|
Post by roryg1957 on Mar 3, 2017 16:10:30 GMT -5
Thanks Amy! I've been watching this site for years but really didn't have anything to contribute until that thought hit me. I'm probably leaning towards Betty Gow, telling someone (Red? although the cast of characters here is amazing. I don't think I know as many people as any one of the suspects here is associated with!) - and the thing spiraling. I would imagine that the child was at least drugged if not dead before he left Highfields, passed either through the window or more likely the front door, in a sack. If my theory that they insiders were going to be cheated is correct, then there was no thought of the baby getting back alive. A hard thing to write as a parent and grandparent, but there you are.
I need to do much more research but in my mind it ticks all the boxes, as the brits say. Practical jokes, insider, Anne distraught, closing of ranks. I must do more research, but thanks for the kind welcome!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2017 17:39:43 GMT -5
I need to do much more research but in my mind it ticks all the boxes, as the brits say. Practical jokes, insider, Anne distraught, closing of ranks. I must do more research, but thanks for the kind welcome! I like it because it shows forward thinking. Too many "see" something but choose to ignore it rather then attempting to investigate it. I agree that it would take an insider who knew about the Constance Morrow ransom demand (1929), and the hiding of Charlie by Lindbergh, twice, I believe. If I am remembering correctly, it happened once at the rental house in Princeton and once at Englewood where Charlie was hidden in a trash closet. Maybe someone decided to make it a real kidnap from the new house in Hopewell. Exactly. Certain things, if true, show someone near the family. The Constance Extortion is interesting right? No ties to the Kidnapping, however, taking a page from Rory's idea we see there could still be an indirect one.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 4, 2017 10:05:54 GMT -5
Forward thinking also includes looking at the case, from the perspective of questioning what precipitated the known facts, which followed the kidnapping. Speculating here for a moment that Lindbergh had already paid some people to carry out the kidnapping and murder of this son. For example:
How was Hauptmann, who print of ownership is all over the evidence, able to pull down an extra $50,000 in greed money and carry on unfettered where he lived? Wouldn't a man as powerful as Charles Lindbergh, who ostensibly just paid to have his son murdered, be more than desperately capable of rubbing out a guy like Hauptmann, over the two and a half years the latter carried on foot loose and fancy free while spending Lindbergh's hard earned money in plain sight in the Bronx? Would it not have been far easier for Lindbergh to accomplish this action in anonymity, as opposed to facing the spectre of an internationally observed trial, involving one of his own key participants?
And again, why would Lindbergh, an intensely private and phegmatic individual, essentially invite the entire world to his doorstep through hordes of investigators and the media, by asking Whateley to call the police, and then alerting the NJSP? If he had actually planned this kidnapping, would he not certainly have first gone through the motions privately in order to ensure the best opportunity for "success," without any initial outside interference, an action that would have effectively distanced himself from the events and at the same time, have been universally understandable to any parent?
In over 85 years of relentless scrutiny from an almost universal and unlimited perspective, no one has come close to demonstrating a proven connection between Lindbergh and Hauptmann. If this connection was true, I can't help but believe it would have shaken out a long time ago and we would all be talking about other things today.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 4, 2017 10:40:36 GMT -5
Forward thinking also includes looking at the case, from the perspective of questioning what precipitated the known facts, which followed the kidnapping. Speculating here for a moment that Lindbergh had already paid some people to carry out the kidnapping and murder of this son. For example: Right from jump-street, I think your speculation is made along strict lines with the intent to disprove the possibility. Try making it along the lines to include it then see where it goes from there. Wouldn't a man as powerful as Charles Lindbergh, who ostensibly just paid to have his son murdered, be more than desperately capable of rubbing out a guy like Hauptmann, over the two and a half years the latter carried on foot loose and fancy free while spending Lindbergh's hard earned money in plain sight in the Bronx? Would it not have been far easier for Lindbergh to accomplish this action in anonymity, as opposed to facing the spectre of an internationally observed trial, involving one of his own key participants? I think your question assumes two things: 1. Lindbergh was not only a Eugenicist, but a cold-blooded murderer. 