|
Post by feathers on Oct 31, 2016 18:36:21 GMT -5
In light of the revelation of the Whateley confession in Michael’s book, I thought it worthwhile to start a discussion of what the implications are. First of all, as I understand it, we have a statement by Olly Whateley which was made to Rev. Alyte Schutter, which was repeated to Dr. William Schutter (his son), who in turn provided general information to Michael.
I note the particular wording in Michael’s book. The statement is said to indicate that one or more persons inside the house were involved in the kidnapping. From this I would infer the following (sorry to state the obvious):
1. The one or more persons are apart from Olly Whateley himself. He may be involved also, but at least one, perhaps more, were also involved; 2. The reference is to persons in the house – presumably this means Highfields, as distinguished from the Morrow household for example; 3. The house also presumably refers to the physical house that night – which means that the others involved are one or more of the following: Elsie, Betty Gow, Charles Lindbergh, or Anne Lindbergh. 4. The use of the word kidnapping implies that there was an actual kidnapping which occurred (as opposed to accident or other death).
I note that none of these words are in quotes, which raises the question of whether these inferences can be drawn. I assume that the statement made to Michael did not allow for more precise quotation – possibly were in response to questions. Even if they had been, it is difficult to be sure that the same language was passed on from Olly to Rev Schutter to Dr. Schutter.
By the above, I don’t mean to say that the substance of the confession is unreliable, merely that the corollaries we draw from it may be more debatable.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Oct 31, 2016 18:37:42 GMT -5
By the way, I note that several books refer to Olly's name being Aloysius with "Olly" being a diminutive form. This appears to originate in the FBI report. However, a review of birth certificates in England indicates that he was registered under the name "Olly" and that is his legal name.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Oct 31, 2016 18:42:42 GMT -5
So moving on, we can then consider the source of the information. It appears that neither Rev. Schutter nor Dr. Schutter are attention seekers; indeed, it appears that Dr. Schutter is very reluctant to provide any information at all. I did some research on Rev. Schutter. I’ve attached an article about his service during World War II. It is difficult to draw any conclusions from these and other newspaper articles, but it does appear that he was a fairly respectable individual and that his statement deserves some attention.
Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Oct 31, 2016 19:08:23 GMT -5
However, there is a problem with the story.
Rev. Schutter was said to have visited Olly and acted as a spiritual adviser to him during his time at the hospital. Rev. Schutter was said to be a student at Princeton Seminary at the time.
Olly Whateley had his operation in Princeton Hospital on Friday, May 19, 1933. He died on Wednesday, May 23, 1933.
But Rev. Schutter was not a student at Princeton in 1933. He was from Michigan and graduated from Hope College in 1933. He then attended New Brunswick Theological Seminary from 1933-1936. It is not until 1936 that he starts to attend Princeton Seminary for his Master’s Degree, which he obtains in 1937. I’ve attached two documents that indicate this background. One is a newspaper article, the other is the Biographical catalogue of Princeton Theological Seminary 1815-1954.
This does not necessarily invalidate his story. New Brunswick is not extremely far from Princeton (as I understand it, having never been there). It may be that Dr. Schutter did not recall that aspect of the story correctly or that Rev Schutter himself jumbled his memories when telling his son.
The reason I am exploring this is to test the statement and hopefully see what evidence we can find in support of the Schutter statement of Whateley’s confession.
