|
Post by scathma on Sept 28, 2017 19:06:56 GMT -5
January 30th = they went for just the day?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 28, 2017 20:34:23 GMT -5
Hi Scathma, Good catch! My mistake, I went crazy with the cut & paste there. The Lindberghs spent the weekend of January 30 & 31 at Highfields. This from Anne's March 13, 1932 statement: Thanks Scathma!
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 29, 2017 2:22:14 GMT -5
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. The layout and size of the windows makes it problematic to see any dog present on the second floor. They don't go down to the floor-level and the line of vision from the ground level, no matter how far away, would be severely obstructed. I don't think there was any vantage point that could show you the floor of the nursery. Agreed though that Skean would have likely prevented the kidnapping and his absence is quite problematic as it relates to CAL's factual innocence. This raises another issue, the shutters were drawn. We also know that the kidnapper(s) stayed on the boardwalk during their approach. There is no way a would-be kidnapper could see into the nursery from this vantage point, with the shutters open or closed. Even with the shutters fully opened, the most one could see is a foot or two into the room from the boardwalk and that's it. What kind of lunatic would take the risk of ascending the ladder without any knowledge of what lies in the room? Hauptmann, if he was guilty and had observed the house, would have known a dog was present, as Wagoosh was known for his barking. If the State was correct, CAL himself could have literally been in the room holding his son. Heck, the entire house could be in CALjr's room having a party and Hauptmann wouldn't have known it until he ascended the ladder and opened the shutters. It makes no logical sense and just proves the insanity of the trial theory as it relates to no inside knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 30, 2017 9:31:41 GMT -5
Great research Wayne and thank you for sharing it! Take a look at who knew what on the night of March 1 (and who knew the most) What I find interesting, and I mentioned it in my book (p76), was that Gow testified she didn't know until that night this set of shutters were warped. Does anyone believe that? I do not. imgur.com/a/xgXPGAlso, 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? Absolutely true a print was casted in Hopewell and one was also taken at St. Raymonds. Ever notice that among the Lone-Wolf theorists that if anything points away from Hauptmann then there's all kinds of excuses that include Condon being "confused" or Police being "sloppy" or the catch all "it doesn't matter?" But once something does point in his direction it is "rock solid" and anyone connected with bringing it to light is 100% perfect in every way - including Condon. The layout and size of the windows makes it problematic to see any dog present on the second floor. They don't go down to the floor-level and the line of vision from the ground level, no matter how far away, would be severely obstructed. I don't think there was any vantage point that could show you the floor of the nursery. Agreed though that Skean would have likely prevented the kidnapping and his absence is quite problematic as it relates to CAL's factual innocence. Keaten was telling Agent Sisk that it was possible for someone to have " climbed a tree" (p330). However, the context of this conversation is important because it was done to explain away the inside job theory. And it was also within these conversations that Keaten offered up a veiled threat by explaining how powerful Lindbergh was. In my final chapter I tried to show the two sides of Keaten: One acting in his official capacity and the other what he really believed once relieved of that burden. These are very important variables to consider when quoting what someone said because of course Keaten always believed others were involved. This raises another issue, the shutters were drawn. We also know that the kidnapper(s) stayed on the boardwalk during their approach. There is no way a would-be kidnapper could see into the nursery from this vantage point, with the shutters open or closed. Even with the shutters fully opened, the most one could see is a foot or two into the room from the boardwalk and that's it. What kind of lunatic would take the risk of ascending the ladder without any knowledge of what lies in the room? Hauptmann, if he was guilty and had observed the house, would have known a dog was present, as Wagoosh was known for his barking. If the State was correct, CAL himself could have literally been in the room holding his son. Heck, the entire house could be in CALjr's room having a party and Hauptmann wouldn't have known it until he ascended the ladder and opened the shutters. It makes no logical sense and just proves the insanity of the trial theory as it relates to no inside knowledge. Exactly. And then consider the shutters themselves. They were found open when police got there. The window was unlocked. The wind was blowing. No one hears any noises from the windows rattling or shutters flapping. HOWEVER, CAL hears the orange crate sound? But Wahgoosh does not? The silent dog is explained away by CAL in his usual way the same as explaining away why the shutters weren't fixed. And is it only me who finds his calling Jammer to fix the front door odd in light of both the timing and that absurd explanation he gave in court about why the shutters were never fixed (p38-41)?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 30, 2017 22:21:55 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, most of my research comes from your book! And I agree with you that Gow was aware of the un-latchable shutter prior to March 1. I included that in my table and I’ll try to find the statement where she said as much – The 2 plaster of Paris casts not matching Hauptmann’s shoe size and Lindbergh getting rid of the Boad Nelly envelope (and possibly the best chance of having CJ’s fingerprints) are hard to explain. And Trojan, great insight about how much Hauptmann could have actually surveilled the nursery using binoculars, even if he was sitting in a tree like Keaten suggested. But here’s the thing about Skean – Mrs. Breckinridge wrote a very descriptive 4-page statement about her stay at Highfields the weekend before the kidnapping. She mentions that Charlie was taken outside twice…once in the morning to the back terrace and once in the afternoon to play at the front of the house. Both times for about an hour. And both times he played with Waghoosh. It only follows that when Skean was there, he would also be let outside and any good stalker with a pair of binoculars would have noticed two dogs. Afterall, those are the things he would be stalking for.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 30, 2017 23:12:36 GMT -5
The 2 plaster of Paris casts not matching Hauptmann’s shoe size and Lindbergh getting rid of the Boad Nelly envelope (and possibly the best chance of having CJ’s fingerprints) are hard to explain. I think the explanation is actually quite simple: Hauptmann wasn't at Highfields, and Lindbergh didn't want CJ to get caught.
