|
Post by Michael on Mar 10, 2017 22:21:57 GMT -5
Something I wanted to talk about was Prosecutor Marshall's role in the morgue the night Lindbergh sliced open his dead son's face so he could make the identification (see pages 316-7). I've had people ask why I bothered to include the fact that Marshall was not in the morgue that night. Part of the reason is to correct history, and to also show whoever might be interested, the mistakes that occur by the various authors over the years.
What we have is just about every book on this case crediting Marshall as pulling back the sheet on this occasion. As a researcher, anyone wanting to know exactly what happened during this event would absolutely want to know what those people present witnessed. However, as I wrote in my book, Marshall wasn't even there. So how did most every book previous to The Dark Corners get it wrong?
What exists is that most people writing books have a limited amount of time to devote to research. And so they rely on previous books to support/cite information contained in their book. Obviously, there is nothing "wrong" with doing this and I've done it myself. But - what I find to be the most reliable is the source documentation. Without it, then we must go to the secondary sources or use it to compliment and/or add to the source documentation. Of course no one in their right mind has 15 years to spend at the Archives like I have so I'm not certainly not criticizing anyone. But in this case we have one Author make a mistake by confusing Prosecutor Hauck for Prosecutor Marshall. As a result, everyone repeats this mistake which solidifies a "fact" in history that never even occurred.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2017 9:36:07 GMT -5
To continue with these thoughts, because I believe it's important for the knowledge and understanding to exist in order for anyone to know what the "facts" are and how they can be found. There's an idea out there that because my book is self-published then it's contents are not reliable. It's not the research, or the footnotes but the Publisher that dictates what's true and what isn't? It's a completely insane position. Publishers can in no way verify "facts" as it relates to this case. I think the evidence lies in the various books written and published by some high profile publishers - YET - these books all differ in contents about what these exact same facts are. In the case of Lloyd's and Fisher's books we have two very different positions produced by the same Publisher where we see Lloyd disprove many of Fisher's facts.
So it's not the publisher - it's the research. The question is whether or not the researcher is creditable. Next, is there an understanding that any research, no matter who it's coming from, can be mistaken, flawed, or challengeable? There absolutely better be. If anyone says no one can be wrong they are either crazy or do not know this case.
It's not just what I've found at the NJSP Archives - it's what I've learned by researching there. The experience is complicated. An example: I was following a line of reports once concerning the "Schlacht" family when they suddenly stopped. I remember saying to myself how weird it was. Sometime later I found a string of investigations concerning the "Slack" family when, from the content, I could clearly see was actually the back end of the investigation concerning the "Schlacht" family. So here I was, some guy who was actually spending all of my vacation time in West Trenton seeing and learning how things "worked".... YEARS into it. Years. As I've also said before, I've found parts of reports in one place then the other part somewhere else and was able to bring them together to make a full report. This is something that someone on the outside looking in could never ever know or realize. Also, can someone who made only 4 trips to the Archives before writing a book know something like this? Impossible. Could their publisher? That's just silly. I know as many times as I've been consulted no publisher has ever called me to check up on or verify what was said.
It doesn't work that way.
I self published for several reasons. The first is I did it to get the new facts I discovered "out" there. I also believed it would generate needed discussion as they came out in totality and not piece by piece or drip by drip. It was absolutely not about making money or selling books. I have no bills and if I did then I'd knock my heat down from 58 to 55. Next, all of the big named publishers say this subject is "over-saturated" and that most Millennials don't know who Lindbergh was, and even if they did, aren't likely to care enough about the case to buy the book.
So the bottom line for these publishers IS money - not history.
I have never made up a source or invented a fact. I have never invented a conversation. Now the questions become: What do these new facts actually mean? Are there other sources to counter the one's I've discovered? It's no longer a question concerning "how" someone "missed" what I've found, that is obvious, it's getting to the bottom of what it all points to. The solution? Something important? Coincidence? Nothing? Also, I might give an opinion which could easily be counter-punched by anyone here. And I should be, at any time, if a counter-argument exists. Both challenge and discussion are good things as we've proven here time and time again.
