|
Post by notchaslatall on Jan 6, 2020 23:33:35 GMT -5
The Associated Press put out a story - datelined March 2 - that appeared in dozens of newspapers nationwide on March 3, 1932. Text below:
NEW YORK, Mar. 2 (A.P)
Belief that the kidnapers of of Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jr., had planned to take the boy while his father was away from home, was expressed tonight by New York university officials.
They learned, they said, that Chancellor Brown in one of several letters he wrote Colonel Lindbergh recently gave March 4 as the date for the alumni dinner to which the colonel was invited. The dinner was held at the Waldorf-Astoria last night and Colonel Lindbergh, although he had accepted Chancellor Brown's invitation, did not appear.
It was found that, although the original invitation to Colonel Lindbergh gave the dinner date as March 1, Chancellor Brown, in acknowledging the colonel's acceptance, erroneously wrote March 4 instead of March 1.
----
So was the original version of this story actually from NYU?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 7, 2020 11:07:02 GMT -5
So was the original version of this story actually from NYU? It appears that it was because of the media this issue was brought out. It forced investigators to look into it. Quite often, police would pick up a paper then read through it to get tips leading to investigations. Unfortunately, some reports were baseless, embellishments, or outright lies as in the case of the famous instance involving Ben Lupica. Kind of like when some reporters were making their own footprints to take pictures of on the morning of March 2nd before the police released the yard. However, others reporters were pretty good investigators themselves, and some even had their own network of reliable informers - which included police and other officials. So there's a bunch to consider here. It's not the media of today, that's for sure, however I honestly can't say which would be considered more reliable (after the constant BS reporting on Epstein being "murdered" ... I have zero faith in their abilities to research, investigate/vet sources, and fairly report on the facts). Still though, as it relates to this issue - it's my guess a reporter, or reporters, did get this bit of information as credited. As cited in V1 on pages 23-5, we see that both Lanphier and Phelan mention this date change mistake by Chancellor Brown. But we also know that, from both Phelan and Lindbergh himself, that Lindbergh was never aware of any date other than March 1st - and that his reason for missing the event was that he simply "forgot."
|
|
|
Post by notchaslatall on Jan 7, 2020 16:14:36 GMT -5
Thanks for the comments. Just bought your V1 actually.
I am new to the subject matter. Back in the 1990s I read Noel Behn’s book which essentially accused Elizabeth Morrow of murdering the child and the rest of the Lindbergh household covering it up. The book was interesting to me but I didn’t find it convincing because a lot of the assertions lacked any direct evidence and many of his scenarios were based on a subjective perception of how people should or should not have acted in certain situations. A week or two ago I happened upon Richard Cahill’s book which laid out about as convincing a case as could be made that Hauptmann was guilty as charged. But again it seemed that in a number of key instances he glossed over contradictory evidence with hand-waving (this NYU Dinner being one of them).
So I am trying to drill down and evaluate what on both sides of the arguments are just accepted wisdom and which are actually relevant.
I am quickly finding that a lot of the evidence has a problem of significant figures. Much of the “evidence” is not precise enough, accurate enough, relevant enough or correctly put in context. It is essentially like weighing a rock on a bathroom scale and getting 30 lbs. Then calculating that 30 lbs equals 13,607 grams. And then arguing about differences between 13,500 and 13,600 grams. But the bathroom scale was not really anywhere near that accurate.
It’s all quite fascinating and I do enjoy reading about the case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 7, 2020 18:37:56 GMT -5
Theres something I’ve posted in the past in Schwarkopf’s handwriting that implicates Elisabeth. Not sure what it’s from but it strikes me as he’s writing it down as he’s listening to whoever is giving him that intel. BTW, Ellerson was providing Hoffman with information but there is no affidavit like mentioned in that book at the NJSP Archives - at least not anymore anyway.
The facts in V1 are solid excepting the few corrections I made in chapter 1 of V2. Unfortunately, the publisher published my uncorrected proof but aside from the editing you can see by the footnotes that my facts are reliable.
Other books all have their good qualities but authors have sometimes taken short cuts through the material and/or omitted what they don’t like. This puts the reader at a terrible disadvantage because one cannot consider what they do not know ... thus the need for my books.