Schutter4.pdf (373.86 KB)Schutter3.pdf (156.98 KB)
On a different point, I have been unable to ascertain what religion Olly Whateley followed. I had hoped to find some indication in his funeral, but it appears he was cremated the day after (May 24) and no mention of a clergyman is made in the newspaper accounts. Rev Schutter appears to have been Protestant, in particular Dutch Reform. I take therefore that the reference to “last rites” is not so much in the Catholic sense of the term. I would also assume that the nature of the confidentiality of the confession is more in the nature of a personal oath given by Rev. Schutter rather than a doctrinal principle as it might be for a Catholic priest. I respect that confidence either way, although Rev. Schutter may have found himself in a fine moral quandary if his information might have exculpated Hauptmann. I assume it is likely that it did not.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 31, 2016 19:43:37 GMT -5
The New Brunswick Seminary is on the Rutgers campus and is about 1/2 hour away from Princeton. I would expect seminarians were a rather tightnit group so I don't think that's too far to travel. Likely, he was connected to one of the Princeton churches and was doing hospital duty at the time of Olly's death. That's my guess anyway. Most of the seminarians I have known from Princeton Theological Seminary were connected to either Nassau Presbyterian or Trinity Episcopal Church.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 31, 2016 19:52:16 GMT -5
However, there is a problem with the story. Rev. Schutter was said to have visited Olly and acted as a spiritual adviser to him during his time at the hospital. Rev. Schutter was said to be a student at Princeton Seminary at the time. This is all great research and I think it's important to do. Let me try to clear this up a little... You are right that I did not quote what I wrote because I thought it wouldn't be accurate to do so. What I had was someone giving me his recollections to the best of his ability. I could tell as he recounted it that he did not remember much about the crime itself - although he probably did back in the 60s when his Father was telling him about this. Know what I mean? He told me his father was "present" while his last rites were given. I don't know if that means he was actually involved in that process or what. My impression is that he was merely there with those who were. Regardless, he was there when it happened. He told me his father was the Minister of Blawenberg Reform Church but that came afterwards, therefore, it had to have been when he was taking classes at Princeton Seminary for his Masters. The term "last rites" was used by his son in retelling me this story and he is a Reverend himself, and that was the term he used. The betrayal of confidentiality remark reminded me what Lloyd told me concerning his 2001 interview with Sam Chiavalli. He invoked Client/Attorney privileged when refusing to answer certain questions Lloyd asked. Chiavalli was a clerk for Pope during his involvement with this case (See TCTND 268). I hope this helps. For me there's no doubt it's true but it's a real shame everything isn't crystal clear or the actual name(s) revealed.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 31, 2016 20:22:02 GMT -5
The New Brunswick Seminary is on the Rutgers campus and is about 1/2 hour away from Princeton. I would expect seminarians were a rather tightnit group so I don't think that's too far to travel. Likely, he was connected to one of the Princeton churches and was doing hospital duty at the time of Olly's death. That's my guess anyway. Most of the seminarians I have known from Princeton Theological Seminary were connected to either Nassau Presbyterian or Trinity Episcopal Church. Thanks for this. That makes sense. This is all stuff I don't know about, and even if I did, I would still have to give the information as it was given to me. He was telling me as he remembered it. I asked questions but I did not want to steer or try to fix anything because then the integrity of what he was telling me would be lost.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 1, 2016 16:18:48 GMT -5
I will try to map this out to give a little more about "how" I was able to develop this information.
Within probably the first 2 or 3 years of researching this case at the Archives I found the Belford statement. It was clearly a pre-testimony "rehearsal." So in reading it, I was wondering what the hell was going on. Obviously the questions exist for a reason and I remember trying to figure out what the impetus for this line was. File after file, page after page, year after year - I found nothing. Then one day I came across the Robinson material! There it was - he voiced his "regret." So there was my proof for the Dr. Belford statement. But so very general. But here again, as I tried to impress upon everyone reading my book, if there was material like this confession known within the ranks of Police or Reporters it's quite clear from everything I've researched over the years it would not have been a smart thing to put "out there" with their name on it. The Adrian Lopez material I mention in the book is a perfect example. Also, there is a lot of material in the NJSP Archives where people would say they had important information only to add they wouldn't put it in writing but would only give it verbally. Whenever I came across this, and I couldn't determine what the information was, I had no choice but to dismiss it.
Now I also found something that was originally given to Fawcett coming from the Mountain Christian Church of Hopewell. This says it was an inside job and that Lindbergh knew who it was. I've seen this type of allegation come from many sources so my only interest was that it came from the Reverend, and that the church was in Hopewell. (This source is not mentioned in TDC).
Alright so who among the Lindbergh "Experts" knew that Whateley said anything before he died, or that the Prosecution was concerned something about his worrying caused his death? In my mind the only guy who may have heard this before would be Dave. He dedicated a part of his life during the 1980s interviewing as many people as he could so it crossed my mind that he may have. Other then that I sincerely can't see how anyone else would.
