|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 12, 2015 20:35:04 GMT -5
Assuming they both knew, yes. And I think Betty did know: Stopping at a drugstore on her way to Hopewell, coming up with the idea to knit CAL Jr. a shirt, saying later that Lindbergh promised her she "wouldn't be touched"--her behavior is suspicious, to the extent that it bears the interpretation that she knew something was going to happen that night. CAL Jr. dying? No. But it looks like she knew he was going to be outside in raw weather (which I think is why she made him a flannel shirt). And I suppose Anne could've had similar foreknowledge too. The only reason why I haven't really thought so before is because she always seemed so honestly bewildered and shocked by the whole thing: No "I was promised I wouldn't be touched" quotes or frigid stoicism on her part; rather, based on her writings (admittedly, they're selective), she seemed genuinely worried and frightened that her son had been kidnapped. But I fully admit, she could've had similar foreknowledge as Betty.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Feb 12, 2015 20:59:39 GMT -5
I agree LJ, and I would add the silence on the part of the women right after the kidnapping. Why weren't they retracing their steps, talking about what they may have heard, crying, pacing... why were sitting there silent.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 12, 2015 21:55:18 GMT -5
According To Betty, she, Anne and Elsie went into a room somewhere upstairs at Highfields and just sort of... sat. No one seemed to know what to say or do; it seemed like they were just trying to stay out of the way and deal. I mean, okay, I'll buy that; it's not an uncommon reaction to shock. But why did Betty decide to whip up that extra shirt (how many layers did the kid need unless he's going outside)? Why did she stop at a drugstore on the way to Hopewell and never really give much of an explanation (she said it was to buy candy or something, but that sounds like BS)? And most of all, why did she say she was promised she wouldn't be touched? What was that supposed to mean and what did she have to hide??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 23:32:01 GMT -5
I think that is a good point. The silence is difficult to understand. If they are in a place where they aren't being observed, you would think that there would have been at least some crying. softly perhaps. Why aren't these women trying to comfort each other or at least trying to comfort Anne? Isn't that what women usually do - talk and cry together?
So when do you suppose Betty learned that something was going to happen that night? And from whom did she learn it? If she stopped at the drugstore to get something to drug Charlie with, she would have had to know to do that before she left Englewood. Who did Betty talk to before going to Hopewell?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 13, 2015 0:17:48 GMT -5
I'm not sure when Betty would've been told, but I think she was told what the plan was at some point prior to 3/1/32. I think the signal that the plan was to be set in motion was the call she got to come down to Highfields early that day.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Feb 13, 2015 11:25:03 GMT -5
I am listening to you all. I respect every opinion I've seen. I only speak a difference because I am trying to stretch what you are saying into logic.
In Whately's interview he said Betty was crying and genuinely upset. Betty over all was a strong person. How she handled herself in court proved that.
I don't see anything to show problems here with her. "I was told I wouldn't be touched." She might have been assured by Lindbergh he wouldn't allow them to blame her and count her negligent . What I am saying that comment could be coming out to context.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 13, 2015 14:04:02 GMT -5
All of the servants may have been told that because that seems to have been CAL's original plan.
The implication in these posts seems to be that Charles eliminated or is covering up for something that happened or was wrong with Charlie. To take the something wrong with, it was and is easy to get rid of an unwanted child especially if you've got a lot of money. Just ship the youngster off to some special school - mostly nobody would give a poop and the ones who did would forget quickly.
The question of eliminating the kid however has a major downside that doesn't even come close to the upside of the situation. Not only murder one for the actual adult participants, but same for anyone who knew about what was going on and didn't try to stop it. It was mentioned earlier that Hauptmann was in on some kind of conspiracy with Lindbergh. The UFO theory sounds more realistic, especially since BRH could have blown Lindbergh out of the world with his court testimony in front of everybody and then some.
If Richard was involved with Charles what did he (BRH) think Cal was going to use the mysterious ladder for? A little paint touch-up on the second story of the house?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Feb 13, 2015 14:41:49 GMT -5
To All:
No, it would not be easy to do something like that with your son if it's 1932 and your name is Charles A. Lindbergh. He's still one of the best-known celebs of the time, and surely the ever-curious media would have eventually found out that Charlie wasn't living with the family anymore. Same holds if Charlie were killed. After all, Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. was a celebrity by merely being his father's child.
