|
Post by Michael on Dec 5, 2018 17:14:16 GMT -5
Since we're discussing the baby and the burial site I wanted to bring something up. If you notice on Page 22 in V2 I bring up the unique way they were able to charge Hauptmann with Murder and show that it would not have worked if Dr. Mitchell testified the same way in Flemington as he did at the Gaston Means trial. Pope, Fisher, and Gov. Hoffman all clearly believed that and I am quite sure there's even more people with similar opinions/positions to find if I were to continue to look. And so I have something "unique" that I wanted to share and ask whether or not it would have mattered had the Defense had a copy of it. I found Swayze's actual notebook which he used to log in all of the dead bodies that came it. I call it unique because I am pretty sure very few people have ever seen it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2018 19:10:32 GMT -5
This is really interesting Michael. It highlights how testimony was structured to suit the purposes of the prosecution. Also, I noted that Swayze gets Charlie's age wrong. He has it at 18 months. So what is it about 18 months. Anne says in Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead that Charlie was 18 months old when he died. Plus the place of injury is listed as "probably near Hopewell" which is definitely Mercer County.
Many facts changed from what was originally found in the early investigations and what was put forward in the trial to convict Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 6, 2018 9:05:39 GMT -5
Yes, amy35, I noticed that the age of the deceased on Swayze's form was wrong as well.
Some other issues and questions about that form:
(1) Note the PLURAL in "Kidnapped by persons unknown."
(2) Note "identified by police and Dr. M." How can ID be done by people who never saw Charlie alive?
(3) What do "Inv." and "Posted" on the bottom line mean?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 6, 2018 9:45:48 GMT -5
amy you really think the defense had anything credible? hauptmann was terrible on the stand for them,wilentz tore him apart. th defense would have never won
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 6, 2018 10:45:42 GMT -5
This is really interesting Michael. It highlights how testimony was structured to suit the purposes of the prosecution. Also, I noted that Swayze gets Charlie's age wrong. He has it at 18 months. So what is it about 18 months. Anne says in Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead that Charlie was 18 months old when he died. Plus the place of injury is listed as "probably near Hopewell" which is definitely Mercer County. Many facts changed from what was originally found in the early investigations and what was put forward in the trial to convict Hauptmann. It looks to me like: 1 year, 6 months, and 90 days. Right? So that would actually be 1 year, 9 months. Using the Date Difference device on my computer, if they believed he died on March 1st: 1 year, 8 months, 9 days. From the May 12th discovery date that should be: 1 year, 10 months, 21 days. Since he writes under the date of death " About March 1, 1932 ?" I'm thinking its not so much of a red-flag as to the identity but rather proof that they really had no idea when he died. BUT its giving them some wiggle room between the kidnapping and the discovery. That's a real problem if he was supposed to have died as the Prosecution needed him to. Now if we compare this to the Death Certificate (S-166) that too says " About March 1, 1932," however it doesn't include a " ?" which I believe exemplifies what I've written above and the actual belief concerning the Doctors involved. The Death Cert. also has the child's age at: 1 year, 8 months, and 9 days. So it seems to me this page would have assisted the Defense had they been able to get their hands on it. We can obviously see that it was written on after Dr. Mitchell & Dr. VanIngen's involvement. So that could be proof that he was either "adding things" or it was all written up at once after it was all said and done. There are no strike-outs and the other items could have come later... like " about," " ?," " 6 mo," " 90," and the writing at the very bottom involving both Doctors. If written after then I don't think it a stretch to conclude this information came from one or both of those men which caused him to make the additions. Your next point about the place of death being " probably near Hopewell" is the other issue. The Death Certificate (S-166) also says " probably near Hopewell." The Report of Unknown Baby was also entered into evidence (S-167) and the important part there is " ...usual decomposition in the course of approximately two to three months time depending on the climatic and other conditions which might produce such results." I could be "splitting hairs" because one must consider these two exhibits and the facts surrounding the appeal. Again, its all about that charge which was also formulated under "Common Law" so its probably best to leave it to someone with that specific expertise. I've always been motivated to discuss/write about this because of the insistence of both Pope and Fisher indicated within the source documentation.
