Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2018 8:55:50 GMT -5
Michael,
If possible, can you comment on how phone calls were checked on in this case. Was it possible to check the incoming calls to the Lindbergh home the evening of March 1, 1932? As you have shown in TDC, calls coming into the NJSP could be checked because they kept a log. Is there any record of the incoming calls for High Fields that would have shown Lindbergh's supposed call to Anne around 7 p.m. or Breckinridge's call about the NYU dinner or even Johnson's phone booth call to Betty Gow that night? Also the call Condon made the night of March 9/10 that led to his coming to High Fields to negotiate his go-between position. Was there such a thing as phone call records with the phone companies back in 1932?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 3, 2018 9:11:02 GMT -5
Can we be positive that the phone call to Anne happened at all? Could it be that it was made up after the fact to give Lindbergh an alibi? I ask this because, since the house was so isolated back then, and cars were slower, roads were rougher, there may not have been an outside phone located 5-10 minutes from the house (at least not one that Lindbergh would’ve had access to).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2018 9:30:00 GMT -5
Exactly! I don't know how sure we can be about that phone call from Lindbergh either. It seems the only thing we have to verify any of these calls is the statements given by those present in the house that night. Even so, not all those statements relate things the same. Just take Red Johnson's call to Betty Gow. It is supposed to be around 8:45 or 8:50 p.m. Olly Whateley supposedly answered this call yet he doesn't even mention it in his statement. This call happens at the time Anne and CAL are eating dinner in the dining room. Wouldn't you think if the phone rang and Olly answered it, CAL or even Anne would have asked Whateley who had called. What can we really trust that was said in these statements as being true if there is no way to back them up?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 3, 2018 10:45:02 GMT -5
Yeah, I think all accounts of what happened in the house were fabricated and agreed on beforehand. That’s why their stories seemed so broad but, when asked more specific questions, the details never stayed particularly consistent—who was in the nursery when, who got thread from who, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 3, 2018 10:56:09 GMT -5
According to Red Johnson's Evening Graphics newspaper serial, Part 6 (April 25, 1932), he claims the police checked the phone call he made from the drug store:
"At the time there was nobody in the store but the clerk, and he was in the rear. I made the call from a booth. There was a booth next to it, but there was nobody in it. I figured I made the call about 8:45. When the police checked up on it they found it had been made at 8:47, so figured it pretty close. We talked four minutes. As I remember, the rate was 35 cents for three minutes, and I had to pay a dime for the extra minute."
Also, there are records of phone calls coming into Highfields, but it's... complicated.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on May 4, 2018 8:41:31 GMT -5
mike sue Campbell found the dinner stuff years ago and made me a copy and everybody else. I think it shows Lindbergh wasn't there to speak as I recall havnt looked at it for years
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 4, 2018 9:26:08 GMT -5
Michael, If possible, can you comment on how phone calls were checked on in this case. Was it possible to check the incoming calls to the Lindbergh home the evening of March 1, 1932? As you have shown in TDC, calls coming into the NJSP could be checked because they kept a log. Is there any record of the incoming calls for High Fields that would have shown Lindbergh's supposed call to Anne around 7 p.m. or Breckinridge's call about the NYU dinner or even Johnson's phone booth call to Betty Gow that night? Also the call Condon made the night of March 9/10 that led to his coming to High Fields to negotiate his go-between position. Was there such a thing as phone call records with the phone companies back in 1932? Amy, With my mind-set being elsewhere I have to be careful with how I answer this. From what I remember the NJSP attempted learn who the operators were and interview them. Next, they would get the bills from the important numbers. I have never seen one from Hopewell 303 on March 1st. What we do have is the police log of incoming calls. These logs do not record the number of the dialing party. It looks like they could trace calls from a specific number to whatever numbers they called - meaning they needed the number first. However, there is an investigation that traced all "toll calls" from the Hopewell area. On this document there are "check marks" which seems to mean they were investigated but there's no way they represent all calls from all Hopewell numbers. There were also additional investigations separate and apart from those that apparently required the NYSP to assist. They were looking all Hopewell calls to the "greater" New York area. There are a lot of phone calls files at the NJSP Archives. It's possible I missed something but I usually copy anything that even hints at a possible clue and what I have really gives us nothing in regards to this call, or any call made from Hopewell 303 on that night excepting what's in the NJSP Phone Logs as the calls coming in about the crime. If someone wanted to double-check me that would be the place to search because everything that currently exists is there. mike sue Campbell found the dinner stuff years ago and made me a copy and everybody else. I think it shows Lindbergh wasn't there to speak as I recall havnt looked at it for years I am pretty sure I got my information either directly or indirectly from Sam. Perhaps he got it from Sue? If I am mis-remembering I apologize for the mistake.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on May 5, 2018 8:41:24 GMT -5
The only reason Dobson-Peacock managed to get an audience with Lindbergh in late March? Because he was so hell bent on officially injecting himself into the case.. where there's a will, there's a way. I can almost hear him, "Yes, yes, I understand, Curtis.. if the kidnappers are willing to accept a reduced amount, I must away immediately and deliver this message to Colonel Lindbergh personally!" What a joke. I'm not saying the Dean truly wished to be anything other than helpful, but I think we need to be pretty aware of his ulterior and solidly ego-based motivations as well, which were well articulated by Curtis once the latter folded like a deck chair, when the child turned up dead. Anyway, this “meeting” that you refer to was in reality, little more than Dobson-Peacock being a glorified message boy and not taken seriously, so why give it undue significance?
