|
Post by Michael on May 25, 2018 17:03:08 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken, Olly Whateley was the only one of the five adults in the Lindbergh household whose whereabouts for the hour before Charlie was discovered missing (roughly 9 PM to 10 PM on Mar. 1, 1932) have never been specified in any report. Please correct if I'm wrong on this. Everyone in the house accounted for their own whereabouts. Sometimes they were together, and sometimes apart. According to Whateley's statement, he told police that he and his wife cleaned up the dishes. He continued that at about 9PM, he, Betty, and his wife went into the living room to chat but that at about 9:15PM Betty and Else went up to the room to try on dresses. He claimed he remained in the living room reading until about 10:10PM when Betty came running down and told him the Colonel wanted him. Unfortunately since Whateley died before the trial we don't have the benefit of his testimony to consider.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 9:59:31 GMT -5
My interpretation of what Michael wrote about this confession is that Whateley confessed the name or names of who he knew within the Lindbergh household that were involved with Charlie's abduction. I don't believe Whateley was confessing to having any guilt himself. The fact that those who were present and heard the name or names Whateley revealed, then made the decision not to tell others (including authorities apparently) who Whateley was identifying. It really makes you wonder who he named, doesn't it? Amy - what do you believe really happened (who, what, when, where, and why)? You bring up my comment about Whateley's death bed confession to launch your question to me. What Whateley knew and needed to share is very important and deserves serious consideration. I think Joe, a fellow poster on this board, explained such confessions very well in a recent post he made regarding Isidor Fisch at the time when he lay dying in a German hospital bed. Joe said, "This is usually a time where an individual close to death summons up whatever energy is needed to release that which is most pressing."Just like Isidor Fisch, Ollie Whateley lay dying in a Princeton, NJ hospital bed when he needed to express what was most pressing in his mind. He needed to say what he knew to be true about Charlie's kidnapping. Just who he named or anything else he might have included as part of this unburdening that day we will never know, as those present at that moment agreed they would never repeat what Whateley said. One would surmise from this that it must have been something startling, so much so, that all agreed to secrecy as the proper course of action. We have Michael to thank for lifting our awareness that such a confession did exist by sharing this with us through his TDC Volume One book. So, on to your question about the Who, What, When, Where and Why concerning the kidnapping. Let me start out by saying that I think you are asking the wrong person this question. I am not the one with 18 plus years of archival research by which to offer you the most qualified answer. So, from my limited perspective, here is the short of it: WHO - A hired group (2-3 persons on site) plus the assistance of inside help to guarantee the success of this crime. WHAT - To remove Charlie from the scene and stage this event to look like a kidnapping. WHEN - The evening of March 1, 1932 between 7:30 and 8 p.m. WHERE - From the Lindbergh residence in the Sourland Mountains in Hopewell NJ. WHY - Because of a compromising health condition Charlie had that necessitated this course of action.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 31, 2018 9:08:27 GMT -5
The same kind of will and behaviour can be found in people on their deathbeds who "hang on" for a friend or family to come half way around the world for one last visit, only to pass on a short time after their final meeting.
Regarding Olly, and if his alleged deathbed "statement" ( I wouldn't call it a "confession") did in fact implicate Betty Gow, then I believe he was simply wrong, presumably having allowed his own resentment of Betty to manifest extreme due to a declining mental state at the time of his death. We know he didn't care for her while they lived under the same roof at Highfields, due to his questionable call that she didn't pull her own weight around the house. Dave Holwerda interviewed Betty Gow and she revealed to him that Olly actually believed she was involved, so it seems pretty clear there was a mutual "understanding" between the two, concerning the negative dynamics within their relationship.
