Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on May 15, 2020 17:58:43 GMT -5
Joe, do you believe it was mere serendipity that Condon placed an ad in a local Bronx newspaper and it was seen by a local resident who happened to be the kidnapper? This is the part that I struggle with. I agree with you that Condon may have been a narcissist and I think he was a master at using bits of learned information in a desperate need to stay relevant to the case. I understand this was being addressed to Joe but I wanted to respond to this also. I think everyone needs to consider Condon's own words about that Bronx Home News letter and it is clear that it was not luck or by accident that letter was seen. When that letter appeared on March 8, 1932, there had been no indication that the kidnappers were operating out of the Bronx. Yet Condon limits his reach to that specific area of New York? Why? Well, Condon was sure he did not need to go beyond the Bronx Home News area to make a connection with the kidnappers. He knew before the authorities knew that the kidnappers could be reached through the Bronx Home News. Trial Testimony, Day 6, Cross Examination of John F. Condon by Defense Attorney Edward Reilly, Page 709Q(Reilly) - If the kidnapping band were not anticipating something from the Bronx News, didn't you think it strange that the appeal should not be published in the metropolitan dailies? A(Condon) - No, sir.
Q(Reilly) - And you gave no indication to any agency or metropolitan daily that you had sent the appeal to the Bronx News? A(Condon) - I did not.
Q(Reilly) - They might just as well have been in Massachusetts-- A(Condon) - Anything.
Q(Reilly) - (continuing) Texas, Mexico or any place? A(Condon) - Yes.
Q(Reilly) - And yet if they were you expected them to see the Bronx News, did you? A(Condon) - Yes, sir.Condon could only be that sure if he already knew the kidnappers were in the Bronx and they would be expecting to see that letter in the Bronx Home News. Amy, I wanted to make sure I had the trial transcript in front of me before responding to your post. From the immediate continuation of this exchange which appears immediately overleaf on page 710: Q(Reilly) - Why? Were they waiting for something from the Bronx News? A(Condon) - No.
I understand your reasoning for coming to the conclusion that Condon already knew the kidnappers were in the Bronx based on what you posted, but I believe it's based on nothing more than Condon's acknowledgement of the previous question Reilly has posed, which he often does with a "Yes sir." I suggest you go through his entire testimony to understand this observation and where it applies more fully. I also believe your conclusion is highly speculative. Further, I'm curious as to why you omitted the above exchange in your response.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on May 15, 2020 18:53:14 GMT -5
Joe, do you believe it was mere serendipity that Condon placed an ad in a local Bronx newspaper and it was seen by a local resident who happened to be the kidnapper? This is the part that I struggle with. I agree with you that Condon may have been a narcissist and I think he was a master at using bits of learned information in a desperate need to stay relevant to the case. I know this post was for Joe, but its hard for me to hold my tongue. For me, all I have to do is simply apply one or two of the countless examples I've used in V2. Take the $1000. CJ and the gang didn't want Condon's money? That's not only convenient, since Mrs. Condon claimed he didn't have it in the first place, but why should the "Gang" do such a thing? We have the fact CJ yelled out a warning to Condon when Riehl appeared then waiting for him over in the Park. They were working together beyond all doubt. Look at the thumb. It was the right one, the left, both, then left again. The man told so many lies he could not keep track. Doing something like this has nothing to do with narcissism. It's both a pattern and a tactic. It was all done to keep the people who collected the ransom safe by obstructing the investigation. With all due respect Michael, I couldn't care less about anything that's written in any book if it comes up short in making logical sense, or when speculation is repeated over and over again until it magically appears to solidify into fact. First of all, CJ had no intention of subscribing to Condon's demand to taken to the baby in order to acquire an additional $1,000 or a paltry 2% of the original ransom amount. He had no interest in having his main meal ticket compromised by penny candy. I know.. you're probably going to tell me (and you have in the past) you've dealt with criminals most of your working life and every one of them would have jumped at the opportunity. That's great, but none of them were CJ in this specific situation, were they? CJ yelled out a warning to Condon when Riehl appeared because he was protecting Condon? You therefore conclude they were working together beyond all doubt? Any possibility here he was genuinely scared sh--less about being captured and was voicing his suspicion and sudden distrust towards Condon's motives? The thumb..... . I see from the first few pages of V3, either you still don't seem to understand or at least make an attempt to develop the specifics of what Condon was talking about based on his meeting with CJ at Woodlawn, and then later at Englewood as guest of the Lindberghs for dinner. Two different muscular developments of the hand here, CJ's was on the palm side, Condon's "chalk-pushing" development on the back side.. enough said.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on May 15, 2020 19:28:14 GMT -5
