Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2017 10:49:37 GMT -5
In Chapter 14, The Next Phase, on pages 200 and 201, Michael talks about the marks on the wall of the Highfields house that were noticed when police raised the ladder up to the southeast window. It is believed that these marks were made by the kidnap ladder when it slipped under the weight of the person who climbed the ladder. Michael brings out the point that these marks were 2-1/2 inches below the place where the ladder rested when placed against the wall.
I have never seen the pictures of these wall marks so I was shocked to find out that these marks were not above where the ladder rested. Michael's logic that the marks should have been above the resting place of the ladder makes perfect sense if the ladder did indeed slide down from the weight of someone on the ladder. So I would think there must be another explanation for those marks besides what Trooper Kelly wrote in his report.
Michael,
Do those marks look like bump marks, maybe caused by when the ladder was being positioned before it was climbed? Are those marks more elongated which might suggest a sliding motion? Did the ladder have any whitewash marks on it anywhere?
There are not enough footprints in the mud to suggest that there was a lot of manipulation of that ladder (at least from the front) at the scene. However, if the kidnappers were trying to stay on the boardwalk when putting that ladder in place they may have made contact with the wall, scrapping it against the whitewash below where the ladder finally came to rest.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 8, 2017 13:43:00 GMT -5
Do those marks look like bump marks, maybe caused by when the ladder was being positioned before it was climbed? Are those marks more elongated which might suggest a sliding motion? Did the ladder have any whitewash marks on it anywhere? I remember going through the picture binders before I ever found that report. In fact it had to be during my first or second year going down there. Hopefully I am not mis-remembering but I recall the picture of the scratch being a close up so there's really no perspective. As I recall it was a vertical scratch mark as you would envision it to be. It's why I never went back for it as a possible photo for the book. There was no white paint found on the ladder. There was an earlier teletype that said this but it was a mistake and was actually referring to the red paint that was found on it. There are not enough footprints in the mud to suggest that there was a lot of manipulation of that ladder (at least from the front) at the scene. However, if the kidnappers were trying to stay on the boardwalk when putting that ladder in place they may have made contact with the wall, scrapping it against the whitewash below where the ladder finally came to rest. They certainly were trying to stay on that boardwalk weren't they? Since the footprint evidence shows 2 people, I think we can assume one on either side raising it upward which would show how Amy's theory could work - with the ladder making contact below and scratching upward. Regardless of how it was done, at the very least these people were navigating that boardwalk with a flashlight. And if they were I believe it's a hard thing to miss if you're in that house at the time. The whole thing screams inside job, with them approaching from the front of the house obviously intending to walk on it. They knew it was there. My next question is why they didn't leave the same way they came in instead of gifting behind evidence to show outsiders were there? Panic? If one accepts the thumb-guard as real evidence then we can forget about that excuse. But can we? And if not, then we can forget about saying someone in the home wasn't involved. The footprint evidence never once went onto Lindbergh's Private Lane.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2017 17:28:59 GMT -5
Panic? If one accepts the thumb-guard as real evidence then we can forget about that excuse. I am in the thumb-guard being a plant camp. Like so much of the physical evidence (or lack of) in this case, I believe this is all part of a plan to manipulate the investigation in a certain direction, chiefly away from inside help. I have always wondered about the timing of the finding of the thumb-guard. Why then?? I would like to put out for consideration a possibility for that timing. I read the following in the March 30, 1932 Hopewell Herald newspaper. Perhaps this work being done provided a believable cover for why this thumb-guard suddenly turned up on Lindbergh's Lane making the finding of it appear so innocent.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 9, 2017 9:43:04 GMT -5
Can you please be a little more specific. Who do you think put the thumb guard there (Betty Gow (?)) and what did that person who put it there want people to think when it was "discovered"?
