Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Jul 29, 2013 18:10:57 GMT -5
Lindbergh flew to Connecticut unannounced to the general public. The word "boat" in the article is referring to the plane. I assure you, there was a Connecticut connection to the kidnapping.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Jul 30, 2013 17:20:50 GMT -5
Michael, This newspaper article aimee posted is interesting, due you have anything on why CAL would go to Connecticut 4 days after his son is kidnapped?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 30, 2013 19:09:24 GMT -5
I know the question is directed to Michael. But I thought I'd just mention the article says Lindbergh was flying for Hartford on March 5. Interesting that Red Johnsen’s last day in jail in Hartford was March 5. Later that day he was driven by the police to New Jersey. Source Falzini’s Their Fifteen Minutes.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Jul 31, 2013 20:41:42 GMT -5
Hi BR, What do you think of Red Johnson delivering Charlie to Connecticut alive (this may explain the milk bottle in his car) and CAL coming up to Hartford on March 5th to smooth things out and get Red off the hook?
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Jul 31, 2013 20:50:59 GMT -5
aimee, Am I seeing this the same way you are or do you see something different?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 31, 2013 21:26:42 GMT -5
It’s an interesting thought. I have never been a fan of the idea that Lindbergh was behind the kidnapping. However, just to speculate--if he WAS behind it, it figures that Betty Gow was probably in on it. And if Betty was in on it, Red probably would be too. Red does get sent out of the country AWFULLY fast, he’s a Scandinavian (same ethnicity as Lindbergh), and CJ DOES name Betty and Red as innocent, a truly unlikely thing. But how do we go from Red Johnsen delivering a live baby to Connecticut to the corpse found near Hopewell?
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Jul 31, 2013 21:45:25 GMT -5
BR, I'm just throwing this out there....I said this before, I think its odd (like many things in this case)that the autopsy description of the toes are different from the way Charlies Doctor describes them. Mavbe that wasn't Charlie in the woods?...I don't know.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Jul 31, 2013 21:51:26 GMT -5
Ok..that's where I come in....FINALLY! Imagine a sick and dying child at Meriden Sanatorium, a TB hospital for children, located in Meriden, Connecticut. The toddler is a blonde curly head baby, son of a bootlegger. The bootlegger and his wife were locals of Connecticut, but the bootlegger "my grandfather" went from state to state (CN,PA,NJ,NY,DC,MD.) He set up shop in the deep woods of NJ in a house filled with bathtubs. The bootlegger was also a aviation member and a pilot from Jefferson Avenue in Connecticut. His family took in Charlie Jr., changed his name by two letters. (the names sounded the same with a New England accent) and gave the extortionists(or Lindbergh's Group!) the sick and dying child in his place. The baby (Charlie Jr.- my dad) was blended into the family. It may sound unbelievable to some...but to me it's becoming apparent that it may have been my dad's lifes' story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2013 8:25:15 GMT -5
I have always been troubled by the deformity of the corspe foot. It does not fit with what I have seen in pictures of Charlie's feet. Yet this is one of the factors used by Betty Gow and Lindbergh when identifing the remains as Charlie. It is hard to imagine how Charlie would have walked with a foot like that yet he is supposed to have been running around the servants sitting room the night of the kidnapping. Go figure that one out. Perhaps he had special shoes made for balance and comfort for ease of walking? I am still pondering this aspect.
Aimee, I know that you believe that your Dad is Charlie. He certainly has a matching set of toes on his foot that is for sure. He also appears normal in every other way. The reason that Lindbergh has been considered by some as being behind this kidnapping is because Charlie had more problems than just some toe issues. If Charlie were completely normal in every other way, why would Lindbergh have wanted Charlie removed from the family???
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 1, 2013 9:41:54 GMT -5
I believe veteran researchers on this board—Michael, Rab, Kevkon—as well as people like Lloyd Gardner, have concluded that the corpse was genuinely that of Charlie. This is off the top of my head, and I don’t have time to research and debate the subject, but it wasn’t just the flannel shirt and smears of Vaseline, there was chemical analysis of the hair, the unclosed fontanel consistent with what Van Ingen called a moderate rickety condition, the chin, and I believe Van Ingen thought the curling of the little toe WAS consistent with Charlie—Gardner, p. 411, as I now look it up.
Michael, you would be the best source on this, as you know more about the case than anyone else. How conclusive is the evidence for the corpse being Charlie?
