|
Post by Michael on Aug 21, 2017 17:38:27 GMT -5
Do you know if there was a stairwell upstairs that the attic could be accessed from? According to the original floorplan, there was a stairway access to the attic between the Nursery and the Owner's Bed Room accessible from the hallway. However, the later diagrams appear to wall off the access from the hallway but that same length appears opening through the closet in the Lindberghs' Bed Room. I don't know if it was a "stairway" in the same sense as the other two leading downstairs but it definitely shows "stairs" of some sort. Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2017 19:21:15 GMT -5
According to the original floorplan, there was a stairway access to the attic between the Nursery and the Owner's Bed Room accessible from the hallway. However, the later diagrams appear to wall off the access from the hallway but that same length appears opening through the closet in the Lindberghs' Bed Room. I don't know if it was a "stairway" in the same sense as the other two leading downstairs but it definitely shows "stairs" of some sort. Thanks, Michael for sharing the blueprint. I saw that stairwell with the hall door in the floor plan that was part of the paperwork filed with the National Register of Historic Places. That staircase was in that print. This print also showed a stairway of some sort in Charlie's closet in the nursery room. I was unaware of the existence of these other stairways so that is why I asked you about them. I know how hard you are working on your next volume, so I appreciate you taking the time to research this for me. I promise not to ask you a ton of questions! I am already eagerly anticipating the eventual release of that second volume of facts!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2017 19:26:47 GMT -5
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! Thanks for your comments Kate. I am always glad to have people share whatever they can when I ask a question. The architects who designed High Fields were Delano and Aldrich. They also had done two houses for the Morrows, one of them being Next Day Hill.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2017 5:32:59 GMT -5
I know how hard you are working on your next volume, so I appreciate you taking the time to research this for me. I promise not to ask you a ton of questions! I am already eagerly anticipating the eventual release of that second volume of facts!! Don't worry about that.... You or anyone else want to ask me anything they like. I just might be a little slower than normal because of it (when it might have been slow to begin with). I think the Next Day Hill theory proves that right? I have multiple sources and so far have only found (2). I have various pictures and have only found (1). It's the nature of the beast unfortunately. As an example, I had an FBI report on the ladder, in my hands, that I wanted to use as a source for V1. I put it back into the file for later. When I went to use it I had forgotten which file it was in, searched for it, but I could not find it. Always thought I'd stumble onto it since but to this day I still have not.... I have absolutely no idea where it's at but it is definitely among my files somewhere. And how long has it been? Frustrating to say the least!
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 22, 2017 12:51:36 GMT -5
when I was at next day hill I couldn't go upstairs where the lindberghs lived there was a class going on. according to the outside measurements I was told they might have measured the wrong window I don't know how true it is. id love to do it myslelf
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 22, 2017 12:52:48 GMT -5
amy he was very involved theres no real proof of anybody else
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 22, 2017 14:18:47 GMT -5
when I was at next day hill I couldn't go upstairs where the lindberghs lived there was a class going on. according to the outside measurements I was told they might have measured the wrong window I don't know how true it is. id love to do it myslelf I always thought the Lindberghs' lived in their own wing of the Englewood estate. Is that right?
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Aug 23, 2017 11:37:25 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.) Exactly! Hocmuth was a blind liar, Whited an inveterate liar, and Wilentz was extremely aggressive in his pursuit of the state winning its case and putting H in the chair. In fact the whole trial should have been dismissed because the state of NJ didn't allow any defense Why did the state find it necessary to spend so much money in its pursuit of this verdict and execution and the defense was literally frozen out? It's rotten!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 25, 2017 3:27:47 GMT -5
I've seen a picture of the Morrow Home Nursery long ago and not sure where. It had the roof below the nursery window. Thought it would be in Fisher, but noso. Fisher just had the three books, right? "The Lindbergh Case," and then republish of that - updated and revised, and most recently "The Ghosts of Hopewell."