Of course we have to bear in mind that the day of the "discovery" of the thumb guard was one day before the ransom payoff in St. Raymond's Cemetery. What would be the connection between the two events?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2017 1:35:06 GMT -5
Can you please be a little more specific. Who do you think put the thumb guard there (Betty Gow (?)and what did that person who put it there want people to think when it was "discovered"? The reason I feel the thumb-guard "find" was fake is because I find the explanation the police gave to explain how the thumb-guard came to be where it was found just not believable. In mid May 1932 the police put forth the following theory taken from Anne Lindbergh's diary entry dated May 19, 1932, "... that when the ladder broke the man dropped the bag; the head of the child struck the cement window ledge. The man (having gagged or chloroformed the child) did not know how serious the injury was at first. They stopped at first place where there was water--where the thumb guard was found by the gate. They took off sleeping suit to find where the blood came from and the diapers to bathe it off." The underscoring is mine. If you just kidnapped a child wouldn't your first priority be to leave the scene? Wouldn't you want to put as much distance as possible between you and the scene of the crime? Why would you ever stay on the property and take the time to assess the condition of the child to begin with, taking time to remove the child from the burlap bag, remove the sleeping suit and even the rubber pants and diapers and then bathing the child off to see where the supposed blood (no blood evidence was ever found to support this) was coming from? Doing all this on the property of the victim makes no sense at all. How do the kidnappers know that a car won't pass by the driveway or even turn into the driveway while all this assessing is going on? I realize that the police had a number of things to account for (the removed sleeping suit, the missing rubber pants and diapers, and that thumb guard) so they came up with this theory to explain them. It just doesn't work for me. Do you find this believable? Plus there is the issue of the footprints. According to the footprints found of the kidnappers they are leaving the scene going in the opposite direction. How can Charlie be going down the driveway if the kidnappers are not? Do I think Betty Gow put the thumb guard on the driveway to find? I think it is very possible that she discreetly dropped it from behind on the way down to be found on the return trip. I cannot say that as a certainty, however. I think discovering the thumb guard there would have caused confusion for the police. It is in conflict with the other evidence that said the kidnappers took Charlie in a different direction. It suggests that Charlie and his thumb guard must have become separated while on the property. For some people it might have been interpreted as a sign of hope for the return of Charlie. For Lindbergh, it would be a message from the people who have his son. For myself, I think it shows that there is someone on the premises that is involved with what happened to Charlie. We are assuming there is a connection aren't we. If there is a connection then it makes the appearance and finding of that thumb guard a planned occurrence, which also means there is a form of communication going on between those who have Charlie and a member of the Highfields household. The thumb guard is like a signal from the kidnappers that they are now ready to return Charlie when the money is received.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 10, 2017 15:13:18 GMT -5
I think the timing of the thumbguard find is interesting: a night or two after its discovery, the ransom was paid. It feels to me like someone is inventing a reason and creating an urgent need to pay the "ransom" when it was paid--maybe before the "ransom" got jacked up any further? And given the thumbguard's placement--100 ft. or so up the drive--there's no way outsiders snuck back onto the property, past the gatehouse police check point, to plant it (especially when they could've mailed it, as they did with the notes and sleeping suit). And if it wasn't an outsider, then it had to be an insider, probably planting it on his or her way out.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 10, 2017 15:44:45 GMT -5
Lindbergh probably dropped it putting the body out in the woods hoping somebody would find it before he paid the ransom.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 10, 2017 16:31:17 GMT -5
I don't know how finding the thumb guard would guarantee an additional urgency of paying the ransom quickly. The urgency seems to be already there. How would the subject get it there like mentioned above.
If there is a sign to be said I would entertain the thought more like Whately found it in among Betty's things and placed it there sending the message "I have questions about you Betty" without directly saying he found it wanting her to question how did that get there.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 10, 2017 21:40:16 GMT -5
My first thought was, as Amy mentioned, that Betty slipped it out of her pocket as she and Elsie walked down the driveway, turning around at the end of the driveway and "discovering" it on the way back. But since the thumbguard seems to have been flattened--that is, run over by a car--but didn't seem to have been outside for a month, my thought now is that it had laid there for as long as it took to be run over by a car--i.e., since that morning. So I think Lindbergh dropped it there earlier in the day to be found. Now, why would he do this; that is, why would he create urgency? Well, first, my thinking is that Lindbergh was behind the whole thing--that the kidnapping was a kind of euthanasia disguised as a kidnapping gone wrong, because there were physical problems with CAL Jr. and Lindbergh needed him gone, in order to maintain his ubermensch image. But the whole thing went awry when the guys that were hired to carry this out got greedy and started treating this like an actual kidnapping, by demanding the ransom and so on. Now, my understanding, as far as that ransom goes, is that Lindbergh had been stalling about paying it (which makes sense if you accept the idea that this was never a kidnapping and, as such, a ransom was never meant to be paid in the first place). But once the kidnappers threatened to jack it up to $100K (they had already raised from $50K to $70K), and once Lindbergh realized the kidnappers weren't blinking, he realized he had to pay. But on what pretext, after stalling for as long as he did, could he reverse course? He needed a reason, so he gave himself one by dropping the thumbguard in the drive as if this was done by the kidnappers to pressure and warn him to hurry up with the money--like other abductors have done, sending a severed finger or ear or something.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 10, 2017 23:55:16 GMT -5
Hi LJ. I like when someone comes right out and say what they believe. So excuse me for asking about it. What you are saying Lindbergh wanted to prepare himself and his image for what he believed was the upcoming society. He would murder his own blood to attain this. Did Lindbergh hire Hauptmann for the ruse but then rebel against it and decide to make it a real kidnapping? Many questions but respectfully one more. Who killed the Lindbergh baby? Lindbergh or Hauptmann?
