|
Post by Michael on Jun 10, 2013 20:21:09 GMT -5
One of the biggest mysteries is how anyone on the outside could know the layout of Highfields without ever having been inside the house. This led the Police to interview everyone who was associated with building it. None were ever connected to Hauptmann in any way. Next this idea of "unauthorized" tours had been suggested in the FBI Summary Report. But for the reasons I've mentioned in this Archive Thread, it seems like these "tours" never happened. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/post/6176As I mentioned, everyone ever known to have stepped foot inside that house was investigated. Additionally, those thought to have been near the property was interviewed too. And so, eliminate the "unauthorized" tours and its back to square one concerning how Hauptmann would have known anything about the house, and the habits of it inhabitants. Here is a Report which exemplifies my claims: Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 11, 2013 4:36:19 GMT -5
so this is another LKC myth, perhaps Lindbergh himself or another household member spread this rumor to make it look like an outside job
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 11, 2013 20:44:54 GMT -5
so this is another LKC myth, perhaps Lindbergh himself or another household member spread this rumor to make it look like an outside job It's one of those things I have diligently searched for over the years. I know that much of what the FBI learned that didn't come from their actual investigations came from Newspaper Reports. However, I hadn't seen this in the newspapers either. I am convinced it originates from the NJSP Investigations into the Hume Family from Kingston. They were friends with the Whateleys and came to Highfields a couple of times on a social call to have tea with them when the Lindberghs were not home. Sometimes the Whateleys went to their home as well. How this morphed into "unauthorized tours" is anybody's guess. Ollie was quoted in the Hunterdon County Democrat the morning after the crime proclaiming it was an "inside job." So perhaps Stella there is something to your suggestion above in that it counters what he said by indirectly blaming Whateley himself for bring in "outsiders."
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 12, 2013 10:32:40 GMT -5
Given the Lindberghs’ adversity to tabloid publicity—which the Whateleys would have known about—it seems to me unlikely in the extreme that Whateley would have given tours to strangers. A Hearst reporter could have passed himself off as a “tourist” and snapped pictures of the house with a miniature camera. Once these appeared in the press, Whateley would have been out of a job.
While I consider it within the realm of possibility that Whateley was a genuine insider who helped set up the crime, the idea that he gave tours to strangers on a general basis, and this was how the kidnappers learned the layout, seems to be one of those legends that can be discarded.
The idea that this rumor might have been spread as a red herring is interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 13, 2013 16:37:46 GMT -5
Here's something else that I find interesting. Maybe its just me, but here's a guy delivering Milk to the Lindbergh Estate for the past (4) weeks. He's never been past the Kitchen and had absolutely no idea where the Nursery was: Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 13, 2013 21:15:41 GMT -5
I find it a bit interesting that he said he delivered milk to the Lindbergh estate every day, since the Lindberghs only came there on weekends. I guess this means he was delivering milk for the personal use of the Whateleys? Or perhaps they had instructions to always keep a supply on hand in case the Lindberghs decided to break routine and show up during the week?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 22:33:29 GMT -5
I also find it interesting that milk was being delivered everyday. Perhaps it was just a quart each day. Even still, that seems like alot for just two people. I find it interesting that he was allowed to deliver the milk into the house. I thought milk being delivered was placed into a box or crate that was located outside the door and the empty bottles would be picked up at that time. Since he said he never made it past the kitchen, I am assuming that he delivered the milk to the back door.
I don't really see Whateley giving tours to strangers. He did give them to people like Red Johnson though and I am sure the Hume family enjoyed a tour of the house also. Michael, when you say they were from Kingston do you mean Kingston New York?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 14, 2013 16:24:13 GMT -5
Everyone, who could afford it, had their food delivered back then. My husbands family had a grocery store on Witherspoon St. in Princeton, started in 1909 and it was one of 3 on the same block that were still delivering groceries into the 1970's. Kingston is the next town up from Princeton.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2013 17:02:26 GMT -5
Thanks Stella for giving me the location of Kingston. I was not aware it was in New Jersey and its not that far from the Hopewell house. Since you have knowledge about home delivery services let me ask you this. Is it customary to have the delivery person come into the home of the purchaser? We are talking milk here not groceries.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 14, 2013 18:01:25 GMT -5
Yes, my husband was a delivery man for his dad's business for many years. It was destroyed by fire in 1977. But he was always invited into the kitchens, often the cooks would make him a sandwich or have something waiting for him. Theirs was destroyed by fire in 1977 and we would have been 4th generation to run it. I doubt we would still be in the grocery business today though as times have certainly changed. My husbands family was originally from the Hopewell area and his great-grandfather sold their farm to open the market. My brother-in-law once lived in a newer home on Featherbed Lane and my nephew would often take people through the woods over to Highfields. I wish I had gone with him!