But in the end even if it did not help the Defense (and I still think it would have) I believe we can all clearly see they really had no idea when or where this child died. (1) I'd say this is only significant in that it shows the beliefs at the time there were multiple people involved. Was he getting this from Cops or simply from reading newspaper accounts? (2) Since his "preliminary report" did not its interesting. We know they were using a picture of the child to assist. VanIngen refused to positively identify. Then came Betty Gow. Mitchell did not write the report to positively identify until after Lindbergh cut open his face and identified him. That report says the child " had been killed and left at the point where it was found for a period of from seven to ten weeks." (3) "Inv." usually means "Investigation." "(Posted)" I believe means finished or handed over. But here I could be wrong tho....
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 6, 2018 11:06:28 GMT -5
amy you really think the defense had anything credible? hauptmann was terrible on the stand for them,wilentz tore him apart. th defense would have never won But Steve - doesn't the truth matter everywhere? Hauptmann has been pinned down over the years by Researchers and shown to have lied in several places. I'd say we should expect someone who was involved to do this. So yes it needs to be pointed out so we can solve certain aspects and angles. But there were times he told the truth and still called a liar about it. Understandably so...that is unless they (Police And Prosecutors) knew he was telling the truth. With this in mind, does one expect the AG intimidate witnesses, act unethically, or to lie and misrepresent things? Shouldn't it be pointed out where and when that occurred too? It's like somehow people are afraid it makes Hauptmann "less guilty" so they avoid, evade, or deny. Why? Because it lessens the impact of what he did legitimately. Lets look at the actual history. The real history to include all of the real facts. That is where the solution lies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2018 18:45:38 GMT -5
But in the end even if it did not help the Defense (and I still think it would have) I believe we can all clearly see they really had no idea when or where this child died That truly is the bottom line here. There was no proof offered by the prosecution that explains the when, where and how and even the who of Charlie's death. Hauptmann was up for murder of this child and to be executed for being guilty of that murder. All Wilentz had was theories to address all those points. All you need to do is read his opening and closing arguments and you get at least two different versions of how Charlie died. Ridiculous!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2018 18:49:21 GMT -5
amy you really think the defense had anything credible? hauptmann was terrible on the stand for them,wilentz tore him apart. th defense would have never won Steve, the burden of proof was on the prosecution to PROVE murder. They failed to do that. It had to be inferred by the jury.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 6, 2018 22:48:32 GMT -5
amy you really think the defense had anything credible? hauptmann was terrible on the stand for them,wilentz tore him apart. th defense would have never won Hi Wolf, What do you think of the 4 defense witnesses (Carlstrom, Kiss, Van Henke, and Harding) who testified they saw Hauptmann at Fredericken's Bakery on the night of March 1, 1932? Two of these men who had never met each other before (Kiss and Van Henke) independently completed a narrative about Hauptmann walking Fredericksen's German shepherd. Van Henke claimed he saw Hauptmann walking a German shepherd outside the bakery and, thinking the dog was his (Henke's) missing dog, got into a loud argument with Hauptmann, threatening to have him arrested for dognapping! Hauptmann finally convinced Van Henke the dog was not his but belonged to the bakery's owner. Kiss testified that he saw Hauptmann enter the bakery with the German shepherd and, in an agitated voice, told Anna that "...somebody want to take away the dog." Wilentz tried his best to destroy the character of all 4 witnesses, but had trouble destroying their testimony.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2018 11:37:31 GMT -5
Wilentz absolutely knew he needed to put Hauptmann near that Lindbergh estate the night of March 1, 1932. He needed that to show how the ladder and the note got to the scene of the crime.
So what does he do? He puts on the stand Whited, who was very willing to lie about seeing Hauptmann near the Hopewell estate, when what he actually saw was a car fitting Lindbergh's automobile description. Its backed up in Michael's TDC book by documentation. Wilentz brings out the elderly Hochmuth, who was pressured/manipulated and then lied in his identification of Hauptmann. Hochmuth had claimed he saw a Green car with a driver who had a red face and a sailor cap on. What kind of ID was that? The man could not see properly enough to identify anyone/anything in 1932 or later. Last and definitely least was Charles Rossiter, whose identification was either sadly mistaken or flat out lying. The only use this would have been to Wilentz is to put Hauptmann in the New Jersey area.