The theory is kind of like Behn's but substituting murder for an accident and of course a timeline.
Condon communicated to the kidnappers that the money is ready on March 31st. Lindbergh was ready to pay with or without the thumb guard wasn't he?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2017 10:13:06 GMT -5
But since the thumbguard seems to have been flattened--that is, run over by a car--but didn't seem to have been outside for a month, my thought now is that it had laid there for as long as it took to be run over by a car--i.e., since that morning. Lindbergh Lane was a very busy road. That is why they had to repair that driveway. The thumb guard does appear to be flattened a bit. Certainly not badly enough to have endured repeated roll overs by vehicles. So I agree that if the thumb guard was in this semi-flattened state when it was found by Betty in 1932, it would appear that it had gotten run over at least once. I am not aware of anyone saying, at that time, that the thumb guard was flattened when found. Have you come across anything about that? All the fuss seems to have been made over how the ribbon ties were still tied the way Betty claimed she tied them that night(March 1). Do you think Lindbergh dropped it on a walk down the driveway earlier in the day? Betty Gow claimed it was laying in the center of the driveway when she found it. (Gardner, Page 77 paperback copy) After Betty found it she took it to Lindbergh immediately. She didn't show the Troopers at the gate what she found.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2017 10:44:13 GMT -5
Condon communicated to the kidnappers that the money is ready on March 31st. Lindbergh was ready to pay with or without the thumb guard wasn't he? You are correct about this Gary and it is an important point. Lindbergh agreed to pay the ransom before Betty supposedly found the thumb guard on April 1. This is why I questioned whether the thumb guard and the paying of the ransom were actually connected to each other. Betty's court testimony established April 1 as the date she found this thumb guard. Could the finding have occurred a day or two earlier? LJ and Gary, I would appreciate your thoughts on the following: Trial Testimony, Page 323, Cross Examination of Betty Gow by Edward ReillyQ(Reilly) Now, about those thumb guards; how many did you have for the child? A(Gow) I had two.
Q(Reilly) Didn't you have a set over in Englewood? A(Gow) No.
Q(Reilly) You had only two? A(Gow) Yes.