During the time he would have started, bare knuckle fighting originally introduced to the US by Irish immigrants, was still very much in vogue. It wasn't until around 1890 that gloves were even adopted in professional fights, and when they were, they were not as padded and protective as current day gloves. What I am trying to find out from you is what foundation you are using that Condon was bare knuckle fighting? Condon was a big boxing fan and attended many, many boxing events. That much I do know. Condon did instruct students in basic boxing moves but there was no risk to him receiving any serious head contact. Here is a video of him giving boxing instructions to students in 1928. The boxing sequences start at 3:44 minutes into the film. mirc.sc.edu/islandora/object/usc%3A19154Amy, I didn't say Condon was a proponent of bare knuckle fighting, but I'm pretty sure he would have been familiar with the practice in his formative and early adult years, having been born in 1860. Again.. I'm presenting the the possibility that being hit in the head during the times he would have found himself in and out of the boxing ring, might well have contributed to a state of later dementia in his 70's. If you don't consider it a possibility, I'm fine with that, but I'm pretty sure he would have received a lot of good knocks over the time frame required to become knowledgeable enough in the sport to consider becoming a boxing coach.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 21:39:38 GMT -5
Amy, I didn't say Condon was a proponent of bare knuckle fighting, but I'm pretty sure he would have been familiar with the practice in his formative and early adult years, having been born in 1860. Again.. I'm presenting the the possibility that being hit in the head during the times he would have found himself in and out of the boxing ring, might well have contributed to a state of later dementia in his 70's. If you don't consider it a possibility, I'm fine with that, but I'm pretty sure he would have received a lot of good knocks over the time frame required to become knowledgeable enough in the sport to consider becoming a boxing coach. I appreciate your response. However, in the quote of yours I used you said the following: "During the time he would have started, bare knuckle fighting originally introduced to the US by Irish immigrants, was still very much in vogue."He being Condon. What are you saying he started if not boxing? That is why I asked you for the source you were using for him boxing with bare knuckles. This was something new to me. So you are now saying that he didn't box at all or just not bare knuckle boxing? This is not meant to be argumentative.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 22:19:50 GMT -5
I understand this was being addressed to Joe but I wanted to respond to this also. I think everyone needs to consider Condon's own words about that Bronx Home News letter and it is clear that it was not luck or by accident that letter was seen. When that letter appeared on March 8, 1932, there had been no indication that the kidnappers were operating out of the Bronx. Yet Condon limits his reach to that specific area of New York? Why? Well, Condon was sure he did not need to go beyond the Bronx Home News area to make a connection with the kidnappers. He knew before the authorities knew that the kidnappers could be reached through the Bronx Home News. Trial Testimony, Day 6, Cross Examination of John F. Condon by Defense Attorney Edward Reilly, Page 709Q(Reilly) - If the kidnapping band were not anticipating something from the Bronx News, didn't you think it strange that the appeal should not be published in the metropolitan dailies? A(Condon) - No, sir.
Q(Reilly) - And you gave no indication to any agency or metropolitan daily that you had sent the appeal to the Bronx News? A(Condon) - I did not.
Q(Reilly) - They might just as well have been in Massachusetts-- A(Condon) - Anything.
Q(Reilly) - (continuing) Texas, Mexico or any place? A(Condon) - Yes.
Q(Reilly) - And yet if they were you expected them to see the Bronx News, did you? A(Condon) - Yes, sir.Condon could only be that sure if he already knew the kidnappers were in the Bronx and they would be expecting to see that letter in the Bronx Home News. Amy, I wanted to make sure I had the trial transcript in front of me before responding to your post. From the immediate continuation of this exchange which appears immediately overleaf on page 710: Q(Reilly) - Why? Were they waiting for something from the Bronx News? A(Condon) - No.
