|
Post by john on Jan 11, 2017 3:27:22 GMT -5
I've been busy with other things, alas, and absent from the boards here, and having just dropped by I had a thought, and it may be something someone else has already brought up or maybe even something I've mentioned, but I don't think so. I'll put it in the form of a question: could the ransom note found in CAL, Jr.'s room the night of the kidnapping not be true? By this I mean as to one particular issue, that of the kidnapping having been planned for a very long time. Special emphasis on time here. It seems to me that a good deal of what has been discussed regarding the LKC, here and elsewhere, has more or less assumed that the author of the note was telling the truth, maybe even bragging. Maybe.
Or could it be that the note was written this way to suggest that much more careful planning, plotting and effort went into the crime than was in fact the case? Leaving aside who the perp was, I'm wondering if the crime had been planned for a VERY SHORT TIME, possibly a month or two, or even less. This would explain the (shall we say) clumsiness, or what appears to be clumsiness (or cluelessness, as the case may be), that abounds in the case in the days and weeks after the kidnapping, which includes, of course, the business of Condon, Cemetery John, the ransom negotiations; the whole nine yards. The reason why I'm raising this issue is that I believe that pondering the truth of the long time "declaration", as it were, is to throw a new light on the case.
If the crime was planned and executed in a relatively short period this does away with the mastermind thesis, so to speak, whoever the purported mastermind may be, and calls into question conspiracy theories and the like; or, if one does believe there was an elaborate conspiracy, it asks which kind. The note, as I recall, reads rather like an amateur posing as a professional, puffing himself up so as to come across as a more powerful figure than he is (or they are, assuming that it's a gang). Yet I can't help wonder if the note was a deliberate faux naif plant put there to draw attention to itself and away from whoever actually committed the crime by the perp presenting himself as something very different from who is really is. There's no finger pointing here. That's not why I'm posting. More like issue raising. In other words, the crime could indeed have been in the planning stages for well over a year. I'm not saying it wasn't. Yet I get "impulse" vibes from the note and from many aspects of the LKC, as if someone simply decided to kidnap the baby within a relatively short period of time, did his homework well, succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. But then, that could have been the impression the author of the note sought to give. Just a thought experiment here: could the note not be true?
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Jan 11, 2017 9:04:54 GMT -5
great post, john. it's always good to question assumptions in cases like this. sometimes assumptions become part of the canon of a case. when it remains unsolved, it is wise to question everything.
i take the "planned for a long time already" much the same way that later in the JonBenet Ramsey case their note said "we are small foreign faction...". it implies something greater than is probably true. i think you are correct, the "crime" was NOT planned for a long time already (and JBR was not taken by a small foreign faction).
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 11, 2017 10:39:49 GMT -5
Thanks, XJD. Indeed, one notion I had after writing the post was whether something was going on, whether politically or in organized crime, or maybe in Lindbergh's life, if he was involved in the kidnap scheme, that the note's odd qualities, suggestive of grandiosity and lack of genuine big time gravitas, was, in its timing, a means of creating a public sensation, the kind of media-driven "national tragedy" so as to keep other kinds of news out of the media. It could the Mob, up to something nasty, or Lindy himself, who, maybe having found out from having secretly taken his son to a physician, that CAL, Jr. was somewhat impaired, maybe even slightly retarded. Imagine the rage of this proud man over hearing such news! But it could also have been many other things as well. To push ahead here, historically, it's been said by some historians (and my father said as much to me) that the seeming national "crime epidemic" of the kind that was all over the news outlets back then,--John Dillinger, Bonnie & Clyde, et al--was a cleverly orchestrated ruse of taking attention away from the much more vast, if prosaic business of organized crime, which there would be less "outrage" over than relatively small time bank robbers in the heartland,--always a good news story back then, and far more glamorous. Could the Lindbergh kidnapping have been the same kind of thing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2017 11:12:10 GMT -5
Two really good posts here. I think exploring how much planning really went on in advance for this kidnapping is worthwhile. As has been expressed, we do make assumptions in this case, sometimes more than we should.
I do believe there was preplanning for this crime. A whole year's worth seems like a lot of time. If you go back a year to 1931, it puts the Lindberghs and Charlie at the Princeton house on Cold Soil Road. Was there someone in the area who had been watching their comings and goings while they were on that farm? Did they notice that the Lindberghs were lax in providing any security for themselves and their child? Did this same person or persons also learn that the Lindberghs didn't guard their new house either, that, in fact, they let their watchman go in November of 1931. Perhaps thinking about a kidnapping turned to planning an actual one by late 1931.