If Betty Gow is telling the truth, the only thumb guards available for Charlie were the two she says she put on Charlie the night of the kidnapping. Keep in mind that Anne Lindbergh testified that she did not see the thumb guards put on Charlie that night. Betty claims she did put them on. Betty was the last person to see Charlie that night so we only have her statements to believe about this. If Betty is being truthful about putting those thumb guards on Charlie that night then those guards left with him and this would put those guards in the hands of the kidnappers. So how could one of these guards end up on the driveway then?? Or is Betty lying about putting those guards on Charlie that night leaving them available to have one conveniently turn up on the driveway? Have either of you considered that if Lindbergh dropped the thumb guard on the driveway it was done as one of his "practical jokes" so he could be entertained watching the police confusion over how that thumb guard could have been there all that time and not seen? Where else could it have come from otherwise? Would he have found it amusing watching Betty and Elsie think that this thumb guard was a positive sign about Charlie coming back to them?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 11, 2017 11:14:02 GMT -5
Hi Gary, In a nutshell, yes, my idea is something like Behn's theory, but the death was not accidental and Elisabeth Morrow had nothing to do with it. What I think is this: Given the weird little anomalies mentioned in the baby's last physical and the rumors about this at the time, CAL Jr. was gravely ill. Lindbergh had some very eugenicist/social Darwinist beliefs, and had been working with a staunch eugenicist right around this time (Carrel), who may have enhanced and reinforced these beliefs, confirming that there was something very wrong with Lindbergh's son. The great superman Lindbergh can't be seen as having defective offspring, so the child has to go. If he'll never be healthy or normal anyway, this is nothing less than merciful in Lindbergh's view, but the child can't die in a household accident, because, anything else aside, Lindbergh cannot be seen as a negligent parent. Anyway, the baby's condition has to be kept secret--that's the whole point and why there are no photos of him in the months leading up to the kidnapping--so CAL Jr. has to completely disappear, and in such a way that seems beyond Lindbergh's control. What does that add up to but a kidnapping? But Lindbergh needs degrees of separation and insulation from this staged kidnapping, so he gets in touch with a friend or associate of some sort (I don't know who this would be, but it makes sense that an organizer would be involved to shield Lindbergh and guide him on how to handle the police, etc.). This guy, whoever he was, hires a handful of unconnected men out of the Bronx--the nearest and largest urban center to Highfields. One of these guys may have been Hauptmann--chosen because he wasn't above doing illegal things for gain, had a car, could build a prop ladder, what have you. Anyway, these guys go to Hopewell on the appointed night, kill CAL Jr., smuggle the body out of the house, and stage the scene to look like a kidnapping: Dropping a ladder and chisel in the yard, leaving footprints showing how they left, etc. They bury the body somewhere in the nearby countryside, to be disinterred and dumped at the appropriate time--once decomposition has obscured any physical problems, so the case can be closed and the family can move on--but the kidnappers get greedy. Although they've been paid upfront, they decide to go for the $50K ransom mentioned in the nursery note, by treating this like an actual kidnapping--sending more notes and ransom demands, and selecting a go-between that Lindbergh will have no choice but to give the money to, to then pass along to the kidnappers. This is where Condon comes in. Being Bronx-based, the kidnappers know, or know of, Condon, and approach him to act as go-between in the Lindbergh case. Vainglorious ass that he is, Condon agrees, on the condition that the child is returned alive and well. They agree on a way to innocently "establish" communication with each other: Condon will put an open letter in his local paper, offering to act as go-between, an offer which the kidnappers will respond to and accept--sending Condon a communique with the same unique symbol as seen in the nursery note. If the symbols match, goes the kidnappers' thinking, then Condon must be in touch with the right parties, and on what pretext, then, could Lindbergh not give the money to Condon, to, in turn, give to them? But Condon finds out, probably at Woodlawn, that the child is in fact dead. At this point Condon is in way over his head, and has to lie and obfuscate left and right, to make sure the kidnappers get their money and go away, so they will never reveal his true involvement with them. At any rate, once the "ransom" is paid, the rest of Lindbergh's original plan is carried out: CAL Jr.'s body is disinterred and dumped at a roadside turnout near Hopewell for a quick discovery, but there's a further hitch: Animals get a hold of the body and drag it back into the woods before it's found, so it's not discovered until even later. In all this, I don't know who actually killed CAL Jr. Whoever went into the house probably just did it quietly and quickly in the crib, before handing the body off to another guy waiting at the top of the ladder. But names? I wish I could say, but I haven't a clue. And Amy: My guess is that Lindbergh probably dropped the thumbguard on the drive that morning. I thought it had been flattened, but, even if it wasn't, it's condition and placement indicate to me that it hadn't been there long at all.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 11, 2017 13:19:59 GMT -5
LJ. Thank you very much. Its pretty well connected in consideration of the many mysteries and questions we had and still have. I remember Rick used to get me going like this. The question why didn't Hauptmann confess if he knew someone like Lindbergh planned it. Maybe because Hauptmann was in fact the one that killed the baby and despite who Hauptmann could point to wouldn't matter because he was the murderer and would burn regardless. What he could hope for as time pass Lindbergh would eventually be exposed and that would somewhat give him in a distorted way a pass to innocence. Remember Hauptmann said why don't they not execute me until the truth comes out.
