|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 18, 2014 10:59:58 GMT -5
Not sure if this question has been posed here (I'll bet it has, somewhere), but what're people's thoughts on why Betty would make CAL Jr. an extra shirt? I mean, first, all things being equal, how many layers would CAL Jr. have needed, and, anyway, wouldn't they have had other, store-bought clothing they could've put on him, without Betty having to make a shirt?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 18, 2014 13:39:50 GMT -5
Wow, you are really opening up a big can of worms there! As you probably know, a piece of that purportedly home-made shirt was found on the chest of the dead child in the woods. So one can raise the question as to whether that fragment of the night shirt was applied after the body's discovery in order to justify a false ID of the body by Gow. Remember that Gow was the identifier of the body shortly after it was found. Anne Morrow Lindbergh never saw the body and CAL Sr. belatedly confirmed Gow's identification the following day. And CAL Jr.'s doctor never made a definitive identification of the body, even though he had observed it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2014 14:37:54 GMT -5
Not sure if this question has been posed here (I'll bet it has, somewhere), but what're people's thoughts on why Betty would make CAL Jr. an extra shirt? I mean, first, all things being equal, how many layers would CAL Jr. have needed, and, anyway, wouldn't they have had other, store-bought clothing they could've put on him, without Betty having to make a shirt? I find the whole "special shirt" episode troubling. Charlie was going to bed each night that weekend he was at Highfields without a special shirt. He had a cold, they used Vicks at night yet Anne and Elsie found no need to make a special shirt on any of those nights! Charlie did have other B. Altman undershirts available that night that could have been used. Why was it necessary on that Tuesday night to make that shirt? Was someone worried about Charlie being out in the cold air that night so they wanted him layered better? I have considered this as a possibility. I think we also need to pay attention to what this shirt was constructed from. It was not some piece of extra flannel material. It wasn't made from an old flannel nightgown of Betty Gows. Anne testified that it was "cut and sewed that night out of a flannel petticoat for an infant which I had had since the child was an infant." I think that makes that nightshirt more meaningful. That flannel petticoat needed to be brought from Englewood so that shirt could be made. This in not something that would have been lying around the Hopewell house waiting to be made into something. There is forethought and planning involved with this shirt. Was Charlie going away and Anne wanted to send something along with him that connected Charlie to his past and his family? Was the blue thread used because it had been used on something that had been made for Charlie when he was a baby? I have considered this as a possibility when looking into why this shirt was made. Although I think the shirt was to provide extra warmth, I think it also served in a more meaningful way.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 18, 2014 14:46:14 GMT -5
are you kidding amy? your questioning the nightshirt?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 18, 2014 15:08:05 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I think Amy is on to something very interesting here. I'll ask it again: Why make a special shirt for CAL Jr. out of flannel (an exceptionally warm, outdoorsy material)? Why give him that extra layer at all on that particular night, and, if you are going to do that, why not just put another shirt on him, just pulled out of the dresser? I don't know that Anne had any idea, but it looks to me like Betty--the person who volunteered to make the shirt, who came from Englewood that afternoon and could've easily brought the shirt with her--it looks to me like she knew something was going to happen. And that something would not have been that the baby was going to die. If that were the case, why give him an extra layer for warmth? Rather, it looks to me like she thought CAL Jr. was going to be going outside that night, travelling in pretty raw weather, and since he was getting over a cold, better give him an extra layer. I don't know, but it looks to me like she knew something was going to happen, especially when you take into account her "I was promised I wouldn't be touched!" remark under police questioning. And I don't mean to open a can of worms, but this has always bugged me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2014 16:08:54 GMT -5
Yes, Steve, I am questioning why it was necessary to make a special shirt that night. It wasn't necessary any other night. Charlie was supposedly more sick on the other nights. Why not give him the extra warmth then?? He was supposed to be so much better on Tuesday. He was running around playing with Waghoosh. Why put on a special made shirt that night? Why???
Clearly someone knows that Charlie will be leaving. If Betty went and got that infant petticoat from Anne's things, then I think she would have been told by someone that she was to bring it. I do not see Betty going into Anne's personal things without permission. Anne would have recognized the petticoat immediately and Betty would have a lot of explaining to do.