Our Board is light years ahead of most people who know about this case, and we are the best shot at getting to the bottom of this. If anyone is planning a trip to the NJSP Archives and want to talk to me about it to get a better understanding (because I'm not sure I'm getting my point across as I intend) just post, PM, or email me anytime.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 11, 2017 11:28:35 GMT -5
mike you expect people to believe Lindbergh sliced his sons dead bodys face at the morgue. not to be a wise ass I don't think your book is earth shattering. theres people out there did hard research through the years some of the things you think are important isn't important to them. be careful what you wish for.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2017 12:17:37 GMT -5
mike you expect people to believe Lindbergh sliced his sons dead bodys face at the morgue. not to be a wise ass I don't think your book is earth shattering. theres people out there did hard research through the years some of the things you think are important isn't important to them. be careful what you wish for. I do expect it because that's what happened. It was testified to by Mercer Country Chief of Detective James Kirkham. Since he was there when it happened, and he was testifying under oath before the Grand Jury, unless you now believe there was a conspiracy of some sort involving Kirkham against Lindbergh then it's true. This point, I think, is "earth shattering" because it's one instance in time in a series of similar events that ruins the false narrative which surrounded Lindbergh's demeanor concerning his son's disappearance. Simply put it didn't happen the way it was sold to the public. He's pulling pranks, obstructing the investigation, telling lies, and abandoning searches to play cards. And I don't expect those who wrote a book but didn't do the proper research to "like" what I've found. It shows they were incorrect in labeling people with a title they themselves now wear. I welcome research and won't name call or shame people away from it...the more the better and we all learn as a result.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 11, 2017 15:43:03 GMT -5
Michael, I believe Lindbergh could well have done something invasive here to aid in his identification of the body by making sure all of the teeth were exposed, but that your statement he "sliced open his dead son's face" could also be an exaggeration. Can you post James Kirkham's actual testimony, so we know exactly how he described the event?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2017 17:00:43 GMT -5
Michael, I believe Lindbergh could well have done something invasive here to aid in his identification of body by making sure all of the teeth were exposed, but that your statement he "sliced open his dead son's face" could also be an exaggeration. Michael, can you post James Kirkham's actual testimony, so we know exactly how he described the event? Q: He did identify the body as -A: He said he would say it was his child.Q: Did he look at it?A: Did he? Yes, he looked at it. I want to tell you something else he did. He asked for meat skewer to open the lips so he could look at the teeth. I was with him the entire time he was there.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 11, 2017 18:52:43 GMT -5
Thanks for posting Kirkham's testimony. From it, I don't believe it was Lindbergh's intent to do anything more than confirm the identity of his the body through the number and positioning of the teeth. Is there more to be read through his actions?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2017 19:07:37 GMT -5
Thanks for posting Kirkham's testimony. From it, I don't believe it was Lindbergh's intent to do anything more than confirm the identity of his the body through the number and positioning of the teeth. Is there more to be read through his actions? In my opinion, it was his intent to impress upon those in the room that he was a "rock" and/or had nerves of steel. It was completely unnecessary, or at least, he could have requested someone else make the proper arrangements to view the teeth before he got there. What he really did was impress them that there was something strange, wrong, or I'd also see or hear sometimes the word "off" with him. Remember, Lindbergh was told his identification of this corpse wasn't even needed - but he insisted. If you think it was normal behavior then I'll just have to politely disagree. It's why, in my mind, it never made it into the public domain, and also why it only came out in this secret grand jury testimony. Throw it in with everything else I've listed and it certainly looks to me like he really doesn't care. That doesn't mean he killed his own son, but I personally can't ignore specific conduct because I am afraid that it supports the notion. What's everyone else think?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 11, 2017 19:54:24 GMT -5