I believe Olly was competent and well regarded in what he did in terms of the housekeeping, maintenance* and general care and regard for the occupants at Highfields, but that he was also a somewhat petty and judgmental gossiper, one who would have found it difficult to let go of personal resentment. And I believe what may have catalyzed the whole affair was the matter of the shutters that wouldn't bolt cleanly*, and that that precipitated a silent conflict about who was most accountable for the fact that condition went unchecked and became such a key consideration towards the kidnapper's entry.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 3, 2018 7:27:56 GMT -5
Regarding Olly, and if his alleged deathbed "statement" ( I wouldn't call it a "confession") did in fact implicate Betty Gow, then I believe he was simply wrong, presumably having allowed his own resentment of Betty to manifest extreme due to a declining mental state at the time of his death. We know he didn't care for her while they lived under the same roof at Highfields, due to his questionable call that she didn't pull her own weight around the house. Dave Holwerda interviewed Betty Gow and she revealed to him that Olly actually believed she was involved, so it seems pretty clear there was a mutual "understanding" between the two, concerning the negative dynamics within their relationship. So what you are saying is that one of the people in the house that night wouldn't have a real perspective on the matter? Whateley would let a petty dispute create a situation for him to make something up before he died? I believe Olly was competent and well regarded in what he did in terms of the housekeeping, maintenance* and general care and regard for the occupants at Highfields, but that he was also a somewhat petty and judgmental gossiper, one who would have found it difficult to let go of personal resentment. And I believe what may have catalyzed the whole affair was the matter of the shutters that wouldn't bolt cleanly*, and that that precipitated a silent conflict about who was most accountable for the fact that condition went unchecked and became such a key consideration towards the kidnapper's entry. What I see is a guy who knew something about it and, from time to time, this would be revealed by his conscience by and through certain comments. Lucky for him either his wife was around to reel him in, or he'd realize it himself and stop short. Dying was a whole different situation, and I'm sure with all of the talk surrounding meeting his maker created the perfect situation for him to get this off his chest. What sucks is we do not know who he named. Since there were others in the room maybe one day it will come out. While the odds are against it stranger things have happened. It seems clear to me that Betty was involved and what's also clear is that Lindbergh protected her. If there are indications he controlled her then the party is over.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 3, 2018 9:06:38 GMT -5
Regarding Olly, and if his alleged deathbed "statement" ( I wouldn't call it a "confession") did in fact implicate Betty Gow, then I believe he was simply wrong, presumably having allowed his own resentment of Betty to manifest extreme due to a declining mental state at the time of his death. We know he didn't care for her while they lived under the same roof at Highfields, due to his questionable call that she didn't pull her own weight around the house. Dave Holwerda interviewed Betty Gow and she revealed to him that Olly actually believed she was involved, so it seems pretty clear there was a mutual "understanding" between the two, concerning the negative dynamics within their relationship. So what you are saying is that one of the people in the house that night wouldn't have a real perspective on the matter? Whateley would let a petty dispute create a situation for him to make something up before he died? (Michael) To be clear, and assuming Whateley stated that Betty was complicit in the crime, which we don't know for certain, this is what I have suggested. Prior to 10:00 pm on the evening of March 1, it simply have been business as usual for Whateley, carrying on around the house. From the time the crime was discovered by those in the household, he allowed whatever unfounded suspicions he might have developed towards Betty to get the better of him as his condition declined. And he seems to have been the ideal personality candidate for the kind of stomach ailment (lacerated ulcer) that eventually killed him. I believe Olly was competent and well regarded in what he did in terms of the housekeeping, maintenance* and general care and regard for the occupants at Highfields, but that he was also a somewhat petty and judgmental gossiper, one who would have found it difficult to let go of personal resentment. And I believe what may have catalyzed the whole affair was the matter of the shutters that wouldn't bolt cleanly*, and that that precipitated a silent conflict about who was most accountable for the fact that condition went unchecked and became such a key consideration towards the kidnapper's entry. What I see is a guy who knew something about it and, from time to time, this would be revealed by his conscience by and through certain comments. Lucky for him either his wife was around to reel him in, or he'd realize it himself and stop short. Dying was a whole different situation, and I'm sure with all of the talk surrounding meeting his maker created the perfect situation for him to get this off his chest. What sucks is we