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 14, 2013 18:03:32 GMT -5
Regarding the milk, it was probably what we consider "raw milk", not homogenized or pasteurized and needed to be delivered often to be fresh.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 14, 2013 18:47:24 GMT -5
Regarding the milk, it was probably what we consider "raw milk", not homogenized or pasteurized and needed to be delivered often to be fresh. Thanks for your insight on this Stella! It's very helpful in understanding the situation. I find it a bit interesting that he said he delivered milk to the Lindbergh estate every day, since the Lindberghs only came there on weekends. I guess this means he was delivering milk for the personal use of the Whateleys? Or perhaps they had instructions to always keep a supply on hand in case the Lindberghs decided to break routine and show up during the week? I don't think the weekends were even written in stone BR. In fact, I have found something to suggest this particular weekend hadn't originally been planned for. I also find it interesting that milk was being delivered everyday. Perhaps it was just a quart each day. Even still, that seems like alot for just two people. I find it interesting that he was allowed to deliver the milk into the house. I thought milk being delivered was placed into a box or crate that was located outside the door and the empty bottles would be picked up at that time. Since he said he never made it past the kitchen, I am assuming that he delivered the milk to the back door. According to Thayer, Whateley told him the Milkman would "rarely" come into the house claiming that most of the time he would just put the milk bottles on the stoop. Regardless, I think its without question that he had been in the house but never past the Kitchen. For someone going to the home under these conditions and still NOT have any idea where the Nursery was is telling. This has to be the icing on the cake, at least it is for me, that this crime didn't happen by " accident" or " luck" as I have so often seen as an explanation. You either have these Criminals doing a good amount of surveillance, having inside help, or both.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 14, 2013 21:18:21 GMT -5
I don't think a deliveryman would neccesarilly know where the nursery was, but I am sure he would have shown off the house to friends. Wouldn't you if you were working for the most famous man in the world?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 14, 2013 21:41:19 GMT -5
Michael, I'm with Stella on this one. I’m very much with you on surveillance and/or inside help, but are you saying that if the milkman got into the kitchen, he must have known where the nursery was? If so, I don’t follow you yet. Couldn’t the Whateleys have invited the milkman into the kitchen without him getting an understanding of the layout upstairs?
Getting back to the Whateleys. I have always felt they made the ideal insiders. They were unsupervised at Highfields 5 days per week. They could have given the kidnappers free rein in the house, making trial runs for kidnapping. Whateley could have easily messed up the shutter so it couldn’t be locked. Elsie was the cook and could have doped Cal Jr.’s milk to make sure he didn’t wake up and cry when the intruders entered the nursery. (I have always felt the risk of the child crying out was one of the greatest risks to pulling off this crime). She could have also doped the dog’s food, eliminating yet another risk. The Whateleys could have easily used the house phone to tip off the kidnappers on the latest developments and changes in the Lindberghs’ plans. With Anne outside for a stroll on the grounds, what’s to stop the Whateleys from doing this? I am always bothered by Elsie pulling Betty Gow over to the Whateleys' bedroom to “try on dresses” from 915 to 10 PM on the night of the kidnapping. The Whateleys' bedroom was as far away as possible from the nursery. Was she pulling Betty away from the scene of the crime? Then Falzini notes an interesting contradiction. After the discovery of the child’s abduction, Anne opened a window and thought she heard the distant voice of a child crying—but Elsie said it was probably a cat. (Kind of an odd remark to make under the circumstances--were cats apt to be hanging around Highfields, especially with a winter gale blowing?) And in Elsie’s statement, she said it was ANNE who said it was “only a cat.” A subtle but perhaps revealing contradiction.
Something else on the Whateleys. According to the John Hughes Curtis, when he, Peacock and Burrage visited Highfields, Whateley served a snack, and seemed extraordinarily nervous. He avoided Curtis’s look, and messed up the placing of the silverware—so bady that Anne Lindbergh had to apologize and fetch missing knives herself. This is in Wayne Jones’s book, page 91.