Wilentz had no fingerprints or footprint matches to put Hauptmann at the Lindbergh house. So he did this through the lies and weak testimony of the above. He needed the jury to believe Hauptmann had been in Hopewell NJ on the night of March 1, 1932 and could have committed the kidnapping, so Wilentz used liars to do it. The ladder and the note needed to be propped up by physical indentification of the accused.
Truth took a back seat in order to win a murder conviction against the accused that they could not, otherwise, prove. Was Hauptmann a player in this crime? My opinion is yes, just not the only one.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 8, 2018 19:04:25 GMT -5
What do you think of the 4 defense witnesses (Carlstrom, Kiss, Van Henke, and Harding) who testified they saw Hauptmann at Fredericken's Bakery on the night of March 1, 1932? Two of these men who had never met each other before (Kiss and Van Henke) independently completed a narrative about Hauptmann walking Fredericksen's German shepherd. We can't forget Manley either. I know that many do because his testimony was so short. I have something (somewhere) that says he was so sick the Defense was worried he would not show up. Also, there was a woman Fawcett found who was going to testify she saw him there too but she was so afraid someone would kill her that she backed out (I am not talking about that "nut" Von Valta). Also - Wilentz told a NYC Lawyer that if he got Kiss to change his testimony he would do everything he could to get him on Dewey's staff. And of course we all know how Wilentz threatened Kloppenberg. One day maybe we'll get to see the Fawcett material... I am quite sure there's more witnesses that we don't even know about.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 9, 2018 6:12:36 GMT -5
If this stuff were brought out in a timely manner, say fifty years instead of ninety, the court would quickly conclude that it should have been entered at trial, and find it inadmissable,What's the point of even going over these guys now? They've been known about for many years and really nothing can be done at this time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 9, 2018 8:13:49 GMT -5
If this stuff were brought out in a timely manner, say fifty years instead of ninety, the court would quickly conclude that it should have been entered at trial, and find it inadmissable,What's the point of even going over these guys now? They've been known about for many years and really nothing can be done at this time. "Some" of it has been known.... like what's in the trial transcripts right? Or what has been written about by some authors who spent a little bit of time at the Archives. If that's where its supposed to "end" then what's the point of any discussion? Might as well go over to LindyKidnap so people who believe they qualify as "experts" without doing Archival research can tell everyone else what to believe - and what not to. None of us here are lemmings. We consider what is presented BUT cannot consider what we do not know. The more information the better. For example, most here read what I write knowing I'm not making it up - yet - that doesn't mean they agree with my position after due consideration. I'd have to check if anyone is interested but I seem to remember that Bryan brought up the episode with Kiss in his civil action on behalf of Mrs. Hauptmann or it might even be in a book or two. But what's the value in forgetting about it or sweeping it under the rug? I think the point of bringing anything up is to discuss and learn. Whether or not a court would listen to it now, or how they ruled on it then (considering how much of it was presented, how it was presented, or what the rules were at the time, etc.) has nothing to do with it (unless of course that is the actual topic itself). What do we know now and how does it apply to furthering our ability to come to a personal conclusion about what happened? So for me, no issue is worth dismissing or sitting on merely because its been brought up in the past.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 9, 2018 9:04:58 GMT -5
Wilentz absolutely knew he needed to put Hauptmann near that Lindbergh estate the night of March 1, 1932. He needed that to show how the ladder and the note got to the scene of the crime. So what does he do? He puts on the stand Whited, who was very willing to lie about seeing Hauptmann near the Hopewell estate, when what he actually saw was a car fitting Lindbergh's automobile description. Its backed up in Michael's TDC book by documentation. Wilentz brings out the elderly Hochmuth, who was pressured/manipulated and then lied in his identification of Hauptmann. Hochmuth had claimed he saw a Green car with a driver who had a red face and a sailor cap on. What kind of ID was that? The man could not see properly enough to identify anyone/anything in 1932 or later. Last and definitely least was Charles Rossiter, whose identification was either sadly mistaken or flat out lying. The only use this would have been to Wilentz is to put Hauptmann in the New Jersey area. Wilentz had no fingerprints or footprint matches to put Hauptmann at the Lindbergh house. So he did this through the lies and weak testimony of the above. He needed the jury to believe Hauptmann had been in Hopewell NJ on the night of March 1, 1932 and could have committed the kidnapping, so Wilentz used liars to do it. The ladder and the note needed to be propped up by physical indentification of the accused. Truth took a back seat in order to win a murder conviction against the accused that they could not, otherwise, prove. Was Hauptmann a player in this crime? My opinion is yes, just not the only one. Amy, if you were on that jury, I'm sure it would have "hung." But the pool of jurors in that rural county in the Depression era was uneducated, unintelligent, and just plain scared of law enforcement, prosecutors and the media hullabaloo. They chose the easy way out under the circumstances.
