|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 21, 2013 21:53:31 GMT -5
Amy, I just noticed something in re-reading Falzini’s time line. According to the 3-9 statement of Charles Williamson, the Hopewell deputy police chief, when he and Wolfe arrived at Highfields:
“Lindbergh tells Williamson and Wolfe that he heard a noise but that it didn’t impress him due to the windy night.”
So according to Williamson, Lindbergh told him about the noise on the night of the kidnapping. This says to me that Lindbergh did not invent it several days later.
Now, also from the Falzini timeline, for 9PM we have the following statements:
Joseph Kuchta (Statement 3/2/32) Lindbergh neighbor Joseph Kuchta hears his dog barking. “I followed the sound of his bark and he seemed to be running toward the Lindbergh estate near the chicken coops. He barked for about 4 or 5 minutes and there were sharp yelps as though he was chasing somebody.” Joseph Kristofek (Statement 3/2/32) Lindbergh neighbor Joseph Kristofek hears his dog barking down towards the Lindbergh estate for 5 – 10 minutes. So I am going to say that Lindbergh’s hearing that noise at 9PM was a good perception, and very probably corresponded to the split in the ladder. Taking the combined observations of Lindbergh, Kuchta and Kristofek, I believe that the highest probability is that this crime occurred at approximately 9PM.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 21, 2013 23:55:58 GMT -5
While Lindbergh may not have made up hearing the noise later, didn't he say it came from the kitchen--that is, the opposite end of the house from the nursery and library, where he and Anne were? Also, I don't think a ladder rail splitting would produce the kind of "falling crate" crash sound he described. The ladder clattering to the ground might, but, then again, there would've been a lot more collateral damage seen in the wet mud on the ground had that happened.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 22, 2013 8:49:43 GMT -5
According to Gardner, “It sounded like an orange crate or wooden box falling off a chair in the kitchen.” Now while the first interpretation I would put on this is that Lindbergh heard a sound from the direction of the kitchen, I could also take that to mean that he was describing a sound (orange crate) that one would EXPECT to hear from the kitchen. I think it would be important to know the exact words Lindbergh used to derive the correct interpretation.
The fact that he described the sound as being something “wooden” suggests to me that in all probability he did hear a sound related to the ladder, whether or not it was the moment of the split.
I may be wrong, but I seem to recall also reading somewhere that Lindbergh said he thought the sound he heard could have been of a tree limb cracking due to the gale—if so, he was not talking about a sound in the kitchen, though granted it still could have been in that direction.
Getting back to the earlier train of thought on Red Johnsen and the Curtis “gang.” I realize that Condon’s reports must usually be taken with a grain of salt—but not only did CJ say that Lindbergh shouldn’t bother with the group down South, but he described himself as a “Scandinvian sailor.” Unless he got this idea from reading descriptions of Red Johnsen (whom he defended as innocent), this seems to further suggest that he did have a connection to the Curtis group. The point I want to make is just this: If one wants to argue that Hauptmann committed the crime entirely alone, how could a Bronx carpenter, on his own, know about Lindbergh’s negotiations with Curtis (any more than he could know about the Lindberghs’ decision to extend their stay at Highfields)? Mighty good intel this solo carpenter has!
Hm, you don’t suppose old Bruno hacked into the Lindberghs’ home pc, and was reading their emails, do you?
But less facetiously, I am reminded that if someone had a tap on Lindbergh’s phone, they could have monitored the communications and known everything that was going on, both before and after the kidnapping. Interestingly, later—much later—President Roosevelt really ordered Lindbergh’s phone to be tapped, though that was of course for political reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 22, 2013 9:31:17 GMT -5
So I am going to say that Lindbergh’s hearing that noise at 9PM was a good perception, and very probably corresponded to the split in the ladder. Taking the combined observations of Lindbergh, Kuchta and Kristofek, I believe that the highest probability is that this crime occurred at approximately 9PM. I think you're doing a good job trying to piece this together in order to come up with a working theory on the time of the actual event. However, as I've stated above there are test factors (as with anything really) to consider against these "parts" which must be true. I'll start with the Dog barking. I've got a million questions that the Police just didn't ask, or, they didn't place into their Reports. So there is a lot we have to assume. For me though there's a little less to assume so I will share some of what I know. Kristofeck & Kuchta lived on Ashton Farm. This farm was approximately 1/2 mile southwest from the Abandoned House the Contractors were using to store their tools during the construction of Highfields. This was the same house the NJSP took over to use as a Guard House to the Private Lane. That Private Lane, according to Agent Sisk, was 3/4 miles long from the road to Highfields. The other source that I have, which never made it into any book, has the Dog being put into his coop after 9PM. After being put there, the Owner took some time doing several things in the house before the dog started to bark. Next, and most importantly, why didn't Wahgoosh bark or hear something since he's right in the house and not well over a mile away? We know, despite Lindbergh's strange denial of this fact, that he was an extremely hyper, protective, and barking type dog, while we don't know the tendencies of the Ashton Farm Dog.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 12:03:19 GMT -5
In a nutshell, here is what I am considering about this crime:
1) Charlie's "kidnapping" is a separate event from the extortion of $50,000.