So when I spoke with Bill and he started to give me the story I immediately believed he was going to tell me something his father heard from another person. But no, he was positive his father said he was there and heard it himself. Next, I contacted the Blawenburg Reform Church and did other research to see what kind of man Alyle was. So knowing the possibility for the dates made it possible, that he possessed a stellar reputation, and that there was absolutely no way Bill had ever seen the sources I have to even know that Whateley ever said anything - there is no doubt in my mind he was recounting something his Father had told him.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Nov 1, 2016 19:12:25 GMT -5
First of all, I think it's a safe assumption that Schutter's recollection is largely accurate. He was in the Hopewell/Princeton area at the time of Whateley's death, he was probably, as Stella says, on hospital duty, and either took or overheard Whateley's confession, that someone in the house was somehow responsible for the crime. Now, assuming this to be true, Whateley was dying of stress-related illness; I don't think you get to that level of illness if you're just on the outside looking in, if you're just suspicious that something's going on. So I think that not only did he have a very good idea of what happened, but was involved, to the extent that the whole household at Highfields knew that this wasn't a kidnapping gone wrong; that it was something deeper and uglier. Neither he nor Elsie probably had all the details, but my guess is that the idea that the baby was not "kidnapped" was something of an open secret in the house--something that of course wasn't spoken of aloud, but that was nevertheless clear, since the "kidnapping" is a pretty obvious cover story and charade. Whateley was forced to keep quiet about this, no one would've believed him anyway, so he kept it in and the guilt and stress wound up killing him, exacerbating an existing stomach condition.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Nov 1, 2016 19:40:37 GMT -5
I've always wondered, if Charlie hadn't had a cold and Anne wasn't tired and needed Betty's help, if Charlie would have been "kidnapped" from Next Day Hill.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Nov 1, 2016 20:23:05 GMT -5
I kind of doubt it: Too many potential witnesses, too many people in the Next Day Hill household who you'd need to control and keep quiet; too much security there that you'd have to find some explanation for, as to how the intruders got around it. By contrast, Highfields was perfect: Secluded and vulnerable, no security, virtually no one around (inside the house or in the vicinity). It's ridiculously convenient for a kidnapping/disappearance--too much so, in my view.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 22:58:32 GMT -5
Olly Whateley had his operation in Princeton Hospital on Friday, May 19, 1933. He died on Wednesday, May 23, 1933. But Rev. Schutter was not a student at Princeton in 1933. He was from Michigan and graduated from Hope College in 1933. He then attended New Brunswick Theological Seminary from 1933-1936. It is not until 1936 that he starts to attend Princeton Seminary for his Master’s Degree, which he obtains in 1937 Feathers, Very interesting comments and research on this. Do you know the commencement date for Schutter's graduation from Hope College in 1933? Assuming that it is in May/June 1933, I am wondering how he could have been in Princeton New Jersey at the time Whateley was in the hospital dying in May 1933. Schutter would not have even started at New Brunswick Theological Seminary yet. Princeton Theological Seminary is 4 years out from that. If you have that date, I would appreciate you posting it. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Nov 2, 2016 0:37:35 GMT -5
Hi Amy, The second semester at Hope College began on February 6, 1933, according to the Catalogue for 1932-1933. However, it doesn’t specify when the classes ended or exams were finished.
I found a newspaper article from the Detroit Free Press dated April 16, 1933, which listed Alyle Schutter as one of the graduates of Hope College who would receive his degree at the commencement exercise held on June 21. One would think that the graduates would not be identified until their class work and exams were finished, but who knows.
I am still working on it...
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Nov 2, 2016 0:52:11 GMT -5
Sorry, what I meant to say is technically the semester ends with commencement on June 21, 1933. But I think there may be a gap between the end of classes and commencement.
For that matter, it may be possible that Rev. Schutter completed his degree after the first semester, which ended in January. I'll have to try to figure that out.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 2, 2016 6:09:14 GMT -5
I've always wondered, if Charlie hadn't had a cold and Anne wasn't tired and needed Betty's help, if Charlie would have been "kidnapped" from Next Day Hill. Wasn't it Fisher who tried to get around the Hopewell "problem" of being the target by suggesting they intended to hit Englewood but went to Hopewell after discovering the baby wasn't there? I'll have to look it up but I think there's something like that in his first book. For me there's so many things that indicate Hopewell was always the where the mission was to take place. First and foremost Walsh checking to see if the ladder would work there, then proving it wouldn't. The Thompson account has always led me to believe there were "practice" runs. Another big one is, as LJ mentions - Security. None at Highfields thanks to Lindbergh. What else is new? The perfect storm existed and when the Cops pulled the curtain back to see why there's Lindbergh standing there. But it didn't matter because whenever the Cops did Lindbergh would tell them to look the other way and they were too intimidated not to. I kind of doubt it: Too many potential witnesses, too many people in the Next Day Hill household who you'd need to control and keep quiet; too much security there that you'd have to find some explanation for, as to how the intruders got around it. By contrast, Highfields was perfect: Secluded and vulnerable, no security, virtually no one around (inside the house or in the vicinity). It's ridiculously convenient for a kidnapping/disappearance--too much so, in my view. I agree with everything and think also, there were many witnesses at Highfields too. Less though but all on board it seems. Sorry, what I meant to say is technically the semester ends with commencement on June 21, 1933. But I think there may be a gap between the end of classes and commencementFor that matter, it may be possible that Rev. Schutter completed his degree after the first semester, which ended in January. I'll have to try to figure that out. While it's important to get to the absolute bottom of this, my only concern is what situation would allow him to be in Princeton on this day accompanying those people who were there for that purpose. Bill's exact recollections concern his conversation from over 50 years ago so it makes sense to me that he would confuse where or what college he was attending at the time. Also, I'm still not exactly sure he wasn't associated with Princeton in some way during this time as well. There's so many situations to consider which would allow for this visit to occur. Did he finish early? Did he come to tour his future school? Was he already here? We absolutely know he was coming to the area from Hope College. The problem is and always will be that this information isn't "perfect." Obviously there's no doubt in my mind Bill wasn't making this up, so for me, it's determining if it can be proven Alyle was in Michigan on May 23rd. If so then that would tell me Alyle heard it from one of the men who were there and not personally himself. Obviously I am biased because I knew for years Whateley had said something while he was in the hospital and there's no possible way (again in my mind) that Bill could guess and get that right. The conversation proved to me that his only struggle was trying to recall the details as best he could.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 8:02:51 GMT -5
Sorry, what I meant to say is technically the semester ends with commencement on June 21, 1933. But I think there may be a gap between the end of classes and commencement.