I understand your reasoning for coming to the conclusion that Condon already knew the kidnappers were in the Bronx based on what you posted, but I believe it's based on nothing more than Condon's acknowledgement of the previous question Reilly has posed, which he often does with a "Yes sir." I suggest you go through his entire testimony to understand this observation and where it applies more fully. I also believe your conclusion is highly speculative. Further, I'm curious as to why you omitted the above exchange in your response. I am glad that you brought this up. I guess I really should have included it because it shows Condon contradicting himself. He defends the use of the Bronx Home News being sufficient as the way to contact the kidnappers no matter where these kidnappers were based. He says he expected them to see it no matter where they were. Then he denies it with the question and answer you posted. Condon understood the implications of the questions he had previously answered, the ones I quoted, and Reilly, with the following question that you posted, provided Condon the opportunity to save himself and walk back on the previous answer. I stand on what I said that Condon knew he didn't need to reach outside of the Bronx because he knew that the kidnappers could be reached right there through the Bronx Home News.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 16, 2020 10:14:41 GMT -5
With all due respect Michael, I couldn't care less about anything that's written in any book if it comes up short in making logical sense, or when speculation is repeated over and over again until it magically appears to solidify into fact. First of all, CJ had no intention of subscribing to Condon's demand to taken to the baby in order to acquire an additional $1,000 or a paltry 2% of the original ransom amount. He had no interest in having his main meal ticket compromised by penny candy. I know.. you're probably going to tell me (and you have in the past) you've dealt with criminals most of your working life and every one of them would have jumped at the opportunity. That's great, but none of them were CJ in this specific situation, were they? CJ yelled out a warning to Condon when Riehl appeared because he was protecting Condon? You therefore conclude they were working together beyond all doubt? Any possibility here he was genuinely scared sh--less about being captured and was voicing his suspicion and sudden distrust towards Condon's motives? The thumb..... . I see from the first few pages of V3, either you still don't seem to understand or at least make an attempt to develop the specifics of what Condon was talking about based on his meeting with CJ at Woodlawn, and then later at Englewood as guest of the Lindberghs for dinner. Two different muscular developments of the hand here, CJ's was on the palm side, Condon's "chalk-pushing" development on the back side.. enough said. I can't believe you've written this post while including the words " logical sense." I just cannot believe it. Frankly, I am completely baffled by your logic. So much so that I had to re-read it twice now. And sure enough - there it is. It's not like I've written a novel. The sources included within the footnotes are real - not imagined. So I think you're going to have to do better if you want to neutralize the facts in this way. There's nothing " magical" about them at all. Where do you come up with this stuff? Next, I see you referring to the sum of $1000 as "paltry" and "petty candy." May I remind you that Hauptmann's job at Majestic paid $80 a month. $1000 is more than a years pay. So once again I believe you are doing exactly what you accuse me of. Forget about my decades of interaction/experience with convicted felons for a moment and try to look at this from a common sense perspective... Let's consider for the purposes of discussion that the historical version of events actually took place. You have someone who risked their entire life to commit this crime. They've kidnapped and killed a child. At this point, who in their right mind would not want to maximize their gains? Who exactly? So "he" was promised $71,000 at one point but "forgives" $20,000 because he "cares" about Lindbergh's (Morrow's) financial situation? This while simultaneously NOT caring about their 20 month year old son? Makes absolutely NO sense. Zero my friend. Next we come to the $1000 promised by Condon. According to you, he doesn't want this because its too small of an amount. That doesn't even make sense in today's money.
Imagine you plan an armored truck heist because there was $50,000 on board. You grab the bag but find there's $51,000. According your logic you reach in, remove the extra thousand, then leave it behind because its such a small amount it doesn't matter. Not even today would something like this occur and its worth FAR less than it was in 1932. If I had been Schwarzkopf I would have asked Condon for that $1000 to be given to Lindbergh, and once discovered that he had no such amount to give then set Inspector Walsh and Lt. Keaten loose on him. The case would have been solved that same day. Don't like the heist example? Try replacing it with selling a coin collection. "No, no, I actually want LESS money than your offer." This is completely absurd.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 16, 2020 13:16:59 GMT -5
Oh here we go... He's online now, as I type this, getting ready to respond, Michael... This is going to be priceless...