do not know who he named. Since there were others in the room maybe one day it will come out. While the odds are against it stranger things have happened. It seems clear to me that Betty was involved and what's also clear is that Lindbergh protected her. If there are indications he controlled her then the party is over. (Michael) What I see, is a guy who simply found it difficult to keep his mouth shut most notably under conditions of stress, which might have in part, been due to a salient conscious response to please and meet the needs of those requesting his services, but allowing a personal lack of self-control to extend himself into the realm of personal opinion and weak gossip. Let's face it.. he'd never been in this kind of situation before with this degree of press inundation at his doorstep and he apparently wasn't prepared to deal with it. I believe Elsie realized this and was just trying to remind him to control himself. This doesn't mean by necessity, that he knew something intimately about the crime. Regarding Betty, to this point I haven't seen anything beyond Lindbergh simply having had faith in the caregiver for his son, and not wanting her to be hounded unnecessarily. If Lindbergh had not been so personally involved within the ransom negotiations and had relative control of the case, a practice (direct parent involvement) that was certainly not uncommon in those days, what kind of a can of worms do you believe would have been opened here?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Sept 3, 2018 11:05:26 GMT -5
What evidence is there that he even made a "death-bed" statement that might have been about somebody? Perhaps Betty, he didn't like her because she didn't wash dishes, but why would she. According to job descriptions the Whatleys were in charge of the kitchen. He most likely suspected Betty because she really didn't have aby reason to be there. If Charlie needed nursing attention beyond Anne, Betty was really just a not too long drive away, so that's one part of the BS story of the day before 3/1/32 that flies away on its own. I agree with Joe, Ollie sounds like an old hen ready to tell anyone who'll listen all about the crime he probably knew very little about.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Sept 3, 2018 11:46:31 GMT -5
This brings up another reason which proves CAL was not involved in the crime portion of the kidnapping. If he knew what was going on, Betty would not be at Hopewell. Since she was, it's another reason that CAL is innocent - of which there are several.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 4, 2018 7:43:37 GMT -5
To be clear, and assuming Whateley stated that Betty was complicit in the crime, which we don't know for certain, this is what I have suggested. Prior to 10:00 pm on the evening of March 1, it simply have been business as usual for Whateley, carrying on around the house. From the time the crime was discovered by those in the household, he allowed whatever unfounded suspicions he might have developed towards Betty to get the better of him as his condition declined. And he seems to have been the ideal personality candidate for the kind of stomach ailment (lacerated ulcer) that eventually killed him. I guess that's one way of looking at it. However I think if a guy is this stressed about a mere suspicion he may have had about random people over the course of his life he would have implicated many over the years and died long before he did. What I see, is a guy who simply found it difficult to keep his mouth shut most notably under conditions of stress, which might have in part, been due to a salient conscious response to please and meet the needs of those requesting his services, but allowing a personal lack of self-control to extend himself into the realm of personal opinion and weak gossip. Let's face it.. he'd never been in this kind of situation before with this degree of press inundation at his doorstep and he apparently wasn't prepared to deal with it. I believe Elsie realized this and was just trying to remind him to control himself. This doesn't mean by necessity, that he knew something intimately about the crime. Regarding Betty, to this point I haven't seen anything beyond Lindbergh simply having had faith in the caregiver for his son, and not wanting her to be hounded unnecessarily. If Lindbergh had not been so personally involved within the ransom negotiations and had relative control of the case, a practice (direct parent involvement) that was certainly not uncommon in those days, what kind of a can of worms do you believe would have been opened here? So when Lindbergh told Cowie that everyone should have been considered a suspect I suppose it was one of his jokes? Saying one thing but doing the exact opposite doesn't bode well here. What evidence is there that he even made a "death-bed" statement that might have been about somebody? Perhaps Betty, he didn't like her because she didn't wash dishes, but why would she. According to job descriptions the Whatleys were in charge of the kitchen. He most likely suspected Betty because she really didn't have aby reason to be there. If Charlie needed nursing attention beyond Anne, Betty was really just a not too long drive away, so that's one part of the BS story of the day before 3/1/32 that flies away on its own. I agree with Joe, Ollie sounds like an old hen ready to tell anyone who'll listen all about the crime he probably knew very little about. I think the evidence is the totality of what's in V1. I believe pages 9-12 of V2 also supplement these findings.
