|
Post by scathma on Apr 19, 2018 15:02:18 GMT -5
That does look like quite a step from ground level to the patio. Maybe the plan was to ultimately have a paved path from the front of the house to the patio and the placement of a block of granite or some kind of step that would have made for easier access. Of course after "that Jersey business" the property's finishing touches were left to the State of New Jersey as new owners to carry out. Today, there is no such path and the patio is enclosed as additional living space for the residents www.nj.gov/lps/jjc/residential_comm_doves_hm.html
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 20, 2018 9:22:47 GMT -5
I keep my responses brief because nobody is saying nothing new. a lot of bad detectives on this board
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Apr 20, 2018 10:27:34 GMT -5
The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn - Alvin Toffler
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 20, 2018 11:17:02 GMT -5
It's nice to see long-forgotten or overlooked information and photos, etc., but the well-worn theory that this was a fake kidnapping, is getting only weaker all the time here. Great energy.. not so great conclusions. It's an old house of cards that keeps wanting to fall over under it's own weight, but for these same conclusions that continually appear to keep it propped up somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2018 11:20:22 GMT -5
Do you happen to have copies of these two female prints? I've never seen them. There are tons of negatives at the Archives though so they may be among them. Honestly I never looked closely at those negatives. this is crazy that never happened And yet that is exactly what Lindbergh considered (staff member & front door). It's why he believed Curtis. Since Lindbergh was in that house when this supposedly happened then you are calling him crazy. But then we later learn, from Lindbergh himself, the front door would have made noise. So why believe it originally? You see Joe, "we" don't need to "prop" it up - the actual facts do that for us. Let's take a closer look at this shall we? The front door sticks. Lindbergh calls to have it fixed the day before the crime, but does not call to have those shutters fixed. Just this alone is suspicious. Then take his stupid explanation: " The house was too new." (TDC V1 p38) Too new for the shutters but not for the door. Then he goes on to testify that the front door would stick so it was unlikely it was used without being heard. Yet, that is exactly what he believed almost immediately after the crime. It's in the documentation that Lindbergh believed the front door was used (and so did police). (TDC V1 p54) So he is at odds with - HIMSELF. And this is just one little tiny piece of the puzzle that guys like Steve like to sweep under the rug.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Apr 20, 2018 14:21:15 GMT -5
The front door sticks. Lindbergh calls to have it fixed the day before the crime, but does not call to have those shutters fixed. Just this alone is suspicious. Then take his stupid explanation: " The house was too new." (TDC V1 p38) Too new for the shutters but not for the door. I agree with you. Mrs. Morrow was the first to report that the shutters were warped and would not lock in October 1931. 4 months before the kidnapping! And according to Anne and Elsie, the shutters were shut twice a day on Saturday and twice a day Sunday (once in the afternoon for Charlie's nap and then around 7-7:30 for the night) when they stayed over for the weekend. If my math is correct, that mean the southeast window shutters were closed and opened approximately 68 times during those 4 months (17 weekend sleepovers x 4 = 68). The southeast shutters stick 68 times and CAL does nothing about it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2018 17:16:19 GMT -5
If my math is correct, that mean the southeast window shutters were closed and opened approximately 68 times during those 4 months (17 weekend sleepovers x 4 = 68). The southeast shutters stick 68 times and CAL does nothing about it? But Wayne... the house was just " too new" to have them fixed. What a joke! I bring up Lindbergh's behavior a little more in V2. Not a lot but just enough to remind everyone something wasn't right with him. Anyway, I didn't mean to disrupt the flow of the discussion so back to it.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 21, 2018 4:24:58 GMT -5
The carpenter who built the place said "to new," they weren't warped and didn't stick. Is there any record of the police even checking them?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 21, 2018 7:15:40 GMT -5
The carpenter who built the place said "to new," they weren't warped and didn't stick. Is there any record of the police even checking them? No it wasn't. Reilly asked Lindbergh why he did not call to have them fixed. He said because the house was " too new." Reilly didn't know that Lindbergh had called about the door only the day before the crime and I would hope he would have pursued that absurd reply if he had. He should have regardless. Watson was the contractor and he according to him on March 2nd those shutters were not warped when he left the site, and if they were warped it would have been discovered at that time. Once police went to interview Watson there is nothing in their report that mentions this issue. So if one accepts everything in the report it means they did not ask him and/or it did not come up. Those shutters were observed by numerous Cops, and Rosner saw Schwarzkopf remove them. I assume to be examined. Unfortunately they crashed to the ground, and once picked up were never seen again. They are not at the NJSP Archives, and there is no report about them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2018 8:34:04 GMT -5