The making of the third ladder section, necessary for the Englewood house would show some pre-planning. The evidence, because of having to go to Hopewell to kidnap Charlie instead of The Morrow residence, shows absolutely no pre-planning or inside source. Evidently the kidnapper didn't even know there was supposed to be a dog, or he probably wouldn't even have attempted the crime.
The kidnapper just took the three sections of ladder to Hopewell since he had no idea how high he'd have to go for the window.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 25, 2017 5:36:46 GMT -5
I've seen a picture of the Morrow Home Nursery long ago and not sure where. It had the roof below the nursery window. Thought it would be in Fisher, but noso. Fisher just had the three books, right? "The Lindbergh Case," and then republish of that - updated and revised, and most recently "The Ghosts of Hopewell." The making of the third ladder section, necessary for the Englewood house would show some pre-planning. The evidence, because of having to go to Hopewell to kidnap Charlie instead of The Morrow residence, shows absolutely no pre-planning or inside source. Evidently the kidnapper didn't even know there was supposed to be a dog, or he probably wouldn't even have attempted the crime. The kidnapper just took the three sections of ladder to Hopewell since he had no idea how high he'd have to go for the window. Where's Fisher's source? I'd like to compare it with the multiple sources I have (two of which I've already shared). The first step to proving your assertion would be showing that it was even possible. According to both Walsh and Keaten, independent of one another, it was investigated and completely dismissed. So now what to do? Well, let's assume that both Keaten and Walsh both missed a "roof" or (place whatever other excuse you like here) to show it was still a true situation? And this is to be used to specifically undermine circumstances that could not possibly be true - that being the Kidnappers knew nothing. Breckenridge, who was just at Highfields, couldn't even remember how to get there but these Kidnappers blindly just happened to find it? So there's no " having to go to Hopewell" about this crime as if jumping into your car and driving downtown to the mall. Not without planning to do so. Next, that three sectioned ladder fit perfectly inside the louvers of an open shutter at Hopewell AND at the perfect length. The ladder, according to Keaten, was 9 feet short with all three sections for Next Day Hill. So Fisher was wrong. I've posted 2 sources to prove it and there's even more if/when I can find them. But isn't it beating a dead horse at this point?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 25, 2017 6:19:47 GMT -5
amy he was very involved theres no real proof of anybody else I would think Fisch and J.J. Faulkner would be good people to look into. Also maybe Violet Sharpe and the crew at Junges' boarding house.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 25, 2017 6:51:59 GMT -5
I don't have Fisher's book in front of me, but I recall he makes a statement something like, "at the risk of throwing one more harebrained theory into the mix" and then describes the possibility of Hauptmann first going to Englewood, finding no CALjr in the building and then going on to Hopewell. I would hope Fisher's assertion was more tongue-in-cheek because the idea has always sounded ludicrous to me. How exactly does the kidnapper accurately determine this without essentially knocking on the front door and enquiring? Would he actually risk climbing the exterior of a well secured estate with dozens of people present or coming and going, somehow scale the remaining distance, enter the nursery and say "Curses, foiled again.. on to Hopewell!" And how does Fisher expect Hauptmann to know exactly which room is the nursery without inside information, a concept he himself doesn't support. Michael's sources which say both Keaten and Walsh completely dismissed this possibility will hopefully put this very much harebrained theory out for the count. I believe the actual kidnapping at Hopewell on a Tuesday evening indicates clearly that house was targeted specifically, and that the kidnapper(s) believed the Lindberghs lived there on a full time basis, therefore there would be no need to even consider striking Englewood.
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Aug 25, 2017 12:12:35 GMT -5
amy he was very involved theres no real proof of anybody else I would think Fisch and J.J. Faulkner would be good people to look into. Also maybe Violet Sharpe and the crew at Junges' boarding house. I would definitely research Fisch, "J.J. Faulkner" whoever he or she was, definitely Violet Sharpe because she knew a newspaper man and had tracable money in the bank and also sent home money to family in Eng. The Junges' crew and the Morrow household, too Everyone had something going on during those years.