The elephant is in the room now. Was Charlie being sent away to a special school where he could get the care he needed as his health conditions continued to advance? Did Anne and Betty think this is where Charlie was going and believed he was going to be fine??? I do not believe that either of these women thought for one minute that Charlie was going into harm's way.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 18, 2014 16:30:57 GMT -5
Absolutely, Amy. I don't think either Betty or Anne thought CAL Jr. was going into harm's way (and I don't think Anne had any idea at all of what was going to happen). But it looks to me like Betty knew something. I think she was told that CAL Jr. was going into an institution, that the only way for this to happen so the family could save face was surreptitiously--that he had to be "kidnapped" and kept hidden at this institution. I think Betty was told to leave the front door unlocked, the nursery window open, to put something in CAL Jr.'s food to make him drowsy, etc. The nightshirt could've been part of these instructions or her own improvised addition. She did as she was told because A) the person behind all this was pretty powerful and B) as I recall, Betty and Red had been caught with their literal and figurative pants down at one point. Rather than lose her job over this, it was hushed up, so Betty basically had to comply. Her compliance may not have even been all that reluctant: I don't think she was too impressed with Lindbergh's parenting and may've been in agreement that CAL Jr. would be better off someplace else--where he wouldn't, say, be left outside in the cold to "fend for himself." The thing of it is, though, I think Betty was lied to, having no idea that the plan was not for CAL Jr. to be institutionalized, but instead to die.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 18, 2014 18:25:37 GMT -5
so your saying beety knew the baby would be taken, I disagree
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 18, 2014 19:15:42 GMT -5
so your saying beety knew the baby would be taken, I disagree There is something "funny" about this, but I have always hesitated to include Anne. While I am sure she had her suspicions, something tells me that's about as far as it went. If what Amy & LJ surmise is true, then Anne is involved and I cannot see any other way around it. I typically try to find alternative explanations to consider. For example, perhaps they were lying about the child getting "better." If that were true then creating a warmer nightshirt would make sense. See what I mean? It doesn't make these alternatives are correct, but they can be used to "test" the situation.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 18, 2014 19:40:42 GMT -5
To me, just spontaneously "deciding" to whip up an extra warm shirt, plus her "I was promised I wouldn't be touched!" comment afterwards--not to mention her being in the perfect position to leave the front door and nursery window unlocked and mix something into CAL Jr.'s food so he'd fall asleep as quickly as he did--to me, all this suggests very possible foreknowledge on Betty's part. Like you, I'm hesitant to include Anne as having similar foreknowledge, but why, if Betty knew, would Anne have had to as well?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 18, 2014 21:46:47 GMT -5
To All:
So, if you believe that Betty was told that CAL Jr. was going to an institution, that implies either (1) Betty was being deceived or (2) in all likelihood the corpse found in the woods was not of Charlie, but of some other child who perhaps had died before the purported kidnapping and was "exchanged" to make it look as if Charlie had died. Perhaps the piece of flannel on the dead child's body had been kept by the Lindbergh household as a basis to make a deliberately false identification of the body.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Sept 18, 2014 22:13:42 GMT -5
I'm glad this has been questioned. It never made sense to me that a "special" shirt had to be made. Poor folks might do this, but I'm sure the baby had extra undershirts in his dresser. And another thing. I've always thought that he was wearing two shirts under his sleeper. Was this the only one found on the remains in the woods? When we were little and used Vicks, my mother covered our chests with a diaper to keep the warmth close. It doesn't make sense that something had to be specially made (and with the identifying scallops and silk thread). In the photo of the remains, the shirt looks way too small for the body. Something is way off here. Thanks for bringing this up.
As an aside, I just renewed Lloyd's book yesterday. My head is spinning with the new information I'm finding. I'm a little over half-way through it, and I have a load of questions. (And not a few new theories/conclusions that I hope to voice here.)