2. That Lindbergh personally went to, say Clason Point, where he recruited and negotiated with people to get involved with his plan. And again, why would Lindbergh, an intensely private and phegmatic individual, essentially invite the entire world to his doorstep through hordes of investigators and the media, by asking Whateley to call the police, and then alerting the NJSP? If he had actually planned this kidnapping, would he not certainly have first gone through the motions privately in order to ensure the best opportunity for "success," without any initial outside interference, an action that would have effectively distanced himself from the events and at the same time, have been universally understandable to any parent? Asking questions like this can be made all over the place. For example, why did Lindbergh lie about Wahgoosh? Why did he say the Staff were not involved, then accept the Curtis narrative which pointed directly at Staff? Why did he block the lie detector for this purpose, then tell Cowie what he did? Why did he express 100% confidence in Condon, yet, tell Agent Larimer had he been younger he would have suspected him? The contradictions are all over the place - my book is just the tip of the iceberg. Yet, what I see you doing is asking for an explanation about specific contradictions as if they did not ever occur. In over 85 years of relentless scrutiny from an almost universal and unlimited perspective, no one has come close to demonstrating a proven connection between Lindbergh and Hauptmann. If this connection was true, I can't help but believe it would have shaken out a long time ago and we would all be talking about other things today. I've heard the same thing about a death bed confession. Also, there are many crimes, even today, that go unsolved. Can we agree they still occurred? The fact is, there are many sources that these "universal and unlimited" perspectives never consulted - as I have proven and will continue to prove. I am sure even if I did find that connection it would be shrugged off by some.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 4, 2017 14:38:07 GMT -5
I also think that the whole point was to have the child gone, that he disappear. That was the bottom line, in any case. And the disappearance of that child, under any circumstances, would have been page-one news no matter what. That was just going to be a given, and, if we assume Lindbergh was behind it, CAL Jr.'s "going" had to occur in such a way as to A) generate sympathy for Lindbergh so he would come off as victim rather a suspect, B) in such a way that the superman Lindbergh would not be seen as a negligent parent who let his child drown in the tub or fall down the stairs, and C) so that there was no body to examine, at least not until decomposition had obscured any physical issues. In order to meet all these criteria, I think Lindbergh was basically boxed into having to fake a kidnapping-gone-wrong. And though I asked Michael this question myself, as to why Hauptmann was allowed to go on his merry way, spending Lindbergh ransom in the Bronx for two years: Yeah, I see your point; Hauptmann was clearly involved, being in possession of ransom money, living right where a Lindbergh kidnapper would be expected to live (between the two cemeteries and only a few miles from Condon's), with wood from his house matching wood from the ladder, and with his handwriting looking similar to the nursery note. Given all this, he's clearly involved, so the organizers of the crime would obviously have known him and where he lived, literally and figuratively. That being the case, yeah, why did they just let him be...? It occurred to me, though, that the participants in the crime were probably chosen based, among other things, on their ability to keep their mouths shut. To the organizers' mind (Lindbergh or whoever else), Hauptmann would've been holding up his end of the deal: He built the ladder, he drove the car, or whatever else--in any case, he did his part, was paid off, and was keeping his head down as far as they could see, so there was no need to bother about him. They didn't know that he had a hoard of Lindbergh ransom in his garage, and that it was him (among others, I think) who was circulating that cash. Only when he happened to be caught doing this would the organizers have realized, but, by then, Hauptmann was in police custody and couldn't be gotten to. I don't think part of the plan was for there to be a trial; that would've been too risky. But once Hauptmann was caught, a trial was of course a given. But even so, Hauptmann could be counted on to not tell what he knew: He wasn't a squealer, and also had a wife and son that the organizers could use as leverage (which may have been another reason he was chosen to participate in the first place).
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 5, 2017 8:27:33 GMT -5
I was asking the question based on the conclusion you've already apparently made, that Charles Lindbergh was the cold-blooded murderer of his son. The fact he asked Whateley to call the police right away seems to me, a huge red flag within the scope of a Lindbergh-planned kidnapping.