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Aug 25, 2017 12:17:04 GMT -5
I don't have Fisher's book in front of me, but I recall he makes a statement something like, "at the risk of throwing one more harebrained theory into the mix" and then describes the possibility of Hauptmann first going to Englewood, finding no CALjr in the building and then going on to Hopewell. I would hope Fisher's assertion was more tongue-in-cheek because the idea has always sounded ludicrous to me. How exactly does the kidnapper accurately determine this without essentially knocking on the front door and enquiring? Would he actually risk climbing the exterior of a well secured estate with dozens of people present or coming and going, somehow scale the remaining distance, enter the nursery and say "Curses, foiled again.. on to Hopewell!" And how does Fisher expect Hauptmann to know exactly which room is the nursery without inside information, a concept he himself doesn't support. Michael's sources which say both Keaten and Walsh completely dismissed this possibility will hopefully put this very much harebrained theory out for the count. I believe the actual kidnapping at Hopewell on a Tuesday evening indicates clearly that house was targeted specifically, and that the kidnapper(s) believed the Lindberghs lived there on a full time basis, therefore there would be no need to even consider striking Englewood. If anything about the ransom notes is to be believed, it is stated in there that the job was planned for a year already. I believe the Morrow household had their guards, too, patrolling the grounds. The situation at Highfields left the gate wide open, so to speak, because there weren't any guards and those people who allegedly spied on the house and took photos were only shooed away by Whately and his fill in without any reporting nuisances/trespassers to local PD and filling out complaints with vehicle person descriptions!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 25, 2017 21:07:41 GMT -5
Whether the Morrow estate was a target or not is really secondary information which has little to do with the actual crime. Kind of like cars around Hopewell that day - interesting, but in the long run not important and can't even be proven.
I thought Fisher might have mentioned his views of what he wrote about Engelwodd at one of his lectures or debates, and that might come out, but so far not.
The content of the notes is BS. - "the boy is in gute health, etc." Too bad the false hope they generated was taken so seriously. I've never understood how, by the notes, some people (mostly police?) determined that Charlie was dead.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 26, 2017 20:08:27 GMT -5
Jack, it was the lack of a threatening posture towards the child's health that had a lot of investigators believing in the worst from the beginning. I think you had to be there, whether you were an unwitting victim or you were trained for this kind of work. Law enforcement basically ended up in a position of deference to Lindbergh's personal arrangement with the kidnappers through Condon, until CALjr was returned or not. I think that for the Lindberghs as parents, they were just willing to hang their hopes on any channel, however unlikely it might end up becoming, as long as there was some ray of hope that their child was still alive.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 27, 2017 6:33:46 GMT -5
Well, Joe, what you've posted above certainly seems correct.
With Lindbergh out of the "as kidnapper" picture, I'd say the crime is solved and we can all go back to "Word Search." I don't think ANYONE would have gone along with Hauptmann as to taking the Lindbergh baby, but I can see Richard doing it. And it seems that criminals would be involved with that ransom money laundering - it's only money. So that's probably where the answers to remaining questions (who was J.J. Faulkner, etc.) are.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 27, 2017 7:20:49 GMT -5
Whether the Morrow estate was a target or not is really secondary information which has little to do with the actual crime. Kind of like cars around Hopewell that day - interesting, but in the long run not important and can't even be proven. So you don't think Lupica's account was important? Or you do? And if you do, that car had to have come from somewhere right? If it can be traced by other eyewitness accounts then it's "kind of" important wouldn't you say? Jack, it was the lack of a threatening posture towards the child's health that had a lot of investigators believing in the worst from the beginning. I think you had to be there, whether you were an unwitting victim or you were trained for this kind of work. Law enforcement basically ended up in a position of deference to Lindbergh's personal arrangement with the