health issues were.
When I find people like Breckinridge and Anne making such statements, they suggest other possibilities to me beyond the stranger from the Bronx deciding to kidnap and kill Charles Lindbergh Jr. When you sacrifice something, you are giving it up. It is not being taken from you in a criminal act. I am truly dumbfounded by Ann's choice of words in this particular diary entry. Perhaps I should just attribute her words to the drugs she was being given and their affect on her mental and emotional state at this time.
I wondered about this myself when I read it. Whoever is telling this to Schwarzkopf really thinks that Elisabeth knows what happened and they should keep after her to find out, while Alec(Lindbergh) only suspects what might have happened. Do you really think that Lindbergh would place suspicion onto Elisabeth or any other member of the Morrow family(Dwight Jr.)?
It would depend on who the source is that is sharing this list of tips with Schwarzkopf. I am assuming that the officers knew Lindbergh's code name and if one of them were reading this list to Schwarzkopf privately (in person or on phone), they could have used the code name for Lindbergh. I am wondering who the person is who might have created this list of tips. It sounds like someone who knows both Elisabeth and Betty Gow although they get Constance Chilton's first name wrong in the very first sentence on the first page. It sounds like someone who might have seen or heard something important to this crime.
That would never happen!!
You have a wise friend Michael. I hope you follow that advice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 22:06:01 GMT -5
Michael, Since we are talking about the Morrow chauffeurs on this thread, I wanted to check something with you that I read in Susan Hertog's book "Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Her Life". On page 151 she states that Betty Gow was introduced to Henry (Red) Johnson at a dance in Maine by Alfred Burke the Morrow's chauffeur. Is this true?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2014 13:05:35 GMT -5
I have been doing a little checking into this and I wanted to share some thoughts. We know that Charlie had health issues he was being treated for. The rickets is supported by the vitamin D preparation he was on(viosterol), the use of the sun lamp, physical manifestations of the disease such as the enlarged cranium and square head. I also want to add in here that there may be evidence that Charlie was suffering from seizures possibly due to epilepsy. I think the special diet Charlie was on supports this. Controlled portions of high fats and low carbohydrates was being used as early as the 1920's to help control seizures in infants and children. Here is a link to this diet: www.charliefoundation.org/faq/ketogenic-diet.htmlThis could be why Anne rushed to have the diet published in all the newspapers. It was needed to help control his seizures. Whoever had Charlie would need to feed him right to prevent as few seizures as possible. If Charlie was removed alive from that room and held alive for several days they may have been confronted by Charlie having seizures and unless they were prepared to treat this condition, Charlie would have no doubt been killed. Is this why the kidnappers hoped for a quick turn around, Charlie for money, in two to four days? Think about those ransom notes and what they were saying. When working on your theory LJ you may want to consider all of this. I really don't, at this time, think that a surgical procedure was done on Charlie. It could very well be that the Lindberghs sought improvement of Charlie's quality of life through agressive treatment of the rickets and control of his seizures with diet. I think they would have sought help through the Johns Hopkins Hospital. They were one of the few places working on rickets and seizures, pioneering much of the science to advance understanding and treatment in these areas. Look into the Harriet Lane Home which was established in 1912 at the Johns Hopkins University. It offered specialized care for children and infants as well as research and teaching before pediatrics even existed at most hospitals. I am sure that the Lindberghs would have taken advantage of this facility for Charlie. I really don't want to post anything else along this theme on this thread. We will go way off topic. Don't want to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 20, 2014 17:34:10 GMT -5
Maybe this has been suggested before, but have you ever thought of publishing online? Thanks for the suggest LJ. For me, its not about money at all. It's about getting it "right," doing it "right," being "effective," and receiving credit for the unique material I can produce from my research. I don't think a Blog or this Board would meet that requirement. Take for example Zorn's story. Since this Board's existence there are limitless comments concerning Hauptmann never being referred to as "Bruno." The fleshy lump story that Condon invented has been discussed as far back as I can remember....starting at the year 2000. The Berryman sketch - I've pointed out there was an original different from the one we always see, and I am certain others have pointed this out too. All on this or other Message Boards. Yet all three things are key elements used to support Zorn's absurd theory that a host of news stations have given him credit for doing so. I only know this from seeing the various news reports. Again his theory is absolutely SILLY and everything to counter it has already been "published" on the Boards. See my point? Michael, Since we are talking about the Morrow chauffeurs