2) People were paid upfront to do this job.
3) Players who were not at Highfields but were paid something for lesser roles such as nursery note writer and ladder maker, decide to extort the $50,000 from Lindbergh.
4) If the "kidnapping" would have gone as planned, the Crime of the Century would have become the cold case it was expected to be.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 22, 2013 12:14:22 GMT -5
Regarding the neighbors’ dog, quoting Gardner (p.26):
To me, this very much jives with this statement in Falzini’s timeline:
What the state troopers said they saw corroborates what Kuchta said he heard. I realize other there could be other interpretations, but the most straightforward seems to be that the kidnapper proceeded down to where the abandoned house is, where he encountered the dog.
Regarding Wahgoosh. It’s always been a dilemma. I recall that A & M advanced the theory that he didn’t bark because Lindbergh carried out the kidnapping by himself. But I have questions about that. Could Wahgoosh really distinguish between the sound of Lindbergh going up a ladder and through the window, versus a stranger doing the same thing? Also, if Wahgoosh stayed put because he “knew it was only Lindbergh,” doesn’t a dog normally get up anyway to greet his master when he comes home? So if Lindbergh arrived in advance to do the deed, and Wahgoosh knew his master had come home, wouldn’t he have roused to greet him?
But I don’t know this dog’s habits or how he normally reacted to Lindbergh—if he was spending most of his time with the Whateleys, maybe he more looked on them as his master?
I’m sure there could be many takes on this. If one favors Lindbergh as culprit, I suppose one could argue he handed off the baby AFTER he came home. Still, one wonders why Wahgoosh wouldn’t bark at the accomplices. I personally tend to favor the idea that both the baby and the dog were doped that night.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 22, 2013 12:34:01 GMT -5
Amy, regarding your take on the case—which seems to parallel some things Michael has said—I want to ask: Is your thinking that Lindbergh hired kidnappers so he could get rid of his kid? How, then, would this case have played out if there was no extortion? Most kidnappings are done for purposes of obtaining a ransom. So if Lindbergh originally expected there would be no ransom demand, how would the abduction have been explained to the public?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 12:46:00 GMT -5
I don't think that Lindbergh himself hired them.
Without an extortion, it would still have been perceived as a kidnapping because of the note and the ladder. With no further communications from the kidnappers it would have looked like the perps got scared by the police presence and the media attention so they never persued a payoff. And without the child turning up it would have led everyone to believe that Charlie must have been killed and disposed of.
It would have ended up a cold case.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 22, 2013 13:11:01 GMT -5
So do you think that someone hired them on behalf of Lindbergh? Not hired by Lindbergh’s enemies, I assume? If this was the case, though, why would Hauptmann ride all the way to the electric chair? Why not just say “Hey, I built the ladder and was involved in the extortion, but I had nothing to do with murder. This guy named Joe Blow was the one who hired me.” BRH could have gotten off with a limited sentence, maybe reduced even further by plea-bargaining and turning state’s evidence.
And why does Lindbergh finger Hauptmann as the voice of CJ? Even if he didn’t hire Hauptmann directly, but through an intermediary, doesn’t this threaten to blow up in his face?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 22, 2013 13:27:04 GMT -5
Next, I wanted to address this point about Lindbergh hearing something. I plan on commenting on stuff that comes up since then but if I don't do this now then I could forget some things in that are in my head at this time. When Cpl. Wolf asked Lindbergh: ....whether he had any suspicion as to who committed the crime or whether he could recall any incident such as strange noises or actions of his dog which was in the house that night. He stated he had no suspects or was he able to recall anything at the time by which he might be able to fix the time of the crime. (Wolf Major Initial Report 3-1-32) According to Williamson: Col. Lindbergh told me that he knew as soon as the report came to him that the baby was gone, that he had been kidnapped. I asked the Colonel if he had heard any unusual noise. He replied that he had not heard any noise except the wind blowing around the house. (New York Evening Journal 3-2-32) ....and we questioned him and the rest as to anything suspicious that might have attracted their suspicion and the Colonel said he heard a noise but it didn't impress him due to the windy night. (Statement 3-9-32) Chief Harry Wolf, the other part of the "We" in Williamson's statement, didn't even bother to put it in his Statement. All this information, which is up to 3-9-32, tells me is Lindbergh heard nothing but the wind.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 15:18:14 GMT -5
My position is the hiring was done to help Lindbergh.