I don't know what you're saying in referencing Clason Point, and I wasn't assuming anything about it. Can you explain?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 5, 2017 8:59:43 GMT -5
Putting myself in the shoes of Charles Lindbergh for a moment here in your scenario, I certainly wouldn't trust one of my seamy underlings to carry on in broad daylight spending the additional money I was forced to give him because of his greed. Not even likely would I do what you suggest if the serial numbers weren't recorded or 70% of the stash wasn't in easy-to-recognize gold certificates. But they were, in both cases. So this guy Hauptmann is now essentially a living liability and he continued to be that way for two and a half years. This thing could literally blow up at a moment's notice. In your scenario, why would Lindbergh even think twice about wielding the same power and influence he used to eliminate his son, to eliminate this huge but anonymous liability?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2017 9:59:25 GMT -5
I was asking the question based on the conclusion you've already apparently made, that Charles Lindbergh was the cold-blooded murderer of his son. The fact he asked Whateley to call the police right away seems to me, a huge red flag within the scope of a Lindbergh-planned kidnapping. I don't know what you're saying in referencing Clason Point, and I wasn't assuming anything about it. Can you explain? I've never in my life called Lindbergh a "cold-blooded murderer." He was a sadistic "joker." He was a risk taker. He was "strange" as it related to what was accepted as "normal" by all accounts. He believed he was of "superior stock, race, and intelligence." He was a Eugenicist. All of these facts are indisputable. I think applying these traits to the new facts then seeing what can be developed is probably a good idea. Clason Point was just an example meant to highlight what I was saying. In plain English I think it's absurd to think Lindbergh himself went out somewhere to personally recruit people for any plot.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 5, 2017 14:49:16 GMT -5
First, I don't think Hauptmann was one of Lindbergh's "seamy underlings". What I think is that Hauptmann, and whoever else, was hired by some third party to carry out the kidnapping-removal. Then some of these people got greedy and carried on with the extortion against Lindbergh. As was recently pointed out to me, the extortion was against Lindbergh, not against the person who arranged it (who would've been the one with access to Hauptmann or whoever else was hired).
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 6, 2017 10:11:29 GMT -5
well mike theres nothing earth shattering in the Hoffman papers anyway. you never debated your book fisher has many times. you can never get around the evidence against Hauptman nobody ever did.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 6, 2017 11:43:09 GMT -5
Hope you don't mind me chiming in here Steve with some thoughts, but I just wanted to say that I'm not really convinced there's a whole lot of relevance within the live debating of this case. While it is interesting hearing a speaker express his viewpoint in a live setting, I think it's too easy for a debate of this kind to devolve into individual presentation and personality over substance. And even though I basically agree with most of Jim Fisher's conclusions and acknowledge that he is a compelling speaker, he's also published many inaccuracies in order to reinforce his own conclusions, just as Scaduto and Kennedy did. Personally, I'd much rather have a well researched book of facts that builds on our current understanding of the case and I think Michael's done a great job of that so far.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 6, 2017 11:50:43 GMT -5
LJ, I think you're suggesting a pretty involved organizational chart of complicity that is much easier said than done. Do you really believe this would have been possible in the real world, without someone coming forward or something even remotely damning coming to light after 85 years?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 6, 2017 13:03:38 GMT -5
Well, I don't know that it would've been all that involved. I don't think it would've required more than Lindbergh, an organizer who he approached, and three kidnappers who the organizer recruited. If the rest of the household knew something was up--that the kidnapping wasn't what it appeared to be--Lindbergh (obviously) and Anne wouldn't have said anything, Betty Gow left the country and kept a low profile for the rest of her life, the Whateleys were both dead within a few years of the kidnapping, and Condon had every reason to never talk. So, no, I don't think it would've been too difficult to keep this under wraps, since the conspiracy was fairly small. The kidnappers could've been threatened with death or their families could've been threatened--the kidnappers could've been selected to participate specifically because they had something to lose--so they never talked. And I think there were some pretty damning things that came to light, chief among them being how phony and staged the crime scene looked. And if we assume it was staged--if we start at that point, then the question becomes who had the power to stage things and, from there, who had the power to direct the investigation away from this? And who wound up doing exactly that?
|
|
|
Post by roryg1957 on Mar 6, 2017 14:41:11 GMT -5
Thank you Michael - forward thinking. I like that!
