jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Sept 22, 2017 11:46:37 GMT -5
On the other hand, anyone who sees logic and cause - effect everywhere should follow a kitten around for a while.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 22, 2017 15:04:45 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. (1) Agree that Whateley's death bed statement MAY have been distorted, since he was suffering from a terminal medical problem (peritonitis) at the time, which could have impaired his memory and thought processes. We'll never know the answer on that one, Isuppose. (2) I don't quite know what you mean by "conspiracist" in this context. Obviously there are at least two different types of conspiracies that could possibly account for CAL Jr.'s alleged abduction and/or death. One type would include CAL Sr. and insiders, another type would consist only of outsiders. Remember now, a CONSPIRACY is merely two or more people who somehow perpetrate the same crime in some kind of liaison with each other. (3) Lindbergh "falling out of favor with the US president" would apply only AFTER the event. Lindbergh didn't seem to have a personal problem with Herbert Hoover, who was president from the time of the alleged kidnapping to a year and three days after it. Lindbergh had a dispute with Hoover's successor, Frankiln D. Roosevelt, which began in 1933. The problems between the two began when Lindbergh (in good faith) opposed Roosevelt's legislation to transfer air mail delivery from civilian contractors to the US military. This is detailed in the book "Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt" by James P. Duffy. (4) As far as I know, the word "copperhead" in American history is and was used only in reference to Americans living in Union States who (mostly secretly) supported the confederacy and opposed Lincoln during the Civil War. Obviously, Lindbergh was born well after the Civil War, so "copperhead" is not an appropriate term for his isolationist politics in the pre-WWII years.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 22, 2017 15:09:30 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? Only one problem here: the psychological factors pertaining to Hauptmann could have applied to many other possible suspects as well, whether they worked in cahoots with Hauptmann or not.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2017 19:04:58 GMT -5
(1) Agree that Whateley's death bed statement MAY have been distorted, since he was suffering from a terminal medical problem (peritonitis) at the time, which could have impaired his memory and thought processes. We'll never know the answer on that one, Isuppose. I cannot agree because Whateley's health wasn't in question on March 2nd when he declared it was an inside job to the press. The confession is NOT a stand alone event. This idea that he accused Betty because he didn't like her could just as easily be the other way around. And since just about everyone close to this investigation said at one time or another there was an inside component then who the hell was it? Apparently we are not allowed to consider certain personalities. So who is left if we abide by these absurd rules? And if we don't? Look at what those close to this matter all said then consider it - there's nothing wrong with that and if police limited themselves by excluding certain facts they'd never solve a case. So I suggest we don't do it either. We have more information available to us now than any one police officer did back then. And, as a reminder, Lindbergh was crossed (or believed he was) several times. Here's some examples: 1. Chief Walter 2. Secretary Doak 3. J. Edgar Hoover Lindbergh won each and every battle. How many people do you know went toe to toe with J. Edgar Hoover then came out on top? Well now you know at least one. So this idea that he didn't strike fear in the police is nutz. Just my Keaten chapter alone proves this.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 22, 2017 20:30:58 GMT -5
(1) Agree that Whateley's death bed statement MAY have been distorted, since he was suffering from a terminal medical problem (peritonitis) at the time, which could have impaired his memory and thought processes. We'll never know the answer on that one, Isuppose. I cannot agree because Whateley's health wasn't in question on March 2nd when he declared it was an inside job to the press. The confession is NOT a stand alone event. This idea that he accused Betty because he didn't like her could just as easily be the other way around. And since just about everyone close to this investigation said at one time or another there was an inside component then who the hell was it? Apparently we are not allowed to consider certain personalities. So who is left if we abide by these absurd rules? And if we don't? Look at what those close to this matter all said then consider it - there's nothing wrong with that and if police limited themselves by excluding certain facts they'd never solve a case. So I suggest we don't do it either. We have more information available to us now than any one police officer did back then. And, as a reminder, Lindbergh was crossed (or believed he was) several times. Here's some examples: 1. Chief Walter 2. Secretary Doak 3. J. Edgar Hoover Lindbergh won each and every battle. How many people do you know went toe to toe with J. Edgar Hoover then came out on top? Well now you know at least one. So this idea that he didn't strike fear in the police is nutz. Just my Keaten chapter alone proves this. Michael, please refresh my memory on these points: (1) You referred to Whateley telling the press on the day following the purported kidnapping that it was an "inside job." How did Whateley get involved in this capacity? Did he call his own press conference, or did the police allow him to participate in their press conference? What newspapers reported Whateley's remards, if any? (2) Who was Chief Walter? What agency was he the chief of? I don't see his name in the indexes of neither Gardner's nor Behn's books.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 22, 2017 22:09:25 GMT -5