I WILL concede that if the corpse was NOT that of Charlie, it could theoretically resolve a few issues. If one is going to argue that Lindbergh organized the kidnapping with the help of Betty and Red (who he would have promised protection to), then the corpse being a “forgery” could explain some things. It might resolve our discussion of why the corpse was planted (to halt searches for the real Charlie); why the rapid cremation; why Betty and Lindbergh—but not Anne—identified the corpse. But this comes with all the usuals “buts”—if Lindy was just waiting for the planted corpse to be discovered, why is he out at sea instead of hanging around Highfields so he can make a rapid ID? And I have always felt there were bona fide reasons for cremation (keeping the paparazzi from photographing the remains, which they’d already done at the mortuary).
Since Michael Keaten came on the board, I have somewhat softened my view toward “Lindbergh theories,” since MK says his grandfather Buster Keaten—the man who arrested Hauptmann, who interrogated Condon, and who was downstairs when Violet committed suicide—did indeed suspect Lindbergh.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Aug 1, 2013 10:12:59 GMT -5
Charlie's toes were deformed from rickets...and he was a left handed child, really, really left handed!! The other thing that I have never said before is that I don't believe that Charlie Jr. was Anne's child to begin with (high altitude flights, no true pregnancy photos). I think C. Jr. was the child of my great unmarried aunt-(who was absolutly stunning and worked in a Law Office in New York) with Dwight Jr. or Lindbergh. After Anne got pregnant with Jon, they wanted Charlie Jr. out. *Charlie Jr. was placed into Meriden Sanitorium and switched out with my "grandparents"- (my great aunt's sister) sick toodler. VanIngen had to be a part of this, Lindbergh knew, Grandma Morrow knew, a lot of people knew. If you look at the letter from VanIngen to Grandma Morrow...you will see a "description" of the toddler that would be found in the woods to replace Charlie Jr.. Hence, the February 18th date...referring to the actual birthdate of the toddler that went into the NJ woods (ie: my dad's DOB). I know this is complicated and will take some time to think outside the box.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2013 10:20:29 GMT -5
I am sure this is not an easy thing for you to consider, but I am pleased that you are willing to take an objective look at the possibility of Lindbergh's involvement with this crime. I certainly did not come on this board with a "Lindbergh did it" position. All I really knew about him was what Anne revealed in her diaries and of course his hero status from his awesome flight across the Atlantic.
I think you will bring a lot of ideas to the table if you are willing to at least speculate upon it. I cetainly look forward to them.
I do believe that the corspe found is Charlie. Perhaps VanIngen didn't put certain things into his letter because he realized that it could end up viewed by others beside Mrs. Morrow. It may be why he encouraged her to call him on his private line.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Aug 1, 2013 13:02:28 GMT -5
Could it be that the child was born to Anne & Charles at a bad time. They did leave him for long periods of time with Betty while they were out and about flying. It was noted that Anne also flew while pregnant. Maybe Charles wasnt ready for a child to strap down the two of them? Just a thought!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 1, 2013 18:47:10 GMT -5
Michael, This newspaper article aimee posted is interesting, due you have anything on why CAL would go to Connecticut 4 days after his son is kidnapped? Perhaps Michael may know if this is accurate. Newspaper articles claimed all kinds of things during this whole event. If you look at the article it comes from an AP source. I have the phone records showing the AP was trying to verify this story Newhause was telling. A later story came out from the AP: Officers at the Lindbergh estate, however, insisted Colonel Lindbergh did not leave is home during the night. .... While the report of Lindbergh's hop-off seemed mistaken, at least two planes were known to be prepared for the famous flier and speculation as to the reason ran rampant. March 5th was the date of Gov. Moore's "Crime Conference." It was also the day in which Lindbergh and Thayer were going through the mail when Lindbergh happened to pick the 2nd ransom note out of a pile sitting in front of him. This note was handed over to Rosner - I believe that was at 10:30 or 11:00AM. So CAL is definitely there then. He was also at Highfields when Rosner returned at approximately 11:00PM that evening. So while I don't claim to know his exact movements at all times of the day, it seems very unlikely he left for Hartford on March 5th.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Aug 1, 2013 19:33:52 GMT -5
The article about Lindbergh going to Hartford on March 5th, 1932 is very detailed, including the plane identification number. This article was in published in "The New Haven Journal Courier", a Connecticut Newspaper that reported local information. The flying distance between NJ and CN is a straight shot and would have taken no time at all to go there and back. Too many things have been a coincidence...I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 1, 2013 22:41:06 GMT -5
Perhaps Michael is thinking, “Oh, great. I spend two years explaining to BR why Lindbergh could have done it and BR tells me to buzz off. Then Mkeaton comes on the board and simply says, “Buster thought maybe Lindbergh did it,” and BR swoons and says, “Wow! Then Lindbergh must have done it! Thanks for setting me straight on that one, MK!” Seriously, though, I’m not in the Lindbergh did it camp, (and I know Rab and Kevkon aren’t either). If anything, I’ve been moving closer to accepting Hauptmann’s guilt—even the possibility that he acted alone. But Buster’s suspicions about Lindbergh—and as Michael documents, Buster was the man Sisk thought was most on top of the case—gives me pause.