This back and forth is losing sight of the original intent of the question, so I’ll just say summarize my own thoughts and let you decide to respond or not. I believe that if Lindbergh had have been involved in the disappearance of his own son, (And I don’t believe he was) he would not have entertained Curtis in any way, shape or form, other than to potentially dissuade him from continuing, the intent being to distance himself from anything that might connect him with the party in Curtis’ story. In reality, he did consider Curtis’ story, in which he saw at the least a glimmer of hope towards the safe return of his son, and spent considerable time with him. I see Lindbergh's actions with Curtis therefore as being supportive of his innocence and non-involvement.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on May 5, 2018 9:18:08 GMT -5
I don't believe Lindbergh forgot about the NYU dinner at all. More likely, he felt he had an opportunity to skip the type of engagement he would not have wanted to attend in the first place. I also believe his actions had something to do with the events that took place within his working day in NYC, of which he was very non-specific. Unfortunately for him, he failed to pass along his regrets to Chancellor Brown at NYU, and he also had the greater misfortune of having his son kidnapped that same night. Yes, a potentially very sticky situation on his hands now to explain if the press got wind of it and starting connecting disparate dots. And so the excuse that he had forgotten, was born. This white lie also got a shot in the arm when the inaccurate schedule mix-up story got press circulation. Anyway, I’m sure it wasn’t the first time Lindbergh had been bitten in the ass by bad karma through a personal lack of willingness to deal head with the associated frailties within his phlegmatic personality.
Lindbergh called home at 7 pm and therefore was much closer to home than to NYC? Is that a fact? Have you essentially adopted Elsie Whateley’s 3/10/32 statement as gospel, given the unanimous household accounting of him arriving home at 8:25 pm, to speculate he was closer to home? Does there exist the possibility that the call came in earlier than 7 pm, considering Anne’s movements to and from the nursery (approx. 6:15 pm to 7:30 pm) and that she stated she first took the call from Lindbergh and then went for needle and thread? I believe a broader window exists when factoring in both Anne’s and Betty’s statements, as opposed to simply claiming Elsie’s statement, in the light of no other specific times, to be a slam dunk. Anne testified she was waiting for Charles from about 7:30 pm, when she left the nursery for the last time, and beyond. And I believe that call came in prior to 6:30 pm.
My own jury is still out on the veracity of Whited's account, but let me ask this, Michael. Do you recall an account by a local family, who claimed to have seen Lindbergh's Lincoln pull into their driveway? I'm not sure if they identified the date as March 1, but I remember there were a number of boys in the family who were know in the area, possibly "The Brown Boys?" Having read this somewhere about 15 years ago, it's just one of those countless details I tend to hang on to in some dusty folder in my mind, as having not been adequately resolved yet. Do you recall this account?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on May 5, 2018 10:22:04 GMT -5
In light of what happened on the night of March 1, I don't think it's anything but a universal theme that it would have been a very good thing for the contractor to have been notified much earlier about the non-locking shutters. Having hashed through all of the above a few times already, I believe you're not-so-subtly implying that Lindbergh by virtue of some nefarious plan, was strategically addressing certain deficiencies, to the detriment of others within his new house, in order to necessitate a more streamlined and yet fully explainable disappearance of his son.