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Dec 9, 2018 9:29:20 GMT -5
This is really interesting Michael. It highlights how testimony was structured to suit the purposes of the prosecution. Also, I noted that Swayze gets Charlie's age wrong. He has it at 18 months. So what is it about 18 months. Anne says in Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead that Charlie was 18 months old when he died. Plus the place of injury is listed as "probably near Hopewell" which is definitely Mercer County. Many facts changed from what was originally found in the early investigations and what was put forward in the trial to convict Hauptmann. How could a mother have her own child's age wrong? Amy, you are always alert to minute details the rest of us miss! Maybe it’s absolute nonsense for everybody who is a long time in the topic... What about the possibility, Charlie Jr. actually died few months before the "kidnapping"? (And Anne knows it and lets slip the real age of her deceased child in the book.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 16:33:36 GMT -5
Also, there was a woman Fawcett found who was going to testify she saw him there too but she was so afraid someone would kill her that she backed out (I am not talking about that "nut" Von Valta). Michael, Who was Von Valta. I am totally unfamiliar with that name.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 16:44:54 GMT -5
How could a mother have her own child's age wrong? Amy, you are always alert to minute details the rest of us miss! I don't really have an explanation I can offer for why Anne would have made such an error in her introduction to the Hour of Lead section of her diary. The book was published in 1973. So most likely that intro was written in 1972 when Anne was 66 years old. Dare we go with she was having a "senior moment"? Now it is my understanding that CAL was involved with editing Anne's diary. You would think that if somehow Anne didn't "remember" Charlie's age that CAL might have caught this mistake. Since it made it into the book, I guess he couldn't remember how old Charlie was either!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 9, 2018 17:17:31 GMT -5
We know that Charlie Jr. was seen alive by reputable individuals in the time frame before the purported kidnapping. In particular he was seen by Dr. Van Ingen, his pediatrician, on a medical office visit in late February 1932; Van Ingen later wrote an important report about his patient to the patient's grandmother, Mrs.Morrow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2018 17:49:07 GMT -5
]Amy, if you were on that jury, I'm sure it would have "hung." It would have definitely bothered me that there was no fingerprint or footprint evidence to place him at the scene because there was testimony about a footprint found in the mud at the base of the ladder and also that Hauptmann's prints were not recovered from the ladder or the ransom notes or anywhere else. The jury did not know that in 1932 Whited had told officers that he had not seen anyone suspicious in the area of the Lindbergh home. The jurors had no knowledge that Hochmuth had serious cataract issues in 1932 and that is why he could not provide any ID of value about anyone, let alone BRH. Plus he was never on record in 1932 as having seen any car with a ladder in it having a problem making a turn on March 1, 1932. Rossiter must have sounded believable to the jury. As a juror in 1935, I would not have had any of this knowledge about Whited and Hochmuth. The defense did put up witnesses that showed Whited to be quite the liar so that would have given me pause about the truthfulness of this witness. And Hochmuth saying he saw "something" in the car and then added "some of the ladder". Hochmuth would have been a problem for me too. Since Rossiter was claiming to have seen Hauptmann near the Princeton airport, I would not have seen any value to his testimony. Reilly did make it known that a cast had been made of the footprint left behind at St. Raymond's cemetery, so I would have definitely been suspicious about why it was never brought into court since Wilentz said in court that it would be provided to the defense. I would have definitely questioned this back in the jury room. No physical evidence at the Lindbergh house found of the accused and no cast of the footprint that had been made. At the least, stuff like this should have caused some of these jurors some doubts. We know that it did not, however, because the first vote taken had all twelve jurors voting guilty. Five wanted mercy so that is where the real arguments stemmed from among the jurors.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 10, 2018 8:33:23 GMT -5
