|
Post by Michael on Oct 17, 2020 14:56:45 GMT -5
Quotation from John Douglas, the expert on criminal profiling, from his work on the Lindbergh kidnapping: ". . .Lindbergh raised some eyebrows by his seemingly overly stoic reaction to Charlie's abduction. He was so unemotional, it was said, that either (a) he did not really love his son in the normal human ways, or (b) that he had to have had something to do with the crime. The rumors began to resurface about the little boy being somehow defective, either mentally or physically, and that the perfectionist colonel couldn't deal with this. . . .there was absolutely no remotely creditable evidence to suggest that anything was abnormal about the child. But more to the point, I have seen enough parents in times of terrible distress to know that emotional reaction to such horror is very individual. Some people let the floodgates open up; others maintain a quiet and icy control. Most are somewhere in the middle. But no reaction is "right" or "wrong." Everyone who faces what must be the worst thing that can happen to a person copes as he or she must." Do me a favor and check out the date of that quote. It comes from a book written 20 years ago. Anyway, he told me the same thing when I spoke to him in Lambertville. Of course this was before I wrote my books so its hard to know what anyone thinks now once having that information available to consider. It's hard to evaluate information one doesn't know about or has never seen before. (By the way, that goes for me too, and its why I am still searching for new material). I met his co-author Mark Olshaker too, and once I began to describe some of what I had found he did even believe me. To him, if it wasn't in Lloyd's book, then it did not exist. Of course here too, this was before my books were written. That's part of the reason I wrote them. No one can dispute the footnotes because most never even read the material I've cited. At worst people simply ignore it. At best, they go to the Archives and are disappointed to learn that I know what I'm talking about. As far as the "reaction" goes, I've always said not everyone reacts the same way. So does that mean reactions should be ignored? You won't find anyone in LE who will say that. Lindbergh had no reaction. People want to believe he was suffering but there's no evidence to support it. Just the opposite. Newspaper articles were giving the readers what they wanted but they were all bogus. And by the way, he had no reaction to seeing his dead child in the morgue. He didn't even flinch. Instead he asked for the "meat skewer" so he could get a better look at the corpse's teeth. Anyway, it is what it is. Not everyone is going to agree no matter what they have in front of them. Heck, I spent almost three decades in Federal Prisons. That means at least 8 hours five days a week literally surrounded by convicted felons. So I am always amused when people who have never stepped foot in a prison setting tell me what goes on there. Or how a criminal "thinks."
|
|
|
Post by trojan on Oct 17, 2020 18:06:41 GMT -5
Quotation from John Douglas, the expert on criminal profiling, from his work on the Lindbergh kidnapping: ". . .Lindbergh raised some eyebrows by his seemingly overly stoic reaction to Charlie's abduction. He was so unemotional, it was said, that either (a) he did not really love his son in the normal human ways, or (b) that he had to have had something to do with the crime. The rumors began to resurface about the little boy being somehow defective, either mentally or physically, and that the perfectionist colonel couldn't deal with this. . . .there was absolutely no remotely creditable evidence to suggest that anything was abnormal about the child. But more to the point, I have seen enough parents in times of terrible distress to know that emotional reaction to such horror is very individual. Some people let the floodgates open up; others maintain a quiet and icy control. Most are somewhere in the middle. But no reaction is "right" or "wrong." Everyone who faces what must be the worst thing that can happen to a person copes as he or she must." Douglas goes on to quote John Walsh on this subject: "Walsh, whose career as a pursuer of predators had its origins with the horrible murder of his young son Adam, put it succinctly--'Who are any of us to say how a person is supposed to react to something like this?' Not everyone then reacts to the sudden death of a child in the same way as another. The way you think you would react is not necessarily the way someone else would react. There are no social rules or definitions of what is "normal" in these circumstances, and neither do you really know how you would react unless it was something that actually happened to you. Due respect to John Douglas, I don't think he was anywhere near aware of the full breadth of Lindbergh's hinderances, his behavior during the searches, his callous actions in the morgue, etc.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 17, 2020 18:46:27 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for your response to my last post. We definitely do have different perspectives on this theory, but as you say, one can always attempt to learn from these differences. My problem with this theory is that (as I mentioned in a response to one of Joe's post) I can't help but to evaluate this theory in the manner that I approached things on a daily basis for 30 years. The focus on cases was never to solve/complete the case with an arrest. It was always about perfecting a criminal case report to sustain a conviction/guilty plea in court. This of course required having an obsession with gathering provable facts/evidence to meet the very high standard of proving a crime beyond all reasonable doubt. If an Agent told a Prosecutor that he/she had speculations about something in a case, the Prosecutor would just laugh and tell the Agent to go out and prove it with facts. Of course today, no one on this forum is attempting to prove this theory in order to convict Linbergh or anyone else in court, so perhaps I should tone-down my obsessive search for facts in this theory and look for less demanding evidence (although to be honest here that's probably not going to happen!).