I certainly can't disagree that Lindbergh would have wanted to have been perceived by others as being in control in this situation. I think that was his basic m.o., so he's really not doing anything different here, is he? But let's pull back a bit. He knows he's going in to see the 72-day-old remains of what was his son, it's a rotting soul-less corpse that has been identified by a few others to the best of their abilities, relative to the clothing, description of the face and overlapping toe. I don't believe there is even an argument as to what can be considered "normal behaviour" here, given the trail of events endured by those who were victimized by this crime, and which led up to the discovery of the body, so I'll politely disagree with your summary judgment. What I do believe is that Lindbergh would most certainly have wanted to confirm this "thing" in front of him was actually the body of his son.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2017 20:14:58 GMT -5
I don't believe there is even an argument as to what can be considered "normal behaviour" here, given the trail of events endured by those who were victimized by this crime, and which led up to the discovery of the body, so I'll politely disagree with your summary judgment. What I do believe is that Lindbergh would most certainly have wanted to confirm this "thing" in front of him was actually the body of his son. I think we've all been in biology class and had to dissect something. For me it was a baby pig and it wasn't difficult in the least. Cute, but knowing it was dead and having no emotional attachment made it easy. However, I think I stop there. This idea of doing it to a family member, I think makes it unimaginable, and it becomes worse (if that's possible) when it concerns an 18 month old namesake. This idea that he's "desperate" to confirm the identity of his son implies emotion, yet, he exhibits none. So it's hard for me to explain away what I see regardless of the condition of his son's body. Frankly I think the smell and seeing him rotting away would have made it even harder to deal with - not easier.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 11, 2017 20:23:27 GMT -5
I can't imagine the experience of personally having to do the same thing, but given Lindbergh's persona, I'm not surprised he did. Out of interest, I wonder in what light he would have generally been perceived, if he had chosen not to identify the body. I think the identification would have been less positive today and having no family member in attendance, he might even have been viewed as a father who didn't really care about his son one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 12, 2017 8:34:50 GMT -5
I can't imagine the experience of personally having to do the same thing, but given Lindbergh's persona, I'm not surprised he did. Out of interest, I wonder in what light he would have generally been perceived, if he had chosen not to identify the body. I think the identification would have been less positive today and having no family member in attendance, he might even have been viewed as a father who didn't really care about his son one way or another. It's an interesting observation concerning his persona. Most people avoid that point because it's a hard one to get around. Moving to your next matter, this whole event was something I tried to go through step by step to see the "hows" and "whys" behind it. The Betty Gow episode seemed to have satisfied the need for identification. However, despite the police position that it was enough, I personally can see the identification challenged, in fact, we all know it would have been based upon it being challenged even now. Did everyone believe Gow? If so why? Look at her points of verification. So I would ask why Gow's ID was acceptable to anyone without it being invasive? If it were necessary to do what Lindbergh did then she obviously couldn't know. Lindbergh had been told Gow already confirmed it was CJr. but he still took it TEN steps further. And so if it was necessary for CAL to do what he did then Gow either knew it in some other way, lied, or was just flatly unreliable. But if it wasn't needed then why did he do it? For me, no matter how it's looked at - it's disturbing.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 12, 2017 14:28:14 GMT -5
I can believe Betty would have been more aware of the characteristics of the child's overall form, in whatever way she perceived that which remained, as well as the head size, shape and distinguishing features like the chin dimple and overlapping toes, while Lindbergh would have taken more of an analytical approach. In any case, his actions show little more to me than that this was Lindbergh wanting to be sure, effecting the closure he needed after 72 frustrating days of false leads, deception, waiting and more waiting, with nothing to show. And they certainly don't make him a candidate for something far more nefarious.
|
|
|
Post by Miss dockendorf on Mar 12, 2017 14:52:46 GMT -5
I'm not new to the kidnapping but I am new to this board. Ever since I read about the meat skewer to open the lips it sounded as if he were making sure the corpse was Charlie. And to me that does sound unnecessary. He was told he was not required to identify the body but chose to. Was that because he wanted the baby dead and wanted to make sure someone had done their job properly? Had the "kidnappers" screwed up and he was forced to check to see if the body was Charlie's? is it a plan gone awry or is it a conspiracy that went exactly the way it was planned.