I think the points made by LJ, Joe and Michael (all basically agreeing although it may not be apparent!) that Lindbergh wasn't the cold blooded killer are also where I'm coming from. However, Joe up above stated that forward thinking requires looking at antecedents and subsequent events - and that's what I was doing. I don't think Lindbergh knew Hauptman. I don't think Lindbergh kidnapped his son or had him kidnapped. For the sake of this theory (and that's all it is): I think someone did a copy cat crime.
Antecedents: There was inside knowledge. There was history - the Constance Morrow 'kidnapping' which may or may not have been another classic CAL prank. I can guess that he did it and bragged, via pillow talk ('and I said put it in a box in the wall...aren't I naughty?') but that's supposition. What isn't is that the two amounts are the same. There were the mock kidnappings at home. There was the timetable of when the family was at Highfields - never on a Tuesday. A gang of crooks from the Bronx staking a house in the NJ mountains out to find out their schedule, even on days they aren't normally there? I don't think so. So this says inside knowledge. There was the fact that no one in the inner sanctum seemed to profit from the crime. So I posit they were cut out. Double crosses happen all the time. (The movie "Goodfellas" is basically one long example of how mobsters cheat other mobsters.) So: who could they complain to?
To Joe's question: how was Hauptman able to get $50K? He was involved. Although wasn't it more like $20K he had (or $14 on hand and had spent several thousands)? But he wasn't the only person or he'd have had all $50k. I believe the money turned up all over the country and in Europe too? I'll have to double check - I was trying to find out just where the money went and saw an earlier post with a breakdown. That says to me more than one person.
To the question: Why would such an intensely private person call in the police and invite ridicule or intrusion into his life (my words)? I say: because his child actually *was kidnapped*. Too often I think this case has boiled down to Either/Or. Hauptman did it alone. CAL did it. Maybe it's a mix. Hauptman did it with help. Hauptman was part of a loosely knit gang or rather a loosely knit conspiracy, the members of which didn't know all the other members. Hauptman did his job, as someone said earlier, so he got paid and he was left alone. The others got their money, went off to Europe to die, or get arrested for bigamy.
Why I think it was an actual kidnapping? You only need the one or so people inside (and I guess I'm leaning more towards one. Someone to drug the baby, wipe down the nursery to a suspicious degree, carry the baby down to the front door - its risky but then the whole thing is risky). You have a couple or three crooks/lowlifes outside taking the baby (probably corpse now) away, leaving the ladder, etc. You have the guy in the Bronx who built the ladder who also must have done other stuff for the money he got (but who I think could not have gotten to Highfields and back in time to pick up his wife). So there's three - five people total. Crazed family member kills Charlie? The whole house has to agree to that, including the dead child's mother. CAL hires a gang of kidnappers to pretend to take his child either away as a prank or off to Skillman Institute? Where does he meet these people? He was a pilot, a celebrity, and an eccentric. Through his lawyer? In a speakeasy? Nothing I've seen says he was interested in crime, low life, and from what I recall he didn't approve of drinking (exchanging a colleague's water with kerosene if you believe Algren & Monier). Nothing I've seen in his subsequent life shows him inclined to criminality in any way (unless you view his friendliness with the Nazi regime as significant *in this case*.) If he did hire a group of local low lifes or have someone hire them - to take Charlie to Skillman - why did they all seem to wind up in the Bronx. I'm from NY and the Bronx is generally not where you go to get to the heart of *anything*! (apologies to any Bronx natives who read this)
Look at it this way: you know CAL pretended to kidnap his child, twice. This will muddy the waters when his child is kidnapped. Maybe you expect this to come out or that it will make him (CAL) pause, be more amenable to paying ransom. Wasn't it Betty Gow who said, when they found out the child was gone: "did you take him" to CAL? I think Algren & Monier say that Anne thought so too, at first. If nothing else, it causes confusion and misdirection.