Wilentz answers this in his closing summation to the Flemington jury:
"So far as Hauptmann is concerned he could have fifty help him; if he participated in this murder that's all you have got to deal with."
There would have been no deal. He would have gone to the chair just the same.
No. Lindbergh didn't hire anyone so he does not know who was doing the job. And Hauptmann didn't think he was working for Lindbergh so he couldn't finger Lindbergh for anything. Plus, he had his wife and son to consider in all this and possibly one other family. He could say nothing except he wasn't guilty of the crime he was being charged with, which wasn't extortion was it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 23, 2013 10:12:39 GMT -5
Let me ask you this Michael, how many in LE do you think knew about the Bronx negotiations, especially in the beginning after Condon's visit to Highfields? I was under the impression that it was kept under very tight wraps. How much was Schwarzkopf told about what was going on initially? If he was kept in the dark, what are the chances that other members of LE would have known anything about New York? Amy, It could be that you are completely right about this. I finished reading where the NYPD hadn't been told about this, and next here is something concerning the NJSP: Captain John Lamb recently advised me that his organization blames Colonel Lindbergh for the failure of the State Police to reach a solution of the case. He stated that Colonel Lindbergh refused to take the State Police into his confidence during the ransom negotiations, and if he had done so there might have been an entirely different result.... (Sisk Memo 7-27-34) I had always believed Schwarzkopf knew but if Lamb is saying this then it doesn't appear that he did. Getting back to the "noise" Lindbergh did or did not hear. It's important to now recall the true nature of his controversial recollection: Mrs. Lindbergh and I finished dinner at approximately nine o'clock. We went from the dining room to the living room where I heard a noise which I attributed to dropping something in the kitchen, such as a wooden box. (Lindbergh Statement 3-11-32) For me, its extremely important that Lindbergh has changed his story here. If one were to argue he actually HAD reported he did hear a noise from the earlier accounts I've quoted, then they would also have to agree the noise isn't the same one. Here he recalls with specificity both in sound and location, whereas the other was a general type most likely caused by the wind. Although I see BR attempting to get around it with a possible explanation, I must agree with LJ's observation. He's not going to associate a noise with the kitchen if he's hearing it in the opposite direction outside of the library. And now I am going to take it a step further.... I believe most people here have read Lloyd's book The Case That Never Dies. It's here (p.32) that its revealed for the first time in any book that Linbergh's belief was the crime had been committed before he got home. The FBI document that I have prove Major Lanphier is "leaking" information to Agent Connelley, and that Lanphier had been in such a position to know what he was talking about. It should be remembered that the FBI was being left in the dark and having an insider such as Lanphier provided them with a much needed source of intel. So if Lindbergh believed the crime had been perpetrated with at least (2) people, one on the inside and BEFORE he got home - what does that tell you about his recollection, or at the very least, the value he himself assigned to it? But if this recollection is bogus then one has to consider the date of his remembrance to be of significance. For example, if the timing of the event were as Lindbergh stated, then the person inside the home would have had to walk past rooms that were occupied - namely the Sitting Room in which Anne had been located at the time. And so while the "noise" in the Kitchen area provides a change in the possible timing of the event, it also removes both Lindbergh and Anne from the direct path supposedly traveled by the Confederate without seeing or hearing them. It kills (2) birds with one stone. Getting back to the Aston Farm Dog... I've always said and will continue to say there was more then one person involved. I am convinced the crime did occur before Lindbergh blew his horn announcing he was home and for Whateley to open the garage door. As BR has pointed out, and I do not want to dissuade any theory he has - there is footprint evidence to consider. Most of us remember our lengthy debate/conversation about that evidence here about a year ago (already). So it is possible the crime occurred, one party left while one or more remained behind for a reason yet to be determined. But that would be based upon footprints being co-mingled with those of a Dog. My biggest concern would be what and/or which Dog? As an example of support.... I thumbed through a photo album at the NJSP Archives that once belonged to Trooper Sawyer. There was Wahgoosh, the Bulldog "Highfields Sue", The horse I believe who's name was "Apple Sauce"..... Right. Who the hell was "Highfields Sue?" I have no idea but there she was in many photos paling around with the Troopers, and Wahgoosh. My point is there were other Dogs in the area. Next, my question would be of timing. There's no doubt the Owner of the Aston Farm Dog believed his Dog was going to attack someone. Do the prints put both in the same place? If so, where's the evidence of an attack? In short, its something to consider but I just don't know if we can assign a huge amount of weight onto this account.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 12:59:52 GMT -5
Thanks for this Michael. My impression has been that Lindbergh and Breckinridge bent over backwards to keep Condon and the negotiations private and controlled exclusively by themselves. Breckinridge basically camping out with Condon and Lindbergh making disguised trips at night from Highfields have contributed to my thinking this way.