But all this being said, if Lindbergh was so dangerous, why would Whateley say that it was an inside job? As a deathbed confession with nothing to lose is one thing, but to say this from the start...?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 23, 2017 8:24:40 GMT -5
(1) You referred to Whateley telling the press on the day following the purported kidnapping that it was an "inside job." How did Whateley get involved in this capacity? Did he call his own press conference, or did the police allow him to participate in their press conference? What newspapers reported Whateley's remards, if any? As we all know the Press swarmed Highfields immediately after the crime. If you go to page 183 in my book you will also see the NSJP wanted them immediately remove but that Lindbergh over-ruled that decision. During this period the Reporters questioned anyone they could at any time. So it wasn't a press conference - it was reporters seeing Whateley then asking him questions. (2) Who was Chief Walter? What agency was he the chief of? I don't see his name in the indexes of neither Gardner's nor Behn's books. He was the head of the Trenton Police Department. Lindbergh blamed him for the release of the Morgue photo and made demands of him about it. Walter blew those demands off. But all this being said, if Lindbergh was so dangerous, why would Whateley say that it was an inside job? As a deathbed confession with nothing to lose is one thing, but to say this from the start...? Whateley was the "weak" link. As the confession indicates - he had a conscience. This, I think, we can all agree on regardless of whether or not one feels what he said was reliable. Next, as the information in my book shows, he had a tendency of blurting things out, then once he realized it, would clam up or express a fear of losing his job. It's happening all over the place, and I can only imagine this is just the tip of the iceberg represented by the few things that still exist. I also strongly believe if his wife wasn't in the situation the case would have been solved in March.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 23, 2017 10:56:08 GMT -5
mike I disagree the case would have never been solved in march what would his wife going to say?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 23, 2017 10:57:47 GMT -5
what difference does it make if she was alone or not? am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 23, 2017 11:00:03 GMT -5
mike it dosnt mean he killed the child, we know the child wasn't healthy but to pin it on the father with no proof is far fetched. if he did he must have known Hauptman because the evidence points to him
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 23, 2017 11:01:59 GMT -5
mike I think I have a copy of the birth certificate that was printed in the newspapers im not sure if it is though
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 23, 2017 11:07:20 GMT -5
I believe reeve, because I met a few family members who was involved in the case harry walshes grandson, perrones son in law, bruckmans grandson, and a few others, none of them knew anything about the case. I sent walshs grandson documents with his name on it along with the others
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 23, 2017 13:53:43 GMT -5
Hey Wolf,
This is not proof that Lindbergh was involved in his son’s kidnapping, but Lindbergh’s actions simply don’t reflect a normal, grieving father desperately looking for his son.
I’ve previously mentioned that it took Lindbergh an astonishing 15 ½ hours to drive to Condon’s house to identify his son’s sleeping suit. He could have simply had Breckinridge (who was at Condon’s) drive the suit to Highfields where Betty and Anne, who were better qualified, to identify the sleeping suit.
Here’s another unexplainable example.
Charlie’s body was found on May 12th. In Anne’s Hour of Lead section (p. 250), she says that Lindbergh “has been reached” by 7:30 P.M. and “will be here in two or three hours.”
Edwin Bruce gave a statement saying he drove Lindbergh from the boat to Highfields arriving May 13th at 1:00 A.M.
All well and good so far (assuming that Bruce is a very slow driver).
Now keeping in mind that Lindbergh’s overall, motivating priority for the previous 72 days was to find his son, what does he do? He views his son’s body at 4:00 P.M.
Think about that. That means he woke up on the morning of May 13th, probably had breakfast, maybe read the papers, had lunch, maybe went to a movie, then looks at his watch, sees that it’s 4:00 P.M. and suddenly decides, “Oh, well, might as well drive the 30 minutes over to Swayze’s place and see if it’s IT or not.”
What was more important for Lindbergh to do until 4:00 P.M. than to identify his son? Afterall, the past 24 days Lindbergh was with Curtis on his boats looking for Charlie (his main priority) and then he waits most of the day to confirm if it’s his son or not.