This theory creates many questions for me as to the "mechanics" of it all. I have numerous questions on how this theory deals with how Lindbergh expected to play-out this entire fake kidnapping scheme if the alleged "double-cross" that involved the extortion had not occurred. Quite frankly, the more I attempt to understand the totality of this theory, the more complex, involved and convoluted it becomes.
I know that you are attempting to finish your book so I will withhold asking all of these questions and reserve them for another time..
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 17, 2020 19:04:59 GMT -5
Womens' rubbers of the 1930's don't necessarily mean they would have had relatively flat indistinct soles, as seen in the one eBay photo you posted. Most rubbers and galoshes from that time period, had some level of a cuban or military style heel, and there is a host of those also shown in Google images. In any case, there are few hard and fast conclusions that can be made about how the kidnappers were able to accomplish what they had to have done, while leaving such little evidence behind in the ground alongside the house, other than to point out the abysmally-limited degree and quality of reporting of the actual and specific ground conditions alongside the house on the evening of the kidnapping. Just as I had predicted... And so, despite no one seeing a heel print, you now have her wearing military style rubbers with heels. The ground was muddy. The ground bore footprints of anyone who walked there. How do we know? Because there are prints in those places you say would not yield them. These were later accepted to have been made by Anne earlier in the day. How much did Anne weigh? How much did the kidnappers carrying a ladder, among other things, weigh? So inventing "heels" as an explanation does not fly. That ground was muddy and would leave evidence if someone walked there - period. Yes, of course you sagely predicted that, Michael. I'll just offer this comment and leave this one alone for another round. Who knows, the old light bulb might eventually blink a few times and stay on for long enough to consider something beyond what you've concluded from, and I'll repeat myself here, the abysmally-limited degree and quality of reporting of the actual and specific ground conditions alongside the house on the evening of the kidnapping. Until that time, good luck with your Cirque-du-Soleil-Kidnappers-In-The-Dark scenario. Here again, is the "muddy" ground, (with its surprisingly non-muddy boardwalk) which you seem to visualize as something much more in the form of an impassable quagmire, than the relatively firm ground it obviously is.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 18, 2020 7:01:33 GMT -5
Yes, of course you sagely predicted that, Michael. I'll just offer this comment and leave this one alone for another round. Who knows, the old light bulb might eventually blink a few times and stay on for long enough to consider something beyond what you've concluded from, and I'll repeat myself here, the abysmally-limited degree and quality of reporting of the actual and specific ground conditions alongside the house on the evening of the kidnapping. Until that time, good luck with your Cirque-du-Soleil-Kidnappers-In-The-Dark scenario. Here again, is the "muddy" ground, (with its surprisingly non-muddy boardwalk) which you seem to visualize as something much more in the form of an impassable quagmire, than the relatively firm ground it obviously is. Are you for real or is this a joke? When someone stepped in the mud they left a mark there. When someone did not step in mud they didn't leave a mark. If someone stepped in mud, but did not step on the board after stepping in it, then they didn't leave a mark on the board. The picture you keep posting disproves exactly what I suppose you are trying to assert. We know when someone left the board because we have prints in the mud. We know after stepping into the mud they did not return to where ever there is no evidence of mud on the board. You're first attempt to eliminate these basic common sense observations is to eliminate the mud we absolutely know exists. The next is to defy all logic by inventing a special type of footwear that super lightweight Anne was wearing to blame that for the cause of footprints while simultaneously suggesting the footwear the Men who were carrying (at least) a ladder made them invisible when stepping in the same area. Finally, you claim there were heel marks in the prints left behind despite the fact there were not. It doesn't work Joe. You can