In regard to this, I might mention that it was Curtis who told Lindbergh that the cupboard door had been locked to facilitate the kidnapping—a fact that interested Lindbergh—and Curtis also said there was an insider in the house who signaled the kidnappers when all was ready. Is this why Whateley almost totally lost it when serving the Curtis group?
Thoughts, Michael, or anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 14, 2013 21:41:28 GMT -5
I don't think a deliveryman would necessarily know where the nursery was, but I am sure he would have shown off the house to friends. Wouldn't you if you were working for the most famous man in the world? I guess my point was this guy was at the house everyday for 3 weeks, and inside the house on some occasions. We now have to compare that with those who never were. How they could not only know exactly where the Nursery was, but to the point of absolute accuracy concerning everything they did in relationship to this crime.... I am sure the Humes were shown around somewhat. I hesitate to say they were shown the Nursery or the Lindbergh's bedrooms - but who knows? It's not in the Reports - that much I do know. But I don't think the Whateley's would have had them there against the Lindbergh's wishes. For example, Lindbergh seemed aware that Red Johnson had been down and didn't seem outraged or surprised by it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 14, 2013 21:52:11 GMT -5
Something else on the Whateleys. According to the John Hughes Curtis, when he, Peacock and Burrage visited Highfields, Whateley served a snack, and seemed extraordinarily nervous. He avoided Curtis’s look, and messed up the placing of the silverware—so bady that Anne Lindbergh had to apologize and fetch missing knives herself. This is in Wayne Jones’s book, page 91. Thoughts, Michael, or anyone else? I've always wondered if anyone would suspect the Whateleys and have been disappointed over the years not to see suspicion. That's not to say I suspect them, but since I haven't I always wanted to hear an opinion where someone did. I am going to have to look up this citation then see if I have the actual source to compare its context then get back to you on this.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 14, 2013 23:07:05 GMT -5
Perhaps I should add that, according to the Curtis version of events, the baby’s milk was indeed doped, which, if it were true, would tend to cast further suspicion on the Whateleys.
Also, according to the Falzini timeline, when Elsie took Betty upstairs to try on dresses at 9:15, that left Ollie alone. Could he have found time to quickly go upstairs undetected—for a handoff, wipedown, note placement, moving of the note from the crib to the sill, etc.?
Michael, I recall somewhere else you mentioned that the ladder seemed designed to perfectly fit into the louvers of the shutters. And we were speculating on this board if the kidnappers could have managed that just by spying on the house with binoculars. But what if Whateley let the kidnappers right onto the property? They could have measured everything and checked it out, up close and hands-on.
If you wanted this kidnapping to go off as smoothly as possible, I can’t think of any better people to have in your back pocket than the Whateleys.
It might be asked how one connects Whateley to Hauptmann. Let’s assume, for the moment, that they were both hired. For what they’re worth, according to the depositions of Gustave and Sophie Mancke, Whateley met with Hauptmann’s partner Fisch, at the Manckes’ ice cream parlor in New Rochelle, on several occasions shortly prior to the kidnapping. I believe credibility is added to this story by the fact that, when the Whateleys first came to Ameica, they initially resided in New Rochelle—so they were familiar with that area. And the Whateleys were given one day off per week, which could have given them the occasion to travel up that way again.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 15, 2013 9:41:11 GMT -5
Something else on the Whateleys. According to the John Hughes Curtis, when he, Peacock and Burrage visited Highfields, Whateley served a snack, and seemed extraordinarily nervous. He avoided Curtis’s look, and messed up the placing of the silverware—so badly that Anne Lindbergh had to apologize and fetch missing knives herself. This is in Wayne Jones’s book, page 91. The source for this information comes from The Case New Jersey Would Like to Forget by C. Lloyd Fisher ( Liberty Magazine 8-1-36). The article itself talks about confusion of the night, normally meals being served and equipped for just a small Family which had "grown" to about 50. People in and out of the room, etc. But the article does go on to recount Whateley not looking at Curtis in the eyes and forgetting the knives: It was, I was forced to admit, a most unusual blunder for an English butler!