Those shutters were observed by numerous Cops, and Rosner saw Schwarzkopf remove them. I assume to be examined. Unfortunately they crashed to the ground, and once picked up were never seen again. They are not at the NJSP Archives, and there is no report about them. It is amazing how evidence can go MIA in this case. The fact that these shutters were unaccounted for really calls into question whether they were as warped as was being claimed by Anne, Betty Gow and Mrs. Morrow. No shutters, no reports, no evidence to dispute the warping claim. So, I am going to go out on a limb (nothing new for me) and post a picture I found on a Spanish web page that ran a news story about the Lindbergh case in 2011. They had a picture of the nursery window in that story. I don't know when the picture was taken but it appears that it was sometime after the case would have been officially closed. The white wash on the house has been wearing off so that some of the field stone is visible. This picture shows what is supposed to be the nursery window with shutters now attached to it. I don't know if somehow the missing shutters could have been put back on or if these are replacement shutters that Lindbergh might have ordered before turning the house over to the state of NJ. This pair looks just like the pair that was on the window in March 1932. I have been trying to find pictures of the outside of the house between 1937 and 1941 to try to verify this picture in some way. At some point in the history of this house, all the shutters were removed from the windows. That I do know. Here is the picture. Here is a link to the Spanish story that the picture is from: www.taringa.net/posts/imagenes/20117586/El-extrano-secuestro-del-bebe-Lindbergh.html
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 21, 2018 14:27:28 GMT -5
Just a very good example of the bumbling NJSP. Perhaps the most important evidence in the case from the home, but for the note, mishandled and disappearing. If CAL did it, perhaps he paid Col. Schwartzscrewup to disappear the shutters.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Apr 21, 2018 18:36:35 GMT -5
Note the Spanish site's incorrect captioning for the picture of Anna and Manfred as Betty and CALjr
|
|
geld
Trooper
Posts: 43
|
Post by geld on Apr 22, 2018 13:10:04 GMT -5
See my post of Jan.8,2018 in GENERAL DISCUSSION , page 23, under SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS.
P.S.: JACK7 I am with your 85% in your frustrations with some of the postings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2018 16:28:03 GMT -5
I have been trying to find pictures of the outside of the house between 1937 and 1941 to try to verify this picture in some way. At some point in the history of this house, all the shutters were removed from the windows. That I do know. So I have been doing some checking around to see if I could confirm that the nursery room did end up being re-shuttered. The link I am going to post here has some letters by Lindbergh regarding the changing of hands of High Fields to the state of New Jersey. A picture of the house showing the east (nursery) side of the house is included with these letters. When looking at the dates on the High Fields letters, my guess is the picture shows the house probably 8 to 10 years after the kidnapping. There is a nice lawn and lovely trees present. Oh, and shutters on the nursery window. I guess what we may never know is whether these are the shutters that Schwarzkopf had removed or if a pair of replacement shutters were made. Until something else turns up, I guess we will just have to decide for ourselves if they are the original (somehow found) or replacement shutters. The picture from the Spanish story that I posted earlier in this thread must have been taken years later when the whitewash had started wearing away and upkeep of the exterior was not being well maintained. www.historydocs.com/viewimage.asp?RecNum=&StockNo=2184&ImageCount=1&ViewImage=1
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 22, 2018 17:17:01 GMT -5
I have been trying to find pictures of the outside of the house between 1937 and 1941 to try to verify this picture in some way. At some point in the history of this house, all the shutters were removed from the windows. That I do know. So I have been doing some checking around to see if I could confirm that the nursery room did end up being re-shuttered. The link I am going to post here has some letters by Lindbergh regarding the changing of hands of High Fields to the state of New Jersey. A picture of the house showing the east (nursery) side of the house is included with these letters. When looking at the dates on the High Fields letters, my guess is the picture shows the house probably 8 to 10 years after the kidnapping. There is a nice lawn and lovely trees present. Oh, and shutters on the nursery window. I guess what we may never know is whether these are the shutters that Schwarzkopf had removed or if a pair of replacement shutters were made. Until something else turns up, I guess we will just have to decide for ourselves if they are the original (somehow found) or replacement shutters. The picture from the Spanish story that I posted earlier in this thread must have been taken years later when the whitewash had started wearing away