Everyone feel free to set me straight as I'm clearly a novice on this board. And for the record I feel Hauptmann was a convenient scape goat.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 13, 2017 5:38:54 GMT -5
Everyone feel free to set me straight as I'm clearly a novice on this board. And for the record I feel Hauptmann was a convenient scape goat. Thanks for you thoughts and welcome to the Board. Honestly, what was going through Lindbergh's head is a matter of speculation no matter who voices it, and your thoughts and ideas give us a new perspective to consider. The best part about this venue is that our ideas can get "tested" as you can see by Joe and I seeing the same set of facts differently. It prevents "tunnel vision" that can often occur. But for me I am willing to conclude it shows a disconnect and lack of emotion toward his son. The motive may have been as you suggest, but I know the papers were carrying many stories which were total BS (and by the way found it's way into most books as factual). Lindbergh never wanted to be perceived as 'weak' and he certainly proved to the men there he wasn't that. Perhaps something else but definitely not weak. As far as Hauptmann being a scapegoat.... Here too it's a matter of perspective. If others were involved, and I absolutely 100% believe that, then no matter what his involvement he goes down with the ship. For me, it all depends upon the how one defines "scapegoat."
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 13, 2017 9:20:24 GMT -5
so mike do you feel Lindbergh was involved
|
|
|
Post by Miss dockendorf on Mar 13, 2017 18:59:29 GMT -5
Very good points and for the record your book was fascinating. I am about to read Hauptmann's Ladder and just finished The Case That Never Dies and I keep your book handy . It's like insider notes. And yes there are many ways to define scapegoat. If Hauptmann was into this up to his eyeballs I don't understand not telling all as a way to avoid a death sentence and because of that I have always felt he was being more honest than not. I try to imagine someone leaving me with a box of cash and how I would react when I realized what was in the box and that they had died. And for the record my husband is a carpenter and doesn't think Hauptman built the ladder and doesn't buy the attic comparison. He has doubts it was ever intended to be used and was put against the house to give the impression the kidnappers used the window. Everyone has a theory.
I should also add that it had occurred to me that Lindbergh wanted the baby gone and didn't want the kidnappers to take a child from that orphanage, kill it and then blackmail him with pictures of a three year old Charlie somewhere down the line.
This Discussion Board is fascinating, makes me rethink quite a lot regarding this case.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 13, 2017 19:19:35 GMT -5
...I don't believe it was Lindbergh's intent to do anything more than confirm the identity of his the body through the number and positioning of the teeth. Is there more to be read through his actions? It would be surprising if Lindbergh knew the exact number and position of his son's teeth. Do you think he did regular exams of the child's mouth when Charlie was alive? Most fathers are not into pediatric dentistry, and CAL Sr. gave no indication of being an exception. And even if he did know, the large majority of children of approximately the same age as Charlie would have the same number and positioning of teeth. That's because there is a fairly regular schedule of tooth appearance in most normal children, with each tooth, according to its position, appearing within its own normal chronological age interval. The time interval for each tooth's appearance. can be found in a standard dental or pediatrics textbook. So the teeth alone would hardly be a useful item for a definitive identification of the body.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Mar 13, 2017 19:43:32 GMT -5
I agree with Hurt, most baby teeth look the same and I doubt many mothers even could identify their child just looking at the teeth. Lindbergh's actions are almost incredulous to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 8:00:34 GMT -5
As I write this post, let me start out saying that I find Lindbergh's treatment of his dead son's body appalling so I am not making excuses here for what he did.
In normal, healthy children tooth development follows a rather standardized pattern. When you have a child, like Charlie, who had a diagnosed vitamin D deficient condition such as rickets, tooth formation is often delayed and the quality of those teeth affected. You will find defects in the structure of those teeth and also in the enamel that protects the teeth. This can lead to cavities of those teeth, even in a child of 20 months.
I think it is possible because of Charlie's health issues, Lindbergh was more familiar with what was going on with his son's tooth development. No doubt this issue was another negative for CAL that he had to deal with about this son.