What is Condon doing? Why would he want them moving along if he knew the baby is dead. The only way is he is part of Lindbergh's cover up. Would Condon hold true to the same values of Lindbergh?
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 11, 2017 14:03:37 GMT -5
Amy Its funny I was reading the same thing in Gardner's book about Anne's comment on the thumb guard. It may me stop and think. I am expecting Dark Corners to arrive today and perhaps I can see why so many here think Gow is a villain. I always thought and made this comment to be suspicious of Whately leaving the estate to get flashlights giving him opportunity to discard the thumb guard on his final actions of cleaning up the scene. At some moment he saw the police and their headlights and had to discard the thumb guard. wherever he was at that moment. I mean this is just a stretch stab of thought in considering how in its wildest ways got there.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 11, 2017 16:49:12 GMT -5
Hey Gary, I think the reason Hauptmann didn't confess was because I don't believe he felt it would have done him any good. I don't think he thought anyone would believe him over Lindbergh, and also, his family may have been in danger if he talked. And the reason I think Condon wanted the kidnappers to move along is because, first, I believe he got into this fairly innocently, or at least with good intentions. I think he was approached to be a go-between and, if he had just turned the kidnappers in at that point, he wouldn't get to play the hero and be the one to place the baby back in Anne Lindbergh's arms. I think that's what he wanted; to be a hero. But once it came out that the baby was dead, it was a whole new ballgame. At that point, he couldn't admit that he was in touch with the kidnappers earlier than he claimed, that it wasn't a simple matter of wanting to do a good deed and placing an open letter in the newspaper. He would've been guilty of participating in a conspiracy--one which killed the American Prince of Wales, no less--and his boy scout image would be destroyed. So he had to do his best to make sure the kidnappers got their money and were never caught. I think this is why he removed the $20K addition from the ransom package at St. Raymond's: That was to be his fee for his services (one of the notes mentioning "someone else" needing to brought in and the ransom needing to be upped by $20K), but once Condon found out the child was dead, it became blood money which he obviously couldn't accept. Also, that portion of the money contained the largest and most traceable bills, so removing that portion reduced the chances of the kidnappers getting caught.
|
|
|
Post by georingoes on Jan 11, 2017 20:54:52 GMT -5
Theories on Lindbergh planning the kidnapping are worth every word written on the topic. But why do it at the Hopewell House (only later to be named Highfields)? The Hopewell House was Lindbergh's personal Shangri-La. From locating and acquiring the property, to creating the vision, helping design and frequently overlooking/monitoring its construction. And don't forget the airstrip he was building. Lindbergh had to have known that the world's reaction would steal away his Shangri-La home forever. From his admirers, to the curious, to the relentless media, his place would forever be taken away from him. If he wanted to set up a kidnapping of his son, there were hundreds of better places/settings. From the Morrow's summer home in Maine, to various homes he rented and stayed in, to the many car trips the baby took, especially when Anne and Charles weren't even traveling with Charles Jr. The opportunities are endless. Why do it at his Hopewell home?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 11, 2017 21:36:35 GMT -5
Why do it at his Hopewell home? If an outside crime was to occur why didn't it happen in Maine? Well, for one, Lindbergh was out of the country. Perhaps just a matter of timing must be considered too. Next Day Hill? Security. Time must be a consideration as well. How much time to get away, or allow for the crime to happen. I think Highfields was the best place for it to occur. It's out in the middle of nowhere with the nearest neighbors being far enough away for the act to happen uninterrupted. It also allowed time for the plan to be developed. Also, those living in Hopewell had a reputation of minding their own business. If they had cut the phone lines that would have allowed even more getaway time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2017 22:14:20 GMT -5
Amy Its funny I was reading the same thing in Gardner's book about Anne's comment on the thumb guard. It may me stop and think. I am expecting Dark Corners to arrive today and perhaps I can see why so many here think Gow is a villain. I always thought and made this comment to be suspicious of Whately leaving the estate to get flashlights giving him opportunity to discard the thumb guard on his final actions of cleaning up the scene. At some moment he saw the police and their headlights and had to discard the thumb guard. wherever he was at that moment. I mean this is just a stretch stab of thought in considering how in its wildest ways got there. Gary, I never gave Whateley a thought as being the person who could have put the thumb guard out there. I think your idea is interesting. I think the police must have been just as perplexed about the appearance of that thumb guard as we are! I do hope your copy of Michael's book came today. You will be blown away by it. You will find yourself rethinking everything you know about this kidnapping. Please let us know your thoughts on the book when you are finished reading it.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 11, 2017 22:44:09 GMT -5
georingoes you put it well very well. Its very concerning that such an important man in our history could commit such a crime. I am not one to denounce it in consideration of the people I respect and are my friends that believe it. I hope no one considers me less because i doubt it.