That's why an elaborate "kidnap" hoax had to be set up, in all likelihood.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Feb 13, 2015 14:42:25 GMT -5
jack I climbed a replica ladder your not painting anything on that.one time use only
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 13, 2015 14:51:16 GMT -5
Was it Kevkon's?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 13, 2015 15:42:20 GMT -5
Hurt, Bingo. Death--"euthanasia"--was the only alternative. No option was ideal or would be completely watertight or immune from some sort of suspicion, but CAL Jr. dying covered the most bases in solving the problem. Now, it might seem strange to have the body discovered if the whole point in the first place was to hide CAL Jr.'s physical issues, but I think the assumption here was that these issues (if they were all that outwardly glaring in the first place) would be obscured by and/or could be chalked up to decomposition. In any case, it was more important to have the body discovered and just take the risk--for closure to the case, so the whole thing could be put to rest, neatly written off and further reinforced as a kidnapping gone wrong. And Jack, I think yours a reasonable alternative explanation for Betty's "I was promised I wouldn't be touched!" But I will say, if she was so upset (and I think she was; I think, whatever foreknowledge she had, she was still upset when it actually came to following through on it)--but anyway, being so upset by the situation, I would think Betty would be willing to cooperate and tell investigators anything and everything they wanted to know. But here, she seems to be getting uncomfortable and, as a result, is setting up a barrier of some sort because there are questions she doesn't want to answer. Why, unless she had something to hide...?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 13, 2015 16:31:58 GMT -5
Michael said once that if there was any big secret regarding TLC, since it would have been the biggest story ever in the U.S., somebody would have blabbed. Violet, according to her, on the night of the kidnapping told those she was with that Charlie was "a cute little guy." She seemed to be just a normal servant, so I got the impression that the adults at Englewood were familiar with the child.
I've always thought that Charles seemed to be kind of a goofy guy - taking things to the extremes without regard for the consequences. "Lucky Lindy" was an apt nickname. His actions especially after the kidnapping are strange but could have just been his reaction to stress, and of course he was CHARLES A. LINDBERGH! But if he would have talked with a psychiatrist before he flew the Atlantic, the doctor may have suggested the looney bin.
My main issue is that rather than Hitlerlike disposal of a being, it would have been far easier and safer to simply build him his own wing at either of the family's large houses, buy Jr. an island near Greece, send him off to live with Elisabeth & hubby, etc. etc. etc.
And yes, my personal opinion is that Betty had a secret she didn't want anyone to know about and that's why she was called for duty on 3/1/32.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 13, 2015 17:18:10 GMT -5
The implication in these posts seems to be that Charles eliminated or is covering up for something that happened or was wrong with Charlie. To take the something wrong with, it was and is easy to get rid of an unwanted child especially if you've got a lot of money. Just ship the youngster off to some special school - mostly nobody would give a poop and the ones who did would forget quickly. Take a look through the early newspaper reports concerning this child. He was considered the "perfect" son born of the "perfect" parents. The entire world expected him to become someone great, I mean REALLY great, and having been born of "Superior" stock they would expect nothing less. If this child were shipped off to a special school he would have been tracked down, it would have been reported on, and Lindbergh's name would have been tossed aside - going from sugar to sh*t in a real hurry. Here's my "plan" concerning what might be the best strategy or course of research concerning a possible theory as to what happened. First thing would be to determine whether or not one believes Hauptmann was involved. If so, did he have Confederates and/or Accomplices? If no, your quest ends with Jim Fisher's position. If yes, then there's quite a bit of searching to do. Futhermore, could this have involved "Inside" help? If so, I would rate who is most likely to be that connection. Rate it on a scale if that's helpful. Next, was Hauptmann the "brains" of this operation? If not, who on the "inside" would most likely be? Anne? Elsie? Conspiracies happen all the time. The one's we find out about aren't labeled "conspiracies" even though that's what they are. What we don't find out about are labeled "mysteries." Look at the Neulander case right here in New Jersey. If he had someone unknown to Jenoff arrange this murder, that Witness actually would have cleared him instead of implicating him. After all, he had an alibi. Just food for thought: murderpedia.org/male.N/n/neulander-fred.htm