I haven’t read Cahill’s book cover to cover but I commented in a couple of places in V2 why I disagreed with a few things and gave an example in V3 to show how both he and Fisher got something wrong - and most importantly “why.” It’s not my goal to demolish anyone’s book because I know how hard it is to write one, but I can’t ignore where something that has been accepted as true is actually wrong and that others simply repeat those same mistakes over and over. So reading this forces me to point it out, therefore it’s best that I simply avoid doing so unless asked about it. Of course there’s agreement too but when it comes to the facts I much rather go directly to the actual sources.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 7, 2020 21:13:51 GMT -5
The Associated Press put out a story - datelined March 2 - that appeared in dozens of newspapers nationwide on March 3, 1932. Text below:
NEW YORK, Mar. 2 (A.P)
Belief that the kidnapers of of Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jr., had planned to take the boy while his father was away from home, was expressed tonight by New York university officials.
They learned, they said, that Chancellor Brown in one of several letters he wrote Colonel Lindbergh recently gave March 4 as the date for the alumni dinner to which the colonel was invited. The dinner was held at the Waldorf-Astoria last night and Colonel Lindbergh, although he had accepted Chancellor Brown's invitation, did not appear.
It was found that, although the original invitation to Colonel Lindbergh gave the dinner date as March 1, Chancellor Brown, in acknowledging the colonel's acceptance, erroneously wrote March 4 instead of March 1.
----
So was the original version of this story actually from NYU?
Hi notchaslatall, To further confuse what happened regarding the Waldorf-Astoria engagement, there is one other account that has not made it into any of the LKC books or literature. The reason I give this account any credence is the simple fact that it was written by Jersey City Inspector Harry Walsh, co-lead investigator of the kidnapping case. In November 1932, the Jersey Journal published an 8-part series of articles written by Walsh. Walsh revealed 2 new things about the Waldorf engagement: 1) Walsh said, “Lindbergh told us he overlooked an appointment to speak in New York that night.” The fact is that Lindbergh was a “guest of honor” along with 16 others that night. He was not a speaking guest. Why did CAL tell Walsh he was to speak? 2) Even more confusing. Walsh says that CAL told him that “He remarked that he had forgotten the appointment and immediately telegraphed word of his inability to attend.” There is no proof of this telegram in any accounts of the case. If anyone else had made the above 2 claims, I would take them with a grain of salt. But this is the co-lead investigator being told by CAL of actions he supposedly took, but didn't. What gives?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 8, 2020 0:49:54 GMT -5
Thanks for the comments. Just bought your V1 actually.
I am new to the subject matter. Back in the 1990s I read Noel Behn’s book which essentially accused Elizabeth Morrow of murdering the child and the rest of the Lindbergh household covering it up. The book was interesting to me but I didn’t find it convincing because a lot of the assertions lacked any direct evidence and many of his scenarios were based on a subjective perception of how people should or should not have acted in certain situations. A week or two ago I happened upon Richard Cahill’s book which laid out about as convincing a case as could be made that Hauptmann was guilty as charged. But again it seemed that in a number of key instances he glossed over contradictory evidence with hand-waving (this NYU Dinner being one of them).
So I am trying to drill down and evaluate what on both sides of the arguments are just accepted wisdom and which are actually relevant.
I am quickly finding that a lot of the evidence has a problem of significant figures. Much of the “evidence” is not precise enough, accurate enough, relevant enough or correctly put in context. It is essentially like weighing a rock on a bathroom scale and getting 30 lbs. Then calculating that 30 lbs equals 13,607 grams. And then arguing about differences between 13,500 and 13,600 grams. But the bathroom scale was not really anywhere near that accurate.
It’s all quite fascinating and I do enjoy reading about the case. Michael's books are fantastic resources and well worth the read. However, personally, I'd suggest before reading his three amazing volumes you read Lloyd Gardner's The Case That Never Dies (preferably the version with the new afterward), as it really lays down the foundation using a lot of archival research and is, by far, the best "introductory" book on the case. So many past books that you mention use disproven earlier books or urban legends that never appeared in the source material. Lloyd is great at using the actual reports or newspaper citations, so you know what you're reading is pretty legit. From there move onto Michael's books. His many decades of research has proven invaluable at a deep dive into this case and has really found some things which turn the case upside down, but I think if you don't have a foundational knowledge of the facts or key players it might be tricky to grasp the enormity of some of his discoveries. I think Michael would also agree on Lloyd's book being the best "intro" to the case but I don't want to speak for him.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 8, 2020 9:33:35 GMT -5
according to the brochure of that night he wasn't schedualed to speak at that event
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 8, 2020 11:59:33 GMT -5
You aren’t putting words in my mouth because it’s in my intros in each volume. I absolutely agree that his book is the “go to” before picking mine up.