I think the symbol on the nursery note really illustrates not only preplanning but that they intended to extort ransom money. They put emphasis on that symbol and those 3 holes in that first note. I do think when you read additional notes that they had to do some adjusting to their plan. Someone had to be added so that the ransom money could be secured, so enter John F. Condon.
I really think that someone masterminded this crime. There is more than one person involved as seen by the footprint evidence. Someone had to come up with this plan and they needed help to accomplish it. Someone had to be in charge to make sure the plan worked.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Jan 11, 2017 20:41:35 GMT -5
It may also be the case that the kidnappers were planning on "a" kidnapping for a very long time, but not necessarily the Lindbergh baby. There were lots of examples around the time period where kidnappers scoped out different targets. In Canada, for example, a kidnap gang tried to kidnap one of the Reichmann family in Montreal, but when that didn't pan out, kidnapped John Labatt from London, Ontario.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 12, 2017 0:19:15 GMT -5
True, Amy, and we forget,--or I do anyway, some of the time--just how short a period of time the Lindberghs had been living in their house. Indeed, they had probably been cased beforehand, their habits noted; the lax security in particular. The Lindberghs probably thought they were too far out in the boonies to be under any kind of threat, especially as CAL himself wanted to get away from the hurly-burly of the city he may have felt that Hopewell was far enough to keep intruders away. At the time this us understandable, considering especially the number of still unpaved roads, the (relative to today) paucity of main roads and, especially, highways. One of the many reasons I doubt Hauptmann as the lone kidnapper is the extreme difficulty, on such a dark and stormy night, of carrying out such an enterprise, which also raises the issue of why it was carried out in such unpleasant weather, and this is turn raises the issue of the crime being an inside job or having inside help; whether it had to be, due to all the careful planning, that particular night. Whoever was aiding/in league with the kidnappers was ready and prepared, as in "it's got to be tonight". This is actually, as I think about it, actually a very good reason to suspect inside help...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 12, 2017 6:17:10 GMT -5
Just a thought experiment here: could the note not be true? I've always suspected the actual note was "real" put part of the ruse. Since the child was taken away at 8PM, that gave whoever was in charge of staging the scene over 2 hours to do so. The note, written previously by those who were hired to take the child away, was never supposed to be "true." The $50,000, which was the exact sum of the Constance Extortion or the pricetag of Highfields, was never supposed to be collected. Sounds a lot like John's X-MAS bonus in the Ramsey case doesn't it? The idea for the sum came from someone inside the house. And who is the most likely candidate? It would have to be either Anne or Lindy and my money isn't on Anne. There's one school of thought that the child was meant to be taken away to be raised in an Institution in anonymity. I don't accept that because it leaves an open ended situation where every Tom, Dick, and Harry attempts to extort Lindbergh. It's the symbol which was designed to prevent this in my opinion but while it proves to weed them out, it never stops them. So I've come to the conclusion the child was meant to be killed and to be discovered in order to end that situation for Lindbergh. There is also a school of thought that the Lindberghs chose the location of their home so they could be near the Skillman Institute. While it's an interesting idea I don't believe it would be something Lindbergh would have ever agreed to. For something like that to occur, it would have had to be his idea, and a situation that doesn't seem to be in line with how he thinks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2017 10:07:20 GMT -5
I've always suspected the actual note was "real" put part of the ruse. Since the child was taken away at 8PM, that gave whoever was in charge of staging the scene over 2 hours to do so. The note, written previously by those who were hired to take the child away, was never supposed to be "true." The $50,000, which was the exact sum of the Constance Extortion or the pricetag of Highfields, was never supposed to be collected. The idea for the sum came from someone inside the house. And who is the most likely candidate? It would have to be either Anne or Lindy and my money isn't on Anne. I agree that for Lindbergh, that nursery note was supposed to be it. One and done. No more notes, no money collected, no John F. Condon, none of those things. Its why Lindbergh didn't bother opening the ransom note envelope. He didn't think he needed to, right? Keep the note and envelope fingerprint free just like that nursery. However, the nursery note tells a different tale. The people hired to do away with Charlie decided they wanted to extort that $50,000 dollars also. I believe this decision was made before the night of March 1. When you read the nursery note it is clear that more notes will be coming. It is the reason they added those 3 holes to the symbol signature. "Indication for all letters are singnature and 3 holds" The note says letters and the holes are how Lindbergh will be able to identify an authentic communication. The intent was there in that first note to extort that $50,000. They had Lindbergh over a barrel and they took advantage of it. While I believe that the Lindberghs and the Morrows had the means (financial and otherwise) to accomplish hiding Charlie successfully, I firmly believe that Lindbergh would not want to do that. Given his beliefs in eugenics, he would have privately planned a death instead. In your book, Dark Corners, it is clearly discernible that Lindbergh had the assistance of Betty Gow in accomplishing this "kidnapping". Can you comment on how CAL might have gotten Betty Gow to "cooperate" in this? Did he tell Betty Gow that he was going to have his son murdered and she was going to help him do it? I know that Betty Gow was no saint but we are talking murder of a child here. Or did he lead her to believe that Charlie was going away but nothing was going to happen to him? I know that CAL promised Betty protection. Do you think that was enough to get her to help him?