|
|
|
Post by roryg1957 on Mar 6, 2017 17:39:26 GMT -5
Yes- I agree - the conspiracy was small. My feeing is 3-5 people tops. And at least one of them was cheated out of their cut and the other was an obscure carpenter in the Bronx.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 6, 2017 18:20:51 GMT -5
Thanks for the nuts and bolts of your theory. A couple of things I wanted to add my two-cents to: Antecedents: There was inside knowledge. There was history - the Constance Morrow 'kidnapping' which may or may not have been another classic CAL prank. I can guess that he did it and bragged, via pillow talk ('and I said put it in a box in the wall...aren't I naughty?') but that's supposition. CAL did not perpetrate the Constance threats or ransom letters attached to them. These were real and the perpetrator behind it was discovered. The key element here is that anyone connected to the family side of it saw everything from that perspective. The crime, it's investigation, and when it came to CAL - involvement, not to commit, but rather to help. And since we both believe there was inside help in the LKC, then it's reasonable to assume the CMK experience may have assisted indirectly in some way. Maybe it's a mix. Hauptman did it with help. Hauptman was part of a loosely knit gang or rather a loosely knit conspiracy, the members of which didn't know all the other members. Hauptman did his job, as someone said earlier, so he got paid and he was left alone. The others got their money, went off to Europe to die, or get arrested for bigamy. We agree here too. I know you've been around long enough to see me say that too many people have fallen into the "black or white" trap. It's almost been conditioned by history that we're only "allowed" two scenarios to choose from. Crazed family member kills Charlie? The whole house has to agree to that, including the dead child's mother. CAL hires a gang of kidnappers to pretend to take his child either away as a prank or off to Skillman Institute? Where does he meet these people? He was a pilot, a celebrity, and an eccentric. Through his lawyer? In a speakeasy? Nothing I've seen says he was interested in crime, low life, and from what I recall he didn't approve of drinking (exchanging a colleague's water with kerosene if you believe Algren & Monier). Nothing I've seen in his subsequent life shows him inclined to criminality in any way (unless you view his friendliness with the Nazi regime as significant *in this case*.) If he did hire a group of local low lifes or have someone hire them - to take Charlie to Skillman - why did they all seem to wind up in the Bronx. I'm from NY and the Bronx is generally not where you go to get to the heart of *anything*! (apologies to any Bronx natives who read this) Based on my research I believe Gov. Hoffman felt that DMJr. was involved. I think this idea that the child was killed so there needs to be a cover-up to protect the Morrow family name is one that should be explored. I did explore it, but I don't believe that's what happened. However, again, I can see why it should be researched. Next, I think that some Eugenicists, especially back then, believed in mercy killings. I ask myself if CAL could have been among them and my answer is yes. Now that doesn't mean he killed his son or even wanted him killed, but I cannot ignore it. Later in life he's having children by multiple women because he wanted to do his part in reconstituting the gene pool in Germany which was devastated by war. That in and of itself is a strong indicator of his beliefs along these lines. Next, look at the fact this was a secret and stayed that way for a very long time.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 15, 2017 14:13:07 GMT -5
Here's something about Charlie that I've never seen mentioned anywhere with regards to the LKC:
CAL Jr., just like his father, had a cleft chin. Although this trait is not too rare, it might have helped in identification of the body found in the woods - if the remains weren't decomposed enough to observe it. Yet although the cleft chin (or dimpled chin) is visible on some of Charlie's baby pictures, it is not mentioned in either Dr. van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow nor in the autopsy report on the body found in the woods. Just wondering why, in so far as I'm aware, it was not brought up in any of the reports on Charlie, not even while he was alive, to the best of my knowledge. Could it be that it was a taboo thing to mention back then?