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on May 16, 2020 18:08:19 GMT -5
Oh here we go... He's online now, as I type this, getting ready to respond, Michael... This is going to be priceless... What do you mean by stating I'm online? How do you know that, LJ? Michael, how does he know that? I'll tell you what will be priceless LJ.. the day you stop acting like a one-eyed, push-the-Like-button minion.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 16, 2020 18:19:51 GMT -5
The homepage says which members are online, lol. And Michael, is there any way to 'like' things more than once...?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on May 16, 2020 19:15:51 GMT -5
Because, on the homepage, it says which members are online, lol. And Michael, is there any way to 'like' things more than once...? I'm sure if there was a way, you'd be all over it.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 17, 2020 12:56:15 GMT -5
Come on, IloveDFW, don't be such a miniony minion. As condescending and ridiculous as he can be--pompously pontificating about "logic" while insisting that there's nothing suspicious about the parent of a kidnapped child not immediately opening the ransom note; that someone who just committed the crime of the century, the focus of worldwide attention, is going to bother responding to an intermediary offer in a small local paper without some pre-laid plan for that--despite this kind of desperate nonsense, there's no reason to be nasty. That being said, my own guess in answer to your question is 10 ft. tall and twice a day (morning prayers at 7:52am, when St. Charles took off from Long Island; evening services at 10:22pm, when the Great One descended from the heavens to rejoin the multitudes in Paris). Ave, O Ave, Magnus Avis Homo...
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 17, 2020 13:13:27 GMT -5
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."
Exodus 20:8 (KJV)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on May 17, 2020 13:31:00 GMT -5
With all due respect Michael, I couldn't care less about anything that's written in any book if it comes up short in making logical sense, or when speculation is repeated over and over again until it magically appears to solidify into fact. First of all, CJ had no intention of subscribing to Condon's demand to taken to the baby in order to acquire an additional $1,000 or a paltry 2% of the original ransom amount. He had no interest in having his main meal ticket compromised by penny candy. I know.. you're probably going to tell me (and you have in the past) you've dealt with criminals most of your working life and every one of them would have jumped at the opportunity. That's great, but none of them were CJ in this specific situation, were they? CJ yelled out a warning to Condon when Riehl appeared because he was protecting Condon? You therefore conclude they were working together beyond all doubt? Any possibility here he was genuinely scared sh--less about being captured and was voicing his suspicion and sudden distrust towards Condon's motives? The thumb..... . I see from the first few pages of V3, either you still don't seem to understand or at least make an attempt to develop the specifics of what Condon was talking about based on his meeting with CJ at Woodlawn, and then later at Englewood as guest of the Lindberghs for dinner. Two different muscular developments of the hand here, CJ's was on the palm side, Condon's "chalk-pushing" development on the back side.. enough said. I can't believe you've written this post while including the words " logical sense." I just cannot believe it. Frankly, I am completely baffled by your logic. So much so that I had to re-read it twice now. And sure enough - there it is. It's not like I've written a novel. The sources included within the footnotes are real - not imagined. So I think you're going to have to do better if you want to neutralize the facts in this way. There's nothing " magical" about them at all. Where do you come up with this stuff? Next, I see you referring to the sum of $1000 as "paltry" and "petty candy." May I remind you that Hauptmann's job at Majestic paid $80 a month. $1000 is more than a years pay. So once again I believe you are doing exactly what you accuse me of. Forget about my decades of interaction/experience with convicted felons for a moment and try to look at this from a common sense perspective... Let's consider for the purposes of discussion that the historical version of events actually took place. You have someone who risked their entire life to commit this crime. They've kidnapped and killed a child. At this point, who in their right mind would not want to maximize their gains? Who exactly? So "he" was promised $71,000 at one point but "forgives" $20,000 because he "cares" about Lindbergh's (Morrow's) financial situation? This while simultaneously NOT caring about their 20 month year old son? Makes absolutely NO sense. Zero my friend. Next we come to the $1000 promised by Condon. According to you, he doesn't want this because its too small of an amount. That doesn't even make sense in today's money.
