Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,646
|
Post by Joe on Oct 17, 2023 7:42:31 GMT -5
That is a great article you found! Thanks for finding and posting it. Could this have had anything to do with why March 1 was chosen for the kidnap night? Even if it did, how would Hauptmann or any other outsider know that Charlie would be there on a Tuesday night when he never was before? Would Hauptmann or any outsider, have known for certain that the child would not normally be there on a Tuesday night and that the Lindberghs were not now, permanent residents of Hopewell?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 17, 2023 13:12:21 GMT -5
That is a great article you found! Thanks for finding and posting it. Could this have had anything to do with why March 1 was chosen for the kidnap night? Even if it did, how would Hauptmann or any other outsider know that Charlie would be there on a Tuesday night when he never was before? Would Hauptmann or any outsider, have known for certain that the child would not normally be there on a Tuesday night and that the Lindberghs were not now, permanent residents of Hopewell? You can’t have it both ways. Either Hauptmann did his recognizance to know where the nursery was, the baby wouldn’t be bother during dinner time (the least likely time for a kidnapping to occur given everybody was home/awake), the layout of the house, the broken shutter, etc. Or he was the luckiest man who ever lived which is impossible. So to know all of the above, he would have had to know enough that they didn’t live there.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,646
|
Post by Joe on Oct 17, 2023 13:53:51 GMT -5
Would Hauptmann or any outsider, have known for certain that the child would not normally be there on a Tuesday night and that the Lindberghs were not now, permanent residents of Hopewell? You can’t have it both ways. Either Hauptmann did his recognizance to know where the nursery was, the baby wouldn’t be bother during dinner time (the least likely time for a kidnapping to occur given everybody was home/awake), the layout of the house, the broken shutter, etc. Or he was the luckiest man who ever lived which is impossible. So to know all of the above, he would have had to know enough that they didn’t live there. Your perennial position assumes a lot and attempts to formulate a conclusion based on simple cause and effect insinuations and innuendo. Actually, someone did have it both ways but it wasn't me. It's Hauptmann who would have known specific and helpful information from his surveillance of Highfields, reading the papers, trade knowledge and anything else he could get his hands on, which allowed him to reach the level of confidence he needed to strike on March 1, 1932. And there's no question that he had some luck on his side. Did he know everything you're implying he did, within your first scenario? Of course not. He was an unknown Bronx carpenter looking to make a 'better life' for himself, at the same time, so far removed from Lindbergh's world and sphere of influence, as to be a non-entity. He 'went in' knowing full well he could be caught or even killed for the crime he intended to perpetrate, but he was willing to take the risk for today's equivalent of well over a million dollars as his payday. Did he have Lady Luck on his side along the way? Absolutely, but he also knew what he was doing and had the capability and confidence to succeed. And fortune does have a way of accompanying the most determined. Are you willing to address, in isolation, each item within your personal laundry list that you've used to demonstrate this was a faked kidnapping, or are you content in just taking refuge behind your entire curtain as you've done up to now?
