|
Post by kate1 on Aug 16, 2017 6:04:20 GMT -5
There is a time factor in all of this. Anna had to have been picked up that night. She didn't have a car. I'm assuming that the kidnapper depended on darkness to commit this "kidnapping". Anna was picked up about the same time the baby was discovered missing. Between dark about 6:30 and 10:00 pm I can't possibly believe anyone could go to Morrow's and find no baby. Drive to Hopewell and find the other home figure out which room the baby was in and miraculously get there when Charlie wasn't to be disturbed. Get the little guy, bury him and make it back to pick up his wife!. I really feel this was about a staged event.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 8:46:46 GMT -5
I also think this was a staged event. I think the ladder is firm proof of this.
It was useless at the Englewood house because it was too short for that house, even with three sections employed. The Englewood house was a massive house compared to the Hopewell house. Charlie was in a nursery room that was on the 3rd floor of the Englewood house. The ladder would not have reached the nursery.
They only used two sections of the ladder at the Hopewell house. This is according to the findings of the police investigations. No investigating agency claimed that all three sections were employed at the Hopewell house, only TWO. That makes the ladder too short and problematic for a window entry and exit strategy; not to mention the suitcase on top of the wood cabinet under the window and the beer stein on the windowsill. It really should be asked why they chose to use only two sections which they knew wouldn't reach the window.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 16, 2017 9:17:36 GMT -5
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Fisher is the "most popular writer about the Lindbergh crime," it doesn't necessarily mean that he is the most accurate on the facts. Popularity and accuracy are two different concepts.
Michael has pointed out many errors in Fisher's work right here on this board.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 17, 2017 12:18:45 GMT -5
Despite the minor errors contained in Fisher's books and the probability of others involved, I believe his narrative that identifies Hauptmann as main player is much closer to the truth than what's found in the efforts of Scaduto, Kennedy, Ahlgen and Monier, Behn, Jones and Zorn. Speaking of which, there seems to be very little criticism of those works here on this board, even though a strong case could be made for them all being fatally flawed.
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Aug 17, 2017 12:32:12 GMT -5
Despite the minor errors contained in Fisher's books and the probability of others involved, I believe his narrative that targets Hauptmann is much closer to the truth than what's found in the efforts of Scaduto, Kennedy, Ahlgen and Monier, Behn, Jones and Zorn. Speaking of which, there seems to be very little criticism of those works here on this board, even though a strong case could be made for them all being fatally flawed. Re: Behn, Ahlgen, Monier I disagree with the author's thesis in those books that promote an alternative narrative eg. Lindbergh/Elizabeth Morrow killing CAL, jr. Nosovitski being the ransom writer. I don't buy it. Where Scaduto fails is the presentation of Attorney Bryan's claim of whoever being the Lindbergh child. I agree with Scaduto's, Kennedy's and Gardner's research into the case bearing out that the LKC is a twisted mess of error and lies. Jones I have not read and Zorn I've dismissed as well as the author of Let Sleeping Dogs Lie. Alternative speculations don't have a place in historical research.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 17, 2017 16:35:20 GMT -5
Despite the minor errors contained in Fisher's books and the probability of others involved, I believe his narrative that identifies Hauptmann as main player is much closer to the truth than what's found in the efforts of Scaduto, Kennedy, Ahlgen and Monier, Behn, Jones and Zorn. Many of the mistakes in his books go way beyond "minor" in my opinion. When the theme is to accuse others of being "Revisionists" then he had better be right about his attacks. In some cases he's very wrong, then becomes the very thing he accuses others of. Next, there are other places where he didn't even do the proper research to make any accusation at all. Speaking of which, there seems to be very little criticism of those works here on this board, even though a strong case could be made for them all being fatally flawed. You are certainly welcome to Joe. I think if anyone here has used ANY source that is wrong I am quick to point out the error. BTW - Here is one source concerning Englewood: Attachment Deleted
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 18, 2017 3:16:43 GMT -5
According to Fisher there was a roof below that nursery window at Englewood which the third ladder section was meant to reach from. Until we see a photo of that nursery and the wall below it, this issue will remain unsettled. There are thousands of pictures of Hopewell, none of Englewood?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 18, 2017 5:20:29 GMT -5