Imagine you plan an armored truck heist because there was $50,000 on board. You grab the bag but find there's $51,000. According your logic you reach in, remove the extra thousand, then leave it behind because its such a small amount it doesn't matter. Not even today would something like this occur and its worth FAR less than it was in 1932. If I had been Schwarzkopf I would have asked Condon for that $1000 to be given to Lindbergh, and once discovered that he had no such amount to give then set Inspector Walsh and Lt. Keaten loose on him. The case would have been solved that same day. Don't like the heist example? Try replacing it with selling a coin collection. "No, no, I actually want LESS money than your offer." This is completely absurd. Michael, forget for a minute here how much money Hauptmann was making at the Majestic. The fact is, he was looking for something much greater, a quick $50,000 or $70,000 payday, so he could put the Majestic and every other place he’d worked at, in the past where he felt they belonged. He was looking to give up the relative dog days of working for a living, in exchange for the chance to instantly becoming a full time Wall Street-playing big shot. Your non-sequitur analogy of the loot bag containing 50K or 51K, (ie. which one would you pick?) astounds me. It misses the point entirely because it entirely overlooks what CJ would have had to do in order to claim Condon’s $1,000. CJ was no idiot and he wasn’t willing to compromise his big payday for the condition that Condon requested, in order for him to claim that $1,000. CJ knew the baby was dead and that he wouldn’t be able to deliver an unharmed CALjr to a Catholic priest, so he blew off Condon’s offer, plain and simple. Instead, you seem to pay more attention to things like Myra Condon's claim that John Condon didn't have the money to offer in the first place, when you really should be asking yourself how on earth could CJ have even considered Condon’s monetary offer, if he couldn’t do what Condon was asking.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on May 17, 2020 13:46:10 GMT -5
I'm sure if there was a way, you'd be all over it. Joe, how large is your altar to CAL? How often do you worship at it? Just so you don't lose any more sleep over this IloveDFW, I can honestly tell you my feelings towards Lindbergh are pretty neutral. I do admire his planning and determination to become the first pilot to fly non-stop between New York and Paris, as well as his to scientific curiosity and pioneering of the world's airways, but it pretty much stops there. Trying to put myself in his shoes, I understand his aversion to the press and his adoring public, but at the same time, he could be a real asshole. Perhaps the kind of personality one could work with but wouldn't want much to do with personally. He was no murderer though and even jerks don't deserve to have their personal and family lives ripped apart, in this case by a mentally ill German carpenter from the Bronx.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on May 17, 2020 13:49:10 GMT -5
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." Exodus 20:8 (KJV) Yes LJ, you should get back to your Sunday School class and ask for forgiveness for your nastiness. Perhaps He may also grant you a mind of your own.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 17, 2020 14:07:04 GMT -5
And that's the best you got...? In any case, you unquestioningly swallow the highly unlikely official line, and may “He” (I assume you mean God, as opposed to Lindbergh) grant me a mind of my own, as you meanwhile twist yourself into a pretzel making excuse after excuse for Lindbergh and Condon, and then sound off about “logic”? As my Sunday school teacher used to say, here we have, on full display, all the self-awareness of a dog licking his balls in public. Either way, setting my blasphemous “nastiness” aside, rather than excuses, here’s what I got, summarized in a graphic from a post a few years back. Is it absolute proof of anything? No, but it doesn’t look too good for Lindbergh or his apologists, that’s all.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on May 17, 2020 17:10:44 GMT -5
And that's the best you got...? In any case, you unquestioningly swallow the highly unlikely official line, and may “He” (I assume you mean God, as opposed to Lindbergh) grant me a mind of my own, as you meanwhile make excuse after excuse for Lindbergh and Condon, and then sound off about “logic”? As my Sunday school teacher used to say, here we have, on full display, all the self-awareness of a dog licking his balls in public. Either way, setting my blasphemous “nastiness” aside, rather than excuses, here’s what I got, summarized in a graphic from a post a few years back. Is it absolute proof of anything? No, but it doesn’t look too good for Lindbergh or his apologists, that’s all. I'm not attempting to go toe-to-toe with you here LJ, but while we're suddenly in the midst of having your awesome table foisted upon us, I have a few problems with it. For starters, where's Anne Lindbergh?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 17, 2020 17:37:35 GMT -5
Well, first, it's not my "awesome table" "foisted" on anybody. It came from the 'Remembering Charlie' thread on this board and you can accept what's there, or not. Where's Anne Lindbergh? I didn't create the table, so I don't know. I suppose her column would look similar to Lindbergh or Betty's.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on May 18, 2020 8:44:08 GMT -5
Clearly Anne Lindbergh should be in the above list as well, if whoever put it together is attempting to be truly objective. As much as some of the headings and connections are clearly arguable and even potentially misleading, by direct extension of your conclusion regarding Lindbergh, wouldn't you also conclude things don't look good here for Anne as well?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 9:37:34 GMT -5