Now, what do you know about whose responsibility was it to ensure repairs and adjustments to the new house were addressed and completed? Specifically, what was Ollie Whateley's role here? Was he not at High Fields all the time and would he not have had the best opportunity and vantage point of anyone within the household to address these issues? And so what would have been the understanding, implied or otherwise here between him and Lindbergh? Why did Lindbergh himself feel he had to call Louis Jammer the day before the kidnapping? Was it a spur of the moment thought on Lindbergh's part, frustration it was not being handled at home by someone in a much better position to do so, etc., etc. What impact, if any did this ultimately have on Ollie's physical health? We'll probably never know if it had as much to do with the roles and responsibilities around the house and how well they were being performed, but these are reasonable questions to ask. And yes, it is easy to assume something in order to explain it away, so I think this subject needs a bit more of a factual basis.
Given the lack of anything further, I don't understand your one worded question.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 5, 2018 10:32:20 GMT -5
mike sue Campbell found the dinner stuff years ago and made me a copy and everybody else. I think it shows Lindbergh wasn't there to speak as I recall havnt looked at it for years Hi Wolf, You're right, CAL was listed on the program as a "Guest": Here's a photo of the event. Wonder where CAL was going to get his tux?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 6, 2018 7:47:09 GMT -5
The only reason Dobson-Peacock managed to get an audience with Lindbergh in late March? Because he was so hell bent on officially injecting himself into the case.. where there's a will, there's a way. I can almost hear him, "Yes, yes, I understand, Curtis.. if the kidnappers are willing to accept a reduced amount, I must away immediately and deliver this message to Colonel Lindbergh personally!" What a joke. I'm not saying the Dean truly wished to be anything other than helpful, but I think we need to be pretty aware of his ulterior and solidly ego-based motivations as well, which were well articulated by Curtis once the latter folded like a deck chair, when the child turned up dead. Anyway, this “meeting” that you refer to was in reality, little more than Dobson-Peacock being a glorified message boy and not taken seriously, so why give it undue significance? With all due respect Joe, if you read all of the correspondence and documented attempts by others to get a meeting with Lindbergh (or just to get him on the phone for a minute), you'd see this catchy excuse about "wills" and "ways" doesn't hold true here. And so I'll just refer you to my previous comments and repeat that there was something to whatever Curtis was saying that had Lindbergh's attention - all the while he was dismissing hundreds into the thousands of others. This back and forth is losing sight of the original intent of the question, so I’ll just say summarize my own thoughts and let you decide to respond or not. I believe that if Lindbergh had have been involved in the disappearance of his own son, (And I don’t believe he was) he would not have entertained Curtis in any way, shape or form, other than to potentially dissuade him from continuing, the intent being to distance himself from anything that might connect him with the party in Curtis’ story. In reality, he did consider Curtis’ story, in which he saw at the least a glimmer of hope towards the safe return of his son, and spent considerable time with him. I see Lindbergh's actions with Curtis therefore as being supportive of his innocence and non-involvement. Again, instead of repeating myself I'll just refer you back to everything I have already written about this. His actions are suspicious because he is accepting something he has flatly rejected, and even blocked (and continued to block) LE investigative attempts targeting his staff. He would later even admit they should be suspected - but only to certain people. In my opinion Lindbergh already knew his son was dead. He just wanted the body back so this extortion would end. I'm open to any evidence that disagrees with this position but Curtis ain't it. There will be more to discuss on this angle once V2 comes out. At least I think so...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 6, 2018 17:47:49 GMT -5
I don't believe Lindbergh forgot about the NYU dinner at all. More likely, he felt he had an opportunity to skip the type of engagement he would not have wanted to attend in the first place. I also believe his actions had something to do with the events that took place within his working day in NYC, of which he was very non-specific. Unfortunately for him, he failed to pass along his regrets to Chancellor Brown at NYU, and he also had the greater misfortune of having his son kidnapped that same night. Yes, a potentially very sticky situation on his hands now to explain if the press got wind of it and starting connecting disparate dots. And so the excuse that he had forgotten, was born. This white lie also got a shot in the arm when the inaccurate schedule mix-up story got press circulation. Anyway, I’m sure it wasn’t the first time Lindbergh had been bitten in the ass by bad karma through a personal lack of willingness to deal head with the associated frailties within his phlegmatic personality. It was Lindbergh's own position that he "forgot." Your position seems to be that he accepted the invite only to lie about forgetting so that he could avoid going. We can agree that he lied, but we'll have to agree to disagree it was because he never wanted to attend in the first place. Lindbergh called home at 7 pm and therefore was much closer to home than to NYC? Is that a fact? Have you essentially adopted Elsie Whateley’s 3/10/32 statement as gospel, given the unanimous household accounting of him arriving home at 8:25 pm, to speculate he was closer to home? Does there exist the possibility that the call came in earlier than 7 pm, considering Anne’s movements to and from the nursery (approx. 