I have been trying to narrow down a possible leak person who aided the development of scams that could be used to draw LE attention away from what Lindbergh and Breckinridge were working on. There seems to be a smoke and mirrors element to this investigation as well as a background damage control effort because of what I think is an extortion that was unplanned and dangerous. It could have had disasterous results had it been uncovered while in progress. This is just my thinking on the matter.
Anne being in the sitting room becomes an issue if the intruder used the front door as an entry point. What if that door were not used to commit this kidnapping? I think the earlier time slot works best because no one was on the second floor after Betty went downstairs. Of course, there is always the possibility that someone entered earlier and concealed their presence by waiting in Betty Gow's room until Charlie was put to bed and then removed him.
I don't believe Lindbergh heard anything that night. He is on record stating that he didn't. I think he wanted to set the time of the crime to after 9 p.m to assist Red Johnson. He was being accused in this kidnapping. The after 9 p.m. puts its occurrence during a time Johnson has covered with an alibi. Taking Johnson out of the equation also helps take Betty out of the picture since he was her boyfriend. Damage control I think the purpose might have been.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 23, 2013 14:54:10 GMT -5
Amy, I can’t agree. If Hauptmann was only involved in extortion—I believe that is your position—and was able to finger the actual murderers and kidnappers (the people who hired him to build the ladder) he certainly wouldn’t have gone to the electric chair on a charge of extortion alone, despite Wilentz’s inflammatory rhetoric here.
Even if Lindbergh outsourced the hiring to someone else, wouldn’t that “someone else” have tipped Lindbergh off about BRH after his arrest and said, “Lindy—don’t go after this Hauptmann guy. He can tie the crime to me, and someone will then connect me to you.”?
Regarding Lindbergh’s changing his testimony about the noise. Here is what it says on Falzini’s timeline:
The text plainly says that ON the night of the crime, Lindbergh reported hearing a noise. It is Falzini, not me, that posted this. It doesn’t surprise me that you will see discrepancies between a newspaper account and a police report, or between something Lindbergh—or any witness-- said in one statement and another statement. Sometimes people forget a detail which in another instance they recall; sometimes the report may omit something. It is certainly true that that discrepancies sometimes occur for devious and guilty reasons, but I wouldn’t want to assume they only occur for such reasons.
Same with the reports about the neighbor’s dog. It’s Falzini who posted it. He obviously thought it was relevant. And if you look at Mark’s endnotes, he is VERY GOOD at pointing out contradictions and discrepancies in statements. Yet he does not mention anything contradictory or suspicious about the dog reports or Lindbergh’s report of hearing a noise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2013 16:13:12 GMT -5
Wilentz was never going to charge Hauptmann with extortion. He was going after Hauptmann as the killer of Charlie so that he could get a conviction that would result in the death penalty. He wasn't going to settle for anything less.
As far as Hauptmann being able to finger the actual murderers, I say no. I don't believe he knew who took Charlie from Highfields. He was only providing a ladder and perhaps the nursery note. His role would not have entitled him to know. He was to provide what was asked and be paid for that.
Lindbergh didn't outsource anything. He was not involved in any way with the hiring of anyone. This was all done for him by others. This kept Lindbergh innocent. Nothing could be traced back to him.
I think that you missed the point that was being made about Lindbergh changing the type of noise he heard that night(wind related) to an orange crate or wood box falling off a chair. That is an entirely different description and sound. This is what he claims later.... not the night of the kidnapping. This latter description would become the one to define the time of the kidnapping. I don't believe he heard any orange crate/wood box falling in the kitchen or anywhere else.
