|
Post by DDD on Aug 2, 2020 0:50:19 GMT -5
I’m new to the wonderful world of the Lindbergh mystery. I have several theories and would like input. if you think I’m nuts tell me in a nice way. theory 1: baby was killed in the house by Lindbergh and the body removed. The nursery was cleaned (No fingerprints). The nursery was the staged along with other props.
theory2: The Lindberghs were scammed of the ransom money. They knew they were being scammed but they had to play along because the Lindberghs had done the crime.
Theory 3: The baby was never kidnapped. Lindbergh had large amount of influence throughout the world and with the people of great power. He could coverup a murder with no problem.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Aug 2, 2020 9:12:37 GMT -5
it is always good to see someone new on this board, so welcome! for myself, i waffle on my theories almost daily your ideas are interesting. regarding your theory or point #1, when you say LIndbergh killed the baby, do you mean purposefully or accidentally?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2020 9:46:10 GMT -5
Glad to have you posting on the board. Welcome!
About point #2 - By saying the Lindberghs were scammed of the ramson money, are you suggesting that the extortion is a separate crime from the death of Charlie, but somehow the scammers knew the real truth and blackmailed the Lindberghs for $50,000. Were the Lindberghs buying the silence of the scammers by paying the ransom?
|
|
|
Post by DDD on Aug 3, 2020 12:40:33 GMT -5
Yes, what I’m saying is everything after the murder of Charles jr is a scam or a hoax.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2020 10:44:09 GMT -5
Yes, what I’m saying is everything after the murder of Charles jr is a scam or a hoax. So according to your #1 theory, you think Lindbergh killed his son in the house. Do you have a theory as to what time you think this occurred? Did he have assistance from inside the house to help him cover this up?
|
|
|
Post by DDD on Aug 14, 2020 11:27:19 GMT -5
Since there is no way to determine Charles jr time and or place of death. I would go by the last non Lindbergh saw the child.
|
|
|
Post by DDD on Aug 14, 2020 11:46:30 GMT -5
I think that all the core people in Lindbergh’s home where all involved.
|
|
|
Post by DDD on Aug 14, 2020 11:48:33 GMT -5
Do you consider one case or multiple crimes?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2020 18:13:16 GMT -5
I would go by the last non Lindbergh saw the child. Well, we really can't even be sure of exactly when CAL saw Charlie for the last time, now that you mention it. CAL left the Sourland house on Monday morning to go to NY. Who knows if Charlie was even up at that time. According to Elsie Whateley's statement, she is the one who went to the nursery on Monday morning, to wash, feed Charlie, rubbed his chest with Vicks and then put him back to bed. So when was the last time Lindbergh saw Charlie? How come Lindbergh is the one who identifies the sleeping suit Condon received in the mail as the one his son was wearing Tuesday night March 1 unless... This statement is very important! This has never really been proven and a man was executed for murder anyway!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2020 18:21:00 GMT -5
Do you consider one case or multiple crimes? I think the kidnapping and the extortion are connected.
|
|
|
Post by DDD on Aug 15, 2020 21:41:31 GMT -5
That sleeper Brand I believe was very popular, so a quick look of very common laundered sleeper, does not equate to an ID.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2020 11:26:01 GMT -5
That sleeper Brand I believe was very popular, so a quick look of very common laundered sleeper, does not equate to an ID. Do you think the sleeper is the one Charlie had on or was it bought by the extortionists as part of the scam. I read somewhere that it was thought that Condon might have bought such a sleeper.
|
|
|
Post by DDD on Aug 17, 2020 20:58:39 GMT -5
I can’t Remember where I read it. The there was a demanded an extra 2-3 dollars to replace that sleeper. They could have purchased it, washed it and sent it to the Lindberghs. So, the sleeper was never on Charles jr
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2020 17:21:11 GMT -5
I can’t Remember where I read it. The there was a demanded an extra 2-3 dollars to replace that sleeper. They could have purchased it, washed it and sent it to the Lindberghs. So, the sleeper was never on Charles jr Interesting. You think the suit was new? That is not the impression I got from the Squibb report when the sleeping suit was analyzed. There were some stains present on that suit. Here is a link to that forensic report: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/squibb.pdf
|
|
|
Post by DDD on Aug 21, 2020 13:03:29 GMT -5
I read the report (thank you). The labs of the where unable to identify the stains. There is no way to link sleeper to Charles jr.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Aug 21, 2020 18:33:14 GMT -5
I read the report (thank you). The labs of the where unable to identify the stains. There is no way to link sleeper to Charles jr. For starters, it would have had to have been a pretty good guess on the part of the kidnapper/extortionist to come up with the right make, features and size of sleeper, considering the incorrect description given in the newspapers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2020 7:17:24 GMT -5
There is no way to link sleeper to Charles jr. So your point is that there is no forensic evidence that links the sleeping suit to Charlie? The $2 to $3 dollars expenses mentioned in one of the ransom notes is to cover the purchase of a suit that would be laundered, packaged, postage bought and then the travel expense to mail it from Connecticut? Am I getting this right? I think it is important that Joe's post about the kidnapper needing to know the make, features, size and I will add color of Charlie's sleeping garment not be overlooked. If your thinking is that the extortion is separate from the kidnapping, then the extortionists will need inside information in order to supply a correct substitute suit for the one Charlie had worn the night of March 1, 1932.