In my opinion, it would have been next to impossible to duplicate the condition of Charlie's teeth because of the influence of rickets on tooth development. Getting Charlie's body returned was a long process. CAL would have wanted to be sure that the corpse in front of him was or was not his child. He chose a more invasive way to confirm that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 8:09:43 GMT -5
And for the record I feel Hauptmann was a convenient scape goat. Welcome to the board, dockendorf! So glad that you have chosen to share your ideas and opinions with us. Could I ask you to be a bit more specific about Hauptmann as a scapegoat. Do you mean he was not involved at any level with the kidnapping or could you possibly mean he was more like a sacrificial lamb, left to take the heat for the whole kidnap/murder of Charlie? For the record, I think Hauptmann was involved, I am still trying to sort out exactly what his role was because I think more than one person was involved.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 14, 2017 11:25:08 GMT -5
Many thanks to Sue Campbell for her valuable perspective on the subject of Lindbergh examining the teeth of the body in the morgue and here is a link to her post on Ronelle's site. I had forgotten about this connection of Lindbergh to his grandfather, Dr. Charles H. Land. As we try to consider every possibility here towards understanding this case and its cast of characters more completely and in the most objective light possible, this information provides an excellent example of both. Berg's book on Lindbergh is an excellent resource. disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=141545;article=51425;title=The%20Lindbergh%20Kidnapping%20Hoax%20Forum
|
|
|
Post by Miss dockendorf on Mar 14, 2017 11:46:35 GMT -5
When I say scapegoat I have strong doubts that he was involved. I think when he was followed by the police he tried to get away based on his status (citizenship) rather than guilt involving the kidnapping. He never agreed to admit guilt and personally I think if I were involved and I had the slightest chance of avoiding execution by admitting that guilt I'd pick confession. I can't even attempt to guess what was going on in his mind but they all seem to say he would sit and cry. Why despair when I could at least spend my life in prison, see my son grow up, at least know my wife. Instead he chose the electric chair. I could be completely wrong but that doesn't make any sense to me. That's why I like this discussion board as it helps me to understand the many theories out there. And thanks for the welcome. I'm enjoying reading the posts and getting all these ideas about what actually happened.
And I'm going to edit because I completely failed to answer your question. I see Mr. Hauptmann as a scapegoat because the minute they found him it no longer was about trying to figure out his part in the kidnapping it was we've got this guy now let's make sure he looks guilty. I do not believe he could have done all this on his own, no earthly way yet I see very little that shows they continued to investigate other theories, the police needed a kidnapper and he looked guilty enough to have the entire thing pinned on him. That's the short answer to why I see him as a scapegoat. Eventually I'll get the hang of this discussion board LOL.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 14, 2017 15:41:27 GMT -5
Rickets was common in children in that era, especially in poor children who mostly developed a deficiency of Vitamin D from lack of sunlight exposure. (Yes, we've agreed that if Charlie did have rickets, it probably would have been the unusual genetically caused Vitamin D resistant type of the disease.) So it wouldn't have been "next to impossible to duplicate the condition of Charlie's teeth" in another youngster.
BTW, according to the autopsy report, Charlie's tooth development - when checked against a standard table - was normal for his chronological age.