I hope my comments below aren’t misunderstood as dissuading anyone from reading certain publications because that is never my intent. In fact I encourage all interested to read everything they can get their hands on. Read, consider, cross-reference, then attempt to reconcile or resolve the different narratives which exist. I say this because all too often certain things can be found in many books that just aren’t true. For me, I’m lucky enough that I’m not far from the NJSP Archives so if something isn’t in my enormous collection at home, I would make an appointment then drive down to locate the answer directly from the source. And then of course add the new documentation to my existing collection.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 8, 2020 13:52:17 GMT -5
according to the brochure of that night he wasn't schedualed to speak at that event Hi Wolf, Exactly my point. So why did CAL tell Walsh (the co-lead investigator) that (1) he was to speak that night and (2) that he sent a telegram to explain his absence? Neither is true. Here is the invite:
|
|
|
Post by notchaslatall on Jan 8, 2020 13:59:03 GMT -5
The Associated Press put out a story - datelined March 2 - that appeared in dozens of newspapers nationwide on March 3, 1932. Text below: NEW YORK, Mar. 2 (A.P)
Belief that the kidnapers of of Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jr., had planned to take the boy while his father was away from home, was expressed tonight by New York university officials.
They learned, they said, that Chancellor Brown in one of several letters he wrote Colonel Lindbergh recently gave March 4 as the date for the alumni dinner to which the colonel was invited. The dinner was held at the Waldorf-Astoria last night and Colonel Lindbergh, although he had accepted Chancellor Brown's invitation, did not appear.
It was found that, although the original invitation to Colonel Lindbergh gave the dinner date as March 1, Chancellor Brown, in acknowledging the colonel's acceptance, erroneously wrote March 4 instead of March 1. ---- So was the original version of this story actually from NYU?
Hi notchaslatall, To further confuse what happened regarding the Waldorf-Astoria engagement, there is one other account that has not made it into any of the LKC books or literature. The reason I give this account any credence is the simple fact that it was written by Jersey City Inspector Harry Walsh, co-lead investigator of the kidnapping case. In November 1932, the Jersey Journal published an 8-part series of articles written by Walsh. Walsh revealed 2 new things about the Waldorf engagement: 1) Walsh said, “Lindbergh told us he overlooked an appointment to speak in New York that night.” The fact is that Lindbergh was a “guest of honor” along with 16 others that night. He was not a speaking guest. Why did CAL tell Walsh he was to speak? 2) Even more confusing. Walsh says that CAL told him that “He remarked that he had forgotten the appointment and immediately telegraphed word of his inability to attend.” There is no proof of this telegram in any accounts of the case. If anyone else had made the above 2 claims, I would take them with a grain of salt. But this is the co-lead investigator being told by CAL of actions he supposedly took, but didn't. Odd indeed. What would be CAL’s interest in telling investigators he was scheduled to speak at the event versus telling them he was a guest of honor at the event? Either way a lot of people were expecting him to be there.Do we know for certain no one from NYU may have asked him to make a few informal remarks? I don't know how often he made public appearances like this but is it possible in his mind he equated public appearances with speaking engagements?
|
|
|
Post by notchaslatall on Jan 8, 2020 14:01:51 GMT -5
Wayne-thanks for the book recommendation. Too late though - I've already read most of V1. LOL. Gotta figure out the reply/quote functions on this board...
|
|
|
Post by notchaslatall on Jan 8, 2020 14:41:12 GMT -5
From March 12 New York Daily News: “When Col. Lindbergh heard that the baby’s cold was severe enough to keep him at Hopewell, he wound up his affairs as soon as he could and started for the mountain home. Apparently his anxiety for the child drove the speaking engagement from his mind, because he forgot to notify anyone that he would be unable to keep it.”
Deputy Police Chief Charlies Williamson of Hopewell quoted Col. Lindbergh as saying:
“I was very busy in the office that day and worked late. I did not leave New York until about 7 P.M., and arrived home about 8:20."
Lots of variations on this story.
|
|
|
Post by notchaslatall on Jan 8, 2020 14:53:38 GMT -5
This is the Brooklyn Daily Times story about the dinner. (March 2, 1932)
|
|
|
Post by notchaslatall on Jan 8, 2020 15:35:54 GMT -5
So, un-burying my questions:
What would be CAL’s interest in telling investigators he was scheduled to speak at the event versus telling them he was a guest of honor at the event? Either way a lot of people were expecting him to be there.
Do we know for certain no one from NYU may have asked him to make a few informal remarks?