kidnappers through Condon, until CALjr was returned or not. I think that for the Lindberghs as parents, they were just willing to hang their hopes on any channel, however unlikely it might end up becoming, as long as there was some ray of hope that their child was still alive. I don't know. Sounds good Joe, but how do we reconcile Lindbergh's words & actions? He testified under oath that he originally believed Curtis. Curtis said a member of his staff was involved. That's HUGE in light of what Whateley said isn't it? Then Lindbergh turned around and protected his staff at every turn. So if what you are saying is true, I would agree that before the body is found he'll insulate them... but what about after? His baby is dead and he's still protecting them.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 27, 2017 13:25:00 GMT -5
Well, Joe, what you've posted above certainly seems correct. With Lindbergh out of the "as kidnapper" picture, I'd say the crime is solved and we can all go back to "Word Search." I don't think ANYONE would have gone along with Hauptmann as to taking the Lindbergh baby, but I can see Richard doing it. And it seems that criminals would be involved with that ransom money laundering - it's only money. So that's probably where the answers to remaining questions (who was J.J. Faulkner, etc.) are. Jack, I have trouble believing Hauptmann dreamt this whole thing up from the beginning. His history tells us he was influenced by others in a relatively tight circle, eg. Petzold, Diebig, Kloppenburg included. I think he somehow got wind of this scheme early through a contact and became part of a small group, but that he essentially took the reins (with Fisch's assistance) when the baby was killed and things got too hot for the others to handle, so they scattered like roaches into the woodwork. I believe at least one of them came back out for a little money laundering action, ie. Nosovitsky alias 'Jimmy Faulkner,' the American who spent money freely in Ste. Agathe, Quebec in the summer of 1932, and also the casher of the $2,980 in Lindbergh ransom on May 1, 1933.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 27, 2017 13:41:01 GMT -5
It has always been shocking to me how little checking Lindbergh did before hiring his staff. The baby's nurse wasn't a nurse and had never cared for children before. I find that odd. Whatley's seemed like nice people but they hadn't lived in this country all that long. Also, in all articles, books, newspapers I've seen that show the house plans I've never seen the stairway to the attic. It's as close to the nursery as it could be without being in the room. I have read that the attic was to be used as a laboratory in the future. What happened to it?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 27, 2017 13:51:02 GMT -5
After CJ had not delivered, Lindbergh wanted to believe there was hope through Curtis, by dint of his boundless 'chutzpah,' especially within his references to the CJ Jafsie had just dealt with. As the self-admitted fake that Curtis turned out to be, what else was there for Lindbergh to ultimately realize than that he had simply been taken for a month-long ride? Curtis initially knew nothing about the kidnapping but was obviously able to gain sensitive inside information once he was "on the inside."
This thing about the staff is totally a matter of how it's seen through whatever filter you wish to use. They all made statements and in an absolute sense, I see nothing within Lindbergh's actions to suggest anything other than that he basically had trust in them to the extent they would not have been involved in any kind of primary role. I'm sure though, he must have entertained thoughts about how any of them might have unwittingly provided sensitive information to someone who was involved.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 28, 2017 4:24:58 GMT -5
After CJ had not delivered, Lindbergh wanted to believe there was hope through Curtis, by dint of his boundless 'chutzpah,' especially within his references to the CJ Jafsie had just dealt with. As the self-admitted fake that Curtis turned out to be, what else was there for Lindbergh to ultimately realize than that he had simply been taken for a month-long ride? Curtis initially knew nothing about the kidnapping but was obviously able to gain sensitive inside information once he was "on the inside." This thing about the staff is totally a matter of how it's seen through whatever filter you wish to use. They all made statements and in an absolute sense, I see nothing within Lindbergh's actions to suggest anything other than that he basically had trust in them to the extent they would not have been involved in any kind of primary role. I'm sure though, he must have entertained thoughts about how any of them might have unwittingly provided sensitive information to someone who was involved. All of this to me illustrates that CAL wasn't as bright as was thought or he was extremely gifted at tying up an investigation. Why would anyone with his fame, wealth and intelligence (?) hire these people? Were the Whatley's a gift from the Morrows? But Betty, I don't understand...especially.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 28, 2017 8:52:46 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 the evidence strongly shows he was in there they never found nobody else to disprove it