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 18, 2014 22:32:36 GMT -5
Hurt, I think she was deceived. I think the plan was for a physically defective CAL Jr. to die, and Betty was instead told that he was going to an institution and would be kept there, all of which would be disguised as a kidnapping and disappearance. Betty was obligated to participate by virtue of an unsavory episode involving her boyfriend that was hushed up, threat of deportation, what have you. Her job was to clear a path for the kidnappers: Leaving the front door and nursery window unlocked and drugging CAL Jr.'s food with something to make him sleep. I think she was assured this was all for the best (which she may've agreed with anyway), that there was no personal risk to her and that she wouldn't be questioned. But some detectives got ahold of her anyway. Later, when CAL Jr. turned up dead, she realized she had participated in something that ultimately resulted in the death of a child--one that she cared deeply about. She left the country, never to return (except to testify at the trial), went home, never married or had kids of her own. That's how it looks to me anyway. Sad.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 19, 2014 0:42:49 GMT -5
Here's Michael's post about the blue thread. Besides the discrepancies regarding who fetched and when the blue thread was procured, the explanation that the baby threw up and therefor they needed to make a new shirt because the first one he was wearing was soiled was brought up in the trial testimony, not in any of their original statements to LE. I wonder if Wilentz saw this as a problem and they made up this explanation.
Amy's observations have lead me to start a new thread here and bring together all of the information I could find in order for us to try to sort these discrepancies out.
Anne Lindbergh Statement 3-11-32 p3
It was around six o'clock, which is the usual feeding time; it must have been a little later, because I didn't get up there until after his supper. I was there for at least an hour, fixing him, giving him medicine, dropping drops in his nose; went out during that time to get needle and thread and flannel because we were making an extra shirt for him and Betty sewed the shirt for him.
Anne Lindbergh Statement 3-13-32 p4
Betty must have taken him upstairs for his supper for when I went upstairs into his room a little later, about 6:15, he had almost finished eating. We were with him at least an hour, straightening the room, closing the shutters, and attending to him. We found as before that the corner shutters would not close even though we both pulled on them. I went out of the room once to speak to Colonel Lindbergh on the telephone. He said he would be late coming home. I also went out to get a needle and thread for Betty. She cut and sewed an extra high-necked flannel shirt for the baby.
Anne Lindbergh Trial Testimony p.69
Q[Wilentz]: Blue. Was there a blue thread - I think you said Miss Gow sewed that afternoon. A: I did not sew the garment and I did not get the thread.
++++
Betty Gow Statement 3-3-32 p3
Q[Brex]: .....You then thought it would be best to put a flannel shirt on its vest not to expose it. Mrs. Lindberg went downstairs with you to get the Vix and you were to cut out the flannel shirt? A: No, I didn't leave the baby then. Q: When you came up did she stay? A: She went down for the sewing materials and I did the cutting here.
Betty Gow Statement 3-10-32 p3
When he was all fixed for bed Mrs. Lindbergh and I decided to make a little shirt of flannel instead of the flannel bandage which he had on him. Mrs. Lindbergh left the room to procure scissors and thread and played with the baby while I cut and stitched the shirt. I put this on him and put him under covers to sleep.
Betty Gow's pre-trial preparation Statement 1-1-35
Q[Peacock]: Where did you get that thread? A[Gow]: I got that from Mrs. Whateley.
Betty Gow Trial Testimony p259
A: .....We dressed him and just as he was about ready for bed I decided to give him some physic. In taking this he spilt some over his nightclothes. Q[Wilentz]: He didn't like the physic? A: No. I undressed him again and decided that I would have time to make him a proper little flannel shirt to put on next his skin. I didn't have sewing materials there, so I asked Mrs. Lindbergh while I went out of the room to get material from Mrs. Whately, whom I thought would have some. Went down to the kitchen where she gave me scissors, and said she would look for thread and bring it to me. I went back up to the nursery. Mrs. Lindbergh played with the baby while I cut this little shirt out. Mrs. Whately came into the room with the thread and I stitched it up very hurriedly and put it on the baby after having rubbed him with Vicks.
++++
Elsie Whateley Trial Testimony p. 237-8
Q[Wilentz]: ....During the day do you recall the operation in which this baby's shirt was knitted together or sewed together? A: Well, the only thing, Miss Gow came down to me and asked me if I had any white thread. Q: About what time of the day was that? A: Well, it was during the afternoon some time, but I can't tell you exactly.
(omit)
Q: She asked you for some white thread? A: Yes. I didn't have white. I did it with blue; I didn't have white. Q: What sort of a blue thread was it? A: Well, it was blue Silco, I brought it from England.