suggest Anne was wearing glass slippers and it still doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 18, 2020 7:47:04 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for your response to my last post. We definitely do have different perspectives on this theory, but as you say, one can always attempt to learn from these differences. My problem with this theory is that (as I mentioned in a response to one of Joe's post) I can't help but to evaluate this theory in the manner that I approached things on a daily basis for 30 years. The focus on cases was never to solve/complete the case with an arrest. It was always about perfecting a criminal case report to sustain a conviction/guilty plea in court. This of course required having an obsession with gathering provable facts/evidence to meet the very high standard of proving a crime beyond all reasonable doubt. If an Agent told a Prosecutor that he/she had speculations about something in a case, the Prosecutor would just laugh and tell the Agent to go out and prove it with facts. Of course today, no one on this forum is attempting to prove this theory in order to convict Linbergh or anyone else in court, so perhaps I should tone-down my obsessive search for facts in this theory and look for less demanding evidence (although to be honest here that's probably not going to happen!). This theory creates many questions for me as to the "mechanics" of it all. I have numerous questions on how this theory deals with how Lindbergh expected to play-out this entire fake kidnapping scheme if the alleged "double-cross" that involved the extortion had not occurred. Quite frankly, the more I attempt to understand the totality of this theory, the more complex, involved and convoluted it becomes. I know that you are attempting to finish your book so I will withhold asking all of these questions and reserve them for another time.. I totally get where you are coming from. But we're basically on different wave-lengths or perhaps better described as different channels. While I can tune in to yours, I can see you aren't able to tune into mine and that's where my efforts are currently focused. First and foremost, I am not working backwards. As I've stated I read, discuss, debate, and research. I accumulate as much information as possible. In the end, I simply let the chips fall where they may. Nothing concerning any personal theory I happen to have is written in stone. An example of that could be the Kennedy daughter theory. I could never say that's "wrong." See my point? So its not about the theory and that isn't what's important to me. It's about the avalanche of information that needs to be looked at. Not through the lens of whether or not a theory is acceptable, because again, that's what I consider working backwards. We must first accept what our eyes are telling us. The contradictions, the lies, the suspicious acts, and the control over everyone and everything. Here I have no doubt in my mind that had you been Schwarzkopf you would have pursued all leads, and wouldn't allowed anyone to stop you from buttoning everything up. If Betty Gow had screamed " Lindbergh promised me I wouldn't be touched," I am certain you wouldn't have let that go until you got to the bottom of it. But here that didn't happen. Investigators didn't pursue anything that pointed back to that house. Garsson tried, and was quickly booted for it. Those, like Keaten, didn't but later on in life told what they actually believed. I find this important too. So we have facts, and circumstances that should have been pursued and developed that were simply ignored by police - not because they "wanted" to but because they actually had no choice. We now have the benefit of this information and should be considering it. Not based upon any "theory" but the information itself. Because police did abandon specific information I don't think that's a reason for us to do the same. Again, had you been there I am certain you wouldn't have ignored anything, but I am equally certain the President would have called you up and told you to get your ass back to Washington just like he did to Garsson. Next, you mention V4 which I am currently working on. I'm done with a little section that frankly I had just learned about as I was researching something else. There was a party who was contracted to do something and he was three times removed from the "source" or man running it. This guy knew who his immediate boss was but nothing else. So he hired someone himself to follow that boss in an attempt to learn who was funding everything. What he discovered was only a