and upkeep of the exterior was not being well maintained. www.historydocs.com/viewimage.asp?RecNum=&StockNo=2184&ImageCount=1&ViewImage=1Amy, if you don't think that the purported kidnappers used the ladder (that is, you think that the ladder was put on the property merely as a prop to mislead investigators), the shutters would in all likelihood NOT be relevant to the case. And even if you think the ladder were used, the subsequent history of when shutters may have been taken away or added would not furnish "bombshell" clues as to the precise MO of the crime. BTW, looking at Lindbergh's Highfields letters from 1940 that you posted, you have to acknowledge that, though the man had serious character flaws, his writing style and content indicates a high level of intelligence and skill with the English language. His English teachers would have given him As. Of course, that doesn't by itself rule him out as a perp in this case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2018 18:33:47 GMT -5
Amy, if you don't think that the purported kidnappers used the ladder (that is, you think that the ladder was put on the property merely as a prop to mislead investigators), the shutters would in all likelihood NOT be relevant to the case. And even if you think the ladder were used, the subsequent history of when shutters may have been taken away or added would not furnish "bombshell" clues as to the precise MO of the crime. Just for the record, I am not trying to furnish any "bombshell" clue. That would only be possible if it could be proven that the shutters that went back onto the nursery window had been the original ones that were present when the crime occurred. The nursery window shutters were evidence. Just like the footprints found at the scene and the ladder and the chisel. They are a part of the narrative of this kidnapping crime. According to the "official" story, the kidnapper gained access to the nursery because Betty Gow and Anne Lindbergh claimed that pair of shutters was warped and they could not securely lock them. That makes those shutters very relevant to the crime. Yet this evidence disappears! When evidence goes missing during an active investigation, there must be a problem with that piece of evidence. It leaves me wondering if those shutters were actually warped at all. Upon examination and no warping was found, meaning it would have been possible to lock that pair, where does that leave the claims of Betty Gow and Anne Lindbergh?? Its better that those two shutters (plus paperwork) just go missing. That unsecured window is what made the kidnapping possible, right? There can be no challenge to that; not in March of 1932 and certainly not in January of 1935. Reilly did ask Lindbergh during cross examination about those shutters.(TDC, Chapter 4, page 38) "The house was too new" was what Lindbergh offered as an excuse. Maybe CAL never called because there really wasn't anything wrong with the shutters to begin with. That original pair of shutters went somewhere, Hurt. Just maybe they went back on that house a few years later when it didn't matter anymore...or maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 23, 2018 8:43:30 GMT -5
Amy, if you don't think that the purported kidnappers used the ladder (that is, you think that the ladder was put on the property merely as a prop to mislead investigators), the shutters would in all likelihood NOT be relevant to the case. And even if you think the ladder were used, the subsequent history of when shutters may have been taken away or added would not furnish "bombshell" clues as to the precise MO of the crime. Just for the record, I am not trying to furnish any "bombshell" clue. That would only be possible if it could be proven that the shutters that went back onto the nursery window had been the original ones that were present when the crime occurred. The nursery window shutters were evidence. Just like the footprints found at the scene and the ladder and the chisel. They are a part of the narrative of this kidnapping crime. According to the "official" story, the kidnapper gained access to the nursery because Betty Gow and Anne Lindbergh claimed that pair of shutters was warped and they could not securely lock them. That makes those shutters very relevant to the crime. Yet this evidence disappears! When evidence goes missing during an active investigation, there must be a problem with that piece of evidence. It leaves me wondering if those shutters were actually warped at all. Upon examination and no warping was found, meaning it would have been possible to lock that pair, where does that leave the claims of Betty Gow and Anne Lindbergh?? Its better that those two shutters (plus paperwork) just go missing. That unsecured window is what made the kidnapping possible, right? There can be no challenge to that; not in March of 1932 and certainly not in January of 1935. Reilly did ask Lindbergh during cross examination about those shutters.(TDC, Chapter 4, page 38) "The house was too new" was what Lindbergh offered as an excuse. Maybe CAL never called because there really wasn't anything wrong with the shutters to begin with. That original pair of shutters went somewhere, Hurt. Just maybe they went back on that house a few years later when it didn't matter anymore...or maybe not. Amy, I see your point. The purported "warped shutters" seemed to have been an important element in the Wilentz/prosecution theory. So what we have here is another one the many defense errors in the trial. Reilly and company neglected to bring out the fact that the shutters were not present amongst the physical evidence to be seen by the jury in the courtroom. He could have demanded, "Where are those shutters?" But, given the general atmosphere of that place and that time, any insinuation of perjury or chicanery on the part of the prosecution, law enforcement, or the prosecution witnesses may have backfired. Yet it might have been the only logical approach the defense could have taken on that issue.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2018 9:55:30 GMT -5
