|
Post by bignews on Sept 20, 2021 7:39:18 GMT -5
Is there a good theory to explain the dog (a Scottish terrier) not barking on the intrusion when kidnapping happened?
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Sept 20, 2021 9:10:30 GMT -5
Welcome aboard! So the dog did not bark. One theory that has a good possibility: an insider gave both the child and the dog a little something in their evening meal to put them into a deep sleep. The child did not wake or cry, and the dog did not wake and bark.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 20, 2021 16:13:02 GMT -5
Is there a good theory to explain the dog ( a Scottish terrier) not barking on the intrusion when kidnapping happened? Well first you have to realize there were TWO dogs. Charles Lindbergh left the dog which usually slept under the crib back at the family's usual residence. He never gave a decent explanation for this, as he was never properly questioned. This left the other dog. Lindbergh perjured himself by saying he did not think the dog would be the type to bark. Everyone in the household contradicted him by saying it was easily excitable. Therefore you have to question if the events of that night played out as history recorded or if there was more to the story. What if the child was taken out the front door of the house by someone familiar to the dog, rather than being actually kidnapped by a stranger? This might a quiet dog, for there was nothing to bark at.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 20, 2021 16:39:45 GMT -5
Is there a good theory to explain the dog ( a Scottish terrier) not barking on the intrusion when kidnapping happened? Good question, bignews, and good answers from trojanusc and Jeanne. Lindbergh threw Wahgoosh under the bus at the trial. In her diary, Anne Lindbergh describes that good dog as a "live wire," that CAL thought him an intelligent dog, that he was CAL's dog, that he whimpered when CAL left in the morning. When Lindbergh came home that Tuesday night, Wahgoosh was next to or above the garage. He would have recognized the sound of his owner's car and barked with joy. The Wahgoosh story as told by the members of the household had to have been a lie.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 20, 2021 17:43:33 GMT -5
Then again, not everyone felt Wahgoosh was much of a watch dog. I was attempting to attach the description that accompanied this photo, but it is apparently not coming through. It was from the Chicago Bureau dispatch that said: Reginald Whately, brother of the Lindbergh butler, was a frequent visitor to the Lindbergh home when his brother was there and he stated that: "the dog was useless as a watch-dog". Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 20, 2021 18:12:24 GMT -5
Then again, not everyone felt Wahgoosh was much of a watch dog. I was attempting to attach the description that accompanied this photo, but it is apparently not coming through. It was from the Chicago Bureau dispatch that said: Reginald Whately, brother of the Lindbergh butler, was a frequent visitor to the Lindbergh home when his brother was there and he stated that: "the dog was useless as a watch-dog". View AttachmentView AttachmentSay it ain't so, lurp173! BUT: Wahgoosh would still have barked to greet his beloved master. He would not have failed at that -- unless Betty or Anne or Olly or Elsie drugged him. Unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Sept 21, 2021 14:30:23 GMT -5
Anne Lindbergh said that although Wahgoosh didn't bark that evening before the child was missing he never stopped barking once the place was swamped by strangers: police and reporters. Maybe these were the only strangers to visit "Highfields" that night.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 22, 2021 21:28:58 GMT -5
Anne Lindbergh said that although Wahgoosh didn't bark that evening before the child was missing he never stopped barking once the place was swamped by strangers: police and reporters. Maybe these were the only strangers to visit "Highfields" that night. That's a very good and plausible guess.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 23, 2021 7:40:27 GMT -5
Anne Lindbergh said that although Wahgoosh didn't bark that evening before the child was missing he never stopped barking once the place was swamped by strangers: police and reporters. Maybe these were the only strangers to visit "Highfields" that night. Are not apples and oranges being compared here? On the night of the crime and during the period of time believed to have been that which the kidnapper(s) struck one floor up and at the opposite end of the house, was Wahgoosh not behind closed doors and resting or sleeping in his bed in the Whateley's servant quarters? In what way does this relate to Highfields having been overrun by investigators, reporters and gangsters raising mayhem in and around around the house, a time in which Wahgoosh no doubt would have been in the thick of things and on full alert mode?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Sept 24, 2021 15:16:26 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I wasn't aware that there were "gangsters raising mayhem in and around the house" on the kidnap night. But putting that aside, Anne Lindbergh's statement about Wahgoosh's silence is interesting. It may, as you say, be explained by the dog being asleep, well away from the nursery in the Whatley's quarters, and behind a closed door. If so, why didn't Anne give this information to explain the animal's lack of reaction? By simply saying that he didn't bark she seems to be implying that he had been in a position to bark if strangers had entered the house. Or maybe she simply didn't know that Wahgoosh was with the Whatleys, sound asleep. How convenient for the abductor, whoever he was...... Sherlock