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 28, 2017 8:53:51 GMT -5
I think fisher and another researcher measured the window I will find out for sure today
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 9:48:10 GMT -5
It has always been shocking to me how little checking Lindbergh did before hiring his staff. The baby's nurse wasn't a nurse and had never cared for children before. I find that odd. Whatley's seemed like nice people but they hadn't lived in this country all that long. Also, in all articles, books, newspapers I've seen that show the house plans I've never seen the stairway to the attic. It's as close to the nursery as it could be without being in the room. I have read that the attic was to be used as a laboratory in the future. What happened to it? I figure Lindbergh didn't do any checking on his own about the help he hired because he just expected someone else to do that part. As I understand it, the Whateleys came through an agency, so it seems to me that the agency should have collected and then provided the background information on the people who they sent out to be interviewed by the rich and powerful clients they are servicing. Betty Gow is a different situation. From what I have read, Betty Gow learned about the Lindberghs needing a baby nurse from her friend, Mary Beattie(Betty and Mary knew each other in Scotland), who worked at the Morrow house, specifically for Miss Elisabeth Morrow. Mary Beattie told Elisabeth about Betty Gow and Elisabeth suggested that CAL interview her for the job. So I see Betty Gow coming onto the staff as a personal recommendation and probably no background check was done at that time. I would hope that Anne discussed Betty Gow with Mary Beattie, at least! I was very surprised when I saw how close the attic stairwell was to the nursery. I never knew that before. That is why I checked with Michael about it (of course!) as soon as I became aware of it on the Historical places documents I was looking at. I wanted to be sure it was on the original plans and not something added by the state of New Jersey once they took over the ownership of the house. As far as CAL's plans for a laboratory, he definitely did plan one. However, the biological lab he wanted to put in the Hopewell house was to be done in the basement and not the attic space. Lindbergh had been using the Princeton University laboratory (by invitation) while he was living in New Jersey when the Hopewell house was being built. I cannot state whether any work had been done to develop the lab space by the time of the kidnapping.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 10:00:38 GMT -5
amy the evidence strongly shows he was in there they never found nobody else to disprove it Steve, can you please be specific about what evidence shows he was IN the nursery or even IN Hopewell? If you are going to point at the ladder and the nursery note as putting him in the nursery, I disagree. He could have built the ladder and written the note which were then turned over to whoever was going to remove Charlie from the Lindbergh house. Hauptmann didn't have to be there for those items to have been there. Where are Hauptmann's fingerprints on the ladder?? Where are his matching footprints on the ground of the Hopewell house?? Where are his prints anywhere to be found at the scene?? Where are the reliable witnesses who saw Hauptmann in Hopewell the day/night of March 1, 1932? I am willing to consider any concrete evidence you can share that physically places Hauptmann at the scene of the crime.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 28, 2017 12:33:09 GMT -5
Ben Lupica's eyewitness evidence was different than the numerous car sightings. The sightings will never be proven as to who or what they were.
Remember, Lupica's evidence came long before anyone ever heard of Richard Hauptmann. Ben saw a middle aged normal sized white male alone with a suit on and a slouch hat driving a blue Dodge car similar year as Hauptmenn's car (probably Hauptmann's) with a disassembled extension ladder over the seats in front of the Lindbergh residence shortly before the Lindbergh Kidnapping Crime happened. That is significant evidence of perpetration since Hauptmann also turns up later as a suspect in the crime investigation.