There are things about Lindbergh that others find suspicious that I don’t. For example, taking charge of things. Lindbergh was a take-charge person. Not only did he fly the Atlantic alone, he actually designed the Spirit of St. Louis. So I don’t think his taking charge of the initial response to the kidnapping was unusual; I think it was “in character,” even though one can put a guilty spin on it.
I also don’t see motivation. While I do not wish to reignite the debate that occurred elsewhere on this board, I don’t think there was enough wrong with Charlie to want to get rid of him. As far as practical jokes go, the whole operation that occurred on March 1 seems too elaborate for that.
But there are some things that do bug me about Lindbergh. One is that the first thing he did when he got home was go upstairs and draw a bath. Perhaps this was his routine habit, but is it just possible that he was really arranging things in the nursery? One thing just occurred to me now. Lindbergh was the one who said that the note shouldn’t be opened until the fingerprint expert arrived. This shows he had “fingerprints on his mind.” We also know that the nursery was missing fingerprints. Putting these two elements together, is it possible that Lindbergh wiped down the nursery? When he drew his bath, could the sound of running water have been a cover for drawing a bucket of water for that purpose?
Incidentally, Wayne Jones had a somewhat interesting hypothesis that it might not have been the abductor’s fingerprints that were being erased, but those of little Charlie himself, to prevent him from being identified later.
Too many cooks in the kitchen (including me). All the theories make your head spin.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Aug 2, 2013 8:05:43 GMT -5
BR, I agree with you about CAL taking charge. Speaking as a father, if my son was kidnapped (God forbid) I would have ZERO hope of my local and state police recovering him even now in 2013! If I had Lindbergh's power and status I would probably take advantage of it like he did. With that said I don't understand why, if he wanted to handle the case by himself, he called the police right away?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2013 8:58:54 GMT -5
WOW! This is exactly what I meant by bringing things to the table. That nursery wipe-down has been difficult to figure out. You present a very plausible way it could have happened. The room was supposed to match with the ransom note - no fingerprints. This could be the way it happened. I don't see any other opportunties in the timeline that evening for this to occur.
You don't need to be when taking an objective look at all the possibilities in this crime. You can evaluate aspects of this crime in a neutral way if you don't start out with a particular person as guilty first.
I am guilty too. So many good theories have been posted on this board that I find myself re-evaluating many views I have on this crime. I am hoping that Michael's book can tie up the loose ends in this case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 2, 2013 9:15:29 GMT -5
Michael, you would be the best source on this, as you know more about the case than anyone else. How conclusive is the evidence for the corpse being Charlie? I think, honestly, when it comes to something like this there is no "best" source. The identity can always be challenged because of the condition he was in. Ellis Parker, for example, told Hoffman how many people were suspicious of the identity because the soft spot hadn't closed. But this is actually a point on the score card which helps to prove it. So you have skeptics using a potential identifying characteristic against its identification. You have some of the Police with a picture comparing it to the facial characteristics of the corpse which they say still existed enough for them to feel comfortable about it. You have both Gow and Lindbergh's identification of the corpse. You have the home-made shirt with the unusual blue thread found at the scene. You have other characteristics as noted by both Van Ingen & Mitchell which correspond. And you have the hair, from his haircut and found at the "burial site" which not only matched, but showed an unusual condition. So if we pick and choose certain of these we can probably cause some individual doubt here and there. Be the totality of them all is very hard to overcome in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 2, 2013 9:29:37 GMT -5
BR, I agree with you about CAL taking charge. Speaking as a father, if my son was kidnapped (God forbid) I would have ZERO hope of my local and state police recovering him even now in 2013! If I had Lindbergh's power and status I would probably take advantage of it like he did. With that said I don't understand why, if he wanted to handle the case by himself, he called the police right away? This is a question that needs to be asked. What I have seen over the years is that they are most likely ignored because of this stigma attached with questioning anything about Lindbergh. Like it's a "sin" or something to do that. I think if one is willing to look at each and everything that gives them pause it will help with solving certain questions regardless of what the individual conclusions may be. No one, regardless of their personal theories, should restrict themselves in this way because there is much to learn by exploring ALL avenues. You don't need to be when taking an objective look at all the possibilities in this crime. You can evaluate aspects of this crime in a neutral way if you don't start out with a particular person as guilty first. Exactly Amy.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 2, 2013 10:55:32 GMT -5
I suppose Lindbergh could've wiped the room down as he was drawing his bath, but as to other opportunities to do this, what about the actual intruder/kidnapper doing it as he went through the room, during the abduction? I seem to remember that Anne was upstairs too, in their bedroom as Lindbergh was drawing his bath. Could be wrong about that, though. But, at the same time, it does look like the bathroom was between the Lindberghs' bedroom and the nursery, with a door leading to each. So I guess, while the water was running and the bathroom door to the Lindberghs' bedroom was closed, he could've slipped through the other, nursery door...