The million-dollar question connected to CAL Sr.'s activity in the morgue is this: Did he really identify the corpse as that of his son? Or was he just going through the motions, knowing that by claiming the body to be that of his son, he could get closure from the entire affair, especially with respect to future extortion attempts from others claiming that they could get the baby alive back to him?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 14, 2017 16:11:00 GMT -5
Many thanks to Sue Campbell for her valuable perspective on the subject of Lindbergh examining the teeth of the body in the morgue and here is a link to her post on Ronelle's site. I had forgotten about this connection of Lindbergh to his grandfather, Dr. Charles H. Land. As we try to consider every possibility here towards understanding this case and its cast of characters more completely and in the most objective light possible, this information provides an excellent example of both. Berg's book on Lindbergh is an excellent resource. disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=141545;article=51425;title=The%20Lindbergh%20Kidnapping%20Hoax%20ForumI wasn't aware that Lindbergh's maternal grandfather was a dentist. Be that as it may, dentistry in the very early 1900s in the US was hardly considered the prestigious profession it later became. There was no professional schooling and licensure requirements, so anyone who wished could open up a dentistry office and proceed from there. What Dr. Land did was to devise a new porcelain method to make false teeth. Actually, if anyone young CAL Sr.'s life provided him with scientific aspirations, it had to have been his mother, who earned a degree from the prestigious University of Michigan in chemistry (extremely rare for a woman in 1899) and taught chemistry in Detroit public schools for many years, even after her son became famous. CAL Sr. was beyond doubt a great engineering mind, but beyond that he was seriously deficient in several aspects of his character. So even in supposedly identifying his son's body, he state of mind has to be questioned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 16:23:41 GMT -5
When I say scapegoat I have strong doubts that he was involved. I think when he was followed by the police he tried to get away based on his status (citizenship) rather than guilt involving the kidnapping. He never agreed to admit guilt and personally I think if I were involved and I had the slightest chance of avoiding execution by admitting that guilt I'd pick confession. I can't even attempt to guess what was going on in his mind but they all seem to say he would sit and cry. Why despair when I could at least spend my life in prison, see my son grow up, at least know my wife. Instead he chose the electric chair. I could be completely wrong but that doesn't make any sense to me. That's why I like this discussion board as it helps me to understand the many theories out there. And thanks for the welcome. I'm enjoying reading the posts and getting all these ideas about what actually happened. And I'm going to edit because I completely failed to answer your question. I see Mr. Hauptmann as a scapegoat because the minute they found him it no longer was about trying to figure out his part in the kidnapping it was we've got this guy now let's make sure he looks guilty. I do not believe he could have done all this on his own, no earthly way yet I see very little that shows they continued to investigate other theories, the police needed a kidnapper and he looked guilty enough to have the entire thing pinned on him. That's the short answer to why I see him as a scapegoat. Eventually I'll get the hang of this discussion board LOL. Thanks so much for your response. I, too, still find in hard to understand why he chose the electric chair over life in prison. Looking forward to your future posts. You will have "discussion board" legs before you know it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 16:39:10 GMT -5
Rickets was common in children in that era, especially in poor children who mostly developed a deficiency of Vitamin D from lack of sunlight exposure. (Yes, we've agreed that if Charlie did have rickets, it probably would have been the unusual genetically caused Vitamin D resistant type of the disease.) So it wouldn't have been "next to impossible to duplicate the condition of Charlie's teeth" in another youngster. I understand your point here, however, if we are dealing with a corpse that is not really Charlie, then the person(s) who arranged for that body would have needed to know exactly the conditions of Charlie's teeth in order to make sure the substitute child's dental condition matched with Charlie. Rickets does affect the teeth but not every child with rickets had identical tooth shape and presentation of teeth. To use a substitute child you would have to find one that would match Charlie orally. That would be very difficult without having specific foreknowledge about Charlie's teeth. Lindbergh focused on those teeth for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Mar 14, 2017 19:55:05 GMT -5
I side with the Douglas' view and many others too that Hauptmann did not confess because of his son and family name. He was doomed and a confession would only probably doom his son. His hope would be his son would adopt the belief he was wrongly accused just as he convinced his wife Anna.
I lean to the side as I think Joe believes that the crime was conceived by someone who either had a grudge or an agenda that involved the kidnapping but may not entirely been directed specifically against the Lindberghs /Morrows. As time proceeded the few others involved passed on continuing perhaps because of risk or maybe the agenda's main purpose waned. Hauptmann slid into the lead role with no agenda but financial gain. To tie an insider to Hauptmann just may be impossible because it never was tied to Hauptmann to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 15, 2017 10:01:17 GMT -5
well stella it wasn't the only thing he looked at to identify his son. I believe it was the Lindbergh baby these people mwho think he did it with no credible proof is comical
|
|
|
Post by Miss dockendorf on Mar 15, 2017 13:25:19 GMT -5
Thanks!!!! I have to slow down and compose a response, my fingers are typing faster than my brain thinks. Am enjoying reading everyone's thoughts and opinions. I have never understood why Mr. Hauptmann would choose the chair over "I built the ladder".
|
|