|
|
|
Post by wendyrite on Oct 2, 2017 17:56:08 GMT -5
Where have you guys seen or read that CAL calls little Charlie "It"? I've heard that quite a bit but was curious what the source was.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Oct 2, 2017 20:03:19 GMT -5
Michael, where did the information come from that Charles, Jr. had been to the Institute a few days before the kidnapping ? Lewis reportedly said, " so what, if he was there?" So what??? Stuff like this isn't just pulled out of the air. There was mention of a letter from a 'reputable' source, but I can't find your original post. I've been thinking about this since I read it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 3, 2017 8:01:46 GMT -5
Where have you guys seen or read that CAL calls little Charlie "It"? I've heard that quite a bit but was curious what the source was. There are several sources for this. Just off the top of my head I know it is in Waller on page 23, and I am also positive it is in the Brant & Renaud book. That book is linked up in the Member's Only Section. Last I checked the link it not broken. Michael, where did the information come from that Charles, Jr. had been to the Institute a few days before the kidnapping ? Lewis reportedly said, " so what, if he was there?" So what??? Stuff like this isn't just pulled out of the air. There was mention of a letter from a 'reputable' source, but I can't find your original post. I've been thinking about this since I read it. Are you talking about the Wayne Jone's book? I'm not exactly sure without seeing my post either.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Oct 3, 2017 8:42:31 GMT -5
Michael, where did the information come from that Charles, Jr. had been to the Institute a few days before the kidnapping ? Lewis reportedly said, " so what, if he was there?" So what??? Stuff like this isn't just pulled out of the air. There was mention of a letter from a 'reputable' source, but I can't find your original post. I've been thinking about this since I read it. CAL couldn't remember where he'd been the afternoon of the kidnapping! I'd have gone over that day..weekend...endlessly in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 3, 2017 8:45:20 GMT -5
hi wayne, when I see solid proof that he had help I will jump on board. so far I see a lot of assuming on this board and speculation. but ive been seeing this since 1992, I see no change
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 3, 2017 8:46:47 GMT -5
you know exactly what im talking about, your ignoring the evidence against Hauptman. there is no proof that Lindbergh was part of this plan. stop assuming
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 3, 2017 8:48:00 GMT -5
hey lighterning jew, you can believe anything you want don't let me stop you. im just saying what I think that's all
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 3, 2017 10:10:59 GMT -5
Hi Wolf,
The thing is I totally agree with you. There is no solid proof that Hauptmann had help or that Lindbergh was behind his son’s kidnapping.
But that is the very dilemma of this case.
Because, likewise, there is no solid proof that Hauptmann physically entered the nursery, kidnapped Charlie, killed him, and then dumped his body. There is no proof he did any of that.
Wolf, I’m just asking – why do you think Wilentz didn’t use the plaster of Paris cast taken from Highfields to prove that Hauptmann was at the bottom of the ladder? The obvious answer is that the two didn’t match. This would have been the closest thing to proof that Hauptmann was there, yet Wilentz didn’t use it. Doesn’t make sense, does it? Unless there was another kidnapper.
The closest thing Wilentz had was Hochmuth, Whited, and Rossiter. Honestly, to you believe any of their testimony?