Can you see John Walsh or Beth Holloway waiting all day to see their child? They would have been there first thing in the morning if not earlier.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 26, 2017 0:49:42 GMT -5
There's no disputing the timeline you describe or the fact that Lindbergh's reactions were not those of a typical father in a similar situation. But (and I know I've asked this before, about Lindbergh's callous examination of the body in the morgue) why wouldn't he have at least pretended to be concerned? If he was involved, I would think that would be very much in his interest. But blowing things off and appearing unconcerned as he did, like he already knew what was going on and there's no urgency--if it was me, I'd be worried about that raising suspicion.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 26, 2017 8:49:26 GMT -5
so wayne are you saying he was involved? I don't think he acted out of line, in todays police procedures he couldn't tell the police what to do. but idont see enough that he was involved because if he was he had to have known hauptman
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 26, 2017 10:10:57 GMT -5
so wayne are you saying he was involved? I don't think he acted out of line, in todays police procedures he couldn't tell the police what to do. but idont see enough that he was involved because if he was he had to have known hauptman Not that this answers specifically the question as to whether or not CAL Sr. was involved, but people on this board sometimes grossly underestimate Lindbergh's extremely high level of political clout in 1932, not only because of his "hero" status as an aviator, but because he had contacts on the highest levels of the Herbert Hoover administration and because he he came from a political family and married into one. He also had personal experience with Washington politics growing up as a youngster, and so was politically savvy well beyond what one might expect from a scientifically-minded introverted young man. (When Franklin D. Roosevelt came into office on Mar. 4, 1933, Lindbergh became a political enemy shortly thereafter, and less than three years later, fled the country to Europe.) As for today's police procedures being so changed that "he couldn't tell the police what to do," let's consider the FBI as federal police for the sake of this discussion and look at how Hillary Clinton and he posse told the FBI what to do with regard to her classified documents on private e-mail servers. Unfortunately, some "umtouchables" are still above the law.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 26, 2017 10:14:40 GMT -5
There's no disputing the timeline you describe or the fact that Lindbergh's reactions were not those of a typical father in a similar situation. But (and I know I've asked this before, about Lindbergh's callous examination of the body in the morgue) why wouldn't he have at least pretended to be concerned? If he was involved, I would think that would be very much in his interest. But blowing things off and appearing unconcerned as he did, like he already knew what was going on and there's no urgency--if it was me, I'd be worried about that raising suspicion. We would expect concern. But what we had here was someone that was not emotional and did things that need people to invent excuses for him to explain away. He believed his going through the motions of searching for his son was enough proof that he cared. You know, like the trip with Curtis who he believed was in touch with the Kidnappers (plural) despite Curtis' claim that a member of his household was involved. So we have a man who prevented police from using a lie-detector on his Staff because he did not want to "embarrass" them all the while accepting one of them was involved. The unemotional actions, he believed, was a sign of strength to those around him. So while the Cops were all whispering that something wasn't right, Lindbergh interpreted these whispers as comments about the enormous strength they saw in his outrages behavior.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 26, 2017 18:55:56 GMT -5
so wayne are you saying he was involved? I don't think he acted out of line, in todays police procedures he couldn't tell the police what to do. but idont see enough that he was involved because if he was he had to have known hauptman Not that this answers specifically the question as to whether or not CAL Sr. was involved, but people on this board sometimes grossly underestimate Lindbergh's extremely high level of political clout in 1932, not only because of his "hero" status as an aviator, but because he had contacts on the highest levels of the Herbert Hoover administration and because he he came from a political family and married into one. He also had personal experience with Washington politics growing up as a youngster, and so was politically savvy well beyond what one might expect from a scientifically-minded introverted young man. (When Franklin D. Roosevelt came into office on Mar. 4, 1933, Lindbergh became a political enemy shortly thereafter, and less than three years later, fled the country to Europe.) As for today's police procedures being so changed that "he couldn't tell the police what to do," let's consider the FBI as federal police for the sake of this discussion and look at how Hillary Clinton and he posse told the FBI what to do with regard to her classified documents on private e-mail servers. Unfortunately, some "umtouchables" are still above the law. There's a massive difference between the Clinton email issue and this. Even in her case, the FBI still launched a months-long investigation and Comey released a letter days before the election that said the FBI was still reviewing "new evidence." Many believe, rightly or wrongly, this cost her at least the 75k votes in swing states that lost the election for her. Lindbergh would have had any investigation killed before it began. The better comparison is the JonBenet case, whose family was so respected locally and by the DA, that they refused to ever put significant pressure on them to cooperate or sit for real interviews until months afterwards. Before the body was even cold (literally minutes from the discovery), the dad was trying to get on his jet out of the state.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 26, 2017 20:29:58 GMT -5
Hi Wolf,
Simply the more I know the less I know. I’m convinced Hauptmann was involved because the circumstantial evidence is there (the ladder, his finances, maybe the ransom notes) but there seems to me that there is even more circumstantial evidence pointing to Lindbergh’s involvement.