Clearly Anne Lindbergh should be in the above list as well, if whoever put it together is attempting to be truly objective. As much as some of the headings and connections are clearly arguable and even potentially misleading, by direct extension of your conclusion regarding Lindbergh, wouldn't you also conclude things don't look good here for Anne as well? I am going to jump in here. I hope you guys don't mind. I think the reason Anne is not mentioned in the chart is because the creator might not have been considering her as an inside contact source for the kidnappers. I did not create the chart. I am only offering my own thoughts as to why Anne is not listed on that chart.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 18, 2020 9:55:10 GMT -5
I agree with you, Joe. The more boxes are (or would be) checked, the worse it looks for that individual. I would also switch each 'no' in Betty's column to a 'yes'. From there, I think one ought to consider the personality and proclivities of that person, as to how they could've been involved. Did Anne or Betty, for instance, have the same personality, resources, connections, or capabilities as Lindbergh? No, but since they check a lot of boxes too, it might've just been a matter of them being in on something or knowing something was going to happen, rather than being a direct, hands-on organizer. Now, believe it or not, while Lindbergh, in your own words, could be "an asshole," I do not hate Charles Lindbergh and have no interest in smearing him or anybody else. But when it seems, as indicated by things like the table above, much easier for him to have organized this than for some kidnappers to have gotten as incredibly lucky as they apparently did... Well, with the shortest distance between two points being a straight line and with the simpler explanation usually being the more realistic one... I mean, a lot of the kidnappers' supposed luck, and a lot of Lindbergh and Condon's behavior and actions, begin to make much more sense if one at least considers this scenario. I have considered it and have come to the conclusion--as many in law enforcement did at the time apparently--that Lindbergh's involvement is likely, at least theoretically. I also find the table I attached to be a very useful tool. This is one person's perspective--Wayne's, I believe--but I'd be curious to see your own version of this. Why not create one? Include Anne or whoever else you feel ought to be on there and see where it takes you.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on May 18, 2020 10:34:54 GMT -5
Clearly Anne Lindbergh should be in the above list as well, if whoever put it together is attempting to be truly objective. As much as some of the headings and connections are clearly arguable and even potentially misleading, by direct extension of your conclusion regarding Lindbergh, wouldn't you also conclude things don't look good here for Anne as well? I am going to jump in here. I hope you guys don't mind. I think the reason Anne is not mentioned in the chart is because the creator might not have been considering her as an inside contact source for the kidnappers. I did not create the chart. I am only offering my own thoughts as to why Anne is not listed on that chart. I hear where you're coming from Amy, but in any such case where the parents undoubtedly fall under the umbrella of direct suspicion right away, it's an oversight to not include Anne here. Otherwise, it's a bit like saying, let's include all of these people including parent John Ramsey in our investigation, but leave Patsy out.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 18, 2020 10:35:43 GMT -5
Mark Falzini and I created that table as a reference guide as to who knew what. We stand by it.
Anne could easily be added to the chart. All boxes would be YES except there's a small problem. Lindbergh himself had 2 chances to get Skean to Highfields on Saturday, but left him at Next Day Hill instead.
You can see Skean's water bowl underneath the radiator to the left of the fireplace. He always slept under Charlie's crib, whether in Highfields or Next Day Hill.
Anne later wrote that the kidnapping would not have happened if Skean had been there.
Who decided twice that Skean would not be there? Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 18, 2020 10:41:45 GMT -5
Okay, if you feel it's lacking, Joe, then I for one would really like to see your own version of the table. And I'm not being facetious. At all. Really, create a table like this and post it! I want to see what you come up with.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on May 18, 2020 13:13:55 GMT -5
I’m not taking requests right now in expanding this LJ, but feel free to create your own table, with additional factors you personally feel are relevant. Surely, there are many more. Overall, it’s a good concept and I’d agree with much of it, but as I said earlier, I believe a few of its foundations are arguable and potentially misleading. And many of course, are not answerable by a simple Yes or No. Here for now, are my own thoughts in any areas of difference for what they’re worth.
Anne Lindbergh: Must be included, and indicate YES to all below.
Location of Highfields House*: Hauptmann – Very likely; Media – Only those who had actually made the trip; Sharp – No (?); Remaining Servants – Just a few, including Ellerson, Banks.. anyone else?
* Knowing exactly how to get to the house through personal experience and not just knowing where Hopewell was on a map
Location of Nursery Room: Hauptmann – Very Likely; Media – Possibly a few.
Knowledge of Broken Shutter: Hauptmann – Most likely not, and I believe the chisel was brought for the purpose of defeating the shutters; Mrs. Morrow – Didn't know she was aware of this, but I don’t consider it a factor, unless she unwittingly revealed this to someone else who had reason and means to act on this information.