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Mar 15, 2017 17:08:24 GMT -5
Hauptman did his job, as someone said earlier, so he got paid and he was left alone. The others got their money, went off to Europe to die, or get arrested for bigamy. Sorry, can someone explain what was meant by "or get arrested for bigamy"? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 16, 2017 5:41:06 GMT -5
Sorry, can someone explain what was meant by "or get arrested for bigamy"? Thanks. I don't want to answer for Rory but I immediately thought of Nosovitsky when I read that.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 16, 2017 9:50:00 GMT -5
but mike when Hauptman was found things changed. if Lindbergh was involved he would have had to known Hauptman. theres no evidence that says Lindbergh was involved. we know people thought that but in the end its a comical theory only to sell books. mike you feel confident going to a debate saying Lindbergh was involved? youd be laughed out of the room
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 16, 2017 9:55:33 GMT -5
that's my problem joe gardner and mike discredit fisher but they don't mention all the mistakes in the other books. that's not fair. as far as the debates go that's what they did in the late eighties early ninties. wouldn't you like a debate with mike cahill and mike melsky? I would. also current authors had ronelles board to get there research going with other peoples hard work to find things and ronnelle put it on her website. fisher didn't have all that either did scaduto
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 16, 2017 11:21:47 GMT -5
I agree with you Steve, that Fisher has been unfairly discredited when compared to some of the other crap that's previously been put into print, but I think it's more a case of the next author going after the high water mark, so Gardner specifically targeted Fisher. Fisher's book may have some inaccuracies, but they all do and his presentation of the known and incontrovertible circumstantial facts still flattens both Scaduto and Kennedy, period.
Some other personal thoughts. I wouldn't mind seeing a good live debate for the entertainment value, if both parties were truly willing, on an equal footing and didn't take themselves too seriously. Personally though, while they may not know everything about this case, I believe a lot of us already know enough about what is important to get an excellent overall impression of the jigsaw puzzle. Lindbergh as mastermind in a plot to eliminate his own son is just plain ridiculous. I think it would be a real eye opener for any case student to have to personally experience even one day of what the Lindbergh family and those close to them, had to endure between March 1 and May 12, 1932 and beyond.. and that they wouldn't need much more to recognize that theory is a downward spiral into oblivion. Anne Lindbergh's "Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead" is a start. Also, I think the major mistake that virtually no author up to this moment has been totally immune to, and especially where they impress that it is up to the reader to "make up his or her mind," is the personal bias they impart by their own own selective presentation and interpretation of the facts. I can understand the human nature side of it, but true objectivity will always suffer as a result.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 16, 2017 16:25:16 GMT -5
but mike when Hauptman was found things changed. if Lindbergh was involved he would have had to known Hauptman. theres no evidence that says Lindbergh was involved. we know people thought that but in the end its a comical theory only to sell books. mike you feel confident going to a debate saying Lindbergh was involved? youd be laughed out of the room What changed? They caught "one" of them. That was the sentiment. The idea that he did it alone no one believed, and we see from my book that even later in life they still believed what they originally saw. People "laughing" at me? Who? The guy who pretends to be an "Expert" who wouldn't know the inside of an Archive if it bit him in the ass? That's rich. Hell that's a compliment as far as I am concerned. Next, I never wrote the book to "sell" it in the way in which you present the idea. It was to get my new research out there. And it is new by any definition. that's my problem joe gardner and mike discredit fisher but they don't mention all the mistakes in the other books. that's not fair. as far as the debates go that's what they did in the late eighties early ninties. wouldn't you like a debate with mike cahill and mike melsky? I would. also current authors had ronelles board to get there research going with other peoples hard work to find things and ronnelle put it on her website. fisher didn't have all that either did scaduto Firstly, I have never used anyone else's research without citation. This insane notion that if someone else "thought" about something or "posted" it onto a message board first means they "saw it" first comes from a grade school mentality. I think we all have Google Notify so the first to post something from it doesn't mean it was "stolen" later on. It's a dysfunctional position. As far as Fisher's books.... When someone calls others "Revisionists" then they had better be right. The trivial amount of time spent at the Archives is offensive if the idea is to be the "go to" source. We can all be right at times or we could all be wrong at times. No one is immune to it for any reason. I agree with you Steve, that Fisher has been unfairly discredited when compared to some of the other crap that's previously been put into print, but I think it's more a case of the next author going after the high water mark, so Gardner specifically targeted Fisher. Fisher's book may have some inaccuracies, but they all do and his presentation of the known and incontrovertible circumstantial facts still flattens both Scaduto and Kennedy, period. I