kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Apr 20, 2014 22:21:53 GMT -5
Michael, I just read Junge's 11 page diary. Page 11 starts to talk about about the kidnapping. Do you have page 12 and the rest of the diary where she continues on the kidnapping subject? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by poppie66 on Apr 21, 2014 8:16:00 GMT -5
kdwv, There is no page 12. I truly believe someone got to her and put a stop on her, but I have no proof of that.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Apr 21, 2014 12:34:50 GMT -5
kdwv, There is no page 12. I truly believe someone got to her and put a stop on her, but I have no proof of that. poppie66, Thanks for letting us know about this. That's too bad because it seems like the good stuff was coming up, I was really looking forward to reading it!
|
|
|
Post by poppie66 on Apr 21, 2014 15:29:12 GMT -5
Michael, I sent you an email. Did you receive it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 21, 2014 16:05:25 GMT -5
kdwv, There is no page 12. I truly believe someone got to her and put a stop on her, but I have no proof of that. When it comes to something like this its hard to say. It's possible she never finished typing it from her notes OR the other half is simply "missing." I found a Leon Ho-age Report once that seemed to stop in the middle then wound up finding the other half years later in a completely different part of the Archives. poppie66, Thanks for letting us know about this. That's too bad because it seems like the good stuff was coming up, I was really looking forward to reading it! Exactly my thoughts after reading it for the 1st time! (And every time after....) Michael, I sent you an email. Did you receive it? Got it - thank you. I fired off a reply.
|
|
|
Post by poppie66 on Apr 21, 2014 16:30:08 GMT -5
I'm sure that if there was a page 12, we would have found it in her apt. However, that was in 1978. Her diary was written in 1935. I will always believe someone put a stop on her writings, or, possibly, additional pages were "removed" at sometime soon after. But, if that were the case, why leave page 11?
|
|
|
Post by jackmiddlewest on Apr 25, 2014 8:09:13 GMT -5
... So why did they walk out and leave footprints? Come to that, all things being equal, why would anyone do any of the things I just described and which you also pointed out? All this is part of what tells me that things were not equal here--that the kidnappers were supposed to leave footprints because a simple, clear route had to be communicated for investigators, and knew because they were told ahead of time that getting close to the house and going up a ladder, the dog, the gun, etc. weren't concerns. Now, who in the household would've had not only the foreknowledge but also the power and control to make sure of all that...? Good questions, tough questions, the people involved may have wanted to leave the footprints and other "clues" as a form of diversion that would lead investigators away from the notion that an insider was involved. Your observation "... that things were not equal here .." is critical but at this point I'm not certain of who is on what side of the balance. You seem to imply that Lindbergh is the one with "... power and control ..." Could there be another person(s) with that kind of power and control? I think perhaps there was. As to "foreknowledge", given the somewhat abrupt change in plans about staying in Hopewell I think the list of people is limited to those at Next Day Hill and at the Hopewell house; obviously that's a much longer than those who had the "power and control".
|
|
|
Post by jackmiddlewest on Apr 25, 2014 8:55:53 GMT -5
Michael, the story about the seagull coupled with the stories about Lindbergh's penchant for mean/cruel tricks brings to mind a question. Do you think Lindbergh was deranged? That wouldn't be the word I'd use. He certainly felt he was of superior stock, that most were not of his caliber, and he wanted most of all to be perceived this way. What he did, or did not do, wouldn't be completely understood by those who were inferior. These actions should be appreciated but never questioned. He was also someone who had a need to feel in control of things. I'd like to break down your description of Lindbergh. Lindbergh's feeling that "he was of superior stock" probably wasn't all that uncommon at the time. After all, terms like "good breeding", "upper class", and "lower class" were common then and are still used by many today. His feeling "that most were not of his caliber" may reflect conceit and perhaps an extreme conceit. So maybe he wasn't a person people would want to be around, but again this wasn't an uncommon type of behavior then and it's not uncommon today. Your later comments regarding his actions not being understood, but that they should be appreciated and not questioned, and the need to "feel" in control of things, seem to me to reflect a real inferiority or insecurity. (I'm not a psychiatrist and I'm not qualified to venture into any kind of analysis, bit there does appear to be a lot of grist here for someone's mill.) He feared "others" to the point of paranoia. He detested reporters; perhaps because they had the power to invade his world and expose his inferiority and insecurity. On the night of the child's taking didn't he say to Anne "They have taken our baby." I'm not saying he was referring to reporters here but to the "others" he feared. Even his choice of the Hopewell location might be construed as a desire to withdraw from the world to one of his own making, one isolated from the real world. So I offer the following definition from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. "Deranged may refer to psychosis, a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality"." The behaviors you describe in the referenced post and in other posts are important to what may have happened at Hopewell. How his behavior and Anne's compliance were perceived may have provided the motive for someone else to take the child.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 25, 2014 9:11:12 GMT -5
Your later comments regarding his actions not being understood, but that they should be appreciated and not questioned, and the need to "feel" in control of things, seem to me to reflect a real inferiority or insecurity. (I'm not a psychiatrist and I'm not qualified to venture into any kind of analysis, bit there does appear to be a lot of grist here for someone's mill.) He feared "others" to the point of paranoia. I'm certainly not a psychiatrist either, and my basis for what I say are merely my observations from reading the material I've come across. My opinion certainly could be challenged. I find your position that he feared others interesting. This is something I have never ever considered. He seems to (again imo) actually go out of his way to appear as if he's not afraid of anything. Take for example, his willingness to jump into the car with Condon for the Ransom Drop. He told someone concerning this act that if Condon was willing to get bumped off then he should be too. Of course this could represent the actions of someone who was afraid by constantly reminding others that he was not....but I just don't see that here. For me there are too many examples of him doing things that clearly represent he is genuinely not afraid.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 25, 2014 20:10:23 GMT -5
I think if we accept the idea of an insider, of those in the household, Lindbergh would be the one with the power and control, yes. I think others would've certainly been involved, but other members of the Highfields household? Anne, Betty, and/or the Whateleys? That I don't know. When you say you suspect that perhaps there were others involved with the requisite power and control to make something like this happen, do you mean others beside Lindbergh, outside the household? Or do you mean other members of the actual household itself (Anne, Betty, and/or the Whateleys)?