|
|
|
Post by DDD on Aug 22, 2020 12:17:44 GMT -5
I do think that the sleeper was part of the cover up of the murder with a kidnapping.Part of the core group (Lindbergh & staff ) would know the specific of the sleeper. Lindbergh is covering up a murder, I’m not saying he killed the child, he was part of it if not the puppet master. There was such a bungled investigation. Lindbergh was running the show on the investigation. Too many people interviewed, too many suspects. None really gave up anybody involved. At that time Lindbergh was a National hero. The people would not want to change Lindbergh from hero to baby killer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2020 10:27:23 GMT -5
I do think that the sleeper was part of the cover up of the murder with a kidnapping.Part of the core group (Lindbergh & staff ) would know the specific of the sleeper. Lindbergh is covering up a murder, I’m not saying he killed the child, he was part of it if not the puppet master. There was such a bungled investigation. Lindbergh was running the show on the investigation. Too many people interviewed, too many suspects. None really gave up anybody involved. At that time Lindbergh was a National hero. The people would not want to change Lindbergh from hero to baby killer. You say that Lindbergh is covering up the murder of his son. I have read this theory being advocated in other books. Noel Behn's book, Lindbergh, The Crime, has Anne's sister, Elisabeth as the killer of Charlie. William Norris book, A Talent To Deceive, has Anne's brother, Dwight, Jr. as the killer of Charlie. Have you considered any other family member or perhaps a servant as being responsible for what happened to Charlie? What about a hired killer/kidnapper(s)? Although I would agree that there appears to be some bungling, I will tell you that, after spending just a year and a half going through many investigative reports surrounding the early months of the investigation, it becomes clear that Lindbergh kept the NJSP basically in the dark about the most sensitive early aspects of this case. He interfered with normal police procedures, like the use of tracking dogs. There truly existed this inner circle of people who operated outside of the police and they worked for and answered to Lindbergh. The NJSP worked endlessly on following up on any lead or tips (there were hundreds and hundreds of them) to see if there was substance to any of them. Could some things have been done better? In hindsight, probably, but I don't fault them for anything that they worked on. The night of the kidnapping, when Hopewell's two police officers arrived first on the scene that night, Deputy Chief Williamson made his observations of the scene and talked with both Charles and Anne Lindbergh. What I have always found interesting was the comment made by Anne to Deputy Chief Williamson when they were upstairs in the nursery area after Anne had called her mother and mother-in-law to inform them what had happened. Williamson commented on the preparations that were made for this kidnapping. In response Anne said this, "Yes, and it probably would have happened even if we were at mother's." Anne saw this kidnapping as an inevitable thing. Even in that fortress of a house that was Next Day Hill, this would have happened to Charlie anyway.
|
|
|
Post by DDD on Aug 26, 2020 20:28:41 GMT -5
The only fact that I know, after reading books. A child is dead. It may or may not be Charles jr. The more I read the less I know. Can anyone with the facts and answer, where,when, how, and why,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2020 10:04:53 GMT -5
The only fact that I know, after reading books. A child is dead. It may or may not be Charles jr. The more I read the less I know. Can anyone with the facts and answer, where,when, how, and why, Well, Major, if you go with the Hauptmann did it all and did it alone, you can always fall back on the case Wilentz used in Flemington. However, that does not adequately answer where Charlie was killed. There was no evidence he was killed in the room or on the grounds of the Lindbergh home. Wilentz did not factually answer the when either. Without knowing where Charlie was killed, you cannot say exactly when Charlie was killed. Was it that night or a few days later? Dr. Mitchell said as much. How Charlie was killed is also up in the air. Dr. Mitchell's finding was external violence causing a fractured skull as the cause of death. Wilentz was not solid on this point either. He went from accidental death due to a fall off the kidnap ladder (no marks found on the ground in the nursery area that this ever happened) in his opening argument to the court and then changed it to Charlie being beaten about the head with the chisel found on the Lindbergh home grounds. There is absolutely no evidence that this ever happened in that nursery! Wilentz used this in his closing statement to the jury. It was purely an inflammatory statement by Wilentz to influence the jury's interpretation of the evidence even though he never proved this was what happened. That chisel was clean. No fingerprints and none of Charlie's hair attached to it. According to Wilentz, why Hauptmann, alone, kidnapped and killed Charlie was for the ransom money. There is no denying that money is a factor in this crime. However, Wilentz saying that Hauptmann was a lone perpetrator is factually untrue and he could not even place Hauptmann in Hopewell NJ the night of March 1, 1932 without using false testimony. I understand your frustration! Will we ever know all the answers to your question? I am not sure that is completely possible. Perhaps Lise Pearlman's soon to be published book will move us closer to some of those answers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2020 13:32:18 GMT -5