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Oct 17, 2023 20:26:02 GMT -5
Would Hauptmann or any outsider, have known for certain that the child would not normally be there on a Tuesday night and that the Lindberghs were not now, permanent residents of Hopewell? You can’t have it both ways. Either Hauptmann did his recognizance to know where the nursery was, the baby wouldn’t be bother during dinner time (the least likely time for a kidnapping to occur given everybody was home/awake), the layout of the house, the broken shutter, etc. Or he was the luckiest man who ever lived which is impossible. So to know all of the above, he would have had to know enough that they didn’t live there. I agree. Hauptmann, or any other outsider, without inside help, would have needed multiple trips to observe the layout and the home activities of Highfields in order to plan and execute a successful kidnapping. He is not going to assume that the family lives there fulltime. He will make certain of it. This surveillance would have revealed that Charles, Anne and Charles, Jr were observed to be there only on weekends and that the nursery was only in use on weekends. No shutter changes or activity in that room during weekdays. Hauptmann or any other kidnapper(s) would have planned a weekend snatch based on such surveillance.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 17, 2023 23:48:55 GMT -5
You can’t have it both ways. Either Hauptmann did his recognizance to know where the nursery was, the baby wouldn’t be bother during dinner time (the least likely time for a kidnapping to occur given everybody was home/awake), the layout of the house, the broken shutter, etc. Or he was the luckiest man who ever lived which is impossible. So to know all of the above, he would have had to know enough that they didn’t live there. Your perennial position assumes a lot and attempts to formulate a conclusion based on simple cause and effect insinuations and innuendo. Actually, someone did have it both ways but it wasn't me. It's Hauptmann who would have known specific and helpful information from his surveillance of Highfields, reading the papers, trade knowledge and anything else he could get his hands on, which allowed him to reach the level of confidence he needed to strike on March 1, 1932. And there's no question that he had some luck on his side.Did he know everything you're implying he did, within your first scenario? Of course not. He was an unknown Bronx carpenter looking to make a 'better life' for himself, at the same time, so far removed from Lindbergh's world and sphere of influence, as to be a non-entity. He 'went in' knowing full well he could be caught or even killed for the crime he intended to perpetrate, but he was willing to take the risk for today's equivalent of well over a million dollars as his payday. Did he have Lady Luck on his side along the way? Absolutely, but he also knew what he was doing and had the capability and confidence to succeed. And fortune does have a way of accompanying the most determined. Are you willing to address, in isolation, each item within your personal laundry list that you've used to demonstrate this was a faked kidnapping, or are you content in just taking refuge behind your entire curtain as you've done up to now?It's Hauptmann who would have known specific and helpful information from his surveillance of Highfields, reading the papers, trade knowledge and anything else he could get his hands on, which allowed him to reach the level of confidence he needed to strike on March 1, 1932. And there's no question that he had some luck on his side. Right there in the bold you defeat your own point. Hauptmann, had he surveilled the place to know enough about the family's schedule (eg the baby wouldn't be disturbed during certain hours), the layout of the house, the comings and goings of the household staff, the shutter issue would absolutely have known the family wouldn't typically be staying there on a weekday.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,646
|
Post by Joe on Oct 18, 2023 10:52:36 GMT -5
Your perennial position assumes a lot and attempts to formulate a conclusion based on simple cause and effect insinuations and innuendo. Actually, someone did have it both ways but it wasn't me. It's Hauptmann who would have known specific and helpful information from his surveillance of Highfields, reading the papers, trade knowledge and anything else he could get his hands on, which allowed him to reach the level of confidence he needed to strike on March 1, 1932. And there's no question that he had some luck on his side.Did he know everything you're implying he did, within your first scenario? Of course not. He was an unknown Bronx carpenter looking to make a 'better life' for himself, at the same time, so far removed from Lindbergh's world and sphere of influence, as to be a non-entity. He 'went in' knowing full well he could be caught or even killed for the crime he intended to perpetrate, but he was willing to take the risk for today's equivalent of well over a million dollars as his payday. Did he have Lady Luck on his side along the way? Absolutely, but he also knew what he was doing and had the capability and confidence to succeed. And fortune does have a way of accompanying the most determined. Are you willing to address, in isolation, each item within your personal laundry list that you've used to demonstrate this was a faked kidnapping, or are you content in just taking refuge behind your entire curtain as you've done up to now? It's Hauptmann who would have known specific and helpful information from his surveillance of Highfields, reading the papers, trade knowledge and anything else he could get his hands on, which allowed him to reach the level of confidence he needed to strike on March 1, 1932. And there's no question that he had some luck on his side. Right there in the bold you defeat your own point. Hauptmann, had he surveilled the place to know enough about the family's schedule (eg the baby wouldn't be disturbed during certain hours), the layout of the house, the comings and goings of the household staff, the shutter issue would absolutely have known the family wouldn't typically be staying there on a weekday. My point here is that Hauptmann would have been able to acquire the information he needed to plan this crime without any criminally intended help from an 'insider.' We do not know how many times he drove to Highfields, on what days (weekends and/or weekdays), including what time of the day (although I have a pretty good idea) so it makes little sense to conclude he would out of necessity, have had to have known that the Lindberghs were not permanent residents of Hopewell. At the same time, I think you really have to consider the probability of anyone planning a faked kidnapping who would be so potentially shortsighted to have arranged it around conditions which could so easily have been identified and construed as potentially incriminating factors, and which then might point directly at that person. Cases in point, Skean's absence from the nursery, the Lindberghs staying over on a Tuesday night, Wahgoosh asleep in the Whateley's quarters, Lindbergh not at the NYU Alumni Dinner, etc. Which is precisely why it's critical to ensure all of these potential factors are drilled down into until they're laid absolutely bare, as opposed to simply trotting them out as a visually appealing bunch of 'red flags' which individually, don't necessarily pass muster as being even relevant.