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 13, 2015 17:44:45 GMT -5
Also, I don't think keeping CAL Jr. in seclusion for the rest of his life (as would've had to be the case)--I don't think that actually would have been easier, not in the long run. Too many questions would be raised, too much probing would ensue. So if CAL Jr. can't be kept in seclusion and alive, then, just by simple process of elimination, he has to be made "not-alive". I mean to say, if keeping the child alive is harder and trickier than killing him and disposing of the problem that way--well, then, the latter course is the one to take (not to say that it's easy or foolproof, but the point is that it beats the alternative). Plus, to a very powerful someone's very frigid logic and Nazi-esque ideals about physical perfection, death or euthanasia is not only a quicker and easier solution to safeguard a reputation, it's also more merciful than letting someone live and suffer through a supposed half-life. And I don't think people would've blabbed, not if the initial core conspiracy was small and not all participants had all the puzzle pieces in the first place. For one thing, we know Hauptmann didn't talk (probably threatened with his family's life if he did). Lindbergh certainly wouldn't have said anything and has since been shown to have had the discipline to keep large family secrets for decades. Betty left the country, and the actual "kidnappers"--CJ and the rest--well, who knows who they were. Being criminals, they could've met untimely and unrelated ends before they had a chance to let anything slip--in keeping with Condon's claim that CJ had been killed. But speaking of Condon, he basically DID almost talk, as pointed out on pg. 100 of Gardner's book.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 13, 2015 17:53:53 GMT -5
Hey Michael, I wanted to ask your opinion on something I posted just above:
"Now, in this, it might seem strange to have the body discovered, if the whole point of this in the first place was to hide CAL Jr.'s physical problems, but I think the plan or assumption here was that these problems (if they were all that outwardly glaring in the first place) would be obscured by and/or could be chalked up to decomposition. In any case, it was more important to have the body discovered and just take the risk--for closure to the case, so the whole thing could be put to rest, neatly written off and further reinforced as a kidnapping gone wrong."
Do you think the body's discovery could've been for some reason like that? What could another alternative be?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 13, 2015 18:15:36 GMT -5
If people found out that CAL exterminated Charlie it might cut into his image as well.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 13, 2015 18:35:50 GMT -5
Do you think the body's discovery could've been for some reason like that? What could another alternative be? The child was either there the entire time and wasn't discovered or someone put him where he was found after the ransom was paid with the expectation he would be. If he wasn't there the whole time I look at the discovery of the body and ask who benefits from this? It closes the chapter and ends any further extortion. Once Lindbergh returns the remains are quickly cremated. If people found out that CAL exterminated Charlie it might cut into his image as well. My post below was simply meant to offer a different perspective and something only to provoke thought. Of course you are right in that CAL's reputation would be ruined in this case too if discovered. But let's say he did exterminate him. Would CAL believe if he had control it would be discovered? Does he have more control over the situation from the investigative side of things or less then he'd have if his son were sent "away" due to being inferior? Aside from this, what are the odds it would be discovered with him running the show, everyone bowing to him like he's Jesus Christ, and in a situation Lindbergh would be most comfortable? What is his nature? Look at his actions and look at his attitude. If he's not involved he's clearly acting like it while at the same time not worried at all about anything excepting when he's crossed or disobeyed. He's certainly comfortable in this situation - whether or not he is involved - wouldn't you say?
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Feb 13, 2015 18:43:10 GMT -5
Interesting . So perhaps Lindbergh had to hold a reputation of good stock . Maybe for some hopeful involvement over in Germany ?
I purchased Norris' book. I did read it years a go when he sent it to few for honest opinions. Since then lost it with a change of computers. Looking forward to read it again without the rush to finish it.