Put yourself in Lindbergh’s shoes for a moment. Your son is kidnapped. You want to do anything to get him back. Nothing really happens for 14 days. Then, on the 15th day you get a call saying that a garment your son was wearing has turned up. You wait almost 16 hours to see if you have positive proof of the people who have kidnapped your son. What do you do in those 15 ½ hours that is so much more important? (Of course, at anytime, you could have the garment sent to you within 2 hours.)
Then, after looking for your son for 72 days, you get word that a body has been found. Why would you wait another 15 hours to view the body? Wouldn’t you want to view it ASAP, with the hope that it is not your son?
Favor? If you (or anyone here) were a TV writer, what would you have Lindbergh doing for all those missing hours?
It's kind of ironic...Amy35 started this thread aptly enough as "Remembering Charlie". Sure looks like Lindbergh has doing his best at "Forgetting Charlie".
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Sept 27, 2017 11:44:34 GMT -5
You are not Charles Lindbergh, and, I suspect, not a rich (though CAL could have been much richer,) hero to the American public, so you have no idea why he did anything he did.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 27, 2017 11:47:22 GMT -5
Wayne, I'm at the same place you are although you've done way more research. The more I read, the less I'm sure of. I started out thinking that Hauptmann was not guilty of anything and now I see how much evidence there is against him. I think he had at least one accomplice. As for an inside connection, I think Whately's deathbed revelations are important, but were they dismissed by whoever was in that room at the time of his confession? I think if he implicated Lindbergh or a member of the Morrow family they might have been. I also can't ignore that law enforcement thought Lindbergh was involved including Swartzkopf.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 27, 2017 20:57:38 GMT -5
Jack, You are absolutely right. No one knows how someone will react in a situation like a kidnapping. But I know it's a fact that Lindbergh was able to keep 3 German families a complete secret for more than 20 years after his death. If DNA had not advanced so quickly, this fact might still be a secret. I also know it's a fact that there is absolutely no evidence that Hauptmann was at Highfields on the evening of March 1, that he kidnapped Charlie, or that he killed him and dumped his body. All of that is conjuncture. He did build the ladder and he did have about 1/3 of the ransom money. Take a look at who knew what on the night of March 1 (and who knew the most): For Hauptmann to have committed the kidnapping by himself, then the had to have been the luckiest kidnapper in the history of kidnappings.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 27, 2017 21:49:46 GMT -5
Jack, You are absolutely right. No one knows how someone will react in a situation like a kidnapping. But I know it's a fact that Lindbergh was able to keep 3 German families a complete secret for more than 20 years after his death. If DNA had not advanced so quickly, this fact might still be a secret. I also know it's a fact that there is absolutely no evidence that Hauptmann was at Highfields on the evening of March 1, that he kidnapped Charlie, or that he killed him and dumped his body. All of that is conjuncture. He did build the ladder and he did have about 1/3 of the ransom money. Take a look at who knew what on the night of March 1 (and who knew the most): View AttachmentFor Hauptmann to have committed the kidnapping by himself, then the had to have been the luckiest kidnapper in the history of kidnappings. All this. Thank you, Wayne!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Sept 28, 2017 6:57:14 GMT -5
Good job Wayne, of course it doesn't mean a thing if Hauptmann was simply lucky on a few things.
The really important points are that the kidnapping was on an unlikely Tuesday night and Richard was unobserved on Tuesday nights and only one other night, Friday when much more activity could be expected at Hopewell by someone who didn't know the practices of it's occupants. He was lucky? about knowing where the nursery and warped shutter was? A little observation would have told him both, the shutters being loose so the bad ones probably being noticed from the ground. The dogs - if he was totally unprepared he wouldn't even know about the dogs so that wouldn't apply.