I haven't posted anything about the neighbor's dog barking yet so I can't comment on that at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 23, 2013 16:34:09 GMT -5
BR: I am not sure of the point you are trying to make. Mark's timeline is based on the Statements I quoted. What I did was compliment Williamson's Statement with a Newspaper Report (not included as a source for the timeline) which was a "one on one" with him. Sometimes newspapers would misquote or even make things up. But this 2 page article is accurate, and Williamson never disputed any of it. Based upon the BOTH the article AND the Statement you can get a better flavor about what was said. If you read both they don't seem to contradict one another at all. Now whether or not you want to believe he heard no noise, like he told Wolf, or that it was a "noise" he claimed the wind made to Williamson on 3-1-32 - it certainly wasn't consistent with the "orange crate" noise he claimed he heard in coming from the Kitchen in his 3-11-32 Statement. Or perhaps you will, I don't know, but whether or not Mark put it in his timeline is based directly upon the Statement that I quoted. So its not like I omitted anything, or that we can assume Mark wouldn't need to be involved in this discussion in order to draw out his opinions - because I believe he would need to be involved. Same with the Aston Farm Dog, in fact, he'd probably want to see this other source I have that because I am convinced no one has ever laid eyes on it before. So I think relying on Mark's opinion, when we have none to rely on, is a bigger mistake then simply offering up an alternative or rebuttal of your own. I try to offer facts with the documents actually quoted then give my opinions based upon the research I've done. I hope its clear these are my thoughts and why I am making them.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 23, 2013 21:47:22 GMT -5
It seems to me that Lindbergh changed his story regarding the falling-crate noise, to place the crime and anything having to do with it as far from himself as possible--that is, at the opposite end of the house from where he was, thereby making it apparently impossible for him to have participated in any way or to have any knowledge of what was happening. Just my take though. As to the dog(s): It appears to me that some neighbors' dogs heard strangers and started barking, while another--which dog or whoever's it was--got loose and either paced individuals down the access road leading away from Highfields, or picked up their trail and followed it after they'd already gone. If there was no evidence of an attack or mauling, I don't think this is strange. Assuming the paw-prints and human footprints were even made at the same time, there are plenty of dogs who're very friendly, won't attack someone they don't recognize on sight, and will just stumble across and follow someone for a ways ("Hey! Hi! Who're you guys? You got food? Etc.") But Michael, had a question for you: When you say you are "convinced the crime did occur before Lindbergh blew his horn announcing he was home and for Whateley to open the garage door," could the "crime" you refer to here only be the actual murder of CAL Jr., with the abduction/removal of the body taking place later, after Lindbergh arrived home? I'm not asking who did either one, simply if these two events could, in your view, have been separate, with some time lapse in between (one occuring before, the other after Lindbergh blew his horn and arrived home)?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 24, 2013 7:20:11 GMT -5
It seems to me that Lindbergh changed his story regarding the falling-crate noise, to place the crime and anything having to do with it as far from himself as possible--that is, at the opposite end of the house from where he was, thereby making it apparently impossible for him to have participated in any way or to have any knowledge of what was happening. For me its pretty obvious that he changed it. If you tell the Man in charge of the initial investigation, in essence, that you've heard nothing, and told the local Cop you've heard a noise attributed to the wind blowing around - that's not the same as hearing an "orange crate" sound "breaking" in the Kitchen. Of course I am not saying it isn't open to interpretation about "why" but that's just how I see it. It could be that Lindbergh associated "that sound" with the Kitchen and therefore omitted it until he had time to reflect on it later. As to the dog(s): It appears to me that some neighbors' dogs heard strangers and started barking, while another--which dog or whoever's it was--got loose and either paced individuals down the access road leading away from Highfields, or picked up their trail and followed it after they'd already gone. If there was no evidence of an attack or mauling, I don't think this is strange. Assuming the paw-prints and human footprints were even made at the same time, there are plenty of dogs who're very friendly, won't attack someone they don't recognize on sight, and will just stumble across and follow someone for a ways ("Hey! Hi! Who're you guys? You got food? Etc.") Lots of different possibilities to consider. One being exactly what BR has. Especially since the Owner of the Ashton Farm Dog believed the Dog "sounded" as if he was chasing and might bite someone. Another could be something I've posted before but since I have no concept of time