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 2, 2013 12:22:53 GMT -5
I must revise an error I made above. I rely too much on memory. According to the Falzini timeline, Lindbergh arrived home at 8:25. At 8:30 he and Anne went upstairs. Lindbergh washed his hands—did NOT draw a bath. They then went back downstairs, ate supper at 8:35. They then sat briefly in the living room, then went upstairs. Lindbergh drew a bath—timeline doesn’t give an exact time. But the timeline does say they went upstairs at 9:15. It also says Anne drew a bath at 9:30 while Lindbergh went to the library. There are little variations, due to the different statements given by various people, but I don’t get the impression that Lindbergh was upstairs alone by himself for any significant amount of time. Falzini’s timeline is njspmuseum.blogspot.com/2008/02/march-1-1932-timeline.html
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Aug 2, 2013 18:43:40 GMT -5
The .reason that the baby they found in the woods still had a soft spot on the crown of his head is because the baby they found was born on February 18th 1931.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Aug 2, 2013 19:09:15 GMT -5
Can someone explain the "french window" in the babys room to me. Betty said she closed that window. Why wouldn't the kidnappers enter through that south window since it was already open instead of going through the one on the east side of the house?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 3, 2013 11:02:33 GMT -5
Can someone explain the "french window" in the babys room to me. Betty said she closed that window. Why wouldn't the kidnappers enter through that south window since it was already open instead of going through the one on the east side of the house? According to both Anne and Gow, they closed the shutters (locked) except the one which was warped. In one of the statements, it said a window would be opened, and while it was typically the French Window - it would depend which way the wind was blowing. So what we have is Gow opening the French Window which, along with kidnap window was unlocked anyway. The slide bolt on all the shutters was utilized on all but the "kidnap" window. So if someone would have targeted the French Window would have the locked shutter as an obstacle to tackle whereas the "kidnap" window had no such security measure to breach.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Aug 12, 2013 11:07:45 GMT -5
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Aug 12, 2013 11:21:18 GMT -5
Attachment DeletedThis is page one, a letter from Dr. VanIngen to Mrs. Elizabeth Morrow (the grandmother). It is my opinion that this was a menu for murder. I believe the doctor is telling Mrs. Morrow about the body in which they will find in the woods. I believe that it was all calculated as to which body parts they took off in order so people could not truly match Charlie's characteristics. I blieve that the baby they found in the woods had the birthdate of February 18, 1931 and his name was Martin. The newspapers published the "safe diet" immediatley, which gave directions to the people who planted the dead body on how to distroy it.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Aug 12, 2013 11:22:17 GMT -5
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Aug 12, 2013 11:30:30 GMT -5
Attachment DeletedThis is from one of my dad's birth certificates. My "grandfather" corrected my dad's name again..in 1936. This would have been easy to do long before 1936! Why wait SO LONG...UNLESS YOU WERE WAITING FOR THE TRAIL AND EXECUTION TO BE OVER?? **Also, what percentage of fathers fill out a "BABY BOOK" for a child?? BECAUSE THAT WHO FILLED OUT ONE FOR MY DAD!
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Aug 12, 2013 20:10:16 GMT -5
I,m missing the connection with the menu and "legs, arms, head" could you please explain.
|
|