There are so many inconsistencies to kill or have his son killed in a hoax like this. It would no doubt end his future of his Shanga La home let alone his family to unspeakable devastation. For one to desire complete control of the investigation and allow the kidnapping scheme into complete disarray baffles me. To fly his plane all that day in Maine and inwardly know there would be no son found. His trip to Cape May in hope that his son was on this boat all knowing his son was already dead. For a man who hated to be in the spotlight of media and attention plans a media frenzied kidnapping. If he wanted his son dead why not plan an accident rather than a long drawn out investigation for years. Yet with this I am open minded but take inventory of my doubt. I do believe a well studied person planned the kidnapping in the beginning at least, believe Hauptmann was a major character in it, and believe there was an inside source.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 12, 2017 0:20:51 GMT -5
Hi Gary, If, just hypothetically, we accept the idea that Lindbergh was behind this in order to keep the child's health issues a secret, then an "accident" befalling his son wouldn't do. For one thing, as I said, I don't think Lindbergh would ever have allowed himself to be seen as a negligent parent, and, in order to keep the health issues under wraps (which was the whole point in the first place), the child and his body had to disappear altogether. In any case, the child going, disappearing, dying, whatever, would be front page news under any circumstances; that would just be a given, no matter what. Accepting that, then, the death/disappearance had to look like it was undesired and beyond the parents' control. This is the definition of a kidnapping. Now, why would Lindbergh put his family through this and sacrifice his country sanctuary? Well, it's been said many times, on this board and elsewhere, that Lindbergh was rather... odd; that his "moral compass" didn't have quite the same north as most other people's. And a house is just a building; the most famous man in the world could easily build himself another sanctuary somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 12, 2017 3:00:24 GMT -5
I like your post and your reasoning, Gary, although I find it difficult to remove Lindbergh from the list of potential suspects in my book (i.e. mind) entirely due to his sociopathic tendencies, which even his admirers have to admit, and which are well documented; and the eugenics business with Dr. Carrel; Lindbergh's views on race and "superior types" at a time when it appeared that his own first born may only not be himself superior but "defective". There are aspects of Lindbergh the man that make him a potential suspect, as I see it, to which it's worth adding that this now well over eighty year old murder case is still a topic of interest, closely scrutinized, has been the subject of many books, some of them brilliantly reasoned and written (if in many cases fanciful). There's a "no closure" side to the LKC that suggests that the nagging doubts that so many of us have about the "official story" of the events leading up to the kidnapping, the negotiations that occurred afterwards, Lindbergh's insistence on controlling every facet of the investigation, the two year gap between the discovery of CAL, Jr.'s body and the arrest of Bruno Hauptmann, suggest that, to put it mildly, that there was much more going on in this case than the abduction of Charles Lindbergh's son. It resonates. I don't think that Lindbergh is anyway near so innocent as he seems, as his later enigmatic, at times troubling behavior, whether with Nazis or his secret family in Germany, bear out.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 12, 2017 5:50:57 GMT -5
No, something happened which is as yet unknown that the kidnapping was covering up for. Maybe Michael's Book Two will have something about it - the "deathbed confession" he's talked about.
Lindbergh considered the German's air strength superior and admired their ability to militarize, but you couldn't call him a Nazi sympathizer other than that. He was anti-war. If the U.S. had listened to his father it wouldn't have gotten into The Great War and perhaps WW II as well.
Everything can be negotiated. As far as WW II went, and Pearl Harbor, all the Japanese were trying to do was get their oil supply back which we had cut off. If we'd have bent a little it could have been avoided. Same with the U.S. Civil War. Extreme policies such as all of a sudden making something illegal, like slavery, creates hostilities. Slavery should have been grandfathered out and everybody could have been kept happy. Same with Japan's oil.