middle-man. And who was controlling the middle-man? Nobody knows. To this very day no one knows. And this was a situation that came out and some powerful people wanted to know what the hell happened. This includes people in Government. Still, no one knows,and if they did I certainly can't find it. I'd call this complex and convoluted for sure. Imagine if I didn't have the information that came from this guy? We wouldn't know any of it - at all. We don't know how many of these schemes work if people involved decide to keep their mouths shut. I know first hand that some people do. I've seen people doing 30 years when they could have done more like 5 because they would not talk. I had one guy who got 10 years when he was originally offered a year and a day if he flipped. Look at Hauptmann. He could have saved his own life, gained a ton of money for his family, and been out of prison eventually one day. All he had to do was talk. And yet, people to this day claim there was no one else because he didn't. Right? That's the easy way out. But most of us, I think, reject that. Why? Because of our research that shows other people were involved.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 18, 2020 9:40:03 GMT -5
Yes, of course you sagely predicted that, Michael. I'll just offer this comment and leave this one alone for another round. Who knows, the old light bulb might eventually blink a few times and stay on for long enough to consider something beyond what you've concluded from, and I'll repeat myself here, the abysmally-limited degree and quality of reporting of the actual and specific ground conditions alongside the house on the evening of the kidnapping. Until that time, good luck with your Cirque-du-Soleil-Kidnappers-In-The-Dark scenario. Here again, is the "muddy" ground, (with its surprisingly non-muddy boardwalk) which you seem to visualize as something much more in the form of an impassable quagmire, than the relatively firm ground it obviously is. Are you for real or is this a joke? When someone stepped in the mud they left a mark there. When someone did not step in mud they didn't leave a mark. If someone stepped in mud, but did not step on the board after stepping in it, then they didn't leave a mark on the board. The picture you keep posting disproves exactly what I suppose you are trying to assert. We know when someone left the board because we have prints in the mud. We know after stepping into the mud they did not return to where ever there is no evidence of mud on the board. You're first attempt to eliminate these basic common sense observations is to eliminate the mud we absolutely know exists. The next is to defy all logic by inventing a special type of footwear that super lightweight Anne was wearing to blame that for the cause of footprints while simultaneously suggesting the footwear the Men who were carrying (at least) a ladder made them invisible when stepping in the same area. Finally, you claim there were heel marks in the prints left behind despite the fact there were not. It doesn't work Joe. You can suggest Anne was wearing glass slippers and it still doesn't work. What you've stated is a very simplistic and shallow evaluation of the circumstantial physical evidence and you seem to have found yourself in permanent lockstep here, even though the crime scene photos of the area alongside the house should be telling you much more. So much for being open to all the information, right? I just don't feel that letting the first one or two chips fall where you'd like to see them and then moving on, constitutes thorough research or detective work.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 18, 2020 12:54:02 GMT -5
Michael, your last post in response to mine was excellent in explaining your position here--very thorough. You most definitely showed me what "channel" you are on.
I agree with your correct approach to NOT taking a theory and then working backwards, thereby forcing the evidence to fit the theory. This is very unproductive to an investigation. However (yes I know that my responding posts to yours are always filled with howevers!) I believe that at some point the information pointing to guilt has to coalesce into a theory that provides specificity as to exactly how the crime was perpetrated. All of the chips of reading, debating. researching, etc. have to eventually not only point to a guilty suspect, but to me these chips must fall into a logical and provable scenario that explains how the suspect (in this discussion Lindbergh) actually implimented the crime. Otherwise for me the theory and chips fail.