when it comes to my thoughts and posts here I'll repeat it.... While it isn't known whether or not the Occupants of the house walked these "construction roads" I do believe its possible. Furthermore, I absolutely know some Locals used them to cut through the property to get from point A to point B. And I am quite sure some owned a Dog just as the Lindberghs did. But Michael, had a question for you: When you say you are "convinced the crime did occur before Lindbergh blew his horn announcing he was home and for Whateley to open the garage door," could the "crime" you refer to here only be the actual murder of CAL Jr., with the abduction/removal of the body taking place later, after Lindbergh arrived home? I'm not asking who did either one, simply if these two events could, in your view, have been separate, with some time lapse in between (one occuring before, the other after Lindbergh blew his horn and arrived home)? I personally believe the child was gone by then. I've also considered it may have been in the process, so the horn distracted and drew everyone's attention to Lindbergh. I've felt, like BR, that the child was probably drugged to keep him from crying out as he always did. So let's say even if it was Betty who was involved and the child didn't cry when she picked him up - he surely would have during the transfer. So he's drugged or dead. Either way I've always felt the idea was to kill him. As far as the timing of the event... I found some good information I have never been able to upset way back in 2003. It clearly indicated to me this "crime" happened close to or before Lindbergh's arrival home. So when Lloyd's book came out, I was flabbergasted to see Lindbergh's theory about the timing of it all. Shortly after I was able to get my hands on Lloyd's sources and its in that specific source its commented the Police were agreeing with Lindbergh probably because it was coming from him. So in reality it was Lindbergh's theory only and the Police were simply going along with it.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 25, 2013 11:31:14 GMT -5
If the baby was drugged, when would this have happened? When he was being fed dinner? The drops Betty gave him when she put him to bed? If so, who do you think did the drugging? The most obvious suspects would be Betty and/or the Whateleys, but I've never really seen anything convincing on them. Also, as to timing, about when were headlights spotted on Featherbed Ln.? And one last thing: Since Lindbergh was such a control freak and as such (assuming his involvement for the moment), I believe would've wanted to be present to oversee things, what's your thinking on why it was all over before he even got home?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2014 10:14:14 GMT -5
Ambrose J. Titus would "housesit" for the Whateleys at the Hopewell house when they wanted to get away for a day or two. Lloyd Gardner mentions this in The Case That Never Dies. Ambrose was housesitting for the Whateleys on February 26th, 1932 (a Friday) when a couple stopped by the Hopewell house and asked to see Mrs. Lindbergh. Ambrose told them she wasn't there and they left.
Trooper Bornmann interviewed Ambrose and his wife on March 12, 1932. Did Ambrose ever see the car this couple drove up in and offer a description of it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 27, 2014 18:03:29 GMT -5
Did Ambrose ever see the car this couple drove up in and offer a description of it? Yes. Male was 5'9", slim build, thin face, smooth shaven, 40-45 years old, wearing a dark suit, brown overcoat, and hat. Car appeared to be a dark brown sedan or coach, possibly an Essex. Mr. Titus could not state whether the registration was NJ or foreign. He could give no description of the woman since she remained in the car.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 9:46:50 GMT -5
Did Ambrose ever see the car this couple drove up in and offer a description of it? Yes. Male was 5'9", slim build, thin face, smooth shaven, 40-45 years old, wearing a dark suit, brown overcoat, and hat. Car appeared to be a dark brown sedan or coach, possibly an Essex. Mr. Titus could not state whether the registration was NJ or foreign. He could give no description of the woman since she remained in the car. Thanks Michael, for posting this. When I first read about this man Ambrose spoke with I was struck by his description of this man. So I did some checking and realized it matched rather closely with the description of the man Ben Lupica said he saw in the ladder car the night of March 1: Ambrose Titus description of man:(seen during day February 26) Around 40 5 feet 9 inches slim build thin face Wore dark suit, brown overcoat and hat Ben Lupica's description of man in car with ladder:(seen around 6 p.m. March 1) Aound 35 to 40 slim build thin face Wore dark overcoat and fedora This similarity caused me to wonder about a vehicle description for the man Ambrose spoke with. Definitely two different cars involved so more than likely they were two different men just similar in appearance.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Oct 28, 2014 19:20:22 GMT -5
amy, if hauptmann was found not guilty, he was headed to new York for extortion
|
|
|
Post by corrine on Nov 19, 2014 15:17:48 GMT -5
Ambrose knew the house well,he was housesitter when the Whateley's were away. Maybe it was an inside job. Maybe the Whateley's were in on it with Ambrose.
|
|