(p.10) Michael, I recall somewhere else you mentioned that the ladder seemed designed to perfectly fit into the louvers of the shutters. And we were speculating on this board if the kidnappers could have managed that just by spying on the house with binoculars. The source for the ladder fitting into the shutters comes from Kevin ( lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/user/9). And after he made this observation I see no way around it. I also recall the speculation concerning the binoculars, which would obviously be needed to surveil the home. But to beat a dead horse again, I think a proper perspective is needed. Could someone simply drive to Highfields, peer through a set of spy glasses, then drive back to NY with everything they needed? No. The evidence is clear by facts surrounding this crime. If someone is hidden behind a tree somewhere - how'd they get there? Where'd they park their car? Would someone have seen it? How long would it take to discover where the Nursery was? How would they? At night with the lights on in the room? If at night, how do they see the Boardwalk? Remember they utilized it as if they'd been walking on it before AND in the darkness. How do they know the lay-out of the room? Where everyone would be or were? How did they know the Lindbergh's would be there? Or even know they were going to be there that weekend? Or that night? Did they forget about the Dog? This is something planned, well thought out, and executed with precision. This isn't someone ad-libbing their way through this. Remember that Lupica himself, living right down the road in Buttonwood Corners, did not know where the Lindbergh's lived. Reporters, who's job it was to know, had to stop and ask Locals where his home was and how to get there. Many became lost even with the proper directions. And they all became suspects because the Locals all remembered them asking. But here you have the perfect getaway, the Kidnappers utilizing temporary construction roads, and impassable side ones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2013 11:37:54 GMT -5
I totally agree with this. This wasn't about kidnappers getting lucky and pulling off the "crime of the century". This was a planned crime and it required inside information and/or help to accomplish it. Daring and bold, sure, but succeeding was paramount and that means planning. Getting Charlie out of the house had to be done quickly. You had to know ahead about the interior as well as the exterior. This crime was being committed while people were up and moving about. The window of opportunity to accomplish the removal of Charlie was small. It just doesn't happen without assistance from someone who knows the routine of the family and the interior layout of the house. However, if the kidnapper was never going to be entering the house to begin with, he didn't need to know about the interior of the house. He needed only to be prepared with a ladder placed at the window so he could receive a hand-out of the child from the nursery or he might have only needed to be at the prearranged doorway to receive the child from the inside helper. You could have had the baby handed off to one kidnapper, perhaps at the back door, while the ladder was placed at the nursery window and climbed by an accomplice to look like the kidnapping was done that way. I read this also. I am really glad to see that Michael could provided the source for it. Wayne Jones does not use footnotes so I don't know where he is getting his information from. All he gives is a list of resources. I wish he would have done it differently. But then, we have Michael to jump in and help us out! . Whateley was my very first choice as inside helper. I felt this way after only reading one book on this crime which was Waller's Kidnap. I felt inside help was necessary to pull this crime off. I still feel the same way about inside assistance. Looking at Mark's timeline of events has also made me suspicious of Betty Gow. Going over where people were and when that night in the house leaves between 7:30 and 8 pm. as one opportunity. Only Betty is upstairs at this time. No one else is on the second floor of the house. She could hand Charlie out, make sure the room is in perfect order, and no one would be the wiser about what happened. She goes downstairs, tells Anne Charlie is sleeping soundly and then goes to eat her dinner with Elsie and Olly in a very routine way. The second window of opportunity in the timeline is more difficult to nail down for me. Whateley is downstairs serving the Lindberghs their dinner and then cleaning up afterwards with Elsie until at least 9 or 9:10. Elsie and Betty go upstairs around 9:15. Whateley is supposed to be downstairs at this time and supposedly stays downstairs. I could see him having the opportunity to go upstairs and quickly either hand out Charlie from the window or take him down the back stairwell and hand him to someone waiting at the back door to receive the child. This would definitely work for me if it were not for the Lindberghs going up stairs to their bedroom around 9:15. Both Charles and Anne are up there. Charles takes a bath, dresses and goes back down. Anne proceeds to draw a bath after he is finished. They are in the room next door to the nursery. How does Whateley accomplish the deed without being heard or possibly encountered in the hallway? Would he have been able to assist at a different time that evening?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 15, 2013 12:48:29 GMT -5
Michael, thanks for the source on Whateley and the Curtis meal.
I totally agree. For me, if I were planning the crime, the mere risk of the child awakening and crying would be enough to prevent me from attempting the kidnap unless I had that element “fixed” and under control. If the child cries when I open the window, do I want to be stuck at the top of a ladder, with Charles Lindbergh, famed as a crack shot, a mere flight of stairs away? The lure of $50,000 is not enough to risk having lead pumped into my chest as the ladder teeters back and I plunge into the mud.