(omit)
Q: - that you provided for Miss Gow that afternoon? A: Yes, it is. Q: And was it from that spool, and that Silco that you provided that she sewed the baby's sleeping shirt that day? A: Yes it was. Q: Did you see her do it? A: I, no, I didn't see it, but I saw her cutting it out.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 19, 2014 1:15:14 GMT -5
This is great work, Stella, putting all this together. What stands out to me is the absence of why: No one asks, nor is it explained, why a special flannel shirt needed to be made for CAL Jr. on that particular night, when he was ostensibly getting over his cold and was already wearing multiple layers. I've offered my own explanation for this, but I'm anxious to hear others. In the meantime, the question still stands.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 19, 2014 9:07:51 GMT -5
Can some one here offer an estimate as to how long it would take an expert seamstress to sew this new shirt for the baby? Was there enough time according to this story? Or are we dealing with another little fib by a prosecution witness, concocted under the guidance of Wilentz and friends?
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 19, 2014 11:23:08 GMT -5
why would wilentz worry about a stupid nightshirt. the fact is it was fashioned to keep the baby warmer, and it was good evidence that the baby in the woods was charlie
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Sept 19, 2014 14:43:16 GMT -5
The night shirt was created to gave the toddler an extra layer of warmth for his bon voyage.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 19, 2014 19:55:54 GMT -5
So Michael, speaking of smoking guns and puzzle pieces, what do you think of the nightshirt? Why would they make a shirt when they could've much more easily pulled one out of the dresser? This would seem, to me at least, to be a moderately sized puzzle piece.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 19, 2014 20:10:47 GMT -5
Like you, I'm hesitant to include Anne as having similar foreknowledge, but why, if Betty knew, would Anne have had to as well? Maybe I'm looking at it wrong but it seems to me that instead of asking "what's going on?" Anne is a party to making it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 19, 2014 20:14:35 GMT -5
So Michael, speaking of smoking guns and puzzle pieces, what do you think of the nightshirt? Why would they make a shirt when they could've much more easily pulled one out of the dresser? This would seem, to me at least, to be a moderately sized puzzle piece. Like I said below...there's something "funny" about it but its one of those things I've put aside until something else comes along to compliment or diffuse it. These discussions could bring out a point which could do that for me. Many of our discussions have placed me on a path to figuring all kinds of sticking points over the years....
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 19, 2014 21:19:01 GMT -5
It may just be that they stayed an extra day and did not do laundry, so did not have an extra shirt. It would not take long, 20 minutes or so, to sew a makeshift shirt for the baby, if you sewed the seams carefully and "expertly" it could take a couple of hours, but I assume this is not how it was made. I'm stuck on the "why" it was made, for extra warmth and yet the window was left open on a cold windy night.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 19, 2014 21:34:06 GMT -5
To lightningjew, aimee, amy35, romeo12, stella7, Rebekah, Michael and others:
Can someone list ALL the items of clothing that were presumably being worn by little Charlie at the time of the reported kidnapping? Seems as if the only item of clothing discovered at the scene of the dead corpse in the woods was a PARTIAL fragment of the night shirt on the chest of the dead child. Any attempt to spell out the MO of the purported abduction and the intervening events between March 1 and May 12, 1932, must account for the fate of the other pieces of clothing. I don't think that wild animals in the woods, who feasted on much the child's remains, would have been selective about leaving only that one fragment of the night shirt while destroying in some way every other item of clothing he may have been wearing (except perhaps the sleeping suit, which may have been mailed by Cemetery John to John F. Condon).
This raises the question of whether the dead child's body was tampered with by putting that fragment of flannel on the chest after the body's discovery, as a pretense to misidentify the body as that of CAL Jr.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 19, 2014 21:39:39 GMT -5
Michael, in terms of Anne being a party to things: I always imagined Betty volunteering to do it--"Oh, he spat up on his pajamas, and, you know, it's really cold tonight, so I'll just whip up an extra warm flannel shirt out of one of these old things of his." It doesn't sound too weird on first glance, so Anne might not have thought anything of it when she went to get the thread for it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 20, 2014 7:57:38 GMT -5
Michael, in terms of Anne being a party to things: I always imagined Betty volunteering to do it--"Oh, he spat up on his pajamas, and, you know, it's really cold tonight, so I'll just whip up an extra warm flannel shirt out of one of these old things of his." It doesn't sound too weird on first glance, so Anne might not have thought anything of it when she went to get the thread for it. I certainly view it as a possibility, but taking a look at Norma's suggestion, can anyone say without a doubt that's not a valid possibility too? So, on this issue, that's why I am still up in the air about it.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 20, 2014 8:48:42 GMT -5
I view it as a possibility, as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 13:41:32 GMT -5
To lightningjew, aimee, amy35, romeo12, stella7, Rebekah, Michael and others:
Can someone list ALL the items of clothing that were presumably being worn by little Charlie at the time of the reported kidnapping? Seems as if the only item of clothing discovered at the scene of the dead corpse in the woods was a PARTIAL fragment of the night shirt on the chest of the dead child. Any attempt to spell out the MO of the purported abduction and the intervening events between March 1 and May 12, 1932, must account for the fate of the other pieces of clothing. I don't think that wild animals in the woods, who feasted on much the child's remains, would have been selective about leaving only that one fragment of the night shirt while destroying in some way every other item of clothing he may have been wearing (except perhaps the sleeping suit, which may have been mailed by Cemetery John to John F. Condon).