6:15 pm to 7:30 pm) and that she stated she first took the call from Lindbergh and then went for needle and thread? I believe a broader window exists when factoring in both Anne’s and Betty’s statements, as opposed to simply claiming Elsie’s statement, in the light of no other specific times, to be a slam dunk. Anne testified she was waiting for Charles from about 7:30 pm, when she left the nursery for the last time, and beyond. And I believe that call came in prior to 6:30 pm. Here's the thing... no one questioned the timing of his call the day before. Isn't that strange? But when we have a source that says he did it again the next day then its questionable? Ask yourself "why?" Next, its not just these facts. You are correct about Anne's testimony and its consistent with her statement. So where could Lindbergh have been calling from if Anne believed he could have made it to Hopewell by 7:30PM? So you need to shift his call back earlier - yet - it does not work if you believe Lindbergh's testimony. And if you accept the creditable source, then he's too close if he makes it home by 8:25PM. And if he comes home at 8:25PM why on earth would Anne be listening for him an hour earlier? My own jury is still out on the veracity of Whited's account, but let me ask this, Michael. Do you recall an account by a local family, who claimed to have seen Lindbergh's Lincoln pull into their driveway? I'm not sure if they identified the date as March 1, but I remember there were a number of boys in the family who were know in the area, possibly "The Brown Boys?" Having read this somewhere about 15 years ago, it's just one of those countless details I tend to hang on to in some dusty folder in my mind, as having not been adequately resolved yet. Do you recall this account? That I don't recall. It definitely wasn't the "Brown Boys" but if we could remember the family name I would be able to find it for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 6, 2018 17:57:23 GMT -5
In light of what happened on the night of March 1, I don't think it's anything but a universal theme that it would have been a very good thing for the contractor to have been notified much earlier about the non-locking shutters. Having hashed through all of the above a few times already, I believe you're not-so-subtly implying that Lindbergh by virtue of some nefarious plan, was strategically addressing certain deficiencies, to the detriment of others within his new house, in order to necessitate a more streamlined and yet fully explainable disappearance of his son. I agree that it's not necessary to re-hash our same arguments. But I have to say it is a universal theme to call the contractor to return to fix things that are not right as soon as they are noticed. I could go through the entire Rauch house construction and use examples but I don't want to waste your time. Now, what do you know about whose responsibility was it to ensure repairs and adjustments to the new house were addressed and completed? Specifically, what was Ollie Whateley's role here? Was he not at High Fields all the time and would he not have had the best opportunity and vantage point of anyone within the household to address these issues? And so what would have been the understanding, implied or otherwise here between him and Lindbergh? Why did Lindbergh himself feel he had to call Louis Jammer the day before the kidnapping? Was it a spur of the moment thought on Lindbergh's part, frustration it was not being handled at home by someone in a much better position to do so, etc., etc. What impact, if any did this ultimately have on Ollie's physical health? We'll probably never know if it had as much to do with the roles and responsibilities around the house and how well they were being performed, but these are reasonable questions to ask. And yes, it is easy to assume something in order to explain it away, so I think this subject needs a bit more of a factual basis. I can only give you the facts that I know - not what I do not. It seems to me this was a brand new house, therefore, anything that wasn't "right" should have been repaired for free by the contractors. I agree with you that I would assume Whateley would have made that call but Jammer said Lindbergh did. I am guessing Lindbergh called himself because he wasn't used to being told "no."
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on May 6, 2018 18:03:53 GMT -5
Going back to my original point about how Curtis and company got a private meeting with Lindbergh, I guess I should have said "Where there's a name, (Burrage / Dobson-Peacock) there's a way." Without them, it's very unlikely we ever would have heard of John Curtis, the guy who played his phony hand like an ace, once he had Lindbergh's ear. Enough said.