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 24, 2021 17:59:01 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I wasn't aware that there were "gangsters raising mayhem in and around the house" on the kidnap night. But putting that aside, Anne Lindbergh's statement about Wahgoosh's silence is interesting. It may, as you say, be explained by the dog being asleep, well away from the nursery in the Whatley's quarters, and behind a closed door. If so, why didn't Anne give this information to explain the animal's lack of reaction? By simply saying that he didn't bark she seems to be implying that he had been in a position to bark if strangers had entered the house. Or maybe she simply didn't know that Wahgoosh was with the Whatleys, sound asleep. How convenient for the abductor, whoever he was...... Sherlock Sherlock, I didn't imply at all there were gangsters in the house on the night of the kidnap. I was addressing the fact that those in the Highfields household were pretty much unanimous recounting that Wahgoosh hadn't shut his little yap since the night of the kidnapping, after which the premises were overrun by those whose job it was to assist and by many more, who for the most part, simply got in the way. I believe Wahgoosh's apparently-epic "watchdog fail" of the night of March 1, 1932, is assumed by some to point out that if there had have been a kidnapper anywhere in the house or anywhere near it, by necessity he should have been barking his fool head off, even if he was in a position of somnolent non-comprehension. In any case, now you have me curious as to what you mean by "How convenient for the abductor, whoever he was.." as you sign off from your post, seated comfortably in your Corbusier armchair while taking a puff from your English briar, one eyebrow cocked ponderously.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Sept 25, 2021 1:03:56 GMT -5
Ha! Ha! A good one Joe. I possess neither an English briar or (sadly) a Corbusier armchair but I like the image which you present. My comment "How convenient for the abductor...." applies whether he was Hauptmann, Lindbergh or any point in between. He was so lucky that the dog was well away and didn't leap up and create a fuss while he was in the nursery. Regards, Sherlock
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 25, 2021 10:22:05 GMT -5
Ha! Ha! A good one Joe. I possess neither an English briar or (sadly) a Corbusier armchair but I like the image which you present. My comment "How convenient for the abductor...." applies whether he was Hauptmann, Lindbergh or any point in between. He was so lucky that the dog was well away and didn't leap up and create a fuss while he was in the nursery. Regards, Sherlock Sherlock, perhaps the only thing missing from the image is a warm brandy.. or do you prefer room temperature.. lol? If there was any kind of untoward intent behind Wahgoosh having been indisposed at the time in which Charlie was taken from his nursery, (I don't believe there was) would this not mean that either one, or both of the Whateleys would have had to have been involved within the kidnapping? The same principle can be equally applied to the other three adults in the household for any number of reasons already discussed and no doubt some which have yet to be unearthed. Lindbergh firing night guard Lee Hurley, pulling pranks including a couple of faux kidnappings, not truly being ready for fatherhood, establishment of a false sense of security through their Lawrenceville home experience, Anne and/or Betty not insisting that Skean always be at Highfields with them, Whateley the housekeeper, not having been more on guard relative to upkeep which would have included the faulty nursery shutter, Betty not looking forward to her pending Highfields assignment, and no doubt there are dozens more such directly related, or seemingly-unrelated examples. I understand that the above examples don't all meet scrutiny within the general sciences we know about today, among them the specific sciences which have applied so effectively towards conclusions relating to the known circumstantial physical evidence within this case. One thing I have come to firmly believe though is that accidents and events never happen without cause, and that their apparent cause is not always just that. I'd venture strongly that this crime was in part, orchestrated by a more universal and non-physically-related principle at work within the field of human-spiritual consciousness, essentially one of "reaping what you sow", or put another way, "everything happens for a reason."