I have a 6-page statement from Robert Peacock dated January 6, 1933 where Peacock is leading Hochmuth on what to say on the stand! If you want, I can post it.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 3, 2017 10:27:28 GMT -5
Hi Wendyrite, Michael is right about the reference to "It" in Brant & Renaud's book, page 12 --
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Oct 4, 2017 11:24:50 GMT -5
Where have you guys seen or read that CAL calls little Charlie "It"? I've heard that quite a bit but was curious what the source was. There are several sources for this. Just off the top of my head I know it is in Waller on page 23, and I am also positive it is in the Brant & Renaud book. That book is linked up in the Member's Only Section. Last I checked the link it not broken. Michael, where did the information come from that Charles, Jr. had been to the Institute a few days before the kidnapping ? Lewis reportedly said, " so what, if he was there?" So what??? Stuff like this isn't just pulled out of the air. There was mention of a letter from a 'reputable' source, but I can't find your original post. I've been thinking about this since I read it. Are you talking about the Wayne Jone's book? I'm not exactly sure without seeing my post either. No, it wasn't Jone's book. It was in the "Case against eugenics" thread. Of course, I can't find it again (went back to page 5). I remember that you mentioned RAB as having posted it. That's way before my time here. Anyway, do you remember such a rumor? (That Charlie was at the Institute just before the 'kidnapping"?) I think that, if he was, it adds another bit of suspicion.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 4, 2017 21:03:02 GMT -5
Hi Rebekah,
By “Institute” do you happen to mean Johns Hopkins Hospital?
Because if that is what you’re looking for, Michael is right about Wayne Jones’ Murder of Justice. It’s on pages 1117 and 1118 (if you don’t have the book, let me know and I will post the 2 pages).
What happened is this…in the “mid-1980s” a friend of Jones by the name of Dick Cass went to Johns Hopkins Hospital and at the information desk asked for the records of Charles Lindbergh, Jr.
The “young lady” at the information found the file and handed it to Cass. Just as Cass was about to open the file, a supervisor came out and grabbed the file from Cass, telling him that it was “classified information that is not available to just anyone.”
And that is where the story ended.
If this did happen, then we would have a pretty good indicator that something was wrong with Charlie.
However, I have spent considerable time trying to locate Dick Cass (or a relative) and have had no luck. Also, Johns Hopkins informed me that this is not how the records department worked back in the mid-1980’s (you had to present proof that you were a relative of the person you were searching for).
Having said all this, IF anyone here can locate a Dick Cass who lived in California in the 1980s and who was a camera operator (he supposedly operated cameras on some Hitchcock movies), please let me know.
I would like to get to the bottom of his story, once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by wendyrite on Oct 4, 2017 23:46:36 GMT -5
CAL seemed quite cruel to little Charlie. Were there any instances of him mistreating any of his other kids? I'm also trying to picture what I read about his teeth. They were below the adjacent teeth? That sounds like an odd look. I saw one seemingly older photo of little Charlie on the Nova special where he did look a bit...not quite right? Darling little boy though.
I'm not sure which thread to post this next part on but I just finished The Dark Corners which I found incredibly fascinating. One of the things that stood out to me was when CAL wanted to see Red Johnson himself and made a comment about the std, I know this is just a personal opinion but it certainly seemed to me like someone who was jealous.
I also saw a YouTube video of Betty pushing Charlie in a stroller and to me, the way she was walking, very much seemed like someone who was trying to get attention from whomever was filming. It looked like she's sashaying her behind to put it bluntly. He could have been having affairs with some of these women, who knows. Men now a days seem to constantly be having affairs with the nanny.
The final thing I wanted to say is, I have a nine month old baby and there is not a chance on earth that you could pull him from bed, take him, move him, pick him up without him yelling, screaming or some kind of very loud vocal cue. Even if it's me, his mother. Babies don't like to be startled or woken up so how in the heck did they ever get that baby out without him making a sound? I find that unfathomable. They must have done something to the baby or drugged him in some way. He wouldn't even stand still for the doctor, why would he go quietly into the night even with Betty Gow?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 5, 2017 8:50:47 GMT -5
My own thoughts on this are that CAL Jr. was dead when he was taken from the house. I think he'd been drugged beforehand, to keep him asleep so he wouldn't wake up when the kidnapper entered the nursery. I think this was probably done by Betty Gow (her never-fully-explained drugstore pit-stop on her way to Highfields earlier that day, ostensibly to buy "candy"). CAL Jr. is put down around 7:30pm, and the next time Betty checks on him--right around 8pm--he's conked out. I think right after this, one of the kidnappers entered the house, got up into the nursery, killed CAL Jr. in the crib (the blood clot), and handed the body off to another kidnapper, waiting at the top of the ladder by the nursery window.