So Lindbergh was out at sea with Curtis how many times (8 - 10?) for the better part of a month believing his son was already dead? If he's buying into Curtis' claims that his son was alive, perhaps you can explain how this makes even a little bit of sense. Lindbergh was given rein to "lead" the investigation mainly because of who he was and because at that time, it was not unusual for family to deal directly with kidnappers. And of course, it's reasonable that he would have come to understand he did many things that only hindered the investigation from day one all the way up to May 12. Would he come out and admit this to the world? No, it wasn't in his makeup to do so. But naivety and guilt are two very different things, Michael. I'm truly hoping you're offering something just a little more substantial than sheer speculation on the Curtis debacle in V2.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 7, 2018 7:38:27 GMT -5
Going back to my original point about how Curtis and company got a private meeting with Lindbergh, I guess I should have said "Where there's a name, (Burrage / Dobson-Peacock) there's a way." Without them, it's very unlikely we ever would have heard of John Curtis, the guy who played his phony hand like an ace, once he had Lindbergh's ear. Enough said. As I've previously stated, there were others with "names" who presented contacts but Lindbergh never bothered with them at all. Once again, after the Curtis scenario was given, he could have easily said "thanks for your time" and let that be that. But he entertained Curtis AFTER that for a reason and it wasn't not because of Burrage. I'm truly hoping you're offering something just a little more substantial than sheer speculation on the Curtis debacle in V2. Let's dissect this sentence... First, let's lay out the rules. There are things called facts. There is also something called speculation. Finally, there are interpretations of facts. I could be wrong, but I usually try to make clear when I am speculating. Go to page 313 in V1. It is a fact that while Lindbergh was out to sea with Curtis supposedly searching for his son he said he was " tired of hearing about the kidnapping...". It is a fact he said " ...to hell with same lets play cards." These are facts. Now what comes next are interpretations of these facts. What can also come as a result of these facts is speculation. This type of disturbing behavior, as I've demonstrated in V1, occurs all over the place. I agree giving someone the benefit of the doubt in one or two places makes sense. But everywhere? The purpose of that trip was to get his son back - or was it?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 8, 2018 4:41:47 GMT -5
A little vacation maybe? Or some friendly time with that cute Curtis?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 8, 2018 10:31:13 GMT -5
A little vacation maybe? Or some friendly time with that cute Curtis? I would call it a vacation and Lindbergh damn near said that himself. I don't know about how cute Curtis was but Lindbergh enjoyed being around him as well as the others involved in that bogus search. He enjoyed himself and had a lot of fun.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 8, 2018 12:18:47 GMT -5
Yeah, pulling his customary pranks (something involving ballbusting Curtis about his hat) and generally acting like a fratboy—you know, like any normal, concerned father would, to blow off steam while desperately looking for a kidnapped child he hasn’t seen in weeks, who he ostensibly doesn’t know is dead or alive.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on May 19, 2018 13:08:27 GMT -5
I believe Lindbergh accepted that invitation as a courtesy to Chancellor Brown and perhaps some perceived sense of obligation. He would have been happy not to be speaking but simply sitting at the dais, making dinner conversation and perhaps standing to be acknowledged at some point during the evening. And that he skipped the dinner simply because by the end of his working day, he was simply not up to it, although I’m sure he understood a lot of alumni and guests would be anticipating his announced attendance. I go back to the purposely non-descript accounting of his day which he related at the trial, and which suggests strongly to me that he consciously chose not to divulge details that he did in fact, remember. Why? Because he realized his activities would quickly have become media speculation fodder, in light of the fact his son was kidnapped later that very same evening. If he could remember a dinner date, it seems reasonable he would have been able to remember the details of his day prior to such a historic evening. His answer to this dilemma was to lie. He chose to “forget” what he did during the day just as he "forgot" about the dinner. But not for the reason you've implied.
What do you find strange about him calling the day before? Please add some detail. And why would it have been strange for him to have called ahead on the evening of March 1 to say he would be coming home late?