I don't know how often he made public appearances like this but is it possible in his mind he equated public appearances with speaking engagements?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 8, 2020 21:15:05 GMT -5
So, un-burying my questions: What would be CAL’s interest in telling investigators he was scheduled to speak at the event versus telling them he was a guest of honor at the event? Either way a lot of people were expecting him to be there. Do we know for certain no one from NYU may have asked him to make a few informal remarks? I don't know how often he made public appearances like this but is it possible in his mind he equated public appearances with speaking engagements? Whether or not he was asked to speak seems like the least important question. He was a guest of honor, which likely involved at least brief remarks, but regardless the bigger questions as to why he skipped it and why he was able to call Hopewell very soon before he arrived home, while still claiming to be in NYC, are bigger questions that must be answered.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 8, 2020 21:19:45 GMT -5
Wayne-thanks for the book recommendation. Too late though - I've already read most of V1. LOL. Gotta figure out the reply/quote functions on this board... Ah, well worth going back after you finish V1 and reading Lloyd's book. Goes into a lot of depth which I think you'll find incredibly valuable.
|
|
|
Post by notchaslatall on Jan 8, 2020 21:20:54 GMT -5
The media did seem to be driving this line of inquiry. From the March 11, 1932 New York Daily News:
Questions and answers in the 9 A.M. press conference yesterday [10 Mar] included:
Q. Col Lindbergh had a New York University speaking engagement at 6:30 P.M. the night of the kidnapping and did not explain his absence. Is he willing to explain now? A. No answer.
|
|
|
Post by notchaslatall on Jan 8, 2020 22:19:51 GMT -5
To complicate the story further, in V1, citing from the Hauptmann trial transcripts, CAL is quoted as testifying that... "I believe that I stopped at my dentist's that afternoon late, to the best of my recollection."
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jan 9, 2020 13:00:32 GMT -5
CAL had to stop at his dentist to pick up some anesthesia because the ether Betty bought at the drug store on her way to Highfields wasn't doing the trick...
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 9, 2020 13:19:37 GMT -5
From March 12 New York Daily News: “When Col. Lindbergh heard that the baby’s cold was severe enough to keep him at Hopewell, he wound up his affairs as soon as he could and started for the mountain home. Apparently his anxiety for the child drove the speaking engagement from his mind, because he forgot to notify anyone that he would be unable to keep it.”
Deputy Police Chief Charlies Williamson of Hopewell quoted Col. Lindbergh as saying:
“I was very busy in the office that day and worked late. I did not leave New York until about 7 P.M., and arrived home about 8:20."
Lots of variations on this story.
Hi notchaslatall, Your March 12th article is a great find! There it is, in CAL's on words, that he left his office in NYC around 7:00 P.M and (as we all know) he arrived at Highfields around 8:20. However, this is problematic. I will post it later, but CAL gave Arthur Springer's brother a hand-written note instructing him on how to get to Highfields from Englewood (driving on Rt. 27). Now if you got to MapQuest and list 1230 York Avenue, NY, NY 10065 (Rockefeller Institute) as the starting point and 188 Lindbergh Road, Hopewell, NJ 08525 as the destination (and use Rt. 27 and not Rt. 95 because 95 did not exist in 1932) you will get a drive time of... 2 hours, 20 minutes. So, if CAL left work around 7 as he said, he would have made it to Highfields around 9:20, not 8:20. Once again, it looks like CAL was less than honest regarding where he made his 7:00 P.M. call to Anne.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 9, 2020 20:51:44 GMT -5
Wayne, from Hopewell, New York is about an hour and a half. There were no highways but there was probably far less traffic and fewer stoplights to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 9, 2020 23:12:05 GMT -5
Wayne, from Hopewell, New York is about an hour and a half. There were no highways but there was probably far less traffic and fewer stoplights to deal with. Stella, Please feel free to double-check this on MapQuest using Rt 27 instead of Rt 95 (again list 1230 York Avenue, NY, NY 10065 (Rockefeller Institute) as the starting point and 188 Lindbergh Road, Hopewell, NJ 08525 as the destination). I've tried it several times and can never get it down to an hour and a half. BTW -- here's CAL's directions to his house: Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 10, 2020 10:23:46 GMT -5
wayne, what does this have to do with the kidnapping
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 10, 2020 10:33:14 GMT -5
Wayne, growing up in Princeton I could get to New York in just over an hour. Also, the directions state that he should pick up RT 27 in New Brunswick. At that time Rt 27 was part of the Lincoln Highway.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 10, 2020 11:33:01 GMT -5