I also agree with you that there has always been complex criminal conspiracies that were carried out by multiple layers of co-conspirators that make the cases difficult to unravel (and in rare cases never successfully solved). But I always found that by appying hard work and the proper techniques, these conspiracies would lose that complex look and the "mastermind" was never as isolated from the crime as they thought. If the investigation just made these conpiracies look more complex and more convoluted, then I found that meant the investigation was on the wrong track.
I do realize that most people would say that "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a friggin duck. However this can be dangerous in any criminal investigation. I have seen numerous times when that duck turned out to be a loon or a coot.
I am keeping an open mind here that your extensive reseach shows Lindbergh to be that friggin duck. But I do see the possibility of some loons and coots here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 19, 2020 11:03:22 GMT -5
What you've stated is a very simplistic and shallow evaluation of the circumstantial physical evidence and you seem to have found yourself in permanent lockstep here, even though the crime scene photos of the area alongside the house should be telling you much more. So much for being open to all the information, right? I just don't feel that letting the first one or two chips fall where you'd like to see them and then moving on, constitutes thorough research or detective work. I didn't know being open minded required me to lie to you Joe. What I see is a position which must include a flying carpet, a cloak of invisibility, quick drying mud, and a pair of magic socks. So while others might be open to it I can't sit here and be untruthful about what I think. If you wanted I could concede that Anne was drinking a corona too but stepped into the mud after discovering she forgot the lime - this due to the shock of the discovery.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 19, 2020 11:34:37 GMT -5
Michael, your last post in response to mine was excellent in explaining your position here--very thorough. You most definitely showed me what "channel" you are on. I agree with your correct approach to NOT taking a theory and then working backwards, thereby forcing the evidence to fit the theory. This is very unproductive to an investigation. However (yes I know that my responding posts to yours are always filled with howevers!) I believe that at some point the information pointing to guilt has to coalesce into a theory that provides specificity as to exactly how the crime was perpetrated. All of the chips of reading, debating. researching, etc. have to eventually not only point to a guilty suspect, but to me these chips must fall into a logical and provable scenario that explains how the suspect (in this discussion Lindbergh) actually implimented the crime. Otherwise for me the theory and chips fail. I also agree with you that there has always been complex criminal conspiracies that were carried out by multiple layers of co-conspirators that make the cases difficult to unravel (and in rare cases never successfully solved). But I always found that by appying hard work and the proper techniques, these conspiracies would lose that complex look and the "mastermind" was never as isolated from the crime as they thought. If the investigation just made these conpiracies look more complex and more convoluted, then I found that meant the investigation was on the wrong track. I do realize that most people would say that "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a friggin duck. However this can be dangerous in any criminal investigation. I have seen numerous times when that duck turned out to be a loon or a coot. I am keeping an open mind here that your extensive reseach shows Lindbergh to be that friggin duck. But I do see the possibility of some loons and coots here. Great posts always come with "howevers" and "buts." If you're not telling me what you really think there's much less that we can learn from your perspective.
One of the important things to note here is that while we are definitely making headway by finding and exploring new facts, there are still so many unknowns, gaps, and holes throughout. I mentioned one above as it relates to Hauptmann. Some have "solved" this by concluding he was a Lone-Wolf. Most others researched, learned there were others, then continue to search for more pieces to the puzzle. And so, because Hauptmann did not confess, that does NOT mean he was alone. One might demand that we name his co-conspirators or forfeit any assertion that he had any. See what I'm saying?