Do you believe that Anne, after receiving her husband’s call on March 1, would actually have been expecting him to honk his horn as early as 7:30 pm, knowing he was driving all the way from NYC? Or are you implying she knew he was somewhere much closer to home? Viewed in it’s entirety, I believe this is nothing more than a heightened sense of anticipation on the part of Anne, given her emotional and physical state at the time, wanting her husband home after two days, that had her acting this way. She freely admits waiting for him from 7:30 pm, which also tells me she's not hiding anything. And as I've said before, I believe that the call from Lindbergh actually came in earlier than 7 pm and that Elsie Whateley was simply mistaken.
Perhaps you or someone else here, can name a bunch of the local families other than Hausenbauer, Kuchta, Kristofeck, Lupica, Ashton, Conover. Sue just reminded me of Miller and that may be the family, as I know they had 6 children.. I'm just not sure...
Which “names” contacting Lindbergh do you feel might have had relevant information?
I have no issues with what has been reported as fact. Regarding Lindbergh's actions, everything happens for a reason in this world of cause and effect, and we all handle stress differently. You can continue speculating as to how Charles Lindbergh should have acted or said something different in the morgue, on the high seas, entertaining guests, or any other situation, based upon what you perceive to be the socially-correct response. With all due respect, you weren’t there as him or part of that set of circumstances, and I believe you’re only taking yourselves farther down the wrong track in the wrong direction here each time you're tempted to do this. Bottom line is, your conclusions that fall out of these actions to support a pet theory which seems to deduce that if he was capable of unacceptable and boorish behaviour, then surely he could have masterminded the elimination of his son, are speculation. If you haven’t read Berg’s “Lindbergh” for some insight into the man Charles Lindbergh was and perhaps a better understanding of the ways he acted both in public and privately, I’d heartily recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 20, 2018 8:01:19 GMT -5
I believe Lindbergh accepted that invitation as a courtesy to Chancellor Brown and perhaps some perceived sense of obligation. He would have been happy not to be speaking but simply sitting at the dais, making dinner conversation and perhaps standing to be acknowledged at some point during the evening. And that he skipped the dinner simply because by the end of his working day, he was simply not up to it, although I’m sure he understood a lot of alumni and guests would be anticipating his announced attendance. I go back to the purposely non-descript accounting of his day which he related at the trial, and which suggests strongly to me that he consciously chose not to divulge details that he did in fact, remember. Why? Because he realized his activities would quickly have become media speculation fodder, in light of the fact his son was kidnapped later that very same evening. If he could remember a dinner date, it seems reasonable he would have been able to remember the details of his day prior to such a historic evening. His answer to this dilemma was to lie. He chose to “forget” what he did during the day just as he "forgot" about the dinner. But not for the reason you've implied. I think your reply above shows we are beating a dead horse. I cannot counter a story which Lindbergh himself contradicted. Try one where Lindbergh declines the invitation because he did not want to go then comes home on time because he had no reason to be late. Try one where he absolutely knew where he was but lied on the stand about it. I still know where I was on 9/11 - for the entire day - almost 17 years later. I would also recommend that with each excuse you come up with to explain away his unusual behavior to also try a couple in the opposite direction as well.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on May 21, 2018 18:59:45 GMT -5
I believe Lindbergh accepted that invitation as a courtesy to Chancellor Brown and perhaps some perceived sense of obligation. He would have been happy not to be speaking but simply sitting at the dais, making dinner conversation and perhaps standing to be acknowledged at some point during the evening. And that he skipped the dinner simply because by the end of his working day, he was simply not up to it, although I’m sure he understood a lot of alumni and guests would be anticipating his announced attendance. I go back to the purposely non-descript accounting of his day which he related at the trial, and which suggests strongly to me that he consciously chose not to divulge details that he did in fact, remember. Why? Because he realized his activities would quickly have become media speculation fodder, in light of the fact his son was kidnapped later that very same evening. If he could remember a dinner date, it seems reasonable he would have been able to remember the details of his day prior to such a historic evening. His answer to this dilemma was to lie. He chose to “forget” what he did during the day just as he "forgot" about the dinner. But not for the reason you've implied. I think your reply above shows we are beating a dead horse. I cannot counter a story which Lindbergh himself contradicted. Try one where Lindbergh declines the invitation because he did not want to go then comes home on time because he had no reason to be late. Try one