The main thing that makes Highfields an attractive target is the fact that, unlike Next Day Hill, there are very few servants in the house. If the perps believed Lindbergh was going to be at the NYU dinner, this would increase the perceived vulnerability of the target.
But as you have pointed out, the kidnappers seem to have uncanny knowledge, both of the house and the surrounding terrain, right down to knowing which shutter couldn’t be locked—as well as of the Lindberghs’ movements. The mere knowledge that Charley was there on a Tuesday is enough, to me, to cancel out Hauptmann as a “sole perp.”
You know, Michael, for me, it is difficult to separate the Whateleys from the crime. The Whateleys were the caretakers. How do the perps get this intimate knowledge of the house without the Whateleys ever seeing them and knowing about them? Even if one argues that Lindbergh himself brought the perps to the house to check it out (something I disagree with), you’d think the Whateleys would still be aware of that. Of course, since Lindbergh knew the house and terrain as well as anyone, I know it could be argued (as A and M did) that he himself committed the deed without the Whateleys knowing, but I don’t see how one can argue for Lindbergh as “sole perp,” not with ransom notes being mailed to Lindbergh from NYC, and all the evidence on Hauptmann.
The Whateleys are for me the perfect insiders. Much better for tipsters than Violet Sharp. They are constantly right on the scene. They can provide me with up-to-the-minute information on the Lindberghs' movements. There are no other servants in the house (until Betty arrives the day of the kidnapping). So if Whateley is regularly tipping off the kidnappers by phone, who’s going to see him? Who’s going to tattle on him?
Betty reported that Charlie fell asleep unusually quickly that night. Was that because Elsie the cook doped his food so the child would not awaken? Did she sprinkle a little of the same stuff in the dog’s food, ensuring he would snooze through the kidnap and not bark?
While I certainly don’t see them as the masterminds of the crime, the Whateleys are a glue that could make the whole thing work, and resolve many of the perplexing questions surrounding it. Amy, I agree with you about the difficulty of Whateley getting upstairs without the risk of being noticed by the Lindberghs. I presume the nursery was not his territory and any movement toward it, if noticed, could have gotten him in trouble. Maybe he is hands-off and just standing guard.
However, I like the 9 o’clock time frame better than 8 for the snatch. I say this because at approximately 9 o’clock two things happened: (1) Lindbergh heard the cracking noise; (2) Lindbergh’s neighbors heard their dog barking, seemingly chasing someone near the chicken coops. (And this last was supported by the discovery of a mix of dog and human tracks near the chicken coops.) It’s this combination that makes believe that the snatch occurred at about 9PM.
And this is also a reason why I am suspicious of Red Johnsen’s call to Betty. 8:45. Probably right when the snatch is getting under way, Isn’t Red tying down Betty during the snatch, just as Elsie is tying her down after it? Why else does Red have the moxie to tie up the phone line of the famous Charles Lindbergh?
So how does Red know exactly when to call Betty? All Whateley has to do is call Red’s number, let it ring once, and hang up. A subtle maneuver that could easily go unnoticed. This would be the signal for Red to Call Highfields. It was Whateley who took that call. And I have always thought it a bit odd that Red called from a phone booth at a drugstore, when he could have used the Junges’ phone.
I agree that Betty remains a strong suspect. But since she didn’t know she would even be at Highfields until Anne called her on the day of the kidnapping, she would have had to “wing” it—and as Michael has said, this crime seems to have been very carefully planned and executed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2013 15:23:53 GMT -5
The dogs barking at 9 p.m. plus the tracks are important clues. If the kidnapper entered the room from the window then Whateley would not have needed to be upstairs at all. He is only necessary in the nursery if he is going to hand the child out to the kidnapper who is on the ladder. If Elsie is in on the plan then perhaps Olly could have gotten upstairs a little before 9 to hand out the baby and then come down before the Lindberghs ever went up to their room. I really question anyone coming into the nursery through that window. The condition of the nursery just doesn't seem to support that. The room is pristine except for a couple of mud smudges that don't even make it to the crib area. Nothing is out of place or disturbed at all. No finger prints from anyone even though there should be by Betty at least. She handled the french window. She said she placed her hands on the crib when she went over to check on Charlie. However if Whateley had gone into the nursery to hand the child out, I suppose he could have quickly wiped his prints off the window and door knobs, etc. before exiting the room. Or maybe had gloves in his jacket pocket that he could slip on so he wouldn't leave any prints??