|
|
|
Post by wendyrite on Oct 5, 2017 11:05:46 GMT -5
Do you think Lighteningjew that the intent was always to kill Charlie? And if so, why? If Charlie was found dead, which might have been likely, there would never have been a ransom paid.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 5, 2017 12:36:45 GMT -5
I do think the intent all along was to kill CAL Jr. I think the reason for this had to do with physical problems caused in utero, when Anne and Lindbergh went high-altitude flying while she was pregnant. I think this caused developmental problems with CAL Jr., which Lindbergh, a publicity-conscious eugenicist and social Darwinist, couldn't tolerate. I think he arranged for his son to be "kidnapped" and "accidentally" die, approaching a trusted friend or adviser to arrange this, to stage a kidnapping-gone-wrong and insulate Lindbergh. I don't think the $50K ransom mentioned in the note was ever meant to be paid. I think the "kidnappers" were paid upfront, but went rogue, got greedy, and decided to collect that $50K "ransom", by treating this like an actual kidnapping--sending more ransom notes, selecting a go-between to collect the money (Condon), etc.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Oct 5, 2017 18:54:52 GMT -5
Hi Rebekah, By “Institute” do you happen to mean Johns Hopkins Hospital? Because if that is what you’re looking for, Michael is right about Wayne Jones’ Murder of Justice. It’s on pages 1117 and 1118 (if you don’t have the book, let me know and I will post the 2 pages). What happened is this…in the “mid-1980s” a friend of Jones by the name of Dick Cass went to Johns Hopkins Hospital and at the information desk asked for the records of Charles Lindbergh, Jr. The “young lady” at the information found the file and handed it to Cass. Just as Cass was about to open the file, a supervisor came out and grabbed the file from Cass, telling him that it was “classified information that is not available to just anyone.” And that is where the story ended. If this did happen, then we would have a pretty good indicator that something was wrong with Charlie. However, I have spent considerable time trying to locate Dick Cass (or a relative) and have had no luck. Also, Johns Hopkins informed me that this is not how the records department worked back in the mid-1980’s (you had to present proof that you were a relative of the person you were searching for). Having said all this, IF anyone here can locate a Dick Cass who lived in California in the 1980s and who was a camera operator (he supposedly operated cameras on some Hitchcock movies), please let me know. I would like to get to the bottom of his story, once and for all. Hi, Wayne. No, it wasn't Johns Hopkins. I've heard that Charlie was seen there, too, and if what you posted really happened, just the fact that they had a file on him would be very interesting. It was the Rockefeller Institute (hope I spelled that right), where Lindbergh was working with his buddy and fellow eugenicist, Alexis Carrel. I don't think Lindbergh would have taken him there as a 'daddy and son go to work together' day. I firmly believe that there was something wrong with the little feller, and Lindbergh might have had him examined by the 'good' doctor before he made his final decision to carry out his Jersey Business. Everything about this case is WRONG.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Oct 5, 2017 19:15:53 GMT -5
CAL seemed quite cruel to little Charlie. Were there any instances of him mistreating any of his other kids? I'm also trying to picture what I read about his teeth. They were below the adjacent teeth? That sounds like an odd look. I saw one seemingly older photo of little Charlie on the Nova special where he did look a bit...not quite right? Darling little boy though. I'm not sure which thread to post this next part on but I just finished The Dark Corners which I found incredibly fascinating. One of the things that stood out to me was when CAL wanted to see Red Johnson himself and made a comment about the std, I know this is just a personal opinion but it certainly seemed to me like someone who was jealous. I also saw a YouTube video of Betty pushing Charlie in a stroller and to me, the way she was walking, very much seemed like someone who was trying to get attention from whomever was filming. It looked like she's sashaying her behind to put it bluntly. He could have been having affairs with some of these women, who knows. Men now a days seem to constantly be having affairs with the nanny. The final thing I wanted to say is, I have a nine month old baby and there is not a chance on earth that you could pull him from bed, take him, move him, pick him up without him yelling, screaming or some kind of very loud vocal cue. Even if it's me, his mother. Babies don't like to be startled or woken up so how in the heck did they ever get that baby out without him making a sound? I find that unfathomable. They must have done something to the baby or drugged him in some way. He wouldn't even stand still for the doctor, why would he go quietly into the night even with Betty Gow? Hi, Wendy. I agree with 99% of what lightningjew says, but I don't think the baby was dead before he left the nursery. I DO think he was drugged by Betty Gow when he had his supper. She reportedly told Anne that Charlie had gone to sleep very quickly and was sleeping soundly. What I think happened almost immediately after he fell asleep is only my speculation. I will say that I've doubted he was ever put into his crib. Even the photos taken of the crib that night make me wonder if the bedclothes weren't part of the staging. Welcome to the Board! How did you become interested in this case?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 6, 2017 8:41:41 GMT -5