where he absolutely knew where he was but lied on the stand about it. I still know where I was on 9/11 - for the entire day - almost 17 years later. I would also recommend that with each excuse you come up with to explain away his unusual behavior to also try a couple in the opposite direction as well. For what's it's worth, as I'm not sure you understood my post, I believe Lindbergh lied when he said he forgot about the dinner. And also that he lied about not recalling precisely where he was earlier that day, as I'm pretty sure he was doing more than just washing corpuscles at Rockefeller Institute. I have no idea what you mean when you say I'm "coming up with excuses to explain away his unusual behaviour." Speaking of dead horses, I'll try to impress again that I have no psychological attachment or investment whatsoever to Charles Lindbergh, who is simply a character on the stage, that is this case, and I try to keep that stage level at all times. His human fallibility is extremely complex and so is trying to understand his actions. In that regard, you may want to try and put yourself in this guy's shoes once in a while. Again, Berg's book is a gem when it comes to this.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 22, 2018 0:36:23 GMT -5
Lets look at the facts though. His calendar is clean except for that dinner. So why did he just skip it? Maybe he was over at Richard Hauptmann's. Not a great neighborhood for Charles, but he's been in worse.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 22, 2018 7:54:41 GMT -5
Again, Berg's book is a gem when it comes to this. Every time I pick up Berg's book I wonder why he didn't write about Dyrk, David, and Astrid. It could be he didn't know about them right? Doesn't that omission kind of change someone's actual biography? I'll stick to the source material when evaluating Lindbergh.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on May 22, 2018 9:36:48 GMT -5
Again, Berg's book is a gem when it comes to this. Every time I pick up Berg's book I wonder why he didn't write about Dyrk, David, and Astrid. It could be he didn't know about them right? Doesn't that omission kind of change someone's actual biography? I'll stick to the source material when evaluating Lindbergh. It is an omission, but I'm not sure what Berg could have said about something known only by the principal characters. It seems to have taken place around the time Anne had her own extra-marital affair, and of course about 25 years after the kidnapping. In any case, I question the relevance of such a distraction when considering this case.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on May 23, 2018 9:13:05 GMT -5
berg also with no proof said ethel Stockton was dead at the time of his book writings but she was very much alive at that time
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2018 16:12:49 GMT -5
berg also with no proof said ethel Stockton was dead at the time of his book writings but she was very much alive at that time This is true as well, however, I am not trying to knit-pick because we all know there is so much information that mistakes can happen. My point was that it's not something that can be relied on to rule in or out certain conduct. His behavior from one point to the next as it involves this crime cannot be explained. Some try but in my opinion but it doesn't work. Jack has offered that other things could have been going on to explain it and I agree with his point and anyone who follows my posts know I always try to impress this upon anyone who read them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2019 7:16:03 GMT -5
BUT what about the pins? They attached the bedding to the mattress. So if Charlie was removed in the sheet, someone had to repin the remaining bedding back onto the mattress. 🐃🐭 These bedding pins are a curious item. In Anne's March 13, 1932 statement she mentions that she checked on Charlie Saturday night (Feb 27th) to make sure he was still covered. Anne again mentions that on Monday evening (February 29th) she sent Elsie upstairs to check to see that Charlie was still covered. It doesn't sound to me like Charlie's bedding was pinned on those nights. I am wondering if the use of these large pins could be a Betty "thing" since this blanket pinning is mentioned in Betty's statements and not Anne's.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 10, 2019 9:46:27 GMT -5
BUT what about the pins? They attached the bedding to the mattress. So if Charlie was removed in the sheet, someone had to repin the remaining bedding back onto the mattress. 🐃🐭 These bedding pins are a curious item. In Anne's March 13, 1932 statement she mentions that she checked on Charlie Saturday night (Feb 27th) to make sure he was still covered. Anne again mentions that on Monday evening (February 29th) she sent Elsie upstairs to check to see that Charlie was still covered. It doesn't sound to me like Charlie's bedding was pinned on those nights. I am wondering if the use of these large pins could be a Betty "thing" since this blanket pinning is mentioned in Betty's statements and not Anne's. Do you think the pins were somehow related to his health? If he had trouble standing or could easily get injured, it would make sense they could be used to secure him under the sheets.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Aug 10, 2019 10:22:42 GMT -5
I've always thought the opposite, that Charlie was pinned down because, as many 21 month old children will do, he was starting to climb out of his crib and they didn't want him to fall.
|
|