According to Fisher there was a roof below that nursery window at Englewood which the third ladder section was meant to reach from. Until we see a photo of that nursery and the wall below it, this issue will remain unsettled. There are thousands of pictures of Hopewell, none of Englewood? For me it's beyond settled. There are too many sources, like the one I posted, which prove it. But if I go to Fisher's books there are mistakes/errors like this probably on every other page. I do have a picture of this situation somewhere Jack so it does exist. If I stumble onto it I will post it. Look mistakes happen, and I am not trying to bash anyone for them. But if it's my intent to label someone, and by setting out to prove it wear that label myself - it should be pointed out. It's been a long time since I read either of his books but my recollection is that he asserted Hoffman hired a bunch of motley fools while anyone associated with the State was a picture of integrity. Among those "fools" were, for example, Foster, Meade, and Keyes. Just a little bit of research would reveal that Foster had a letter of recommendation from Wilentz, Meade worked for Hauck during the Curtis trial, and Keyes worked for Breckenridge who wrote him a letter of recommendation.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 18, 2017 6:25:05 GMT -5
Despite the minor errors contained in Fisher's books and the probability of others involved, I believe his narrative that identifies Hauptmann as main player is much closer to the truth than what's found in the efforts of Scaduto, Kennedy, Ahlgen and Monier, Behn, Jones and Zorn. Many of the mistakes in his books go way beyond "minor" in my opinion. When the theme is to accuse others of being "Revisionists" then he had better be right about his attacks. In some cases he's very wrong, then becomes the very thing he accuses others of. Next, there are other places where he didn't even do the proper research to make any accusation at all. Speaking of which, there seems to be very little criticism of those works here on this board, even though a strong case could be made for them all being fatally flawed. You are certainly welcome to Joe. I think if anyone here has used ANY source that is wrong I am quick to point out the error. BTW - Here is one source concerning Englewood: I've always thought it was interesting that Red Johnson left the Junges' the night of the kidnapping to use a pay phone. It was rainy and windy and cold. Was it so a call couldn't be traced?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 18, 2017 6:26:26 GMT -5
According to Fisher there was a roof below that nursery window at Englewood which the third ladder section was meant to reach from. Until we see a photo of that nursery and the wall below it, this issue will remain unsettled. There are thousands of pictures of Hopewell, none of Englewood? Was the roof flat or slanted?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 18, 2017 8:40:01 GMT -5
theres plenty of mistakes in other books but they focus on fisher because they don't like his belief in the case but the other books are either absurd or countless
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 18, 2017 8:41:15 GMT -5
evidently it served its purpose even though it split near the dowel hole
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 18, 2017 8:42:05 GMT -5
he still got in amy
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 18, 2017 9:35:09 GMT -5
theres plenty of mistakes in other books but they focus on fisher because they don't like his belief in the case but the other books are either absurd or countless Of course there are, but difference being nobody is citing Zorn or Scaduto (in 2017) as experts on the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2017 13:40:47 GMT -5
There is no evidence that Hauptmann, himself, was in that nursery the night of March 1, 1932. Hauptmann's prints were not on the ladder, they were not in the nursery room or anywhere else at the Hopewell house. Hauptmann's prints were not on the nursery note. Hauptmann's feet did not match with the print that was casted from the Hopewell house. There is nothing that physically puts Hauptmann at the Hopewell house that night. Hochmuth and Whited lied on the witness stand in Flemington and Lupica never said the man driving the car he saw that night was Hauptmann. A resemblance is not a positive ID of someone! There is no positive ID of Hauptmann being in Hopewell, let alone at High Fields. None!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2017 13:48:07 GMT -5
I've always thought it was interesting that Red Johnson left the Junges' the night of the kidnapping to use a pay phone. It was rainy and windy and cold. Was it so a call couldn't be traced? I think so too. No traceable call plus no one to hear what was really being discussed in that call.