So there are things we know, things we suspect, and things we simply do not know. I can tell you that in my attempt to sort all of this out, I examine what I consider all possibilities that may come from each. Take, for example, the fact Lindbergh refused to keep on the Security Guard because, as he said, "he didn't want anyone to think he was afraid." I look at this and ask myself whether or not this made a difference. I think it did because it would have been an obstacle or deterrent to any kidnapping plot or attempt. Does that mean Lindbergh had an ulterior motive? Maybe yes or maybe no. If no, who were the people he believed would think he was afraid? (Locals? Friends?) Next, could both be true? So I run down each option and if I cannot rule something out then I don't. How about the Betty Gow situation? In one confirmed account she proclaimed Lindbergh promised she wouldn't be touched, and in another account he was telling her to keep her mouth shut. Well, there's the assertion from Adrian Lopez that, in essence, many of the reporters believed there was something going on between Lindbergh and Gow. First thing to consider is whether that's possible. Unfortunately it is. Next, might the fact he doesn't want this secret out be the reason he's promising her protection and telling her to shut up? Finally, could it be both? A secret relationship like this might have been motivated by ulterior motives by either one - or both. And of course it might not be true at all which brings us back to consider some other explanation altogether. And so, as I've made my way through each and every point, certain things do begin to coalesce around several different theories. I'm open to several, and anything new that comes up I examine exactly in the same way I describe above. We can explain away each and every suspicious point ... five of them, ten of them, 20 of them, 50 of them, etc., but at some point it might be worth while to consider the opposite based upon the sheer number of times we find ourselves attempting to explain them away.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 20, 2020 12:00:31 GMT -5
What you've stated is a very simplistic and shallow evaluation of the circumstantial physical evidence and you seem to have found yourself in permanent lockstep here, even though the crime scene photos of the area alongside the house should be telling you much more. So much for being open to all the information, right? I just don't feel that letting the first one or two chips fall where you'd like to see them and then moving on, constitutes thorough research or detective work. I didn't know being open minded required me to lie to you Joe. What I see is a position which must include a flying carpet, a cloak of invisibility, quick drying mud, and a pair of magic socks. So while others might be open to it I can't sit here and be untruthful about what I think. If you wanted I could concede that Anne was drinking a corona too but stepped into the mud after discovering she forgot the lime - this due to the shock of the discovery. I believe you know I would never ask you to answer me untruthfully, Michael. I just had a hard time not laughing out loud (okay, maybe I did a little) when I first read your representation of how the kidnappers managed to accomplish what you believe they did under the conditions they would have found themselves in, ie. multiple men negotiating one skinny little boardwalk, carrying, setting up and taking down one finnicky, articulated ladder that scissored inwards, all on a dark windy night, while leaving only one relatively-discernible stockinged footprint, unless the indiscernible footprints they left behind were never visually detected in the ground they would have had to have stepped upon. Anyway, enough said on this one for now.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 20, 2020 12:50:58 GMT -5
Michael, once again, your last post in response to mine was very informative as to how you approach the LKC. I, for one, believe that it is important to understand your approach in order to see how you are attempting to utilize the vast amount of reseach that you have produced and examined. I would agree that due to the numerous unknowns, gaps and holes in the 1932 investigation, it is necessary to examine everything and to consider all possibilities (including any involvement by Lindbergh).
Your examples of how all of Lindbergh's actions/statements during the time period prior to and during the kidnapping can be interpreted in many different ways (both nefarious and harmless) thereby causing me to question their evidentiary value. For me this lessens their face value as evidence. All of these "suspicious" actions on the part of Lindbergh would only become great corroboratory evidence against him ONCE a serious and provable motive is established. Quite obviously if Lindbergh had a motive to end his son's life then all of these actions by Lindbergh can be built upon one another for very good corroboration of his guilt. Conversely, if there is no motive on Lindbergh's part then all of his actions that you mention (regardless of the high number) can be reasonably viewed independently and attibuted to how Lindbergh, in his own strange way, was reacting to the situations at hand.
I understand your concerns about the number of these suspicious points that your reseach has revealed. It is only human nature to at some point consider everything in totality and see the "quacking duck" adage. However, at the risk of being repetitive here, for me when it comes to Lindbergh as a suspect in this crime, it is first and foremost about motive. Everything else follows; nothing else leads.