Reilly and company neglected to bring out the fact that the shutters were not present amongst the physical evidence to be seen by the jury in the courtroom. He could have demanded, "Where are those shutters?" But, given the general atmosphere of that place and that time, any insinuation of perjury or chicanery on the part of the prosecution, law enforcement, or the prosecution witnesses may have backfired. Yet it might have been the only logical approach the defense could have taken on that issue. I think its really hard to tell from everything we actually do know. Its easy to assume the shutters were "buried" or "hidden" but their absence doesn't mean that's what happened. They were removed, and they fell to the ground. It could be (just as Jack suggested) "bungling" meaning they were accidentally destroyed as they fell to the ground below. Or it could just be nothing was learned from them, they went into a crate somewhere waiting to be discovered? Or perhaps "vanished" but more like how the chisel did? Instead of picking just one I say consider all options. Same with the "warpage" issue. Maybe they were maybe they weren't. But I think its a mistake to suggest nothing was wrong because I am certain police could see whether or not they would have locked. If they would have I believe that fact would have been noted - somewhere - but the fact is Inspector Walsh said these shutters did not lock because they were warped in the May 18th conference. With this in mind there had to be something wrong with them. Does that make Watson wrong? Well, perhaps they were fine before he left and a problem developed after? Kevin once suggested that he believed someone may have done something to them at sometime to prepare for the crime. All speculation without the shutters themselves but again, I think all scenarios should be considered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 10:14:46 GMT -5
All speculation without the shutters themselves but again, I think all scenarios should be considered. Michael, when did Schwarzkopf have the shutters removed? You mention Walsh saying there was something wrong with the shutters. When did Walsh inspect those shutters to see a genuine problem with them or is he just repeating the official position on those shutters at that meeting? I agree that all options should be considered. So why isn't there any notes or paperwork about these shutters? If they did, indeed get damaged when being removed, why isn't that noted somewhere and why should that cause them to go MIA?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 23, 2018 11:02:58 GMT -5
Lindbergh had very little interest in Curtis prior to April 2, 1932 and the few days following period, when CJ failed to deliver. I wouldn't say Lindbergh believed Curtis, certainly not in the same way he believed he was dealing with the real kidnapper(s) through Condon.. more like he had nothing to lose by considering his story a ray of hope. I'm not sure what you mean by the "actual facts do that for us" given your example.. it's anything but conclusive evidence. Now a question for you. If Curtis is putting forth the theory of an inside connection, why do you think Lindbergh whom you obviously believe was instrumental in the elimination of his own son through just this sort of scheme, would even entertain the possibilities Curtis with his claim of an inside connection, represented, rather than distancing himself outright for his own personal safety?
Was Lindbergh's call to have the front door attended to, suspicious, or a coincidence? You previously termed Lindbergh's approach as a "methodical method." So this is methodical in your mind? Attempting to remedy the potential "fly in the ointment" for such a critical element of a plan to remove your son through the front door, and doing it the day before the deed was to be done? What's the next move when you can't get immediate service? Do it yourself? Make a demanding call to the builder? Cancel the faux kidnapping? No, he does nothing. Because in reality, it has nothing to do with what took place the next day in the nursery. At odds with himself? Perhaps. Who hasn't been at some point, during the convoluted process of trying to problem-solve situations in our lives that don't even have to be complex? Holding such a basic human trait, or weakness if you like, as this, like a suggestive sword over this guy's head almost sounds desperate. Your position is essentially rooted in innuendo and works only within very limited confines here. And yes, there are many "tiny pieces of the puzzle" not unlike the above, but that doesn't necessarily make them all worthy of having collaborative value, does it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2018 18:33:09 GMT -5