Maybe it’s absolute nonsense for everybody who is a long time in the topic... What about the possibility, Charlie Jr. actually died few months before the "kidnapping"? (And Anne knows it and lets slip the real age of her deceased child in the book.) Are you thinking along the lines of Behn's book or do you have another idea in mind? What comes to my mind is a letter I have which said he had fallen down the steps and died earlier... But I'm where Hurt's at because of the activity there that weekend. Alva Root for example. The way I see it, for her to be there over the weekend destroys any notion that the child died or was dead during that period of time. Anne mentioned the fact she had been there in her statement to police and she wasn't ever interviewed about it. It's what prompted me to find out her side of things myself (V1 Pages 57-8). What I found was that once the subject came up between her and her daughter - she told her she had been there that weekend before the kidnapping something she hadn't been aware of at the time. Anyway - I'm not trying to talk you out of it and would be interested to hear more about what's on your mind.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 10, 2018 8:39:27 GMT -5
Michael, Who was Von Valta. I am totally unfamiliar with that name. She's mentioned in a couple of books. Jones for one, and Fisher's Ghosts as well... I know that I am often critical of Fisher but here he got it right. Although its not really my style to tell people what to think, but in this case I am 100% certain. There's probably no one on the planet who has more information on her and she was certifiable. However, don't take my word for it! If interested go ahead and pursue it if you'd like ... but I really believe one should wait until there's nothing left to look at before they do because it will only be to validate what I'm writing here now. Amy, if you were on that jury, I'm sure it would have "hung." But the pool of jurors in that rural county in the Depression era was uneducated, unintelligent, and just plain scared of law enforcement, prosecutors and the media hullabaloo. They chose the easy way out under the circumstances. I disagree. There was a lot of people like you describe but most were eliminated through the selection process. This Jury consisted of people who I would never call "unintelligent."
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 10, 2018 13:35:38 GMT -5
Most of the alternative theories are not enough justification for creating a fake kidnapping and absolving your family from a probable crime. It would need an act such as Elisabeth's flipping Jr. out a window or a very unusual accident, and setting up a fake kidnapping would be extremely difficult. One book said thirty agencies would have to be involved. No, I believe I determined it was not a fake kidnapping because of Charles' actions regarding the first ransom note (see above - long ago) and no fakery was involved. This board is nibbling at crumbs of what might have happened but was highly unlikely to have!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 10, 2018 14:24:39 GMT -5
Most of the alternative theories are not enough justification for creating a fake kidnapping and absolving your family from a probable crime. It would need an act such as Elisabeth's flipping Jr. out a window or a very unusual accident, and setting up a fake kidnapping would be extremely difficult. One book said thirty agencies would have to be involved. No, I believe I determined it was not a fake kidnapping because of Charles' actions regarding the first ransom note (see above - long ago) and no fakery was involved. This board is nibbling at crumbs of what might have happened but was highly unlikely to have! Let me ask you this Jack... How many agencies would have to be involved for something "wrong" to occur? See my point? Hoover himself said he believed certain evidence was phony. I've got Report after Report and Memo after Memo where he complains that he was being lied to or certain evidence and/or facts being withheld. So where does that leave us? How can it be properly explained? How many agencies were involved concerning this? How about the Hauptmann beating? They denied it occurred and some books point to the evidence they created to show it didn't. But it DID. So one has to consider if it was going on "here" then its probably going on elsewhere. So anyone proposing something could not happen because so many were involved haven't done their homework. I'd even say the amount of people involved with this case is what assisted in it. No one knew what the next guy was doing. The evidence produced at the trial even shocked some of those directly involved. Who among them would run to the Press to say they suspected it wasn't legit? Hoffman did and its because of him that we know so much about what actually occurred because he drew attention to it. So we research and learn. Some legit. Some not. Some lies in the middle. So yes there are nefarious doings which occurred despite whatever "books" say it did not.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 11, 2018 9:59:13 GMT -5