will discredit anything that is wrong. I don't view Fisher as a high water mark, only that people seem to point to his books as proof that Hauptmann was a Lone-Wolf. So it's both easy and necessary to show where he's incorrect, because he is, in order to show it's not a reliable text. Much of it is incorrect because of a lack of research. Knowing that he stopped short I can see why he believed it but he's still wrong. Perhaps one day he'll revisit the case, make corrections, then give me much less to criticize. But until that day comes he's fair game. Some other personal thoughts. I wouldn't mind seeing a good live debate for the entertainment value, if both parties were truly willing, on an equal footing and didn't take themselves too seriously. Personally though, while they may not know everything about this case, I believe a lot of us already know enough about what is important to get an excellent overall impression of the jigsaw puzzle. A live debate is a useless endeavor. There's about a hundred thousand sources I would need to bring then consult before properly answering a question. That's why the message boards "work." The debates exist here. Anyone is welcome to come here and debate in good faith. Lindbergh as mastermind in a plot to eliminate his own son is just plain ridiculous. I think it would be a real eye opener for any case student to have to personally experience even one day of what the Lindbergh family and those close to them, had to endure between March 1 and May 12, 1932 and beyond.. and that they wouldn't need much more to recognize that theory is a downward spiral into oblivion. Anne Lindbergh's "Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead" is a start. Also, I think the major mistake that virtually no author up to this moment has been totally immune to, and especially where they impress that it is up to the reader to "make up his or her mind," is the personal bias they impart by their own own selective presentation and interpretation of the facts. I can understand the human nature side of it, but true objectivity will always suffer as a result. I think it's up to the individual who is truly and properly informed to make up their own minds. What I have done, and intend to continue to do, is reveal the new material I've found. Again, I found it because I spent an ungodly amount of time at the Archives, and still to this point in time spend about 3 hours a day on this subject. Of course I am going to find new stuff right? But what I see are some people still relying on old and incorrect information to dismiss the new material. Also, everyone is going to have an opinion at times, and I've tried to make sure I've been clear when offering what mine are.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 20, 2017 10:56:42 GMT -5
But the body changes during death and maybe those toes curled during decomp? Maybe there was already a slight trace of overlapping and the skin shrinkage just made it more evident? Overlapping toes do not suddenly appear after death if they were not present during life! Sorry, no other way to account for the discrepancy between (1) the Van Ingen report to Mrs. Morrow several days before the body was found and (2) the autopsy report on the body found in the woods other than (A) there was an error on one of the reports with respect to the overlapping toes on the right foot OR (B) the body found in the woods was NOT that of Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 20, 2017 19:58:46 GMT -5
My money's on (A).
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 22, 2017 8:49:37 GMT -5
no just mislead. im considered insane I believe it was the Lindbergh baby and charles Lindbergh didn't kill his son because he had rickets
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 22, 2017 8:50:44 GMT -5
im glad you do because I laugh at some of yours also
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 22, 2017 8:54:40 GMT -5
im glad you do because youd be laughed out of a debate room with some of your nonsense
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 22, 2017 10:53:16 GMT -5
No one supposedly "in the know" ever came forth to provide even remotely verifiable details to suggest Lindbergh wanted his own son to disappear and that he then acted upon that wish. I don't even include Whateley's so-called "deathbed confession" in that discussion, because it's little more than hearsay and his state of mind at the time has to be questioned, relative to his personal dislike for Betty Gow. The standard response from conspiracists then seems to be "Lindbergh was powerful enough to end their careers if they spoke up.." Nonsense. The same people also chastise Lindbergh for his anti-interventionist sentiments, even though the US didn't enter WWII until they were bombed in their own backyard over two years later. And would falling out of favour with the US president, being labeled a "copperhead" and Nazi sympathizer still guarantee this status of invincibility and intimidation for anyone standing up against him in the LKC? Let's be clear-headed and rational about this. There would have been plenty of investigators and acquaintances of Lindbergh, active, retired or in the prime of their recollection to provide this kind of insight, had they been aware of Lindbergh's involvement and they would have had no illusions about his public status in the early 1940's. This has always been and will always be a libelous and swaying house of cards.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Sept 22, 2017 11:39:30 GMT -5
"To 'learn' history means to seek and find the forces which are the causes leading to those effects which we subsequently perceive as historical events." Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" 1925.
Have there ever been any causes for the kidnapping other than the 50K which would have meant a great deal to BRH, and the psychological factors outlined by Shoenfeld, also applicable to Hauptmann?
|
|