Michael, when did Schwarzkopf have the shutters removed? You mention Walsh saying there was something wrong with the shutters. When did Walsh inspect those shutters to see a genuine problem with them or is he just repeating the official position on those shutters at that meeting? I am not exactly sure about either. On Walsh I'm sure he believed it or he wouldn't have said it. My only question is whether or not the term "warp" was kind of a default explanation for why they did not bolt. About when Schwarzkopf removed the shutters it "appears" it was after Bitz & Spitale came on scene and I'd even be willing to say after Rosner's meeting with Madden. We see from the photographs they were making an investigation despite the fact there is not a specific report on those shutters. They re-enacted the climb, and took photos of the shutters when opened, and took photos of them when closed. So for me its a real stretch to suggest no one checked to see if they could be bolted or not. We know, for example, that Sweeney removed the dirt from the top of the bottom shutter on March 3rd because that IS in Kelly's Report. So any picture with that mud on top of that shutter can give us some information. Rosner wrote: "A few minutes later he started to removed the shutters, and after dropping one of them in the mud a kindly trooper decided to help him out, picked up the shutter for him and asked Col. Schwarzkopf what to do with it, and the Colonel instructed him to rush it to Lieutenant Kelly to be fingerprinted. Of course, this being several days after the kidnapping, and with the shutter covered with red clay, it was an ideal time to fingerprint it." This is also proof (for me at least) that the condition under that window was muddy. I agree that all options should be considered. So why isn't there any notes or paperwork about these shutters? If they did, indeed get damaged when being removed, why isn't that noted somewhere and why should that cause them to go MIA? Its so hard to say. It could be because it was such a blunder that it (the specific situation) was simply ignored. It could be in the teletypes and I missed it. It could also be that not everything that ever existed resides at the NJSP Archives. For example, there is mentioned some information as coming from Banks about Sharp in some reports but no specific report which records that interview with Banks about it. Know what I mean? So there's no doubt in my mind it existed at one point in time but its not there now. Another example could be shown by pointing to Wendelin. That information can be found tucked in Wyckoff's statement, and the exact timing in Keaten's pocket notepad. So why didn't Keaten make a report about this? Seems to me he probably did but there isn't one currently there now.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 24, 2018 3:23:59 GMT -5
Thanks Geld. This is such old stuff that most of it should havebeen/was investigated on day 1. What keeps it alive is the goofy speculation on this site. Hey we could say that J. Edgar Hoover did it because CAL found out he was a TV and who could now say differently. Why offer any proof - people on here will accept just about anything.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 24, 2018 11:19:42 GMT -5
Lindbergh had very little interest in Curtis prior to April 2, 1932 and the few days following period, when CJ failed to deliver. I wouldn't say Lindbergh believed Curtis, certainly not in the same way he believed he was dealing with the real kidnapper(s) through Condon.. more like he had nothing to lose by considering his story a ray of hope. I'm not sure what you mean by the "actual facts do that for us" given your example.. it's anything but conclusive evidence. Now a question for you. If Curtis is putting forth the theory of an inside connection, why do you think Lindbergh whom you obviously believe was instrumental in the elimination of his own son through just this sort of scheme, would even entertain the possibilities Curtis with his claim of an inside connection, represented, rather than distancing himself outright for his own personal safety? I wouldn't say "very little." There were meetings in March. I would say he was certain that Condon was dealing with at least some of those who were involved due to the symbol. You seem to be forgetting that thousands of people claimed to be in touch with the Kidnappers. What would be Lindbergh's motive to entertain Curtis? What did he say? Well, a staff member was involved, and the front door was used. Both should have been disqualifiers since it was Lindbergh who history records had absolute trust in his staff, and the fact he knew that door would not make a great choice because of its condition? So one could take a look at this ..... or one could shrug it off. I don't get your question. If Curtis is giving him this information then its coming from someone "in the know." The idea is to bring this to a close and not distance himself. He distanced himself from all of the others who made false claims but entertained any he believed. The ransom was an extortion. No matter how one looks at it that's what it was. Is it for the child or for something else? Doesn't matter does it? Was Lindbergh's call to have the front door attended to, suspicious, or a coincidence? You previously termed Lindbergh's approach as a "methodical method." So this is methodical in your mind? Attempting to remedy the potential "fly in the ointment" for such a critical element of a plan to remove your son through the front door, and doing it the day before the deed was to be done? What's the next move when you can't get immediate service? Do it yourself? Make a demanding call to the builder? Cancel the faux kidnapping? No, he does nothing. Because in reality, it has nothing to do with what took place the next day in the nursery. At odds with himself? Perhaps. Who hasn't been at some