Did Lindbergh really hear something? I am not so sure about that. Anne was sitting right next to him and heard nothing. Plus this is something that he "remembered" several days later. I am inclined he recalled this in order to help take suspicion off of Red Johnson by setting a time for the crime that would make the occurrence at a time that Johnson has covered with an alibi. I think he was just trying to help Johnson. Just my opinion.
It was indeed carefully planned and Betty being there was part of the plan. If she wasn't necessary this kidnapping could have taken place the night before since the Whateleys were there to help carry it out. Do you think that Olly and Betty could have been in on it together??
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 16, 2013 14:18:48 GMT -5
I think he did. One reason I say this is because the neighbors, Kristofek and Kuchta, heard their dog chasing someone near the chicken coops around 9. And Lindbergh’s observation seems to probably match up to the break in the ladder. Although there is disagreement as to why the ladder split, most people, including our resident ladder expert Kevin, concur it happened on the night of the kidnapping. It seems unlikely that they would have brought a ladder that had already split. Finally, Gardner (p. 21) says Anne had a hearing problem—so I can believe Charles, who was by nature an alert individual, could have noticed a sound that she didn’t.
Amy, are your pursuing a theory that Lindbergh hired Red Johnsen to take the baby? It’s an interesting thought. As early as 7:30, Betty hands off the baby to Red (or to Lindy who gives him to Red). I suppose this covers why the baby didn’t cry and the undisturbed room. Then some other hireling is handling the ladder, which is a prop, at 9PM? This is the man the neighbors’ dog chases? Gardner has an interesting passage (p. 20) that Red did not identify himself by name when he called, and “Whateley apparently did not notice the Norwegian accent”—Gardner then asks if someone besides Red might have made the call.
I'm just rambling here. After 9 ,Red rode around with the Junges—perhaps to establish a further alibi for the given time frame for the snatch? It has always been a bit suspicious that Red was deported back to Norway so soon after the crime. But it seems hard to connect Red to the extortion---he certainly doesn’t seem enriched by the LKC. But—there are always so many “buts”-- it’s always been a major curiosity that, according to Condon, CJ pleaded for the innocence of Betty and Red. Seems extremely unlikely that a murdering. kidnapping extortionist would give a hoot about their fate. Since Hans Mueller worked on a boat, could that have brought him in touch with Red, who was a sailor?
Still, how do we go from a handoff to Red Johnsen to the baby’s corpse found off the road?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 16, 2013 17:10:13 GMT -5
I don't put much faith into the noise Lindbergh supposedly heard. When asked originally he didn't hear anything. Anne didn't hear it, and BR's right about Lloyd's book saying Anne was hard of hearing, however, she seemed to hear just fine that night as evidenced by what she did hear. But even if its all true....Lindbergh forgot then remembered, and Anne was deaf and didn't hear it - the sound was coming from the kitchen and not where that ladder was - outside the den.
The Neighbor's dogs running towards "something" near the Lindbergh house. I say consider it but in reality what is there to consider? Did they get the time right? Was it a deer or a turkey? There are all kinds of wild life out there. It was windy and that causes unusual noises. How often did these dogs chase people in the middle of the night? For example, this cannot possibly be the only time someone was outside of the Lindbergh home at night and did these dogs react that way then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2013 11:28:58 GMT -5
I am considering a theory that Red Johnson and Betty Gow were approached to assist with Charlie going missing. It is not the only theory I am looking at, however.
This is an interesting thought. I have been looking through Mark Falzini's "Their 15 Minutes". He provides some early history on Red and Hans. Seems they were both working at ship/boating yards in 1926 and 1927, Red is working in the Brooklyn dock area while Hans is working out of Classon Point in the Bronx. Worth looking into I think.
If Charlie was given to Johnson that night, I think it would have been to deliver him to a local contact. If Betty and Red were involved, I think they were given assurances that nothing would happen to Charlie. I have trouble seeing them involved otherwise, especially Betty.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 17, 2013 14:59:21 GMT -5
OK, I’ll ramble more here, highly theoretical.
It seems we potentially could have two groups here. We have the extortionists in the Bronx. We also have Curtis’s “Scandinavian sailors”—who CJ seems to know about, because he tells Condon not to deal with the people down South. Interestingly, CJ also tells Condon he is himself a Scandinavian sailor. And of course, Red Johnsen really was a Scandinavian sailor—at least that much is indisputable.