If anyone's interested in a mystery find out why both of America's aircraft carriers weren't at Pearl Harbor when it was attacked, and did that make a difference to the Japanese - reason why it wqas attacked at that time?
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 12, 2017 15:26:10 GMT -5
Jack: I threw in Nazis rather glibly, as it saved me the effort of looking up and writing more on Lindbergh's visit to Germany, his assessment of Germany's air strength. I agree with you on the anti-war issues, and Lindy's isolationism in general. He wasn't pro-Nazi.
(OT: as to the missing aircraft carriers at Pearl, are you suggesting that people high up in FDR's administration knew the attack was coming, wanted to keep the Japanese from their intended targets? The carriers were the big kahuna at Pearl, and that they were out on patrol at the time of the attack was, my sense, just good luck for us, bad luck for Imperial Japan. My big question as to that time frame is why, in the Philippines, MacArthur didn't permit Brereton, his air corps guy, to send out scouts, patrol in the region, Formosa in particular, where the Japanese attack force was in fact stationed, and fogged in, and destroy them, which at the time we had the air power to do. Instead, there was a several hour delay, with our planes sitting ducks; and when the attack came at Clark field, most of them were destroyed, which ensured Japanese victory. A true, real life go figure...)
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 12, 2017 16:23:28 GMT -5
Thanks LJ. Your comment are always valued to me. I just don't agree. An accident is an accident and even in the most odd interpretation it doesn't reflect a parent being a bad parent. An accident is once done and over. Limited public exposure when you compare it two months of agony a fake kidnapping would do. I mean he had the mob in his home. Putting your family in continued hope then disappointment over a longer a period of time is less appealing. Perhaps its just too hard for me to figure the actions of an odd human and is morally defective.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 12, 2017 17:57:09 GMT -5
I guess what got me thinking in this direction in the first place was the crime scene: You have footprints leading away from the house, with a chisel and ladder dropped along the way; you have a ransom note left on the windowsill, as opposed to just dropped in the crib, where it would've been more quickly seen. Why? I mean, why did the kidnappers seem to so eager to create this breadcrumb trail and telegraph exactly what happened? The whole crime scene seems to be screaming "WE CAME IN AND EXITED THROUGH THE WINDOW; WE HAD TO, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ONE ON THE INSIDE TO HELP US". To me, that's phony--i.e., the scene was staged. The seeming eagerness to direct attention away from a potential insider tells me there was one. And who, on the inside, had the clout to pull something like this off and take control of the investigation? And who wound up doing just that? Now, why would this be; that is, what was the motive? Well, it might be an oversimplification to call Lindbergh a straight-up Nazi, but he certainly was a eugenicist, a social Darwinist--and there were rumors about the baby's health and no pictures of him--zero--for months before the kidnapping (even though Anne asked for this while she and Lindbergh were abroad in the Orient, so she could track his growth while they were apart). Now, don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to sell you anything at all. I'm just trying to explain my thinking on the case.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 12, 2017 19:38:10 GMT -5
Interesting theory, LJ. If one accepts the notion that the kidnapping was an inside job, or done with inside help, then it would make much sense for those responsible for removing the child from his room to make it appear as if something else had happened, right down to the strangely written Teutonic note left in the windowsill. On the other hand there must have been an elaborate set-up for this, as in maybe someone did drive all the way to Hopwell from NYC, actually put the ladder against the house, climb the ladder, drop the note, then drive away, maybe even empty handed! The nature of the crime and its disocery, complete with the note, immediately drew attention from the Lindbergh house itself and its inhabitants and toward the "unknown", so to speak, when in fact the person responsible for the deed was in fact very known.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 12, 2017 22:26:57 GMT -5
In Dark Corners it mentions Wahgoosh is with Olly in the servants sitting room. Also known Betty was drawn to the Whately's bedroom to see a dress. Both these locations are probably farthest away from Jr's bedroom in the most or possibly the most strategic times of the kidnapping. Few make a big deal about it and maybe there isn't. How can we though give olly a pass on suspicion. if there is a cover up and a room wipe down when would Charles or Betty do this? All this while Olly pretty much has opportunity to free wheel to move around the house unaccounted for.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 13, 2017 4:31:50 GMT -5