point, during the convoluted process of trying to problem-solve situations in our lives that don't even have to be complex? Holding such a basic human trait, or weakness if you like, as this, like a suggestive sword over this guy's head almost sounds desperate. Your position is essentially rooted in innuendo and works only within very limited confines here. And yes, there are many "tiny pieces of the puzzle" not unlike the above, but that doesn't necessarily make them all worthy of having collaborative value, does it? That's a question for anyone doing research to decide - or not. Perhaps its open and will remain until more is learned. Since there were a million "coincidences" that would have had to occur for the Lone-Wolf people what's one more added to that pile? Lindbergh wasn't exactly predictable. A perfect example is that he had the alibi but couldn't stay away from the house. If he's involved it makes sense that his overwhelming need to control what was going on took over. One must also consider his ego. Next, we know less about the door than we do about the shutters. So when did that door begin to stick? You don't know do you? Was it a gradual problem that became worse that weekend? Still don't know? But we know those shutters were screwed up for a while because of the documentation. What we do know is that Lindbergh originally believed the front door was used during the early stages of the investigation. However by the time he testified in Flemington that the door "stuck" so it wouldn't have been used. Contradictions like this are suspicious. Next, he made a call to have that door fixed the day before the crime. That is suspicious most especially because he's blowing off the only other issue with the house. And that is a BIG one in light of the crime isn't it? One which would have prevented a real kidnapping, or needed to be defective for a staged one. But yet the house was " too new." So I guess he would wait until the house was older? Maybe six months? A year? But it wasn't "too new" for a sticky door? Who calls to have one defect fixed on a new home when both fixes are needed? Nobody Joe. Next, why didn't he call from home or have Whateley call? You see, if it wasn't for the Wendel investigation I wouldn't have even known he called at all. Perhaps that was the point? I am quite sure there were more calls made from Lindbergh during this time outside of the home that we still don't know about... this proves the likelihood it doesn't it?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 29, 2018 17:08:13 GMT -5
There were meetings with Curtis and Lindbergh in March relative to Curtis’ claims, but I do believe you’re overstating their importance at that time. The only reason Lindbergh even entertained Curtis prior to April 3 was because the latter had managed to fool Burridge and Dobson-Peacock into lobbying Lindbergh for his false claims and by doing so, managed to "jump the queue" and land himself inside Lindbergh’s door. There's a big difference within these two time frames, in terms of Lindbergh's interest level.
My question asks, why would Lindbergh align himself with Curtis for over a month, if Lindbergh had had any thing to do with the disappearance of his son, considering possibilities like staff member participation and the front door along the way? I believe Lindbergh only did so because he had nothing to do with the kidnapping of his own son, and wanted to hear Curtis out, based upon his perceived importance of Burridge and Dobson-Peacock willing to become involved, and in the event some of the information coming to Curtis was incorrect. Are you suggesting here that one of the staff may have been directly involved, that Lindbergh had no knowledge of this, and therefore he was actively entertaining Curtis’ claims to root out the truth within his own household?
I don't know all the answers to your questions, but will offer this. First of all, are you referring to him blowing off the NYU dinner in favor of coming home early to supervise the removal of CALjr? What do you feel he's attempting to control here, by arriving home at 8:25 pm, when according to Ellis Parker's position which you seem to subscribe to, he's already about a half hour late? I don't know when that front door began to stick, but if I were planning to use it as a fake kidnapping exit route no matter how fundamentally absurd that sounds, I'd be calling the builder to come and fix it a lot sooner than the day before "the deed."
The shutters that wouldn't bolt. Yes, it is a big deal in light of what happened that night, viewed exclusively in the spirit of 20/20 hindsight, or if you prefer, tailor-made for a fake kidnapping. But let's add a bit of perspective here. I'm wondering if you know what the household routine might have been while the Lindberghs rented White Cloud Farm in Lawrenceville for over a year, while High Fields was being built. Just how secure would that house have been on any given weekend night that the Lindberghs stayed there? It's clear nothing happened to the baby during that time, and I think that in itself, speaks volumes about the actual motivations behind the Lindberghs' decision to settle in the area, and the general comfort level they perhaps naively, but nevertheless, did develop by not wanting to have to build a fortress against intruders. As for his explanation at the trial, I'd say he probably realized after the fact, the gravity of not having acted on fixing the problem shutter much earlier, but that he was attempting to minimize any blame against himself or anyone else in the house.