This brings up another reason which proves CAL was not involved in the crime portion of the kidnapping. If he knew what was going on, Betty would not be at Hopewell. Since she was, it's another reason that CAL is innocent - of which there are several. I don't get the logic. If Betty was involved she needed to be there. Next, sometimes a person's nature betrays them. Consider an unsolved murder. If the guilty party stops killing they have better odds to evade capture. A Serial Killer may be intelligent enough to realize this but continues because its who they are. Lindbergh had an alibi if he wanted one. Here we are all these years later and his excuse was that he 'forgot.' No one believes this because it wasn't in his nature. So even his biggest supporters make up an explanation for him to distract from the lie he told.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Sept 4, 2018 13:25:56 GMT -5
Since Betty was there at late call, and at Charles Lindbergh's behest, for her to have been involved with the crime means she must have been involved with someone else who was the instigator of TLC. Since I've ruled out Lindbergh's involvement, she had to have been working with someone else to have been involved. Red? She didn't have many contacts in her life. Tell the forum who it could have been?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 4, 2018 13:56:45 GMT -5
Since Betty was there at late call, and at Charles Lindbergh's behest, for her to have been involved with the crime means she must have been involved with someone else who was the instigator of TLC. Since I've ruled out Lindbergh's involvement, she had to have been working with someone else to have been involved. Red? She didn't have many contacts in her life. Tell the forum who it could have been? A couple of things... While you may have ruled out Lindbergh, I certainly have not. That whole house was under his control. After the kidnapping so was the investigation. Schwarzkopf did whatever Lindbergh wanted him to do. Anyone who crossed him lost. Chief Walter told him to go f-himself and the next thing you know he's out of a job. Garsson upset him and he's called back to Washington. J. Edgar Hoover crossed him and he went to the President about it. Who won? Lindbergh. Next, we know Betty was making her rounds at Princeton University. Do you know which students? Who's room was she caught in? So if you don't know I can't see how you can say she " didn't have many contacts" in her life. I believe what you meant to say was you don't know who her contacts were. There's a difference. Study her actions. What were her goals in life? How did she set out to achieve them?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Sept 6, 2018 3:10:40 GMT -5
I'm sticking with my findings. Lindbergh was an upper lever intelligence man. Smart enough to fly an airplane well in the days of tough flight So I'm ruling him out as a crime involvmenter. There's lots of evidence against Hauptmann and none against Lindbergh. Hauptmann could have done it alone, so let it be at that unless you want to start an investigation of German (in Germany) criminals. Starting in the USA with Donovan
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 6, 2018 7:46:47 GMT -5
I'm sticking with my findings. Lindbergh was an upper lever intelligence man. Smart enough to fly an airplane well in the days of tough flight So I'm ruling him out as a crime involvmenter. There's lots of evidence against Hauptmann and none against Lindbergh. Hauptmann could have done it alone, so let it be at that unless you want to start an investigation of German (in Germany) criminals. Starting in the USA with Donovan I don't know how anyone could read my books then conclude Hauptmann did everything alone so we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Germany could be a source of information concerning a Confederate since there were many associates of Hauptmann who found there way back there after the crime and/or extortion. However its pretty clear to me the answers remained in the States. The Police all saw the obvious signs but any who attempted to act on them got removed, tossed, or brought back into line. Hauptmann and Condon were both pieces and parts by which the entire matter should have been wrapped up if handled correctly.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 6, 2018 11:29:02 GMT -5
I'm sticking with my findings. Lindbergh was an upper lever intelligence man. Smart enough to fly an airplane well in the days of tough flight So I'm ruling him out as a crime involvmenter. There's lots of evidence against Hauptmann and none against Lindbergh. Hauptmann could have done it alone, so let it be at that unless you want to start an investigation of German (in Germany) criminals. Starting in the USA with Donovan I don't know how anyone could read my books then conclude Hauptmann did everything alone so we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Germany could be a source of information concerning a Confederate since there were many associates of Hauptmann who found there way back there after the crime and/or extortion. However its pretty clear to me the answers remained in the States. The Police all saw the obvious signs but any who attempted to act on them got removed, tossed, or brought back into line. Hauptmann and Condon were both pieces and parts by which the entire matter should have been wrapped up if handled correctly. That would depend entirely on how one interprets the evidence. Why, in the aftermath of the trial and execution, did no one came forward to reveal what they suspected about Lindbergh and/or Condon, founded or unfounded?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 7, 2018 9:43:06 GMT -5