Detractors from the "Hauptmann did it and probably alone" construction of how the crime happened should note that none of the known evidence does not point to Hauptmann!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 28, 2017 16:19:37 GMT -5
It has always been shocking to me how little checking Lindbergh did before hiring his staff. The baby's nurse wasn't a nurse and had never cared for children before. I find that odd. Whatley's seemed like nice people but they hadn't lived in this country all that long. Also, in all articles, books, newspapers I've seen that show the house plans I've never seen the stairway to the attic. It's as close to the nursery as it could be without being in the room. I have read that the attic was to be used as a laboratory in the future. What happened to it? I figure Lindbergh didn't do any checking on his own about the help he hired because he just expected someone else to do that part. As I understand it, the Whateleys came through an agency, so it seems to me that the agency should have collected and then provided the background information on the people who they sent out to be interviewed by the rich and powerful clients they are servicing. Betty Gow is a different situation. From what I have read, Betty Gow learned about the Lindberghs needing a baby nurse from her friend, Mary Beattie(Betty and Mary knew each other in Scotland), who worked at the Morrow house, specifically for Miss Elisabeth Morrow. Mary Beattie told Elisabeth about Betty Gow and Elisabeth suggested that CAL interview her for the job. So I see Betty Gow coming onto the staff as a personal recommendation and probably no background check was done at that time. I would hope that Anne discussed Betty Gow with Mary Beattie, at least! I was very surprised when I saw how close the attic stairwell was to the nursery. I never knew that before. That is why I checked with Michael about it (of course!) as soon as I became aware of it on the Historical places documents I was looking at. I wanted to be sure it was on the original plans and not something added by the state of New Jersey once they took over the ownership of the house. As far as CAL's plans for a laboratory, he definitely did plan one. However, the biological lab he wanted to put in the Hopewell house was to be done in the basement and not the attic space. Lindbergh had been using the Princeton University laboratory (by invitation) while he was living in New Jersey when the Hopewell house was being built. I cannot state whether any work had been done to develop the lab space by the time of the kidnapping. I remember reading somewhere that there were Windows built into the roof at Highfields that flooded the attic with light, being planned for an eventual laboratory. I also remember reading that Betty decided she wasn't happy being a maid and decided, I think while she lived in Detroit, to "read up on childcare" to seek a position as a nurse. I would think as much as Betty had charge over the baby they might have found someone with: (1. More experience with children especially babies, and (2. Someone the family knew a little more about. I would hAve absolutely never left my children at any age with someone with this little experience and about whom my family heard through the friend of a maid! They left him totally in her care when they flew around the world. Hard not to criticize their judgement. and
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 28, 2017 16:22:01 GMT -5
Ben Lupica's eyewitness evidence was different than the numerous car sightings. The sightings will never be proven as to who or what they were. Remember, Lupica's evidence came long before anyone ever heard of Richard Hauptmann. Ben saw a middle aged normal sized white male alone with a suit on and a slouch hat driving a blue Dodge car similar year as Hauptmenn's car (probably Hauptmann's) with a disassembled extension ladder over the seats in front of the Lindbergh residence shortly before the Lindbergh Kidnapping Crime happened. That is significant evidence of perpetration since Hauptmann also turns up later as a suspect in the crime investigation. Detractors from the "Hauptmann did it and probably alone" construction of how the crime happened should note that none of the known evidence does not point to Hauptmann! The back of the car and the local tags?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 8:43:13 GMT -5
I remember reading somewhere that there were Windows built into the roof at Highfields that flooded the attic with light, being planned for an eventual laboratory. I also remember reading that Betty decided she wasn't happy being a maid and decided, I think while she lived in Detroit, to "read up on childcare" to seek a position as a nurse. I would think as much as Betty had charge over the baby they might have found someone with: (1. More experience with children especially babies, and (2. Someone the family knew a little more about. I would hAve absolutely never left my children at any age with someone with this little experience and about whom my family heard through the friend of a maid! They left him totally in her care when they flew around the world. Hard not to criticize their judgement. There were skylights built into areas of the roof of the Hopewell house. I have not read that these were for a future laboratory to be built up there. If you can remember where you read this, that would be very helpful. I read in Lloyd Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies, page 13, that Betty Gow decided she wanted a position as a nurse maid in a wealthy family so she read books on child care to ready herself for such a position. She did also have charge of a child in New Jersey just before she took the job with the Lindberghs. I understand your criticism of the hiring of Betty Gow. Charlie's previous caregivers had been nurses. Betty Gow was not. So did Anne and CAL feel they no longer needed a professional to help care for Charlie? Maybe CAL didn't like clashing with nurses who had strong opinions about how to handle Charlie? Perhaps a general childcare worker would be more suitable to him? There were plenty of Nanny agencies that the Lindberghs could have contacted to find someone with experience to care for Charlie. Instead, it is Elisabeth Morrow who finds someone.
|
|