Knowledge of 8-10 PM No-Disturbance: Agree with all and that this was probably a subject of gossip among the servants.
Knowledge of Tuesday Night: I don’t believe the kidnapper(s) were even aware that the Lindberghs were only weekend residents at Highfields. For all intents and purposes, with the Whateleys there at all times, Highfields would quite probably have had the appearances of being lived in 7 days a week.
Knowledge of Dinner Time That Night: Gow – Yes, once Lindbergh had arrived home.
Knowledge That Wahgoosh Was in Servant’s Sitting Room: All members of the household would have been aware of this, and I believe it was Ollie Whateley who put him there. Wahgoosh’s barking consistency traits are very debatable, but I believe the larger consideration here is that he was not in a physical location to react to external noises as he normally would have.
Knowledge That Skean Was Not At Highfields: This has the immediate appearance of low-hanging fruit, but I am far from convinced that Skean’s absence from his usual location in the nursery was a deliberate plan to thwart his intervening towards a stranger entering the nursery. The implication simply needs much more discussion, development and solid basis in fact.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on May 18, 2020 13:22:14 GMT -5
Mark Falzini and I created that table as a reference guide as to who knew what. We stand by it. Anne could easily be added to the chart. All boxes would be YES except there's a small problem. Lindbergh himself had 2 chances to get Skean to Highfields on Saturday, but left him at Next Day Hill instead. You can see Skean's water bowl underneath the radiator to the left of the fireplace. He always slept under Charlie's crib, whether in Highfields or Next Day Hill. Anne later wrote that the kidnapping would not have happened if Skean had been there. Who decided twice that Skean would not be there? Lindbergh. Wayne, I wasn't specifically referring to Skean, yet you seem to have jumped to a conclusion here about Lindbergh, without having even considered Anne in the first place. She was a member of the household was she not? So why would you have excluded her in the first place and only highlighted Lindbergh in red? I'll stand by that question.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 18, 2020 13:37:30 GMT -5
Okay, well, I think you did a pretty good job of creating your own table, even if it's in a different format. And we seem to be more or less on the same page as far as the information goes.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on May 18, 2020 14:39:05 GMT -5
Okay, well, I think you did a pretty good job of creating your own table, even if it's in a different format. And we seem to be more or less on the same page as far as the information goes. Yeah, I guess I got on a roll and before I knew it.. voila. Perhaps I'll try to put something together someday, similar to that elusive mathematical equation to the universe.. lol. Among other factors would be why the intensely privacy-seeking Charles Lindbergh, if he had truly planned the elimination of his son, would have chosen kidnapping as the vehicle, thereby guaranteeing an absolute crush of immediate and lasting media invasion and exposure at a point in his life when he had just been able to bring the storm of publicity and fanfare from his 1927 flight, to a light breeze.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 18, 2020 15:09:29 GMT -5
I've said this elsewhere, but if we use Lindbergh organizing this as a working hypothesis, my own take is that if he came to the conclusion that, bottom line, CAL Jr. needed to go, his disappearance and/or death would've brought a crush of media attention under any circumstances. That much being a given, it would've had to occur in such a way as to leave Lindbergh and his household as apparently blameless as possible, so they appeared victims rather than suspects and not as somehow negligent or incompetent by letting the child die in a simple household "accident" or something. A kidnapping covers these bases and was also a common occurrence at the time. Now, given the way things line up and dovetail, I admit that while I do lean in the direction of this scenario, I nevertheless also acknowledge that these are all just working hypotheses.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 18, 2020 16:19:44 GMT -5
Joe, No problem, I'll include Anne to the list with all 'YES"s. Now please explain to me how Hauptmann, all on his own, decided to commit the kidnapping on Tuesday, March 1. The Lindberghs have been coming to Highfields intermittently only on weekends since October 31, 1931. In the 18 weeks (123 days) prior to the kidnapping, the Lindberghs have spent 11 weekends (22 days) at Highfields. If the kidnapper(s) were surveilling the house in those 123 days, they would have never once seen the Lindberghs there on a Tuesday night. And prior to the kidnapping, the Lindberghs had not been at Highfields for 19 days. This shows what I am talking about. Imagine you are lone-wolf BRH and you are watching Highfields for the 123 days since October 31, 1931 until the kidnapping. This is what you would see (I can only attach 3 docs per post; the next 2 will be in the next post):
|
|