For that matter, it may be possible that Rev. Schutter completed his degree after the first semester, which ended in January. I'll have to try to figure that out. I appreciate your efforts on this. My thinking is that perhaps Schutter was involved with an accelerated degree program/approach that would have put him in New Jersey and at Rutgers in May 1933 where he could have been at the bedside of Whateley when he passed. I am not really doubting Michael's research on this confession. I am just exploring how it might be possible for Rev. Shutter to have have been in Princeton Hospital in May 1933 to hear Whateley's confession.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Nov 2, 2016 8:13:24 GMT -5
Forgive me, I've ordered TDC but haven't received it yet so I'm a little in the dark here with my response. I don't think this could ever have been pulled off at Next Day Hill, so I agree that this was a perfect storm that happened that night at Highfields. My biggest problem with it is that it's Anne who sets it all in motion. Is this just serendipity? Or does this implicate her in some way?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 2, 2016 8:37:19 GMT -5
I am not really doubting Michael's research on this confession. I am just exploring how it might be possible for Rev. Shutter to have have been in Princeton Hospital in May 1933 to hear Whateley's confession. I don't want anyone to think they can't be skeptical or that I want to stifle their thoughts. Just the opposite! I fully expected there would be doubt. My only intent was to, the best I could, make clear my position on it. The way my mind works is that I would feel negligent if I didn't. I realize there are a lot of people out there who use their imagination as a source - I've seen it first hand - but I am convinced this recollection is based on something real because of what I've written in my previous posts on it. There's no doubt in my mind that Whateley confessed what he knew before he died. Bill remembers his father saying he was there to hear it. So the considering what I knew that 99.9% of other people currently living did not, then my conclusion is it's based on fact. A wild guess doesn't work here as an explanation. It's coming from someone who knows something was said. Forgive me, I've ordered TDC but haven't received it yet so I'm a little in the dark here with my response. I don't think this could ever have been pulled off at Next Day Hill, so I agree that this was a perfect storm that happened that night at Highfields. My biggest problem with it is that it's Anne who sets it all in motion. Is this just serendipity? Or does this implicate her in some way? I don't want to answer for anyone else but here's my two cents... I cannot believe "this" happened without the "house" knowing about it. As you will see, unless the female prints were not Anne's (if they weren't hers then she's lying about them so pick your poison) then the Kidnappers walked that boardwalk while carrying everything they had and not once stepping off into the mud. They walked from either the front or back of the house. To me it's clear they came from the front. This means they absolutely had a light source to do so because it could not have been done any other way. It also means they came inside the wall and not from anywhere in the yard. Now, exactly what "this" was could have been different for each person. I know that we're not "allowed" to think this way but we have to go where the facts lead us. We also have to ask ourselves whether or not the child was killed deliberately or accidentally. If deliberately would everyone be okay with that? If not, what did they believe in order to be? There's a ton to think about, of course, but the facts in TDC provide the details which allow for these conclusions to be drawn (in my opinion).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 11:15:55 GMT -5
I realize there are a lot of people out there who use their imagination as a source - I've seen it first hand - but I am convinced this recollection is based on something real because of what I've written in my previous posts on it. There's no doubt in my mind that Whateley confessed what he knew before he died. Bill remembers his father saying he was there to hear it. So the considering what I knew that 99.9% of other people currently living did not, then my conclusion is it's based on fact. A wild guess doesn't work here as an explanation. It's coming from someone who knows something was said. Speaking for myself, I believe Bill's recollection is real. I don't think he is imagining or creating something. His father told him (Bill) that he was present when Olly Whateley made this confession. There is no guessing for me on this. Bill's father was present to hear this and then told his son about it years later. I agree with your conclusion that it is based in fact. To support that fact, I think it is important that Rev. Schutter was not in Michigan in May of 1933 waiting to graduate with his Hope College class of '33. He needs to be in NJ in May of 1933, doesn't he? Bill says that his father said he(Rev. Schutter) was a Princeton seminary student working on his Master's at the time he was hearing Whateley's confession. We know that this can't be correct since Rev. Shutter was working on his master's in 1936-37. This is where the confusion comes in. This doesn't invalidate Whateley's confession. I am more inclined to Bill's recollection that his father was a Princeton Seminary student at the time he heard Whateley say who in the Lindbergh household was involved, as possibly being misremembered either by him or by his father. I certainly believe the confession was real and that Rev. Schutter heard it. Is it known who else was in Whateley's room and heard this confession? Rev. Schutter was with others when this occurred.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 2, 2016 12:45:08 GMT -5