That would depend entirely on how one interprets the evidence. Why, in the aftermath of the trial and execution, did no one came forward to reveal what they suspected about Lindbergh and/or Condon, founded or unfounded? Well sure, but based upon the evidence I think its hard to get around the fact this entire matter, from beginning to end, was not perpetrated by a Lone-Wolf. So now the "real" facts are out we can all do what we want with them. Ignore them, apply them, love them, or hate them. Regardless its all what's in the files. Your 2nd point makes no sense to me. You seem to be expecting a mob of angry people storming Highfields with torches and pitchforks. How do you think I know about any of it? Because it exists somewhere within the documentation. Would it exist if people weren't mentioning it? Look at the Morgue actions of Lindbergh for example. That came out in Grand Jury testimony. One guy telling what many witnessed. Look at how "wrong" the Press got it... How wrong "history" got it.... Just about every book on the case written by every "expert" claims the guy pulling back the sheet was Marshall and he wasn't even there. Where was everyone throughout the years to correct it? Marshall himself testified he wasn't even there. We also have a false narrative about Lindbergh's conduct/demeanor/actions while in the morgue that was also cemented in history but we now know otherwise. One may ask "why" no one spoke up about it as means to suggest it did not occur. But the reason Kirkham testified to it was because it did, he was under oath, and Grand Jury testimony was supposed to remain secret. Why didn't any other book mention Uebel's bombshell eyewitness accounts? My guess is because no one had the time to go through the entire Archives like I have. So does that mean it isn't true? The guy spoke to police about what he saw but when I communicated with a relative I was told the family had no idea he was connected to the case in any way. So my point is that it all came up before, during, and after. It's all in the files to consider and why I make my best efforts to include as much as I can in my books. What you seem to suggest is that if you weren't aware of it then it did not happen. I get that a lot.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 8, 2018 8:08:46 GMT -5
That would depend entirely on how one interprets the evidence. Why, in the aftermath of the trial and execution, did no one came forward to reveal what they suspected about Lindbergh and/or Condon, founded or unfounded? Well sure, but based upon the evidence I think its hard to get around the fact this entire matter, from beginning to end, was not perpetrated by a Lone-Wolf. So now the "real" facts are out we can all do what we want with them. Ignore them, apply them, love them, or hate them. Regardless its all what's in the files. Your 2nd point makes no sense to me. You seem to be expecting a mob of angry people storming Highfields with torches and pitchforks. How do you think I know about any of it? Because it exists somewhere within the documentation. Would it exist if people weren't mentioning it? Look at the Morgue actions of Lindbergh for example. That came out in Grand Jury testimony. One guy telling what many witnessed. Look at how "wrong" the Press got it... How wrong "history" got it.... Just about every book on the case written by every "expert" claims the guy pulling back the sheet was Marshall and he wasn't even there. Where was everyone throughout the years to correct it? Marshall himself testified he wasn't even there. We also have a false narrative about Lindbergh's conduct/demeanor/actions while in the morgue that was also cemented in history but we now know otherwise. One may ask "why" no one spoke up about it as means to suggest it did not occur. But the reason Kirkham testified to it was because it did, he was under oath, and Grand Jury testimony was supposed to remain secret. Why didn't any other book mention Uebel's bombshell eyewitness accounts? My guess is because no one had the time to go through the entire Archives like I have. So does that mean it isn't true? The guy spoke to police about what he saw but when I communicated with a relative I was told the family had no idea he was connected to the case in any way. So my point is that it all came up before, during, and after. It's all in the files to consider and why I make my best efforts to include as much as I can in my books. What you seem to suggest is that if you weren't aware of it then it did not happen. I get that a lot. I wasn't referring to your above imagined vigilante scene or the Lone Wolf argument and I'm not suggesting anything didn't happen. Clearly we disagree on the interpretation, importance and relevance regarding much of the circumstantial physical and behavioral evidence in this case. My second point was in reference to the many times you've claimed that EVERY cop knew someone within the household was complicit in the crime. Personally, I don't believe it and would like to know your thoughts on why not one of those cops, or anyone else in the investigation who might have entertained the same belief for that matter, ever came forward in a public forum to clearly state their suspicions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 8, 2018 10:04:55 GMT -5