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 12, 2017 15:01:57 GMT -5
Thanks for responding, Michael. If Betty Gow was involved with Lindy in the kidnapping I can't help but think the way she was brought into the case was disingenuous (to put it mildly), as she must have been told something very different, as to the likely outcome of the abduction, from what actually happened.
Lindy must have told her a whale of a cock and bull story, and with the child later found dead there must have been some, as the saying goes, plausible deniability on Lindbergh's part as to how and why things went as they did with his son. Best guess on my part: there were others involved, and Betty knew this even as she may not have known exactly who they were, thus placing the death of the child in the shadows, as in "something went wrong" rather than "Lindy did it".
Along similar lines, I wonder when Violet Sharpe was hired. If it was Lindbergh himself who had been planning the crime for a while she'd have been a good person to have around, with her flapper personality, and lifestyle to match; to guess that there was some emotional instability at her core would not have been too much of a stretch. If she carried emotional baggage this would have been easy to discern from her former employer.
For this reason I think that Violet would have been a poor choice as someone to get involved in the case but a very good suspect once the deed was done. The more the police grilled her, the more likely she'd break down, with the good news being that she had nothing to offer. Her suicide was not, I imagine, something Lindbergh (or Betty Gow) could have anticipated.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 12, 2017 15:52:16 GMT -5
I've been busy with other things, alas, and absent from the boards here, and having just dropped by I had a thought, and it may be something someone else has already brought up or maybe even something I've mentioned, but I don't think so. I'll put it in the form of a question: could the ransom note found in CAL, Jr.'s room the night of the kidnapping not be true? By this I mean as to one particular issue, that of the kidnapping having been planned for a very long time. Special emphasis on time here. It seems to me that a good deal of what has been discussed regarding the LKC, here and elsewhere, has more or less assumed that the author of the note was telling the truth, maybe even bragging. Maybe. Or could it be that the note was written this way to suggest that much more careful planning, plotting and effort went into the crime than was in fact the case? Leaving aside who the perp was, I'm wondering if the crime had been planned for a VERY SHORT TIME, possibly a month or two, or even less. This would explain the (shall we say) clumsiness, or what appears to be clumsiness (or cluelessness, as the case may be), that abounds in the case in the days and weeks after the kidnapping, which includes, of course, the business of Condon, Cemetery John, the ransom negotiations; the whole nine yards. The reason why I'm raising this issue is that I believe that pondering the truth of the long time "declaration", as it were, is to throw a new light on the case. If the crime was planned and executed in a relatively short period this does away with the mastermind thesis, so to speak, whoever the purported mastermind may be, and calls into question conspiracy theories and the like; or, if one does believe there was an elaborate conspiracy, it asks which kind. The note, as I recall, reads rather like an amateur posing as a professional, puffing himself up so as to come across as a more powerful figure than he is (or they are, assuming that it's a gang). Yet I can't help wonder if the note was a deliberate faux naif plant put there to draw attention to itself and away from whoever actually committed the crime by the perp presenting himself as something very different from who is really is. There's no finger pointing here. That's not why I'm posting. More like issue raising. In other words, the crime could indeed have been in the planning stages for well over a year. I'm not saying it wasn't. Yet I get "impulse" vibes from the note and from many aspects of the LKC, as if someone simply decided to kidnap the baby within a relatively short period of time, did his homework well, succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. But then, that could have been the impression the author of the note sought to give. Just a thought experiment here: could the note not be true? Once the perps decided that they were "playing for keeps", the baby was gone (however it happened) and the ransom note asked for serious money, it would have been in the best interest of the ransom note writer to be as brief and as to the point as possible. The more unnecessary stuff he put into his note, the more he was giving law enforcement to try to profile him and find him. So in this case, there really was no reason to discuss the amount of time put in the planning. Now, because of the situation he was in, soon to become public enemy # 1, the writer probably knew that lying about unessential details, once they were included, would work to his benefit in evading authorities. Part of this could have been a disguise as being semi-literate in English, while at the same time possessing enough knowledge of German to fake the writing style that was used.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 12, 2017 18:16:07 GMT -5