So—could we have Betty handing off the baby to Red—who knew the way to Highfields—and who then relays the baby to his Scandinavian sailor friends (the Curtis group), after which Red drives around with the Junges, and then drives to Connecticut—even picking up a hitchhiker, I believe--thus giving himself plenty of alibi? Did one of his Scandinavian friends make the call to Betty to further “alibi up” Red? Is it just possible that the idea really WAS to keep Charlie on board a boat—a concept that is recurrent in the Bronx and Norfolk negotiations, right down to “Boad Nelly”?
In the meantime, to take the heat off Betty, did BRH and Hans Mueller (whom Red conceivably met at a shipyard) bring a prop ladder to Highfields, to fake both the means and the timing of the snatch?
Do we then have a classic “falling out among thieves?” Do the Bronx boys argue with the Norfolk boys? The Bronx boys go with the “respectable” Condon and the Norfolk boys with the “respectable” Curtis? But it’s the Bronx boys, with their “signature,” who first persuade Lindbergh, and get the dough? And the child, whether by accident or not, has meanwhile died, and the Norfolk boys, giving up on any hope of remuneration, decide their best option is to drop the body somewhere near the Lindbergh estate?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 17, 2013 21:39:41 GMT -5
Interesting, BR, except that's a lot of people splitting just $50,000.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2013 8:23:41 GMT -5
I find your theory of two groups interesting because Curtis knows about the Bronx people early on and CJ certainly wants to cut the gang from the south out of the equation. They seem more like rivals yet they must share a common source informant perhaps who is burning the candle on both ends to see who gets the payoff first. It is also intriguing that the nautical theme is present throughout the negotiations on both ends. There must be a common denominator between the two groups. Perhaps this person is your masterplanner??
Stella's point about the $50,000 not being much to split up gives pause for thought. It leaves one group with empty pockets in the end since Curtis was not able to obtain any money on his end. Should have made the Bronx extortioners fearful about becoming targets by the rival group.
So, do you think that the Curtis gang was holding Charlie on a boat throughout the negotiations?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 18, 2013 11:32:12 GMT -5
Actually, this two-gang theory is not one I particularly endorse; but, Amy, you had mentioned Red Johnsen—and thinking out loud, I was trying to visualize how that might have played out. Red DID have the advantage of knowing where Highfields was, he knew all ABOUT Charlie and his habits from being Betty’s boyfriend, and he WAS a Scandinavian sailor, which matches Curtis’s alleged gang and CJ’s self-description.
Yet by all accounts, Red was a real nice guy. He was given the third degree by tough cops—not all of whom could have been compromised—and they, too, came away impressed that Red was innocent.
So all these theories we come up with always run into that inevitable “BUT.” There was an old joke in school about why you shouldn’t study. “The more you study, the more you know; the more you know, the more you forget; the more you forget, the less you know—so why study?”
Of course, that logic is flawed, but perhaps we could invent a similar ditty for the LKC. “The more you develop a theory about the LKC, the more objections are raised; the more objections are raised, the weaker your theory becomes; the weaker your theory becomes, the more you feel like an imbecile; the more you FEEL like an imbecile, the more you BECOME an imbecile. So don’t develop a theory about the LKC; otherwise you will become an imbecile—and probably spend the rest of your life in a rocking chair at the Skillman Institute, cutting out little paper dolls.”
Stella, I agree that a wider split on $50,000 gives less incentive—but $50,000 then was worth about a million in today’s dollars, so even an eight-way split would have been worth the equivalent of around $125,000 today—perhaps enough to make participation attractive.
Still, I have never felt the Lindbergh kidnapping was primarily about making money. But—and here we run into that inevitable “but”—if it wasn’t about money, why was ransom loot getting laundered so soon after the ransom drop? Amy, I have no idea if Charlie was ever actually put on a boat—but given the prevalent mention of boats, I think that, at the very least, some of the participants in this crime were probably told that he was going to be kept on a boat.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 18, 2013 13:48:35 GMT -5
True, BR, and during the depression even more attractive, I'm sure. And my mind is all over the place with theories, as well. Do you think that maybe Condon and Curtiss were each offered incentive for finding Charlie safe?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2013 16:55:06 GMT -5
Interesting, BR, except that's a lot of people splitting just $50,000. This assumes the ransom was the only benefit. I have always considered people were "hired." Historically once this happens, you have upfront money and backend money. It could be the ransom wasn't even meant to be collected.
|
|