I believe there was an insider. I am curious what others feel it might have been.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Feb 13, 2015 18:46:41 GMT -5
I don't think he was bad as mike says, but theres no evidence he was involved, and if he was he had have to know Bruno Hauptman at some point.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 13, 2015 18:47:23 GMT -5
Yes I would say so. The thing is that is there evidence that there was anything wrong with him besides rickets - would that have caused the twisted toes or foot? Is the enlarged fontanel on the found body what you are going by to say there was something seriously wrong with him.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Feb 13, 2015 18:52:27 GMT -5
jack, I don't know if the baby had other medical problems besides rickets. I never saw anything to suggest it. but then again he might have, but people automaticly think Lindbergh did it because of that reason. I think its hogwash.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 13, 2015 19:05:47 GMT -5
Ya Romeo, me too. Seems like one moment on here he's just a cute little guy then suddenly he's the victim of one of the rarest crimes of all.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 13, 2015 19:27:37 GMT -5
And yes, my personal opinion is that Betty had a secret she didn't want anyone to know about and that's why she was called for duty on 3/1/32. That's interesting Jack. If you'd like to follow this up you certainly have my attention.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 13, 2015 19:31:47 GMT -5
I'm sure we'll never know her secret, sir.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Feb 13, 2015 19:57:44 GMT -5
Jack, who called Betty for duty in your opinion.?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 20:05:41 GMT -5
I so agree with this. I am giving a link to just such an article. No matter whether you choose to believe that Charlie had mild rickets or worse, he wasn't perfect, he would have had physically apparent issues which posed a serious problem for the Lindberghs. Its why I brought up Anne and how she intended to handle this issue. Rich and famous people did not keep these children at home. They went to institutions back in the 30's and 40's and even the 50's. Heartbreaking but true. It wasn't like now. The problem was compounded for the Lindberghs because Charlie was the world's baby. He could not just be sent quietly to an institution like other people could do. His absence would have to be accounted for on a world scale. They would have to make a "world affair" out of it as the ransom notes called it. Like I have mentioned before, could Anne and Betty been led to believe that an arrangement had been made for Charlie to be cared for the rest of his life. Having his hair cut short for the trip to make him less identifiable, the special night shirt made from an infant's gown, the only way Anne can send a family connection along with Charlie as nothing else that could identify him can go with him. Betty's suspicious actions such as the stop at the drugstore for something to make sure Charlie will sleep during the removal and the travel time required to get him away from Hopewell and even farther as quickly as possible. For Charles, however, an institution is not the answer. He would be majorly concerned that Charlie might end up being found eventually, so he shares his concerns with a very close advisor and a different ending is arranged. The cover story of a kidnapping would stay the same but, by arrangement, Charlie will be killed instead. No one knows this aspect except Lindbergh. I don't think that Betty Gow or anyone in that household would have been involved with a "kidnapping" knowing that it would have resulted in Charlie's death. Here is a link to just one of the articles I have read about how Charlie was viewed in the eyes of the world: news.google.com/newspapers?id=_uwxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=oeIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3058%2C4713857
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 13, 2015 23:32:01 GMT -5
Amy, I think you got it. We may not have proof, but, like I keep saying, it all adds up.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 14, 2015 8:57:11 GMT -5
I know I've stated my personal position concerning DMJr. in the past but it's important for me to put it out there again.... The Morrow Family was very secretive. There were problems with both Dwight Jr. and Elisabeth. As a result there were lies and misdirection concerning them. And so, the first reaction for any Researcher is to consider a tie-in to the Kidnapping somehow. That family had some - what I call strange - "things" going on. Like Elisabeth getting married then all of the sudden wasn't anymore. Then she marries some guy, and dies. Constance, who by all accounts was beautiful and had her pick of just about any wealthy single man in the country, marries her dead Sister's husband. So when I see this stuff going on AND all of the secrecy attached to the family - its easy to see why so many people wondered aloud things being associated with the Kidnapping.
Now we look at Schwarzkopf and by examining the documentation see that he was not immune to being "star struck" and intimidated by Lindbergh. After a time he considered himself a friend, but even at this level still felt subordinate to him. So I think what probably happened is that someone approached him, maybe Anne, possibly Mrs. Morrow, but most likely Lindbergh - I envision they explained that DMJr. was a personal family matter which they did not want exploited by the investigation and the family being made to suffer again by any Police action which would embarrass them by bringing this non-related matter to light. He was most likely assured that DMJr. was tucked away during the crime and had nothing to do with it. Schwarzkopf would take Lindbergh at his word all the time then proceed as if it were 100% completely true. So what I see are leads coming in regarding this "angle" which quickly die on the vine because Schwarzkopf's position is that he's cleared as a suspect.
My personal opinion is that DMJr.'s issues may have led him to threaten people, however, the complexity of this crime needed advanced planning, someone sober, coherent, and definitely not alone.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 14, 2015 10:06:02 GMT -5
That's exactly what I was talking about above - a non-related (to TLC) issue that the family, or an individual member of it with power, was afraid would come out because of the kidnapping investigation.
Do you know if DMjr. lawered-up immediately post-kidnapping?
Possibly the whole family would be covered by Breckenridge, although it strongly doesn't seem that Dwight Jr. was in CAL's camp.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 14, 2015 10:48:46 GMT -5
You say above that, on this board, one minute CAL Jr. is just cute little guy, and the next he's the victim of the "rarest crimes." Can't he be both? I mean, I think it's pretty clear he was A) cute, and B) a victim of an unusual and unlikely crime (however it may've gone down). I mean to say, why would those two things be mutually exclusive?
|
|