Wayne, growing up in Princeton I could get to New York in just over an hour. Also, the directions state that he should pick up RT 27 in New Brunswick. At that time Rt 27 was part of the Lincoln Highway. I wanted to give my two cents in order to explain what I wrote in V1 about the time it took from both Englewood and NYC. I approached it from a different angle. What I did was read the accounts coming from those who actually made the trips during this time-frame. One example was Mickey Rosner, who after an early morning meeting with Breckinridge at the Baltimore Diner, claimed it took him two hours to get back to the City - and that diner was in Princeton. Another was from Lloyd Fisher, notorious in Hunterdon County for having a "lead foot," and he said it took him "about" two hours to get from the City to Flemington. Then I looked at other possible factors... The roads for one. Even the "good" roads were sometimes referred to as "bad" and the "country" roads were sometimes referred to as "terrible" and even "impossible." In fact, the NJSP hated that Highfields had become their base of operations for the LK because they all said the roads were destroying their cars. I remember I was researching Lindbergh's Franklin when I stumbled onto something that said a race-car driver was hired by the company in 1929 (or near that year) to drive as fast as he could from California back east. He planned and mapped out the very best route. In the end he broke the record (at the time) and it was said he averaged something like 43 mph. This wasn't because the car couldn't drive any faster but he could only go as fast as the road conditions allowed. I think that applies here too. Now we know Lindbergh was a risk taker but he also had respect for his "machine" (car). Furthermore, driving say, 50mph over a washboard will send even the very best driver into a ditch. Speaking of attitudes ... when I was reading through the Hoffman Collection there is a section that doesn't concern this case. Some of that dealt with Hoffman's role in Motor Vehicles before becoming Governor. One of the issues he had was speeding. At the time there were people using it as a form of "bragging" rights. I look at that and think people might be apt to speed up their times and not the other way around. Know what I mean? So saying it took about 2 hours could mean it actually took longer. It's a guy "thing" I suppose. Next, would the weather that night make a difference? I think so. And we must also factor in the tunnel since there was only one at the time and the other was completed later to relieve traffic conditions. Concerning this point, I read about the Wendel case and they were asking him why he didn't jump out of the car at/in the tunnel, and why once stopped at the entrance he didn't yell for help from the police stationed there. I look at that and think it was obviously very slow going there (and by that time the other tunnel was finished). So there's lots to consider. Anyway, I'm not trying to shut down the conversation but I just needed to explain my position. If there's counter points or ideas I'm open to them.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 10, 2020 14:02:06 GMT -5
Wayne, it is about 60 miles. Do you really think Lindbergh drove home like a little old lady at 26mph? Also, I don't think Lindbergh would have chosen a location that would take nearly 5 hours of driving time out of his day to go to and from work.
|
|
|
Post by notchaslatall on Jan 10, 2020 15:17:10 GMT -5
I was running some scenarios and routes on Google Maps varying the time of day and roads used (but excluding 95) and the best case I could get was 1 hour and 40 minutes.
It doesn’t seem likely to me that Lindbergh would tell everyone he made the drive in 1 hour and 25 minutes if it was literally impossible to make it in less than two hours. Assuming he was not being deceptive the most likely explanation is that he was only estimating his arrival and departure times.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jan 10, 2020 16:23:41 GMT -5
Wayne, it is about 60 miles. Do you really think Lindbergh drove home like a little old lady at 26mph? Also, I don't think Lindbergh would have chosen a location that would take nearly 5 hours of driving time out of his day to go to and from work. Driving concerns to/from Highfields wouldn't have been an issue much longer: "By the time of the kidnapping, Lindbergh had already rough graded for an airstrip behind the house, bordering Featherbed Lane. " discovernjhistory.org/imagining-the-lindbergh-baby-kidnapping-from-my-own-backyard/
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 10, 2020 17:09:33 GMT -5
The first issue is the source. That might be something he said but then again, the press used to play “fill in the blank” all the time. Like how they made it seem like he acted normally at the morgue. Another was they quoted both Lupica and Moore saying things they never said - they wished they had because it made for a better story so they just made it up. Next, consider that he called under the exact same circumstances at the same time the day before (V2 p2-3). Strangely he said it was “too late to drive home” so he went to Englewood instead. Finally, I have no doubt Stella made it in the time she states. But in 1932 it was a different situation from everything I’ve read to include what I’ve written below. Why on earth would everyone else make up a time that’s consistent with one another? It’s like the Wagoosh testimony all over again.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 10, 2020 17:43:04 GMT -5
Michael, if we apply your average speed of 43 mph you get 1 hour 23 minutes. All I'm trying to point out here is that it could not have taken over 2 hours unless there was a lot of traffic. Most of those roads were larger except for the one off of 518 to his house which was a dirt road. 518 was the Georgetown Pike, 27 was the Lincoln Highway and after New Brunswick he probably took Rt 1 which is the Boston Post Rd. We need a 1932 map of New Jersey. I think he was approximating his times as well and the trip probably took an hour and a half. Also, where do you think he was calling from at 7:00 if not his office in NYC.
|
|