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Sept 27, 2021 15:52:03 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Yes, a warm brandy would complete the image nicely although I believe my fictional namesake preferred something stronger: cocaine wasn't it? To have Wahgoosh deliberately sequestered in the Whatley's quarters would, as you say, cast the net of conspirators over a wider field and for this reason I find it to be unlikely. The firing of the night guard, the non-repair of the faulty shutter, Skean left with the Morrows etc only appear suspicious in the light of what happened. They are most likely pure happenstance which, by chance, favoured the kidnapper(s) on that night. Now where did I put that bottle of Courvoisier? Regards, Sherlock.
|
|
|
Post by Ana Kyle on Sept 27, 2021 19:42:48 GMT -5
The dog did not bark because he was not there-- in or out of the house.
|
|
|
Post by Ana Kyle on Oct 24, 2021 10:51:05 GMT -5
SUMMARY OF DECEPTION CONCERNING THE ENTIRE LINDBERGH KIDNAPING AND BEYOND---
Create a big lie Make it simple Repeat it often and Eventually the world will believe it. Author: Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Administrator of Propaganda (Germany -l933-45) This whole case was about deception in one form or another.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 24, 2021 13:21:57 GMT -5
SUMMARY OF DECEPTION CONCERNING THE ENTIRE LINDBERGH KIDNAPING AND BEYOND--- Create a big lie Make it simple Repeat it often and Eventually the world will believe it. Author: Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Administrator of Propaganda (Germany -l933-45) This whole case was about deception in one form or another. Or alternatively.. take a relatively simple and straightforward crime case, turn it into something more fantastic and irresistible, and then see the above. The books of Robert Zorn and Lise Perlman are perfect examples. Many other theories aren't far behind.
|
|
|
Post by trojan on Oct 24, 2021 17:48:19 GMT -5
SUMMARY OF DECEPTION CONCERNING THE ENTIRE LINDBERGH KIDNAPING AND BEYOND--- Create a big lie Make it simple Repeat it often and Eventually the world will believe it. Author: Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Administrator of Propaganda (Germany -l933-45) This whole case was about deception in one form or another. Or alternatively.. take a relatively simple and straightforward crime case, turn it into something more fantastic and irresistible, and then see the above. The books of Robert Zorn and Lise Perlman are perfect examples. Many other theories aren't far behind. Honestly don't think its fair or appropriate to link Zorn to Perlman. One was based on a childhood memory, which was ridiculous. The other is largely based on the evidence in record (though with a few mistakes and errors). You might not like the conclusion, but Lindbergh's behavior troubled just about everyone at the time.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 25, 2021 6:08:07 GMT -5
Or alternatively.. take a relatively simple and straightforward crime case, turn it into something more fantastic and irresistible, and then see the above. The books of Robert Zorn and Lise Perlman are perfect examples. Many other theories aren't far behind. Honestly don't think its fair or appropriate to link Zorn to Perlman. One was based on a childhood memory, which was ridiculous. The other is largely based on the evidence in record (though with a few mistakes and errors). You might not like the conclusion, but Lindbergh's behavior troubled just about everyone at the time. In what ways did the behaviours and mannerisms of Charles Lindbergh, or anyone else in this case for that matter (and there was some very bad behaviour throughout) have any bearing and influence at all, upon the mind, thoughts and actions of a mentally-ill German carpenter from the Bronx?
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Oct 25, 2021 6:47:07 GMT -5
Or alternatively.. take a relatively simple and straightforward crime case, turn it into something more fantastic and irresistible, and then see the above. The books of Robert Zorn and Lise Perlman are perfect examples. Many other theories aren't far behind. Honestly don't think its fair or appropriate to link Zorn to Perlman. One was based on a childhood memory, which was ridiculous. The other is largely based on the evidence in record (though with a few mistakes and errors). You might not like the conclusion, but Lindbergh's behavior troubled just about everyone at the time. You are joking, right? Perlman's book is pure lazy science fiction. I had to delete it from my kindle before I finished it.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 25, 2021 18:04:28 GMT -5
Honestly don't think its fair or appropriate to link Zorn to Perlman. One was based on a childhood memory, which was ridiculous. The other is largely based on the evidence in record (though with a few mistakes and errors). You might not like the conclusion, but Lindbergh's behavior troubled just about everyone at the time. You are joking, right? Perlman's book is pure lazy science fiction. I had to delete it from my kindle before I finished it. There's a good number of errors and mistakes in it, but the gist that Lindbergh had his own child "donated" to science is not totally unsupported given his penchant for eugenics, relationship with Carrel, the fact it looked like the corpse seemed had some kind of embalming fluid on it, the deeper organs were removed yet the more superficial ones remained in tact (indicating surgical intervention) and Lindbergh's own conduct at the morgue (he treated his child like a piece of meat, leaving everyone there gasping at his behavior).
|
|