I wasn't referring to your above imagined vigilante scene or the Lone Wolf argument and I'm not suggesting anything didn't happen. Clearly we disagree on the interpretation, importance and relevance regarding much of the circumstantial physical and behavioral evidence in this case. My second point was in reference to the many times you've claimed that EVERY cop knew someone within the household was complicit in the crime. Personally, I don't believe it and would like to know your thoughts on why not one of those cops, or anyone else in the investigation who might have entertained the same belief for that matter, ever came forward in a public forum to clearly state their suspicions. I suppose we do disagree. Evidence cannot be used on a slide-rule. If it's important in one regard then its certainly important in the other. The idea that something is only important if it happens to "fit" into a favorable scenario is beyond absurd. This type of application with evidence having to do with anything unfavorable with Condon, for example, happens everywhere because it IS everywhere as it concerns him. So anything he spews forth that is liked is "solid" while the other 99% is viewed as "mistakes," "confusion," "old-age," "kind heartedness," .... you name it, in fact, whatever excuse you can think of has been used to explain it away. That's not how real life works. While I cannot say EVERY cop, however, when reading through the material it was said by most of those in the middle of everything. Certainly I don't have a document that has Schwarzkopf saying it himself but if I have a good source that Keaten said he said it then I would be an idiot to say it was not said. I accept it as the general consensus among everyone because all indications are that it was. That's the other thing... If someone important says the "other guys" saw it too I don't ignore that comment as worthless. And so the Cops that helped convict Hauptmann did "great" work except once its brought out they believed there was an inside job aspect to this, or something wasn't "right" then, all of the sudden, they morph into "ham-fisted" cops in order to explain it away? Again, that's not how real life works. Its like what I wrote about concerning the Hoffman Investigation... those who helped him were "idiots" but when they were attached to the State they were good investigators. Yup I am going to say it again...that's not how real life works. I've explained over the course of two volumes the mood about, and why certain things occurred or did not occur. In the end anyone attached to bringing this matter to a close never wanted to embrace anything that could have been interpreted as Hauptmann being "innocent." So, for example, while they knew multiple people were involved, allowing that belief to become public would "muddy the waters" and be used by some to say Hauptmann wasn't guilty - something they did not believe either. So say something undermining to one's own work, or stick to your guns and keep quiet to prevent that self inflicted wound.
In the end, it all came out. Perhaps not the way you would envision it should have but it did nevertheless.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 3, 2019 0:23:28 GMT -5
Regarding "Ollie's Deathbed Confession" I remember discussing that with Dave when he brought it up after telling me about his talking with Betty - GAWD can we be this old? Anyway, it seems I posted something on here or on Ronelle's board about it, though I didn't think it was really news because it was pretty phony information. So I save my stuff and I'll check what I have, but just off hand, it doesn't ring a bell as to where right now. Dave didn't indicate to me anyway, that Betty was too concerned about it - it wasn't a confession anyway, just a statement that will go down as nothing.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 3, 2019 0:29:46 GMT -5
I really have always felt about Ollie that he felt Lindbergh was messing with her, and why shouldn't he be messing with her too. After all, he's the one that winds up doing the damn dishes - why not?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 3, 2019 1:10:40 GMT -5
Ollie was suspecting Betty and so was every other person who knew anything about the crime - so where's the big news?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 3, 2019 7:40:47 GMT -5
Ollie was suspecting Betty and so was every other person who knew anything about the crime - so where's the big news? Is this a joke? He wasn't just "every other person" Jack. The man was in the house among whoever it was he suspected. Furthermore, he was actually there when the crime was committed, and saw everything that went on that "we" don't know about. I think most of us believe he was implicating Gow, Lindbergh, or both. Based on what Gow told Dave I think that's important to consider. But I do not know exactly what he said so he may have even implicated himself. But to ignore what happened merely based upon what "every other person" said or happened to believe seems silly to me.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 3, 2019 12:09:28 GMT -5
I see your point, but then and now, where's any evidence? He maybe was closely involved with the case, but him spouting out about others he suspected holds no more significance than if I would have done it. Ollie was just an old hen - jealous of everybody including CAL and Betty.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 4, 2019 23:35:12 GMT -5