georingoes you put it well very well. Its very concerning that such an important man in our history could commit such a crime. I am not one to denounce it in consideration of the people I respect and are my friends that believe it. I hope no one considers me less because i doubt it. There are so many inconsistencies to kill or have his son killed in a hoax like this. It would no doubt end his future of his Shanga La home let alone his family to unspeakable devastation. For one to desire complete control of the investigation and allow the kidnapping scheme into complete disarray baffles me. To fly his plane all that day in Maine and inwardly know there would be no son found. His trip to Cape May in hope that his son was on this boat all knowing his son was already dead. For a man who hated to be in the spotlight of media and attention plans a media frenzied kidnapping. If he wanted his son dead why not plan an accident rather than a long drawn out investigation for years. Yet with this I am open minded but take inventory of my doubt. I do believe a well studied person planned the kidnapping in the beginning at least, believe Hauptmann was a major character in it, and believe there was an inside source. Just wait until you get to the section in Dark Corners about how Lindbergh conducted himself at the autopsy. He treated that child's body like the corpse of the dog that had just tried to maul him. No love, affection or emotion whatsoever. As to your earlier question about Hauptmann. It's likely he feared for his family's safety. It's also a possibility that the orchestrator of this crime was able to keep everyone involved siloed enough where Hauptmann was truly unaware what he was doing (laundering funds and building ladders) was part of the Lindbergh kidnapping. By all accounts he liked to make a quick buck but was not a career criminal. Also, it doesn't take much work to realize that this crime didn't just feature inside "help" but was planned from the inside, too. Take a step back and look at what we actually have: A toddler is missing from a nursery in an extremely remote house, but no fingerprints are present on the window sill, latches or any other area in where witnesses claimed to have touched. Items present in the entry/exit window area haven't been moved, despite all probability. The entire room, in fact, is undisturbed. This is odd given that the whole space is essentially an obstacle course (dining set, toys, wind screen, etc). A few token mud smudges are found in the room but none indicate a serious path of travel, as should be the case with the condition of the mud outside. Conveniently the kidnapping takes place during the brief period the child is not to be disturbed. Oddly, however, this is the period where most people are home and awake, not to mention it is pitch black outside in a torrential rainstorm. True "blind" kidnappers would probably choose the post-midnight hours, when everyone in the house is asleep and they probably wouldn't be discovered for hours OR a mid-day hour when just the nanny would be home. Separately from all of this, you have the fact these kidnappers knew exactly where to go (even the police had trouble finding the house), left no footprints approaching the nursery, made a beeline to the one unlocked window of over two dozen and left undetected. Even the dog famed for always barking at everything did nothing. Then perhaps the biggest red flag, it was on a night the child was never supposed to be there. If all of this were to happen today, the police would pretty much assume this was an inside job from the get go and not relent until they put it all together. In this case, they couldn't pursue the most obvious line of investigation due to being stonewalled by Lindbergh, so they were forced to look at alternatives which largely led nowhere. It's an unfortunate fact but if there is a missing/injured child in a home, the odds are 4:1 someone from family is involved. Assembling all the facts of the Hopewell crime, not one aspect says "home invasion" except the ladder and the note. The placement of these two objects, to me, are very indicative of the perpetrators goal: to create the illusion that this disappearance was a kidnapping and redirect investigators from the true method (and reason) in which the child left the house. If this were not the case, why drop the ladder in literally the most conspicuous place possible, as opposed to leaving it against the house where no one would see it for hours? More than likely the ladder was actually used to create the imprints below the window and plant the note. Even if you don't think Lindbergh at all guilty (getting past a serious non-biased study of his behavior will take a lot of work), it is pretty much impossible for this whole thing to have gone down without full cooperation from someone on the inside.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 23, 2017 22:29:06 GMT -5
Lindbergh testified in the Curtis trial that the child was kidnapped between 7:30-10 PM. Question/comment on the significance of this: in relation to Dark Corners.
#1 That Lindbergh did not narrow the kidnapping to the sound of the crate falling sound. Did he? Whether you believe him or not in the most critical questions he'd didn't commit the sound necessarily to the kidnappers. if he did why did he testify 7:30-10.
#2. 7:30 clearly leaves a time spread where Betty Gow who was with the child till 8 accountable for that 1/2 hr indifference. So why is he leaving Gow to question? My thinking 7:30-10 signified the time that Anne last saw him and he himself discovering he was missing.
|
|