Your final point about Lindbergh's calls from outside the house regarding home repairs. I'd suggest he was probably trying to make the best use of any spare time he might have had during the course of a business day while he was on the road and away from the house, during normal business hours.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 29, 2018 21:20:08 GMT -5
There were meetings with Curtis and Lindbergh in March relative to Curtis’ claims, but I do believe you’re overstating their importance at that time. The only reason Lindbergh even entertained Curtis prior to April 3 was because the latter had managed to fool Burridge and Dobson-Peacock into lobbying Lindbergh for his false claims and by doing so, managed to "jump the queue" and land himself inside Lindbergh’s door. There's a big difference within these two time frames, in terms of Lindbergh's interest level. I have to disagree that I am overstating the importance. Like I said, there were many accounts for him to entertain. Curtis had no symbol so there was a perfect reason to say "thanks for your interest" and move on. But that did not happen. As you know there were plenty of people who Lindbergh had trust in who suggested many things that he did not embrace. Furthermore, don't forget there was also a meeting with Peacock - and this is occurring when he's dealing with those who left the symbol. So what's the reason? It can only be the story Curtis gave. There was something there that led Lindbergh to believe Curtis was in touch with someone who actually knew something. There's no way around this. I bring up a little more about Curtis in V2... My question asks, why would Lindbergh align himself with Curtis for over a month, if Lindbergh had had any thing to do with the disappearance of his son, considering possibilities like staff member participation and the front door along the way? I believe Lindbergh only did so because he had nothing to do with the kidnapping of his own son, and wanted to hear Curtis out, based upon his perceived importance of Burridge and Dobson-Peacock willing to become involved, and in the event some of the information coming to Curtis was incorrect. Are you suggesting here that one of the staff may have been directly involved, that Lindbergh had no knowledge of this, and therefore he was actively entertaining Curtis’ claims to root out the truth within his own household? I am having a hard time understanding the question. We have a Father who is supposed to be interested in getting his son back, and isn't supposed to know anything about what happened. He blows off everyone except Condon and Curtis. Why? Well Condon is obvious, and I think its clear (to me anyway) why he entertained Curtis as well. Yet you believe if he was involved he would blow off anyone in touch with people involved? That doesn't make sense to me on any level. Lindbergh was in charge of the investigation. If he's being extorted then blowing off anyone who's behind that or the crime itself achieves what? I've suggested that Lindbergh knew what happened, and it did involve one or more Staff just as Whateley said. So while he's telling Cops he trusted them beyond all doubt, it made no sense that he's entertaining Curtis because Curtis said one of his staff were involved. However it does if he knew it was true. So veto the Lie Detector? Why? Because he trusted them and did not want to "embarrass" them. Once you look at and evaluate his contradictions there is no simple explanation to excuse them. I don't know all the answers to your questions, but will offer this. First of all, are you referring to him blowing off the NYU dinner in favor of coming home early to supervise the removal of CALjr? What do you feel he's attempting to control here, by arriving home at 8:25 pm, when according to Ellis Parker's position which you seem to subscribe to, he's already about a half hour late? I don't know when that front door began to stick, but if I were planning to use it as a fake kidnapping exit route no matter how fundamentally absurd that sounds, I'd be calling the builder to come and fix it a lot sooner than the day before "the deed." I suggested it as a possibility. Why? Because how often do you know of Lindbergh "forgetting" a formal engagement? Next, he was much closer to Hopewell then he testified to. In my mind it was perjury. Whited, the guy every Lone-Wolf "loves" saw him enter his driveway just after 7PM. This is just one "thing" and of course my book is loaded with this stuff occurring just about everywhere. Again, we do not know the details about the door. It had to do with the weather-stripping so it could have been gradual, could have occurred at any time, or could have been an "original" problem. Its easy to assume something in order to explain it away but we don't know. My main point is that he's calling and that's not speculation. It is interesting to see you say he should have called earlier but do not have a problem with him ignoring other defects and/or shoddy work on his new home he just paid 50K for because it was "too new." Joe, that's the time you call the contractors to fix it. So lets at least admit that if you are calling about the door you'd be calling about any other problem as well. The shutters that wouldn't bolt. Yes, it is a big deal in light of what happened that night, viewed exclusively in the spirit of 20/20 hindsight, or if you prefer, tailor-made for a fake kidnapping. But let's add a bit of perspective here. I'm wondering if you know what the household routine might have been while the Lindberghs rented White Cloud Farm in Lawrenceville for over a year, while High Fields was being built. Just how secure would that house have been on any given weekend night that the Lindberghs stayed there? It's clear nothing happened to the baby during that time, and I think that in itself, speaks volumes about the actual motivations behind the Lindberghs' decision to settle in the area, and the general comfort level they perhaps naively, but nevertheless, did develop by not wanting to have to build a fortress against intruders. As for his explanation at the trial, I'd say he probably realized after the fact, the gravity of not having acted on fixing the