on this thread, I wanted to check something with you that I read in Susan Hertog's book "Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Her Life". On page 151 she states that Betty Gow was introduced to Henry (Red) Johnson at a dance in Maine by Alfred Burke the Morrow's chauffeur. Is this true? Yes, she is correct. I am wondering who the person is who might have created this list of tips. It sounds like someone who knows both Elisabeth and Betty Gow although they get Constance Chilton's first name wrong in the very first sentence on the first page. It sounds like someone who might have seen or heard something important to this crime. There was an Ely Chilton. The Reports/Sources at the NJSP Archives containing this name are: " F-123, and R-517" These are in my notes that I happen to have in front of me. I specifically looked for this name on several occasions but I can tell you what I found was of no consequence or assistance concerning the above Schwarzkopf Notes. I may have made a copy of them but I am not sure. I remember being disappointed by what I discovered - and did not discover.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Jan 20, 2014 20:02:12 GMT -5
Michael, Do you have the original "different" Berryman sketch? If so would like to see it. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 20, 2014 20:54:26 GMT -5
Michael, Do you have the original "different" Berryman sketch? If so would like to see it. Thanks
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Jan 20, 2014 22:13:58 GMT -5
Charlie Jr. was constantly kept indoors for long periods of time at Grandma Morrow's House. There is no information or indication that Charlie Jr. ever had seizures. As for his diet (there are two different versions), they both seemed odd. Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2014 12:59:06 GMT -5
Thanks for verifying this. She had no footnote for a supporting document for it, so, naturally, I bring it to you so I can be clear on it. I will put this in my Betty Gow notes.
This does bring me to another servant question. In Septimus Bank's statement dated April 13, 1932 he states that he is the one who took the call from Anne Lindbergh the morning of March 1 requesting that Betty Gow come to Hopewell. He says that he connected that call to Betty Gow. My question is:
When did it become Violet Sharp who took that call and not Banks? I have Violet's statement made on March 10, 1932. She does not say anything about answering the call that Banks says he answered. What is going on here? Did Anne make more than one call that morning? Perhaps I am getting Violet's calls mixed up and it was Ernie she took a call from and not Anne that day?
Thank you for clarifying the name. I thought Schwarzkopf had abbreviated Elizabeth as Eliz. You have saved me from knocking myself out trying to find an Elizabeth Chilton tied to someone in this case. Sorry Ely Chilton turned out to be such a letdown for you. It is frustrating how many of these occur within this case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 21, 2014 19:43:13 GMT -5
This does bring me to another servant question. In Septimus Bank's statement dated April 13, 1932 he states that he is the one who took the call from Anne Lindbergh the morning of March 1 requesting that Betty Gow come to Hopewell. He says that he connected that call to Betty Gow. My question is: When did it become Violet Sharp who took that call and not Banks? I have Violet's statement made on March 10, 1932. She does not say anything about answering the call that Banks says he answered. What is going on here? Did Anne make more than one call that morning? Perhaps I am getting Violet's calls mixed up and it was Ernie she took a call from and not Anne that day? This is a little tricky when reading all of the sources about this. Gow even, in one source, claims she rec'd the call from Whateley. (I resolved this in my mind by considering the Police confused the "Butler" for Whateley instead of Banks - I could be wrong but that works for me). I did find a source that explained everything to my satisfaction so I put the matter to rest in my mind years ago. I just saw it recently, but as usual, I don't remember where. I will put it on my "to find" list. From memory though ... I am positive Sharp answered this call from Anne. That's the extent of her involvement. After this Banks, Mrs. Morrow, and Gow are involved with the call in some way. At some point Gow calls Banks on the house phone seeking the train schedule. I seem to remember that Banks had communicated with Mrs. Morrow already and advised Betty that Ellerson was authorized drive her down because the train would take too long. Sorry about this tired answer about having a source I cannot locate. I wish I had a better memory and/or system for finding these things!
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jan 21, 2014 23:16:44 GMT -5
Getting in a little late on the conversation here, but Amy, why do you think Charlie was on a ketogenic diet? The diet stresses giving heavy amounts of fat (butter, cream) etc. in comparison to other nutrients. I don’t see this in the diet published for the kidnappers, and in Van Ingen’s letter to Mrs. Morrow, he said that very little butter should be in the baby’s diet.
I have said this elsewhere, but if Charlie was having seizures, Mrs. Morrow would have been aware of it, as she was overseeing Charlie during the Lindberghs’ long trip to the Orient in 1931, and she certainly would not have sent Van Ingen that letter after the kidnapping in 1932, asking if anything was wrong with Charlie—she would have already known something was very wrong.