This raises the question of whether the dead child's body was tampered with by putting that fragment of flannel on the chest after the body's discovery, as a pretense to misidentify the body as that of CAL Jr. When Charlie was removed from the Hopewell house on the night of March 1, 1932, he was wearing the nightshirt handsewn by Betty Gow next to his skin, then the store bought undershirt over the handmade shirt. Two cloth diapers were put on Charlie and then rubber pants over the diapers. Then a footed sleeping suit was put over the other items. When the corpse was found in the Mount Rose woods all that remained on the corpse were the two undershirts. They were cut off by the police. Here is the nightshirt made by Betty Gow that was found on the body: jimfisher.edinboro.edu/lindbergh/photos/gowt.jpgHere is the store bought undershirt that was found on the body: jimfisher.edinboro.edu/lindbergh/photos/lesst.jpgAs you can see, there was more than a patch of fabric found on the body. The nightshirt made by Betty Gow was matched to the flannel garment it was cut from which was still at the Hopewell house on May 12th. They were also able to match the blue silco thread Betty used to sew the nightshirt to the spool of thread that was still at the Hopewell house. We know that the sleeping suit was removed and taken by the kidnappers. The diapers and rubber pants were never recovered.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 20, 2014 15:46:47 GMT -5
While we're at it, I think the sleeping suit was indeed taken off the body by the kidnappers, after Condon and CJ agreed to have the suit mailed to Condon's home. But since police were all over the area where the body was ultimately found--telephone wires being run through there, etc.--I think the body was being kept at another location (probably somewhere not too far from Highfields--possibly near Shippell's shack at one time?). At any rate, I think the kidnappers exhumed the body from this other location and took the suit off it, but decomposition had ruined the suit to the point where it was unusable as proof the kidnappers were in possession of a live CAL Jr. This suit was discarded and, rather than just buy a new one, it was decided that something with some wear to it--something more clearly identifiable as CAL Jr.'s was needed, i.e. another of his sleeping suits. I think someone at Highfields then smuggled out another of his sleeping suits--the one he was originally wearing when he was put to bed on March 1, but had spat up on, was changed out of, and which had been washed by Betty Gow. This would explain the brownish-yellow stains on the suit, as well as its laundered appearance, when it arrived at Condon's home in the mail.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 20, 2014 17:49:31 GMT -5
Thanks for your thoughts on the clothing issues, amy35 and lightningjew.
There are a couple of things I find inconsistent with Amy's narrative.
(1) In the police photo of the child's body in the woods shown in the centerpiece of Lloyd Gardner's book (which is the only photo of the corpse I've ever seen, BTW), there is a zoom-in enlargement of part of the chest showing part of the inner flannel undershirt. The impression is that what's left of that shirt was that it was much too small to cover the baby's chest. There is also no indication on that photo of any outer store-bought undershirt. Had the police cut off that outer undershirt before the photo was snapped? If so, it would be an obvious violation of police protocol, since the evidence has to be photographed as initially discovered.
(2) I don't understand how the baby's lungs had been eaten out by the wild animals (according to the autopsy report, the thoracic organs except for the heart were missing) and yet there were supposedly two somewhat intact undershirts. This sounds contradictory.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Sept 20, 2014 20:00:11 GMT -5
Nothing adds up when it comes to the body. Its seems decomposition was alittle advanced for the amount of time it was out in the cold. Even the bones found at the scene and the one's that were missing do not make sense at all.
|
|