I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the child found dead in the woods was the Lindbergh baby. Lots of debate about that. As I've posted before, there is an irresolvable discrepancy between the description of the overlapping toes on the right foot of the living Charlie given by Dr. Van Ingen in his letter to Mrs. Morrow (lateral two toes overlap) and the description of the overlapping toes on the right foot of the corpse given by Dr. Mitchell in his autopsy report (medial two toes overlap). Then, too, recall that Dr. Van Ingen said that the corpse was too badly composed for him make a definitive identification. The identification made by CAL Sr. was after a short glance and rather belated, and very possibly motivated only by a strong desire fore for closure, rather than based on objective findings.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 13, 2017 6:36:02 GMT -5
I respect what you're saying, Hurtelable, and there are, I agree, issues as to the identity of the badly decomposed body found in the woods. That the body was in such a bad state may indicate a deliberate attempt to fool Lindbergh and the authorities that the body was that of CAL, Jr.
One of the downsides for me of this line of reasoning is what strikes me as the extreme unlikelihood of finding a baby to match closely to the measurements and descriptions of CAL, Jr. Did someone adopt a child and then kill it? Or maybe there were "underground" organizations that sold, orphaned or alive, dead or abandoned children.
Nor should we, from our Millennial perspective, assume that this was near impossible, as the LKC was far closer to the 19th century than to our time; and the world worked very differently back then, as children were often mistreated or abandoned, and there may well have been a fair number of very young children who bore at least a passing resemblance available.
The notion that the body of the dead baby found in the woods was not that of CAL, Jr. throws off my general line of thinking of as regards the LKC. This doesn't by itself make it untrue, though it does, for many of us, muddy the waters. We cannot rule it out, however.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 12:03:53 GMT -5
Along similar lines, I wonder when Violet Sharpe was hired. Violet Sharp was hired in May 1930. She was working at Englewood only about 5 weeks when Charlie was born. I think Violet Sharp is one of the most misunderstood characters in this whole cast of people. I really don't think she was involved with the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 13, 2017 13:32:40 GMT -5
Thanks for that, Amy. I agree that Violet Sharpe was misunderstood, don't otherwise know much about her. It's sad that she's best remembered as the member of the household staff who committed suicide.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 13, 2017 20:21:25 GMT -5
In your book, Dark Corners, it is clearly discernible that Lindbergh had the assistance of Betty Gow in accomplishing this "kidnapping". Can you comment on how CAL might have gotten Betty Gow to "cooperate" in this? Did he tell Betty Gow that he was going to have his son murdered and she was going to help him do it? I know that Betty Gow was no saint but we are talking murder of a child here. Or did he lead her to believe that Charlie was going away but nothing was going to happen to him? I know that CAL promised Betty protection. Do you think that was enough to get her to help him? In considering under what circumstances Gow might be convinced, I think it's fair to assume she may have been lied to. I look at her relationship with Red and it's crystal clear she didn't feel the same way about him that he felt about her. So what was going on? You see, that's the type of girl she was. I am of the opinion she would have done anything Lindbergh wanted her to do.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 13, 2017 22:39:18 GMT -5
Dave talked with Betty on the phone in 1983. She was adamant that she and Violet had nothing to do with the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 13, 2017 23:46:57 GMT -5
I would agree with her answer. As her name came up I love the part in Dark Corners about the sighting of Sharp in the car. Awesome. -
I agree with Amy that Sharp most likely had nothing to do with the kidnapping. The fact she was evasive in her interviews have made her easy prey among many of the writers.