If Charlie was having seizures, and Lindbergh was afraid people would find out, he would not have permitted him to attend Elizabeth Morrow’s nursery school. Seizures are unpredictable and could have been easily witnessed by staff and other parents.
I haven’t studied seizure protocols of the 1930s, but if a child today had a serious seizure disorder, you would expect to see his/her crib padded (to prevent banging the head during a seizure), medications, and hospital stays.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 11:03:15 GMT -5
I think Charlie was on this type of diet. Not the stricter form of the diet, however, since he was given carbohydrates. The strictness of the diet depended on how often the child had seizures and what type he/she experiences. Since the diet is mostly used for children with myoclonic seizures(brief jerking movements-twitching)which in young children can involve the neck, shoulders and upper arms., atonic seizures(when muscles suddenly loose strength)which can cause a person to fall right where they stand at the moment it occurs, or tonic-clonic seizures which are more serious. This is the type of seizure that most people generally think of when you mention seizures. I think the key here to understanding what type of seizures Charlie was experiencing is by the diet he was being given.
Charlie's diet would be considered to be a moderate form of the ketogenic diet since he was permitted to have carbohydrates in his diet(cereal, 1 potato or rice once a day). Since milk came with heavy cream in the 1930's, no doubt this cream was used daily in his diet. I think the moderate form of the diet could indicate that Charlie was experiencing myclonic or atonic seizures and not the seizures we normally think of when we hear the word seizure. I don't think padding of the bed would be necessary in this case.
I remember asking you about this letter from Dr. Van Ingen on another thread. I didn't know what to think of it myself. No doubt Mrs. Lindbergh was aware of the special diet Charlie was being given. It had to be followed by the staff who prepared the food at Englewood. What we don't know is when this diet was implimented for Charlie. This could have been in place for only a few months before the kidnapping happened. I think that Charles and Anne did seek help at the Johns Hopkins University when Charlie started having seizure issues and this is when the diet was started and was the one being followed at the time of kidnapping. When you read the letter from Dr. Van Ingen to Mrs. Morrow and he talks about the diet section, I think the first sentence of that paragraph is important. It says:
"As to his food, I think a safe diet at his age, and under conditions as far as can be guessed, would be as follows:"
He then lists what a normal diet would consist of for a healthy boy of Charlie's age. He does not say that this was Charlie's diet. I think this is where the confusion comes in with regards to "two diets". The diet Anne had Charlie on March 1, 1932 was not the diet Dr Van Ingen talks about in his letter. Anne was using the diet that was recommended by the Doctor who was seeing Charlie for his rickets and seizures. No doubt the Viosterol was added by Johns Hopkins. A normal suppliment would be the cod liver oil that Van ingen includes as part of a more standard diet. Compare the two diets. I think Dr. Van Ingen's role was as Charlie's general pediatrician. For the rickets and seizures, Charlie was seeing a specialist. The diet Anne put into the newspapers was the diet Charlie was on. And it must have been very important to Charlie's well-being or it never would have been published to begin with.
Personally, I think that Charles would have wanted Charlie in the school. He would have wanted Charlie treated normally. We all know how he felt about the need to "toughen" his son up. He would have taken that risk.
Please understand that this is the current opinion I hold based on what I have been learning and researching. People have to evaluate for themselves. I am just sharing what I have found and how I think it fits into this case.
No problem at all. Trust me, i understand about finding things!!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 22, 2014 13:02:18 GMT -5
Michael, Since we are talking about the Morrow chauffeurs on this thread, I wanted to check something with you that I read in Susan Hertog's book "Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Her Life". On page 151 she states that Betty Gow was introduced to Henry (Red) Johnson at a dance in Maine by Alfred Burke the Morrow's chauffeur. Is this true? Okay, so here I've fallen victim myself to something I personally preach against.... I answered this question knowing what Gow had told Police. Something told me this morning to see what Red said to make sure they matched - just in case. Then "something" told me to check Burke too. Here's the results: Gow: I was introduced to him by the Morrow's chauffeur, Alfred Burke. Johnsen: ....I went alone to a dance in the village of North Haven and was there introduced to Betty Gow by Burke, employed as a chauffeur for the Morrow family, whom I met in North Haven, Maine, during the previous summer. Burke: Q: Did you know him before he kept company with Betty Gow? A: No, I didn't. I met him after he made Betty's acquaintance at a dance Friday nights at the village.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 14:27:30 GMT -5
You have certainly made my question more interesting with this post. No doubt Susan Hertog used Betty Gow's statement for what she put into her book just like you did to answer me.