|
|
|
Post by jackmiddlewest on Apr 26, 2014 20:21:23 GMT -5
He seems to (again imo) actually go out of his way to appear as if he's not afraid of anything. Take for example, his willingness to jump into the car with Condon for the Ransom Drop. He told someone concerning this act that if Condon was willing to get bumped off then he should be too. Of course this could represent the actions of someone who was afraid by constantly reminding others that he was not....but I just don't see that here. For me there are too many examples of him doing things that clearly represent he is genuinely not afraid. Michael, as you point out Lindbergh seems to go out of his way to appear as if he is not afraid of anything. Why? I don't doubt he had physical courage; the flight across the Atlantic shows that. But why does he seem to have a compulsion to prove he is not afraid? When I mention fear of "others" I do so in the sense of what I hear in your descriptions of his superiority complex that on occasion appears to lead to bullying. Sometimes people bully because of their own inadequacies and fears. In the early thirties he was already enamoured with concepts espoused by Carrel that fed what you appear to describe as a colossal ego. I want to try to approach his behavior in the early thirties to get an opinion on it without foreshadowing his verge off into the irrationality (and evil) of anti-semitism and Nazism of the late thirties and early forties. What threatened his ego? And when it, or the world he seemed to be trying to construct for himself, were threatened what did he do? For the sake of exploring these questions, let me ask about an event that may have threatened his ego, his world. How did he react to Dwight Morrow's will and to Mrs. Morrow as the executor of the will? Why did the Morrow's take this attitude? You have recounted many of his antics with awful jokes on others that resulted in actual harm. You have recounted his behavior toward Anne that appears to reflect a compulsion to dominate. What husband and expectant father takes his long into term pregnant wife on a high altitude flight even if the wife wants to go along. Where is the judgement one might expect? What was he trying to prove by these antics? More important to the objective of trying out a theory of the case; how was his behavior and that of Anne at the time perceived by others? Do you think Charles and Anne were regarded as responsible? Do you think they were regarded as responsible parents?
|
|
|
Post by jackmiddlewest on Apr 26, 2014 20:30:09 GMT -5
When you say you suspect that perhaps there were others involved with the requisite power and control to make something like this happen, do you mean others beside Lindbergh, outside the household? Or do you mean other members of the actual household itself (Anne, Betty, and/or the Whateleys)? For the purpose of trying a theory of the case, I mean others besides Lindbergh. I don't think I'd include Anne in that group for this scenario. I think Betty would be acting as an agent of the person or persons who wanted the baby out of the house. I'm not sure about the Whatleys. Again as part of the scenario used to test the theory, I think that the events that lead up to the taking of the child may have unfolded during the confined time frame of Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 26, 2014 20:51:41 GMT -5
If we discount Anne's involvement (which I personally think is a pretty safe thing to do), then I don't think it's impossible for Betty or the Whateleys to have been involved somehow. I just don't see any evidence or proclivities on their part for that and, even more, I also see this whole thing as being very specifically engineered, which, in many ways, is the science of making things as lightweight, simple, and efficient as absolutely possible by, in this case, involving as few people as possible. Simply put, I see how it could've easily worked without Betty or the Whateleys, so I tend to shy away from their involvement. I could be completely wrong about that though. That being said, while I think the crime had been planned "for a year alredy" or thereabouts, I definitely agree that planning shifted into high gear over the course of that last weekend, as you say. Planning and scouting the area probably began as soon as it was known Lindbergh would be at NYU. Michael, when did Lindbergh receive the invitation to speak at that dinner?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 27, 2014 14:25:00 GMT -5
Michael, when did Lindbergh receive the invitation to speak at that dinner? I have never found an exact date for the invite letter from Chancellor Brown. What I do know is that it was unexpected when Lindbergh accepted and that it was carried in "News Dispatches" he was to attend on March 1st. As a result, there was a large gathering of people outside hoping to glimpse him as he arrived. For some unknown reason, some Authors give Lindbergh a " scheduling error" excuse for why he missed this engagement. Agent Cullen investigated this angle (apparently the only one to do it) and its right there in his report that Lindbergh was ALWAYS under the impression it was on March 1st but forgot. In fact, Lindbergh himself admitted this. Why then the need for this false alibi? I dunno but it irks me a little. Okay maybe a lot. When Authors come out swinging against people they label "Revisionists" they shouldn't rewrite history in order to do it. Michael, as you point out Lindbergh seems to go out of his way to appear as if he is not afraid of anything. Why? I don't doubt he had physical courage; the flight across the Atlantic shows that. But why does he seem to have a compulsion to prove he is not afraid? In short, to me, it seems simple enough: He's of the opinion that fear (or signs of it) equals weakness.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 27, 2014 18:20:39 GMT -5
Would you happen to know when these "news dispatches" went out? I mean, how far in advance was it known that Lindbergh would be attending?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 28, 2014 5:01:26 GMT -5
Would you happen to know when these "news dispatches" went out? I mean, how far in advance was it known that Lindbergh would be attending? I used "news dispatches" because that is what SAC Cullen used in his report. He wasn't specific about the exact date in this report, and I never pursued it.
|
|