And there were witnesses to whatever was said. And no matter what you say about vows and such ether like connections people are really bound by internal beliefs and would have informed the authorities if anything actually legally was stated.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 5, 2019 8:37:57 GMT -5
And there were witnesses to whatever was said. And no matter what you say about vows and such ether like connections people are really bound by internal beliefs and would have informed the authorities if anything actually legally was stated. I'm a little confused about your point. Are you referring to Whateley or something else? There was no "rule" as to exactly how people reacted. People kept their mouths shut about a lot of things for many reasons. Others took whatever they "believed" they heard (sometimes mistakenly) or suspected and told whoever would listen. Others simply made things up. Heck, even today we've got people on the Yahoo site masquerading as "Experts" who do that on the regular! So the "who" said "what" and "why" is always up for debate. There's thousands if not hundreds of thousands of examples for each of the above contained in the Archives just about everywhere. Even after Hoffman's re-investigation certain people "loosened" up when previously they had not. There's also earlier reports that back up certain claims - but most people never heard about that because they've only relied on certain books that never mentioned it. Why? Because the authors either avoided it or never knew about it themselves. It takes a very long time, as you well know, to properly research this case.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 6, 2019 12:57:47 GMT -5
Of course. I really don't think that what is being presented in Dark Corners will ever be taken seriously. You really have a study of a group that is known for not solving anything. I'm sure you'll disagree, but that's a true statement. Fisher will always be the source.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Aug 6, 2019 14:23:31 GMT -5
Fisher will always be the source. ... for imaginary LKC conversations?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 7, 2019 0:25:58 GMT -5
There'll be conversations all right - especially if a professional notices his reason for not putting in an index. There'll be many ho-ho's all around. But I don't think anyone of note will ever see that stuff. He did come up with a good way to sell a few books, but I don't like the untruthfulness of it all.
Fisher did what hundreds of other authors have done, create believable dialog to make a smooth flowing book.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 7, 2019 7:20:25 GMT -5
There'll be conversations all right - especially if a professional notices his reason for not putting in an index. There'll be many ho-ho's all around. But I don't think anyone of note will ever see that stuff. He did come up with a good way to sell a few books, but I don't like the untruthfulness of it all. Jack - some people like the books and some people don't. It's hard for me to know where you stand because on any given day its different. Regardless, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. As far as "anyone of note" I'm not sure what that means but you state it as if I would actually care if I did. Again - this is the new information. Some will apply it to their research. Some will consider it. Some will dispute it. And some will disregard it. The Earth is still going to spin. Fisher did what hundreds of other authors have done, create believable dialog to make a smooth flowing book. He produced exactly what one would expect from the short time spent in the Archives. Making up dialogue was a huge mistake because its not only worthless, it makes some wonder what else was being made up. Not me of course. I don't "wonder" because I know what's true and what isn't because I've actually done the research. I think that is what has so many people upset. It's hard to argue against documentation one has never laid eyes on. And yet - some do anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2019 10:30:21 GMT -5
So true about doing archival research. There is so much there that is important. I don't understand how real documentation gets argued against. Some has even been put on this board to be seen and read. Yet it gets tossed aside like it is meaningless. Case in point is Millard Whited whose statements to police saying he saw no one loitering around the Lindbergh house/property prior to the kidnapping are verified statements in those reports. Whited never saw Hauptmann in 1932. That is a fact! The police knew this as fact!! If Fisher did any amount of research outside of the boundaries of the trial, he either missed this report somehow because he didn't spend enough time there or he just ignored it. Can't put that in his book!! It shows that Wilentz used a lying witness to put Hauptmann in Hopewell.
Michael's books are full of real reports that he gives you the reference to in his footnotes. You want to fact check him, just contact Mark Falzini at the NJSP archives and ask him to send you a copy of such a report. Read reports for yourself if you don't like or trust the facts he gives you in his books before you just conclude none of his research means anything!!!!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 7, 2019 12:26:02 GMT -5
Troll’s just trying get a rise, lol. Ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 8, 2019 10:00:43 GMT -5
amy fisher knew all about it. you have to read the whole ball of wax
|
|