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Oct 18, 2023 11:21:42 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."
Supposedly, Lindy was feverishly at work on Elisabeth's perfusion pump at The Rockefeller Institute all day Tuesday. According to Google Maps, on a Saturday, it's at least 2 hours and 15 minutes from the Rockefeller Institute to Highfields. (Bear in mind, he had to take Rte 27 through Princeton.) That's on MODERN roads and freeways in MODERN cars. In 1932, driving all the way across Manhattan, even after rush hour, then, stopping at every widespot with a stop sign or red light in every little town in New Jersey, in a 1930ish car that wouldn't hit 60 mph if it drove straight down the wall of the Grand Canyon, there is is simply no way he gets home by 8:30. It took Henry Ellerson (you know his real name is Eilerson, right?) 2 hours to drive from the Englewood Estate to Highfields, or from Highfields to Englewood. You have to add 30 mins to that to drive aaaalllll the way across Manhattan just to get to New Jersey. I'd say he called home from Breckinridge's house. Or, maybe, from his office in Princeton. Which is only 20 minutes from Highfields. Irregardless (snicker,) If-IF--Betty Gow handed the kid out the window to an "accomplice," that had to be around 7:45. If you take the kid, tiptoe down the muddy lane to the waiting car, drive 4.8 miles, get out, lug the kid into the woods, spend 20 minutes trying to dig a "grave" down through a dense web of tree roots, that's about 8:15-8:20 when you get back in your car. That's the precise time Lindy claims HE drove past that spot. But didn't see any cars stopped along the road. He calls from Princeton, or wherever, to set the ball in motion. He waits for Betty to hand him the kid at 7:45ish. He tiptoes down to the muddy lane. At 8:50-55ish, he quietly drives 4.8 miles back toward Princeton (if anyone sees The Colonel driving toward Princeton, they'll think nothing of it.) He pulls over just outside Hopewell, lugs the kid 54 feet or 75 feet or whatever into the woods. He spends 20 minutes trying to dig a grave down through a bunch of tree roots. He gives up, trudges back to his car, drives back to Highfields, THIS time, honks his horn, so EVERYBODY looks at their watch to see the time (8:20-8:30, depending on the "witness") and sets the whole house in frantic motion. "Colonel Daddy's home!" He hasn't seen his first-born son, his namesake, since bedtime Sunday. Does he tiptoe up the stairs to sneak a peek? Nnnnnnnnoooope. He shovels down three plates of food, jumps in and out of the bathtub (it's cute how he lets his pregnant wife, who is not feeling well and who waited aaaaaaaaaaalllllllll day to eat her own supper bathe in his dirty tub) and stomps downstairs to the Library to listen for cat burglars levitating in and out of his first-born son and namesake's window. What does that prove? Nothing. But, Betty Gow didn't find the ransom note in the crib where it belonged. The COLONEL said HE found it on the sill of the window that Peter Pan couldn't get in and out of. So, what? Well, if Betty Gow found the note in the crib--or, even, on the windowsill--that would, at least, clear The Colonel for planting the note (and the two small smudges of "mud") there HIMSELF on one of his multiple trips to the nursery before the cops showed up. But, she DIDN'T see the note... How does any of that "prove" that The Colonel" was directly involved? It doesn't. It's just funny that, the "evidence," so far as we can see any of it 90 years later, does NOTHING to "clear" The Colonel. At all. I mean, Red Johnson has a better "alibi" than The Colonel. Henry Eilerson has a better alibi, and his alibi is, he was hanging out with crooks. I mean, there is LESS than nothing that "clears" The Colonel. (Side note--did you know that Jackie Gleason got his start at the Sha-Toe a few years later?) I only mention it, because, if you wanted to railroad somebody for this "kidnapping" gone wrong, the frame around Betty and Red was not only tight