Gow was the first inside suspect so she's been observed and studied for just ten shy of a hundred years, and Charles has also been suspected since 3/2/32. No evidence has ever come up to link either to Hauptmann or being involved with the crime.
It's nice for this and a few other computer sites that a couple independent investigators still consider the crime unsolved. That keeps the forums going. But when will they draw a line. Hauptmann and friends have been studied as much as anyone in history and yes, there's no video of him committing the crime, but much evidence he probably did. He was most likely seen in his Dodge a few hours before the crime was committed in front of CAL's house with a ladder in his car and that would have been enough observation time for an experienced burglar to figure out what to do.
So, a few people on here want you to remain coming up with stuff, Wayne, because it keeps some thinking going.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 28, 2017 8:22:49 GMT -5
I heartily second our resident Führer, Wayne: Keep coming up with stuff.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 28, 2017 8:50:06 GMT -5
don't agree wayne I never believed Lindbergh did it, if he did he must have known Hauptman which we know he didn't. its a theory ive seen laughed at live debates trust me.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 28, 2017 9:57:31 GMT -5
I don't want to get too far away from the LKC, but as to the HRC private server case, the FBI investigation was all mere window dressing, as it turned out. Director Comey knew that it had already been decided that HRC would not be prosecuted, even BEFORE much of the investigative work was done. So yes, she was and remains an UNTOUCHABLE.
Turns out as well that the FBI also did a lot of investigative work on the purported Lindbergh baby kidnapping, and even published a summary of their findings in early 1934. (The FBI Summary Report was posted elsewhere on this site by Michael, and contains hundreds of pages.) But if my memory is correct, the FBI summary report contains no mention of any theory of an "inside job."
So law enforcement procedures may have changed quite a bit over the years, but there still are UNTOUCHABLES.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 28, 2017 10:44:28 GMT -5
don't agree wayne I never believed Lindbergh did it, if he did he must have known Hauptman which we know he didn't. its a theory ive seen laughed at live debates trust me. Oh. Okay. I guess that's that then. New rule for the board: No more speculation about Lindbergh's involvement. It's not allowed because... reasons. Also, Michael: When you say the case would've been solved in March if not for Elsie's involvement in the situation, what do you mean exactly? That she was keeping Whateley on the rails, keeping him from giving too much away, and, if not for that, Whateley would've told everything he knew?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 28, 2017 13:48:55 GMT -5
don't agree wayne I never believed Lindbergh did it, if he did he must have known Hauptman which we know he didn't. its a theory ive seen laughed at live debates trust me. What are you talking about? He did not have to know Hauptmann. In fact, it is better if he didn't. Assuming his involvement, he likely went to a confidante (perhaps Alexis Carrel) who then arranged for a third party to execute the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 28, 2017 18:31:11 GMT -5
Hey Wolf, I agree with you 100% that Lindbergh and Hauptmann did not know each other. This is a good starting point. But I have to side with Hurt and Lightning that Lindbergh could simply have had arranged for a third party to execute the kidnapping. Very simple and that way Lindbergh and Hauptmann are never aware of each other. I still can’t figure out how one lone kidnapper could have surveilled Highfields and decided on a Tuesday night kidnapping. I know we have all been over this ad nauseam, but here’s a new, visual way to look at it. If I loaded this document correctly, you will see a 5-month calendar period which shows you exactly when the Lindberghs stayed at Highfields and when they stayed at Englewood. Assuming that Wilentz was correct and that Hauptmann camped out and watched Highfields from the woods with his binoculars, there is no way he would have guessed at a Tuesday night kidnapping. Just take a look – Highfields Englewood.docx (21.35 KB) Also, if Hauptmann did camp out and watch the house, he would have seen Skean. He was there. His bowl is clearly visible in one of the nursery room photos. Even Anne laments in Hour of Lead that Skean should have been there; that he would have prevented the kidnapping. Also, are you aware that the NJSP took a plaster cast of the kidnapper’s footprint at Highfields and that Condon’s son-in-law took one of CJ’s footprints at Woodlawn? Both are listed in the NJSP files. Neither was used by Wilentz at the trial against Hauptmann. If the shoe doesn’t fit, you must...well, we all know the rest.
|
|