problem shutter much earlier, but that he was attempting to minimize any blame against himself or anyone else in the house. I do not see what White Cloud Farm has to do with the shutters Lindbergh knew were defective on his brand new house except, as I wrote in my book, his Father-In-Law suggested a guard or the child would be kidnapped. A man was looking through the window at Lawrenceville, and Whateley was always chasing off site-seers at both places. What's Lindbergh's response? To let the Highfields guard go shortly before the "kidnapping." And how about that explanation? All I can say is WOW! As for his "minimizing" effort ... so you are saying it was BS? Of course it was. So why do you think he ignored it? Your final point about Lindbergh's calls from outside the house regarding home repairs. I'd suggest he was probably trying to make the best use of any spare time he might have had during the course of a business day while he was on the road and away from the house, during normal business hours. Really?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Apr 30, 2018 18:40:19 GMT -5
Next, he was much closer to Hopewell then he testified to. In my mind it was perjury. Whited, the guy every Lone-Wolf "loves" saw him enter his driveway just after 7PM. If CAL called AML around 7pm to say he would be late, where did he call from, a payphone at Gebhart's if he is pulling into his driveway at 7pm? As for forgetting the speaking engagement, the Lindberghs just spent the weekend with the Breckenridge family. When CAL dropped them at Princeton Junction to catch the train back to NYC on Sunday night, Breck didn't say something like "see ya at the dinner Tuesday night" and the impending NYU dinner never even came up once the entire weekend?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 2, 2018 7:34:15 GMT -5
If CAL called AML around 7pm to say he would be late, where did he call from, a payphone at Gebhart's if he is pulling into his driveway at 7pm? Believe me when I tell you that I searched for any possible answer to this question but never found it. Its one of those things I don't believe we'll ever know. I'd say we're talking anywhere between a 10-20 minute difference between the time of the call to when he's seen turning into the driveway. Even if one decides to discount Whited's real eyewitness account, Lindbergh was still a closer to Hopewell and wasn't calling from either NYC or Englewood if we believe he's pulling in at 8:25PM. Clearly Lindbergh was aware of this fact which is why he testified as he did about the timing of that call. As for forgetting the speaking engagement, the Lindberghs just spent the weekend with the Breckenridge family. When CAL dropped them at Princeton Junction to catch the train back to NYC on Sunday night, Breck didn't say something like "see ya at the dinner Tuesday night" and the impending NYU dinner never even came up once the entire weekend? The FBI Summary has been the "go to" source for placing Breckinridge at that dinner. However, it was Sam who provided a copy of that dinner guide and seating arrangement to the NJSP Archives and it does not have Breckinridge's name listed anywhere. Furthermore, from everything I have it appears they called Breckinridge at home in an effort to get in touch with Lindbergh about his absence. Regardless, your point is a good one and I would think Lindbergh would have mentioned it to him. It is crystal clear to me that if the Press hadn't badgered police about this it would have never been brought up at all.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on May 2, 2018 9:59:08 GMT -5
Michael, Any thoughts on where he called from? It would have to be a town large enough to have a pay phone, yet the booth itself would have to be remote enough that Lindbergh not be seen and therefor recognized. Princeton is 22 min from Highfields. Flemington about 15 and Rocky Hill about 14.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 2, 2018 11:29:46 GMT -5
and Hopewell is only 3... plus who knows how many filling stations or diners in the area might have had a payphone available. Maybe he donned the same effective disguise to place the call that he would later wear when he slipped in and out of Condon's house
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 3, 2018 7:08:03 GMT -5
Michael, Any thoughts on where he called from? It would have to be a town large enough to have a pay phone, yet the booth itself would have to be remote enough that Lindbergh not be seen and therefor recognized. Princeton is 22 min from Highfields. Flemington about 15 and Rocky Hill about 14. I really have no idea but believe me when I say I tried to find the answer. If we assume the timing of Whited's sighting, and the timing of that call were both exact that gives only 10 minutes. Obviously if only 10 minutes then were talking the immediate area. But if they're 5 to 10 minutes off it gives us a little more to work with. What's really amazing to me is that with all of the books ever written on this case no one ever bothered to bring up the timing of this call. I understand why Whited's information was overlooked because that took more time to develop. I would have found it anyway because I went through everything so many times but it was my search to see if he had spoken with police earlier then told to keep his mouth shut (as he claimed) which caused me to specifically search for evidence of that. I talk so much about research and pitfalls so here is a perfect example... Whited is considered by some to be a liar and by others to have actually seen Hauptmann. So here is that "black or white" situation I often write about. So many people simply accept or dismiss. If they look into him they do so in a limited way because they might feel like its a waste of time having already accepted a position. So once again I have to try to dissuade everyone from this path. Look at everything, do not assume, and pursue information however ordinary or "matter of fact" it may seem. I think V1 proves the value in searching through everything. This crime has been recorded in history based upon a game of "whisper down the alley" and no one serious about this case should fall victim to that.
|
|