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Aug 18, 2017 15:40:34 GMT -5
I've always thought it was interesting that Red Johnson left the Junges' the night of the kidnapping to use a pay phone. It was rainy and windy and cold. Was it so a call couldn't be traced? I think so too. No traceable call plus no one to hear what was really being discussed in that call. Those old phones were so crude, weren't they? I think the caller would have to use the line for several minutes for an operator to put through a trace And isn't it interesting that Johnsen was deported with a $50,000 bond or something?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Aug 18, 2017 16:45:58 GMT -5
I agree Kate, Red Johnsen is always on my radar, whether or not you think Betty is involved. It's also odd that they would be out for a joy ride on such an awful night.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 18, 2017 18:17:02 GMT -5
I think so too. No traceable call plus no one to hear what was really being discussed in that call. Those old phones were so crude, weren't they? I think the caller would have to use the line for several minutes for an operator to put through a trace And isn't it interesting that Johnsen was deported with a $50,000 bond or something? I think looking at the letter Michael posted above about the other Morrow servants that lived with Red and their long distance charges that were recorded, none were evidently traced to Hopewell. That's what makes me wonder about Red going out on a miserable night to make a phone call when Junges offered to let him use their phone. In those days all long distance calls went through an operated and were charged individually.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 20, 2017 6:54:50 GMT -5
Here is the picture I have of the Englewood situation. I don't know who took the picture, when it was taken, or which of the top windows is the nursery since I've never been there myself and it's not pointed out in the picture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 10:10:33 GMT -5
Here is the picture I have of the Englewood situation. I don't know who took the picture, when it was taken, or which of the top windows is the nursery since I've never been there myself and it's not pointed out in the picture. Thanks for posting that picture, Michael. Since you don't have much information about the picture, how can you be sure one of those upper windows is supposed to be the nursery? I really don't think that is accurate for the nursery situation in 1932 at Englewood. According to Betty Gow's court testimony in Flemington, she told Reilly during cross examination (TT page 297) that the nursery at Englewood was on the third floor of the Next Day Hill House at the time of the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 20, 2017 11:11:46 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that picture, Michael. Since you don't have much information about the picture, how can you be sure one of those upper windows is supposed to be the nursery? I really don't think that is accurate for the nursery situation in 1932 at Englewood. According to Betty Gow's court testimony in Flemington, she told Reilly during cross examination (TT page 297) that the nursery at Englewood was on the third floor of the Next Day Hill House at the time of the kidnapping. I really don't know Amy - it's kind of why I offered a disclaimer while at the same time I had it and did not want to hide it from anyone. If you look at the white part it looks like that could go (3) floors but I really don't have anything else I can offer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 11:23:35 GMT -5
I really don't know Amy - it's kind of why I offered a disclaimer while at the same time I had it and did not want to hide it from anyone. If you look at the white part it looks like that could go (3) floors but I really don't have anything else I can offer. I see what you are saying about the white section possibly being 3 levels high. I believe Betty Morrow had that nursery room added for Charlie. Thanks Michael, you are always very helpful to everyone who posts here.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Aug 20, 2017 11:50:00 GMT -5
As I understand it, Next Day Hill is now the Elisabeth Morrow School, with numerous additions to the original estate over the years to expand it to its present state. This link of the current front view of the main house shows the third story as an attic-like space with five individual dormers projecting from the roof for windows: goo.gl/images/KW9GMYA check of Google maps aerial view indicates the rear is similar to the front, with five individual dormers. These pictures don't show a third story on the "wings" that flank the main house: violetsharp.wordpress.com/estate-pictures-englewood-and-hopewell/Bruno will need inside information if he is to pick the right dormer(s) to the nursery
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 20, 2017 17:16:15 GMT -5
By "awful night," I'm presume you are referring to the weather. Amy 35 has posted the forecasts and the actual weather conditions from the Jersey City (or was it Newark?) and the Trenton newspapers. No mention of rain or snow in either the forecasted or actual weather. Plus, temperatures reasonably comfortable (40 degrees or so) for that time of year.