hi wayne, I I read in the fbi files that the fbi thought they were inclueisive. sorry for my spelling. I don't think reilly used them either
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 6, 2017 8:45:17 GMT -5
wayne im sure reilly coached witnesses to. im not high on eyewitnesses, I have a old documentary with mrs Hauptman saying reilly wanted her to lie about the shoebox, she didn't. so you can go around in circles with the witnesses but the physical evidence and hauptmans own mouth and his lying convicted him
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 6, 2017 8:48:12 GMT -5
mike I only heard Charlie called it on some documentaries on the case
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 6, 2017 8:53:43 GMT -5
hurtable, today the house would have been a crime scene, the ladder wouldn't have been touched, if they brought the dogs in I really don't think Lindbergh could have stopped them. condon wouldn't have been able to sleep in the babys room.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 6, 2017 8:59:27 GMT -5
wayne he wasn't forgetting Charlie. you cant compare crime scene procedures to 1932. you can tell it was slower. yes I argee Lindbergh should have let them do there job. the only person I know the treasury guy elmer irey, stood up to Lindbergh because Lindbergh didn't want the serial numbers recorded on the ransom money. he wrote a book called tax dodgers it has the chapter on the Lindbergh case its very good
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 6, 2017 12:33:35 GMT -5
My own thoughts on this are that CAL Jr. was dead when he was taken from the house. I think he'd been drugged beforehand, to keep him asleep so he wouldn't wake up when the kidnapper entered the nursery. I think this was probably done by Betty Gow (her never-fully-explained drugstore pit-stop on her way to Highfields earlier that day, ostensibly to buy "candy"). CAL Jr. is put down around 7:30pm, and the next time Betty checks on him--right around 8pm--he's conked out. I think right after this, one of the kidnappers entered the house, got up into the nursery, killed CAL Jr. in the crib (the blood clot), and handed the body off to another kidnapper, waiting at the top of the ladder by the nursery window. Agreed that Betty Gow could have drugged little Charlie to set him up for the "kidnappers" abducting him. And if Gow was doing that, chances are close to 100% the CAL Sr. and Anne Lindbergh knew what Gow was up to, as evidenced by Cal Sr.'s protective attitude toward Gow when the latter was questioned by authorities. But I think it improbable that the ladder was actually used in carrying Charlie away. It would have been much easier for the abductors to use the front door, both for coming in and going out of the house.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 6, 2017 12:55:38 GMT -5
I do think the intent all along was to kill CAL Jr. I think the reason for this had to do with physical problems caused in utero, when Anne and Lindbergh went high-altitude flying while she was pregnant. I think this caused developmental problems with CAL Jr., which Lindbergh, a publicity-conscious eugenicist and social Darwinist, couldn't tolerate. I think he arranged for his son to be "kidnapped" and "accidentally" die, approaching a trusted friend or adviser to arrange this, to stage a kidnapping-gone-wrong and insulate Lindbergh. I don't think the $50K ransom mentioned in the note was ever meant to be paid. I think the "kidnappers" were paid upfront, but went rogue, got greedy, and decided to collect that $50K "ransom", by treating this like an actual kidnapping--sending more ransom notes, selecting a go-between to collect the money (Condon), etc. Agree that there was a good possibility of a eugenic motive in getting rid of Charlie. There was also a possibility that Charlie wasn't developing normally due to brain damage suffered in utero due to hypoxic conditions incurred in flying. Another possibility would be Vitamin D resistant rickets. But I tend to doubt that "the intent all along was to kill CAL Jr." An alternative would be to bring him to an institution for children with serious disabilities under a phony name as an "orphan." Of course, CAL Jr. could have died unexpectedly during this process, and/or the body of another child could have been placed in the woods to send a message, real or not, that CAL Jr. was dead.
|
|