I seldom post but I have read the board for many years, reading something several times each week. I have books to catch up on but I'm making progress. Not a researcher or even educated. In business, I've done pretty well with common sense. #1 - As a country boy, I can't see how anyone hiked half a mile or more, carrying a ladder from any nearby road , after a storm, climbed in the window and only left a slight "muddy footprint" that some writers mention and some don't. Someone cleaned the nursery and it wasn't a neat kidnapper with a doormat and washcloth. Mrs Morrow, JE Hoover and others confided they thought it was an inside job. I have to lean toward that. That angle could never be accomplished without Lindbergh. #2 - CAL had to play it out and since he was scammed he wanted someone to hang. That was his nature. For a sudden elitist like CAL, anyone - especially an immigrant would do. #3 - I think it was Charlie they found. I learned here that when someone commits a crime and they are on the run, they go somewhere familiar to them. I won't get into it too much but no persons (besides regular travelers) knew that burial spot any better or had gone by it more times lately (and likely stopping) than CAL and Ollie. As you know, it's the way life was back before convenience stores with restrooms. It is halfway, DIRECTLY between the 'rented Princeton farmhouse' and Highfields. Any person constructing a house, especially one as peculiar as CAL would be constantly going back and forth to observe and undoubtedly supervise. All I'm saying is that they knew that spot as well as anyone. Why Ollie would stop there with Ellerson, I don't know but it could mean he had no idea where the child was buried, he just needed to stop. Personally I don't think he knew because if he were checking for something he would have come up with an excuse to go alone. ------ There are some very serious, experienced and educated members here that I must say are very tolerant of "us" newbies and very polite. To "us" at least ;-) I don't want to start patting people on the back that I learned to respect here (too numerous and I might leave someone out) but everyone listens when amy speaks. Among others most certainly. Let's get the DNA off those stamps and envelopes! I bet a dollar it's not Hauptmann's. Therein lies the problem with testing, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 27, 2020 14:53:52 GMT -5
I think you're right on. And Amy--or Miss Marple, as I call her--is the best of all of us on here. Period.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2020 7:23:32 GMT -5
I seldom post but I have read the board for many years, reading something several times each week. Let's get the DNA off those stamps and envelopes! I bet a dollar it's not Hauptmann's. Therein lies the problem with testing, I believe. The points you made in your post are good ones. It is obvious that you have spent a lot of time reading and applying what you learn to what you already know. This is the idea about bringing out new information. There is so much to know about this case and it should be out there for everyone. Thank you for the kind comment about me. I am a reader and researcher just like you and so many other people who contribute to this board. There are so many knowledgeable people here. So many common sense approaches to things about this case which is very valuable. It is a wonderful place to come and learn and discuss this crime. I have learned so much from the people who post here even if we don't necessarily agree on everything (who does!). I do thank Michael for creating this forum for all of us and for writing his series of books on this case. I am with you on wanting to get any DNA from those licked stamps that might still exist. It could end up to be a real smoking gun in this case. I hope you will continue to post comments on this board, mjs1. Your thoughts are important to this case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2020 7:44:30 GMT -5
I think you're right on. And Amy--or Miss Marple, as I call her--is the best of all of us on here. Period. Thank you LJ for saying the above. I appreciate your vote of confidence in me!! Your posts are every bit as important as mine. I just wish I had your writing ability! Miss Marple? This is so sweet. I don't read fiction but I do know that she is a character created by Agatha Christie, an acclaimed author, who wrote wonderful murder mysteries. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 28, 2020 8:14:04 GMT -5
Miss Marple: Basically a female Sherlock Holmes. The three great crime-solving characters in literature/film are Holmes and Christie's Poirot and Miss Marple. She's a bit like Angela Lansbury's Jessica Fletcher from the 80s-90s TV series 'Murder, She Wrote'--but that show never made any sense to me: Unlike the other characters who are investigators called in to solve crimes, Jessica Fletcher was a mystery writer, and, wherever she went, someone just happened to end up dead and it fell to her to solve the crime.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Aug 28, 2020 11:53:44 GMT -5
There are lots of super sleuths on this board, but for me it's Sue and Amy who always hit it out of the park. Sue always finds some unusual or obscure reference or article for everyone to ponder and Amy rounds out the detail.And then Hurt will put everything in historical perspective for us. I've loved reading all of Michael's books and am overwhelmed by his depth of knowledge, and I always enjoy reading Joe's views. Often, I will totally agree with Joe only to have Michael reply and completely change my mind! You can put me solidly in the I HAVEN'T A FREAKIN' CLUE camp, but I love coming to this board to try to figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 28, 2020 13:20:53 GMT -5
stella sues the best researcher ive seen and im not taken anything away from anybody else
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 28, 2020 13:22:49 GMT -5
i love the hall and mills case rich did a great job
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2020 14:26:17 GMT -5
i love the hall and mills case rich did a great job I plan to do some reading on this case. I have done some very basic research on it years ago after I learned about it on this board! Not to turn this board into a Hall-Mills discussion, isn't that case unsolved? Do you have an opinion on who did the murders?
|
|