I don't know where this stormy weather story came from, other than it seems to fit in with the spooky nature of these events.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 20, 2017 17:32:44 GMT -5
There is no evidence that Hauptmann, himself, was in that nursery the night of March 1, 1932. Hauptmann's prints were not on the ladder, they were not in the nursery room or anywhere else at the Hopewell house. Hauptmann's prints were not on the nursery note. Hauptmann's feet did not match with the print that was casted from the Hopewell house. There is nothing that physically puts Hauptmann at the Hopewell house that night. Hochmuth and Whited lied on the witness stand in Flemington and Lupica never said the man driving the car he saw that night was Hauptmann. A resemblance is not a positive ID of someone! There is no positive ID of Hauptmann being in Hopewell, let alone at High Fields. None! Amy, I couldn't agree with you more! Hochmuth and Whited lied on the stand, and Wilentz did too. Hochmuth was legally blind and Whited was a compulsive liar with no sense of moral decency. Wilentz built a "superstar" law practice in his home town of Perth Amboy because of the publicity the Hauptmann trial generated and because the media at the time was scared to challenge his theory. (Frankly, if I were in the media, I'd be scared too. He was the Attorney General and could have made up criminal charges against any critic who might have irked him.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 19:04:19 GMT -5
Michael,
I have a question for you and I hope that you can help me.
I was looking at a diagram of the Hopewell house and it started me thinking. Did the police ever check out the attic of High Fields? Do you know if there was a stairwell upstairs that the attic could be accessed from?
Sorry that is two questions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 20, 2017 19:05:24 GMT -5
I see what you are saying about the white section possibly being 3 levels high. I believe Betty Morrow had that nursery room added for Charlie. Thanks Michael, you are always very helpful to everyone who posts here. Thanks Amy. I think Steve has been to Next Day Hill so maybe he can enlighten us? Also some great links by Scathma to help with the visuals. I know I have more pictures somewhere but it's been hard for me to search as I continue to work on the next volume. However, I did come across another source in the documentation (written by Special Agent Sisk) so I am going to quote it now before I put it down and forget where it was: "Our discussions concerning the kidnap ladder are set out in my previous memorandum. However, another fact concerning same has been furnished by Lieutenant Keaton [sic]. He states that the three sections of the ladder were nine feet short of reaching to the window of the nursery at the Morrow home in Englewood. This would seem to discount the idea that the kidnapping was originally planned to take place at the Morrow home and switched at the last moment to the Lindbergh residence."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 20, 2017 19:08:27 GMT -5
Michael, I have a question for you and I hope that you can help me. I was looking at a diagram of the Hopewell house and it started me thinking. Did the police ever check out the attic of High Fields? Do you know if there was a stairwell upstairs that the attic could be accessed from? Off the top of my head I know the attic was searched but I cannot remember who went up there at the moment. I don't think there was a "stairwell" into it. I have the "blueprints" somewhere so I'll see if I can find them and get back to you.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 21, 2017 10:17:19 GMT -5
Michael, I have a question for you and I hope that you can help me. I was looking at a diagram of the Hopewell house and it started me thinking. Did the police ever check out the attic of High Fields? Do you know if there was a stairwell upstairs that the attic could be accessed from? Sorry that is two questions. Amy I have no way of knowing but I recall many attic rooms of old houses were where servants slept. Also didn't the same architect who designed the Englewood house do the one in Hopewell? I didn't mean to try to answer your question...just commenting here!
|
|