amy the fbi said the footprint castings were inconclusive. why? I don't know, I have the newspaper article reilly was requesting them and the phonograph record of condons voice mocking the go between. the record never appeared and some researchers are trying to find it even today
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 11, 2018 10:06:26 GMT -5
what do I think of the four witnesses for Hauptman? I think they were terrible even Hauptman said the witnesses are killing me. and Hauptman himself was bad on the stand he should have never testified. the fisch story is such a lie with the shoebox even anna Hauptman said in a interview that rielly wanted her to lie about it but she refused
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 11, 2018 16:52:15 GMT -5
amy the fbi said the footprint castings were inconclusive. why? I don't know, I have the newspaper article reilly was requesting them and the phonograph record of condons voice mocking the go between. the record never appeared and some researchers are trying to find it even today Wolf, A small portion of the FBI's phonograph recording of Condon imitating Cemetery John's voice can be found in Ludovic Kennedy's Who Killed the Lindbergh Baby? I was actually stunned to hear this the first time. No idea it was there. www.imdb.com/title/tt8255056/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_3If I can figure out how to post this sound bite, I will.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 11, 2018 16:58:40 GMT -5
Probably inconclusive because they didn't have any feet to match them too. That's the problem with footprints - they're only of value if an investigator can find the shoes and feet that made them - usually that's very unlikely.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 11, 2018 17:02:25 GMT -5
Condon imitating CJ on an interview as evidence? - what a joke!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 11, 2018 17:10:59 GMT -5
Yet another major indicator of a bad job done by Reilly. Don't know what the practice was back then, but in general, criminal case defendants are advised by defense attorneys AGAINST appearing as witnesses on behalf of their own cause. With respect to Hauptmann's trial, this general rule was all the more important for the defense team to follow, considering Hauptmann's problems with the English language, especially his limited capability of understanding and using legal words. Then, too, the defense should have realized that his thick German accent would not go over very well in the courtroom and on national radio, given the anti-German prejudices that existed among a wide number of Americans during that era, and the heinous nature of the crime Hauptmann was accused of against the child of a national hero.
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Dec 12, 2018 2:56:51 GMT -5
Maybe it’s absolute nonsense for everybody who is a long time in the topic... What about the possibility, Charlie Jr. actually died few months before the "kidnapping"? (And Anne knows it and lets slip the real age of her deceased child in the book.) Are you thinking along the lines of Behn's book or do you have another idea in mind? What comes to my mind is a letter I have which said he had fallen down the steps and died earlier... But I'm where Hurt's at because of the activity there that weekend. Alva Root for example. The way I see it, for her to be there over the weekend destroys any notion that the child died or was dead during that period of time. Anne mentioned the fact she had been there in her statement to police and she wasn't ever interviewed about it. It's what prompted me to find out her side of things myself (V1 Pages 57-8). What I found was that once the subject came up between her and her daughter - she told her she had been there that weekend before the kidnapping something she hadn't been aware of at the time. Anyway - I'm not trying to talk you out of it and would be interested to hear more about what's on your mind. Briefly my thoughts are: 1. Charlie Jr. died due to a common accident (steps, car, furniture…) or was un/intentionally killed and some Morrow or Lindbergh family member(s) was/were involved. This happened in December/January. (No Christmas photo, for example? Are the last photos of the Baby from the day of his 1st birthday?) 2. Deceased Charlie Jr. was replaced by a double and the body stored in cool place. Dr. Van Ingen examines the Baby-double in February… More far-stretched, this child can be one of the self-proclaimed "Lindbergh Babies". 3. "Kidnapping" solves this problems: A. Revealing, that Charlie Jr. is dead. Getting rid of the body. B. Creating of false leads to hide the truth and to protect good name of the family. C. Bringing the second toddler out of scene - hopefully back home. The hand-sewn garment with blue thread connects the disappearing Baby-double with Charlie’s dead body. So the child’s remains were of true CAL Jr. P. S. Thank you for your books, Michael. I hope my work load allows me to read V2 soon.
|
|