as a drum, but they could have wrapped this whole thing up before the ransom--which The Colonel did NOT want recovered or traced---was even put together. Let alone, "delivered." But, instead, The Colonel issued orders--AND a press release--that "Servants Exonerated!" within hours of Red first coming under suspicion. I mean, if you're going to railroad somebody, why wait 2 1/2 years hoping that this miraculous "lumber expert" (you know The Colonel's family on his mother's side were not only in the lumber business, but in fact, were in the speedboat and yacht business. Right? They were pioneers in plywood technology. Bea-uuuuuuuutiful boats. Like Chris Craft) can railroad some money-laundering Bronx carpenter, instead? I mean, how lucky was it that they ALREADY had a lumber expert crawling over that "ladder" with a microscope all long...I mean, without him... PS You know Red Johnson was a sailor, right? A sailor sailor? On sailing ships and yachts? The kind of guy who made his living climbing all over rickety wood and rope contraptions barefoot, in total darkness, with one hand, in the face of gale-force freezing rain. I mean, his and everybody else's life depended on his ability to do what Hauptmann could never have done--climb in and out of that window. In pitch darkness. In stocking feet. On a freezing muddy night in New Jersey. You know who owned the yacht he crewed, right? And there's that ladder "someone" left lying on the concrete patio directly beneath the taller, French window that even a carpenter COULD climb in and out of, no suitcases to trip over, you know, the French window Betty told police she left OPEN to let in some fresh air...I'm not saying I can convict Red Johnson and Betty Gow of conspiracy, kidnapping, extortion, and manslaughter. What I'm saying is, "Servants Exonerated!" I mean, how LUCKY can an immigrant guy and girl get? timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1932/03/04/issue.htmlPPS Speaking of lucky, if Betty and Red had been jugged on, say, March 3, then Gaston Means would not have been able to show Evelyn Walsh McLean that headline about the servants being exonerated. I mean, if she thought the case might be cracked already, she's not going to be so quick to crack that checkbook. Right? I mean, how lucky can a con artist (who made his living framing all kinds of people for all kinds of things...I mean, you know he framed EWM's BFF FKH for assassinating the President of the United States? Right? And here she is--EWM, not FKH--handing him $100,000.00 cash. That's 5000 ounces of gold. That's...almost 10 million today) GET? I've never seen so many people get so lucky so many times for so long...
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Oct 19, 2023 6:32:34 GMT -5
Maybe we need to do a Zoom seance on Halloween. We could contact CAL's ghosts...the ones that flew with him to Paris in 1927!
From his own book The Spirit of St. Louis:
"These phantoms speak with human voices--friendly, vapor-like shapes, without substance, able to vanish or appear at will, to pass in and out through the walls of the fuselage as though no walls were there. Now, many are crowded behind me. Now, only a few remain. First one and then another presses forward to my shoulder to speak above the engine's noise, and then draws back among the group behind. At times, voices come out of the air itself, clear yet far away, traveling through distances that can't be measured by the scale of human miles, familiar voices, conversing and advising on my flight, discussing problems of my navigation, giving me messages of importance unattainable in ordinary life." LOL!!! The ghosts should be able to tell us what really happened to Charlie!
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Oct 19, 2023 9:30:02 GMT -5
That's sounds soooooooooo much like Theosophy. Know what I mean?
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Oct 19, 2023 9:56:30 GMT -5
That's sounds soooooooooo much like Theosophy. Know what I mean? Just like bat assed crazy Lindbergh to me.
|
|