The part that is most interesting though is when she was in the hospital and she was so concerned what she might have said in her sleep or under . It gives me concern although not as a participant in the kidnapping she might have thought she knew something. Who knows as close as she was to Betty maybe Betty said something disturbing to her. One way or another she went bananas and its hard to believe it was just because of another interview.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 14, 2017 1:44:27 GMT -5
From what I remember reading about Violet Sharpe she appeared to have what might now be called a personality disorder (I hate that term, btw), most likely Borderline Personality Disorder, but then she was young and had the LKC not happened would probably have grown out of it. I've known a few like that, and they can and do get better with or without therapy. Sadly, luck can play a role one way or another, from meeting the right guy to being involved, however tangentially, in the Crime Of the Century. Violet Sharpe was extremely unfortunate in this, and I suppose, given the sheer number of people who were suspects in the case one of them was bound to go off the deep end. In Violet's case her youth was likely a factor, as we all, those of us middle aged and older, can remember, things can get pretty wild when we're in our twenties, and some of us don't get a second act.
The aforementioned is arguably somewhat off topic but it's a reminder, too, that the LKC revolves around the death of a very young person who never got a chance to finish his first act.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 14, 2017 6:15:23 GMT -5
A while back Michael and I were considering that Violet and her sister might be drama queens and this kind of stuff may happen to them all the time. Granted suicide would be the ultimate drama, but she was involved in a big case now then too.
What do you think about that John - a possibility?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2017 14:21:19 GMT -5
I would agree with her answer. As her name came up I love the part in Dark Corners about the sighting of Sharp in the car. Awesome. - This is the other aspect of the Larue car sighting that keeps me interested in it. That license plate connecting to a former Morrow employee being my primary interest. I am of the opinion also that Betty Gow could have confided in Violet something about what happened with Charlie and, Betty, being under the belief that Charlie was going to be ok, might have tried to privately reassure Violet about Charlie. Then when Charlie turns up dead in the woods of Mt. Rose, Violet becomes emotionally distressed. This wasn't how it was supposed to turn out for Charlie. Of all the Morrow servants, only Violet Sharp was brought to Highfields to be questioned. Any thoughts on why she was singled out this way?
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 15, 2017 2:20:27 GMT -5
Any way of finding who the Morrow employee was? Sharp was in Englewood that morning so its hard to tag her on to the sighting.
It was mentioned and hinted that Violet Sharp was taken to the Highfields so her room in Englewood should be searched. (jones-Murder of Justice)
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Jan 15, 2017 10:48:05 GMT -5
another thought that just came to me; obviously the notes were written (or at least some of them) by Hauptmann. there has been discussion about it looking like someone trying to conceal their handwriting. there is a Sherlock Holmes story where Sherlock deduces that a last will & testament was written on a train, judging by the erratic handwriting (his point was the will was written impulsively while traveling). i wonder if something similar could apply to the first note. could the kidnappers have had a general plan in place for a while but needed some opportunity, like the family staying over that night, as a trigger to put the plan in motion? could Hauptmann have written the notes in the car on the way there? like "great, we have this plan...just waiting for the right time....holy crap! they are spending the night! let's get moving!..." (corny but you get the idea). just thinking out loud here.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 15, 2017 16:52:22 GMT -5
Not all that obvious to me. Recall that when Hauptmann was arrested, he was given a handwriting test by the NYPD to see if his handwriting was the same as on the ransom notes. The comparison was made by the Osborns, the most famous handwriting experts of their time. Their first impression was no, Hauptmann did NOT write the the ransom notes. Then they reversed course - perhaps under pressure by the police who were paying them for their work? - after they heard that a large chunk of ransom money was stashed in Hauptmann's garage.
Of course, ransom money in the garage should not be a determinative factor as to whether or not Hauptmann really did write any of the ransom notes. That should be based on an objective handwriting comparison only.
BTW, aside from the theory that Hauptmann was indeed the author of the nursery note, there is absolutely no credible evidence to place him at or near Highfields near the time of the purported kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Jan 15, 2017 18:06:38 GMT -5
i agree, hurtelable, that there is no evidence that BRH was at Highfields that night. but unless you don't believe the wood (& other) evidence, Richard is in on the crime.