I imagine that I should read Lise Pearlman's new book as it appears she is attempting to prove a strong motive for Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 20, 2020 14:18:25 GMT -5
I understand your concerns about the number of these suspicious points that your reseach has revealed. It is only human nature to at some point consider everything in totality and see the "quacking duck" adage. However, at the risk of being repetitive here, for me when it comes to Lindbergh as a suspect in this crime, it is first and foremost about motive. Everything else follows; nothing else leads. Believe me, I've got you on this. As you can see my approach has been different and I'm glad to see that you get where I'm coming from as well. It's two different approaches. I've always followed the pattern of accumulating the facts first, then attempting to find the motive later. Motives, as you know, can be hard to determine at times. There's one crime that I know about that has always stayed with me.... It occurred in the county but I'll leave the names out of it. A man who came from a very good family and had never been in trouble a day in his life, was in a happy marriage, and they just had a baby. Soon there were arsons popping up randomly in this town and police couldn't make heads or tails of it. The person starting them was creating a slow fuse method by using a candle. Eventually, it was this guy who was caught red handed lighting a candle and confessed. Next came the usual "I can't believe it," "he wasn't that type of guy," "he's not a criminal" etc etc etc. As it turns out, and I happen to believe it, the defense was that he was suffering from some psychological issue that can affect new fathers - something similar to postpartum depression in women. Now I ask you: Who in the hell would have ever come up with this motive before his admission? So there's often motives for actions that we might never even guess at. Or ones that might be written off as impossible, trivial, or speculation. I'm not saying that's the case here, but I never wanted to ignore the writing on the wall if I didn't have a smoking gun concerning any theory. As I tried to show in V1, I think its important to look at what circumstances allowed for this crime to occur. The first was leaving the dog behind. Who left him? Lindbergh. The "rule" the child should not be disturbed. Who's rule? Lindbergh's. Who claimed there was a set rule as to when the family would be at Highfields? Everyone - except Lindbergh. Why no Security Guard? Lindbergh. This despite the fact his own father in law (before he died) warned him that his son would be kidnapped if they didn't have one. Look at his explanation. Does it make any sense? Next, the warped shutters on the kidnap window. Lindbergh was asked why they weren't repaired and he claimed the house was "too new." And yet, he called to have a sticking door fixed that same weekend. Who calls to have one repair made but ignores the other - because the house was "too new?" Whited, who helped convict Hauptmann, originally claimed to have seen a car that police believed was Lindbergh. And this is just the beginning. I think we've both grown up hearing three things: Hauptmann was guilty. Hauptmann wasn't alone. And the rumor that Lindbergh was involved. Where did this rumor come from? There's no doubt in my mind that it originated from the police working the case. Keaten, and Walsh weren't alone in holding this opinion. And no doubt on their days off they confided in their wives. Keaten even told his nephew that Schwarzkopf "saw" what he saw. Heck, Lindbergh himself even told Cowe that he and his staff should be considered suspects. Who does this after protecting everyone from scrutiny? Never mind Garsson, just look at what he did to Hoover over Sharp. The other thing you mentioned above was what motive Lindbergh had to "kill" his own son. Perhaps it was an accident? This is something we my never know. So it may not have involved this extreme. A&M suggested it was a prank gone wrong. Some have suggested he was to be taken away and raised in a home, hospital, or by some other family. There's plenty to consider and its why I've never actually spelled out what I believe because I'd rather everyone come to their own conclusion. That, of course, would include yours and I would never want to change you're mind about it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 21, 2020 9:51:20 GMT -5
Something else I wanted to quickly add here....
Any theory concerning Lindbergh's involvement can fall anywhere from 1 thru 10. For example, Governor Hoffman did not believe Lindbergh "killed" his own son. However, he did believe he knew what had occurred and made efforts to cover it up. Higher up the scale would be A&M's theory of a prank gone wrong. Higher still, in my opinion, would be the child was meant to be taken away to grow up somewhere else, but an accident killed him. On the very top of the scale would be Judge Pearlman who definitely would be at a "10." So the "ranges" of possibilities should be considered, not only here, but everywhere to include Hauptmann's involvement.
|
|