So, we have two against one that Burke introduced them. From where I am sitting I don't see any reason that both Betty and Red would lie about something like this. More than likely he did introduce them. Since Johnsen says he came alone to the dance perhaps Burke was there already with Betty. Since Burke is introducing Betty to Red, then this means Burke already knew Johnsen.
Now why would Burke decide to back away from knowing Johnsen before Betty did? Could he have been fearful that he might somehow come under suspicion since he knew Johnsen and Johnsen was a person of interest in the case? Was he concerned that it might end up being interpreted as a set-up introduction for the purpose of a kidnapping? This is 1931 we are talking about. Suggests the planned for a year already theme in the ransom notes.
How long was Burke employed by the Morrows?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jan 22, 2014 15:02:25 GMT -5
Hi, Amy. Thanks for the thought you’ve put into the diet issue. I don’t see it as a modified keto diet—I don’t see stress on fat in the list given the kidnappers. Milk is a normal part of any child’s diet. The only other item high in fat was egg yolk, one per day, but that could just as easily have been given as a source of protein. The other items were orange juice, cooked cereal, potato/rice, stewed fruit and prune juice.
I’m not going to pursue it further except to say that if Charlie was having seizures that were only mild—not epileptic fits—it lessens any motive for Lindbergh to be orchestrating the kidnapping over a seizures issue.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 22, 2014 17:27:06 GMT -5
Lindbergh was a perfectionist and eugenicist, and one that, I agree, tended to force and iron out imperfections by treating them as if they didn't exist. So, assuming any health issues with CAL Jr. were indeed present, I think the lack of crib padding, leaving CAL Jr. outside in raw weather, putting him in a regular school ahead of schedule, etc.--all of this makes perfect sense as Lindbergh's idea of "treatment", given his personality and proclivities. His son having seizures--any kind of seizures--would've been seen as a huge flaw, a huge problem, and one that could've (rightly or wrongly) been assumed or even diagnosed as progressive, only to get worse as time went by. But that being said, Amy, where have you read or found out about CAL Jr. having seizures??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 18:32:41 GMT -5
LJ,
If you go back and read the post I made to you several days ago (January 20th), I wrote about the rickets and I also mentioned that the diet they had Charlie on at the time of the kidnapping may be evidence that he might be having seizures and diet was being used as a way to control them. Charlie's diet was changed. Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Betty Morrow's inquiry concerning Charlie explains what a normal diet would be for a child Charlie's age. The diet Charlie was on is different than the one described by Van Ingen. Betty Morrow would have been aware of this change in Charlie's diet, hense the inquiry to Van Ingen. I think it was changed fairly recent before the kidnapping happened. There had to be a reason for this change and I don't think it was because Charlie needed to loose some weight. Something else was now going on with Charlie that brought about this change in diet. I think it could have been a mild type of seizures based on the diet he was placed on. Johns Hopkins was doing research on seizure control through diet. The Lindberghs (especially Anne) would have sought the best help available for Charlie. This is where they would have found it.
There had to be a reason that Charlie's diet was important enough to his well-being that Anne published it in the newspapers. She was hoping that whoever had her son would see it and heed it. She wanted Charlie to have the best possible chance for survival. That diet was important or it would never have been published.
Through all this research I have come to understand why Anne wrote those words into her diary about the world benefitting from his sacrifice. Charlie could have been part of the Johns Hopkins research on diet control of seizures and his progress would have been recorded to help other parents of children inflicted in this way. All of this was interrupted by Charlie's kidnapping.
And I agree with you, the development of another issue with Charlie would have been another nail in his coffin. Maybe the final one.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 22, 2014 19:11:29 GMT -5
Oh, I see. I do remember that you'd posted before about the diet(s) possibly being indicative of seizures or epilepsy, but your more recent post made it sound (at least to me) like maybe you'd since come across something more concrete. My mistake. At any rate, this is a very good point about the two diets--the one published vs. the one Van Ingen described to Betty Morrow. The fact that there were two diets in the first place, that one was very specific and needed to be published at all... yeah, I think this could very conceivably indicate health issues. And I've since come to this conclusion independently, that there was something not quite right with the baby. I remember hearing about contemporary rumors to this effect; I just wish there was something more solid--someone who saw CAL Jr. have a seizure or some kind of attack, anyone outside the immediate family circle (i.e. not subject to control) who saw him in the weeks leading up to the kidnapping (the period of time during which no pictures were been allowed)--I dunno, something like that would finally clinch it for me...
|
|