but to my admittedly non-expert eyes the ransom notes look very much like Hauptmanns writing, even his pre-arrest sample (the letter he wrote about the man he hit with his car). and yes, the Osborn's changed their tune once the hoard of ransom money was found. but even today, 80-some years after this case handwriting & questioned document science has yet to become infallible. experts can be found to support both sides of many cases (see JonBenet Ramsey case for one modern example). paper, ink, analysis has come a long way but forensic graphology is still open to interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 16, 2017 2:42:54 GMT -5
I think it's unlikely, Jack, but who knows? The LKC seems to be loaded with drama queens (male as well as female ), two more probably wouldn't make much difference one way or the other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 11:02:00 GMT -5
Any way of finding who the Morrow employee was? Sharp was in Englewood that morning so its hard to tag her on to the sighting. It was mentioned and hinted that Violet Sharp was taken to the Highfields so her room in Englewood should be searched. (jones-Murder of Justice) In Michael's book, Dark Corners, page 5, the police traced the license number to a "former Secretary of Dwight Morrow." Dwight Morrow had a personal secretary (Morrow's first one)from 1911 until 1914 by the name of George Foley. Mr. Foley was in Bergen County at the time of the kidnapping so perhaps he was the man who was questioned about the license plate. The other thing about LaRue's car sighting is his description of that car in 1932. He noted that the car was a Dodge with wire wheels and a trunk rack on the back. Hauptmann's car had wire wheels and he did carry a trunk on the back of his car. LaRue mentions the woman occupant resembled a picture of Violet Sharp he had seen. The police did search to see if there was a connection between Violet Sharp and Hauptmann. Maybe they should have been looking for a connection between Hauptmann and Edna(Emily) Sharp instead. Good point about the police searching Violet's room while she was at Highfields for an interview. This is when the taxi cab card was uncovered in Violet's things.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 18, 2017 12:06:29 GMT -5
I like the thought of the Edna/Violet point. I think even some attachment of a photo or two to some publications have been mis attached with them. Keep in mind Violet's health was not best here. She lost a lot of weight and its quite possible what Violet looked at one time may be hard to match to a photo of another time.
if the license plate has some connection to Foley is there anything else interesting about him? As Michael seemingly points its odd that the plate number is written down and of all the matches in the world it connects to Lindbergh/Morrow circle. So if it is an error what is odds of that ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 18:00:56 GMT -5
if the license plate has some connection to Foley is there anything else interesting about him? As Michael seemingly points its odd that the plate number is written down and of all the matches in the world it connects to Lindbergh/Morrow circle. So if it is an error what is odds of that ? I don't think an error was made concerning that plate number. The plate traced back to a former Morrow employee. The reason Foley's name came up as a possible source for that plate was because this former employee had at one time been a secretary for Dwight Morrow. George Foley was Dwight's first secretary. Once Morrow began working with J.P. Morgan, they had secretaries for Morrow to use, one being Arthur Springer. I have not uncovered anything of special interest about Foley. He did move to New York City in 1915 but returned to the Bergen County NJ area by 1925. In 1932 he was living in the Hackensack NJ area. He was employed as a church sexton at the time.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Jan 21, 2017 10:16:24 GMT -5
Amy, the suggestion that Lindbergh did not open the note because he already new what was in it other than that he truly believed it was a ransom note, has never satisfied me. Hypothetically, if he had have opened the note, what do you think he would have expected to see, given the supposition he had already paid persons unknown handsomely to kidnap and murder his son? In the case of a conspiracy that he was part of, would he not have immediately opened it to confirm any pre-arrangements that would have included the presence of a note in the nursery, thereby keeping the ruse intact by acting the part of a concerned parent? Instead, he leaves it alone and tells no one to touch it, basically expressing the possibility that fingerprints might be raised, a process that might well lead to one of his co-conspirators. He asks Whateley to call the police, a move that he knew would bring law enforcement, the press and subsequently the world to his doorstep. Are these the actions of a man who so jealously guarded his and his family's privacy, especially the latter? In the genre of keeping the truth shifting to support a lie, would these two major actions not have been an epic fail on his part, and something that would have unnecessarily run a huge risk of unraveling everything that had been so deliberately planned?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2017 0:26:54 GMT -5
Amy, the suggestion that Lindbergh did not open the note because he already new what was in it other than that he truly believed it was a ransom note, has never satisfied me. I understand this Joe. I have never been satisfied with anything I have read that excuses Lindbergh from opening that note if he really was a concerned father who finds his son missing at 10 p.m. at night. My position is that this whole nursery is a staged scene. The idea is to give the appearance that a kidnapping has occurred but care was taken not to provide any traceable evidence for the police to find in that room. The room is wiped down so no fingerprints are found from anyone. The ransom note was to be of this same condition. No fingerprints. That is why no one is to touch it. A few mud smudges were placed at the window area with the faulty shutter to give the appearance that an outsider must have used this particular window to commit the kidnapping. Its all staging to look like an outside job and not an inside one. Calling the police was always part of the plan for Lindbergh. Charlie was not going to be around anymore. A kidnapping covers the sudden disappearance of the child and creates sympathy for Lindbergh not suspicion. Lindbergh would use the newspapers when he felt he needed them. This was one of those times.
|
|