He needs to be in NJ in May of 1933, doesn't he? Bill says that his father said he(Rev. Schutter) was a Princeton seminary student working on his Master's at the time he was hearing Whateley's confession. We know that this can't be correct since Rev. Shutter was working on his master's in 1936-37. This is where the confusion comes in. This doesn't invalidate Whateley's confession. I am more inclined to Bill's recollection that his father was a Princeton Seminary student at the time he heard Whateley say who in the Lindbergh household was involved, as possibly being misremembered either by him or by his father. I certainly believe the confession was real and that Rev. Schutter heard it. If he heard it himself he definitely does need to be. If he heard it from someone else once he got here then no. There's a lot to what someone remembers or doesn't remember and I think we're all at the mercy of the person who was involved. Something that happened to me once, as it relates to this case, either occurred during my high school or college days. Every time I think about it I get confused as to when it happened. But it was in Flemington and I know who I was with at the time. So I can see how timings/dates can get confused - especially after 50 plus years. Regardless, we all have our own opinions so I'm only looking to explain mine and not tell anyone else what to think. I know I've said that already but it's too important for me not to stress it. Is it known who else was in Whateley's room and heard this confession? Rev. Schutter was with others when this occurred. No. I am thinking even if he told Bill he wouldn't have remembered it. I just feel lucky to have gotten what I did under the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Nov 2, 2016 18:39:40 GMT -5
Since Michael mentions it, a word about Fisher's solution to the Hopewell problem: In a word, ridiculous. At least in my opinion. Hauptmann drives to Next Day Hill in Englewood, sneaks into the house, finds the baby's room in this huge mansion, discovers he's not there, sneaks back out of the house--all without anyone seeing him--then drives 70-odd miles to Highfields? It's too silly to even talk about. I actually preferred John Douglas' solution to this, that the kidnappers found out where the Lindbergh house was--it's isolated, but if you ask a local or two, pretending to just be curious, it can't be THAT hard to find. On locating it, they probably drove out there beforehand to get a sense of things and do a dry run, and, having no idea of the family's routine one way or the other, the kidnappers assumed they'd be at their house on the appointed night and just happened to get lucky that they were. Long odds, to be sure, but real life is full of them. Now, I've come to disagree with this too, since I don't think Douglas was operating with all the facts when he proposed this theory in his book, but, unlike Fisher's idea, it's at least plausible. I'd be very curious to know what Douglas would think if he did read 'Dark Corners', though. He should.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Nov 2, 2016 22:18:34 GMT -5
Here is AML's account of Olly's death from Locked Rooms and Open Doors:
Letter to Mrs. Lindbergh, May 25, 1933 You must know by the papers what has been happening. Whateley was taken suddenly ill Friday and operated on that night. It turned out to be a leaking ulcer and developed into peritonitis. He had very little hope from the beginning but he did hold his own remarkably for four days giving us hope that he might pull through or at least live until Elsie arrived from Europe Tuesday night. But he died Tuesday morning. It seems such a cruel chance with always the feeling that if he had had more warning or acted more quickly he might have been saved. Charles went down to see Whateley and the doctor the day after the operation. And we both met the boat.
Elsie has been quite wonderful – quiet and calm and sane – though, poor woman, she is completely dazed and lost as to what to do. She says she must stay here and work as she cannot go home to England and be dependent on them. She has no one here, not even a close friend as they were very happy together and did not go out much. We are keeping her here, of course. I want so much to keep her in the family, though there is not much for her to do now; there would be next winter if we have a home somewhere. In the meantime, she is doing odd jobs for the baby, whom she adores, and altogether is a lovely person to have around.
|
|