|
Post by Guest on Dec 11, 2022 22:01:25 GMT -5
As JFK’s 1961 Presidential limo rolled through Dallas on November 22, 1963 it really should have had a protective bubble top on. At Kennedy’s insistence it came off the car after he landed in Dallas, and was stowed. That’s a detail Lee Harvey Oswald must not have considered. Would Oswald have attempted the shot if the bubble top had been on the limo? It wasn’t bulletproof but it might have deflected a bullet, and better yet might have deterred Oswald from the attempt. There is no doubt somebody snatched Charlie from a second story bedroom using a ladder Hauptmann made. There is no doubt Hauptmann had lots of the ransom money in the same garage where an attic board was used to build the ladder. If Lindy or anybody that knew two dogs were supposed to be in the house that evening had tipped or arranged the snatch,,,. What about the problem of the dogs? Those dogs, are what Hauptmann got lucky about, among many other things. He didn’t consider dogs, and luck smiled on him anyway. Dogs and 100% guilty lone wolf Oswald aside, what is the most likely time for Charlie’s kidnapping through the nursery window to have occurred? In her diary, Anne Lindbergh puts it around 8:30 pm, stating the kidnappers had a head-start of an hour and a half before Betty discovered the empty crib. That’s odd because Lindbergh and the kidnappers would have arrived only minutes apart or even at the same time. Allowing for the time to set up the ladder, climb it, etc., the two parties could not have missed each other. Did Anne ever explain her reasoning for the timing?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 13, 2022 9:53:23 GMT -5
I think Hiram's point is an interesting one regarding Skean. Joe, if not Lindbergh, do you consider any possibility of inside help with this crime as Ollie Whately purportedly intimated on his deathbed? Hi Norma, I’ve seen Hauptmann’s face clearly front and centre in the jigsaw puzzle that makes up this case for almost all of the years I’ve studied it. And I believe he spells out his ownership within the crime via the symbol he considered important enough to include within most of the ransom notes. This kidnapping was essentially his baby from start to finish. If in your question, inside help means someone in a trusted position to the Lindbergh family having intentionally provided information to the kidnapper(s) which allowed he/them in any way, at the very least, an easier pathway towards stealing Charlie, then no I don’t believe anyone did. The only person to demonstrate conclusively proven involvement in the kidnapping and extortion, Richard Hauptmann, would have had no connection to any of the staff and servants at High Fields or Next Day Hill. His own position in life was worlds apart from that of the Lindberghs, the Morrows and the staff at both locations, and he would never have risked making the kind of connection that would by necessity, have had to solidify into something entirely traceable after the fact. Following his arrest and when asked how he would have done the crime, he gave the explanation that he would have become "sweet" with one of the women inside one of the houses, but I believe he simply did this to cast suspicion on the actual innocents on the inside. Anyone in the position of having provided the type of information which would have been required by Hauptmann, even having realized their unwitting involvement after the fact, I feel would have withered under the intense heat of this case’s general exposure and investigation. Consider what happened to Violet Sharp. In spite of her slightly unbalanced nature, she ultimately saw no avenue out but to take her own life even though at worst, she had provided generic “secrets of the household” to a news reporter. And she quickly became overwhelmed by the focus of attention that landed on her because of the initial conflicting accounts of her whereabouts on the night of March 1. As Inspector Harry Walsh bore in, she simply became more and more frantic about being even considered to be a "traitor,” even though she was nothing of the sort. I just cannot imagine anyone in the position of actually having been a traitor, being able to remain composed throughout what would have been an absolute ordeal. In short they would have had to have possessed Hauptmann's uncanny ability to lie through his teeth while looking squarely into the eyes of his interrogators. And even he wasn't able to do that 100% of the time. I have some additional thoughts on your question, relative to the number of occurrences which appear to suggest inside involvement, and will add more later.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 13, 2022 11:13:36 GMT -5
Dogs and 100% guilty lone wolf Oswald aside, what is the most likely time for Charlie’s kidnapping through the nursery window to have occurred? In her diary, Anne Lindbergh puts it around 8:30 pm, stating the kidnappers had a head-start of an hour and a half before Betty discovered the empty crib. That’s odd because Lindbergh and the kidnappers would have arrived only minutes apart or even at the same time. Allowing for the time to set up the ladder, climb it, etc., the two parties could not have missed each other. Did Anne ever explain her reasoning for the timing? This post fits right in with what Lanphier told Hoover, on March 19, concerning what Lindbergh previously told him. That the crime occurred before he got home. Ask yourself how this squares with the noise he supposedly heard? It doesn't, so we can go back to what he told Williamson, that it didn't impress him because it was a windy night. So if you're a Lindbergh fan, there's your answer - he was thinking it was the wind. If not then there's no need to explain. The other thing he told Lanphier is that two people were involved. One took the child out of the window, and the other left via the front door. Here again, we know that front door was sticky due to the fact Lindbergh had placed a call to have it repaired while simultaneously neglected the warped shutters. This, to me, is a hard set of circumstances to get around, but let me continue. The claim was that the 2nd person had to leave the note on the sill after the window was closed because it would have blown off if one man tried to leave it there first before shutting the window. Again, this is coming straight from Lindbergh to Lanphier. Of course Hoover didn't buy it asking why it wasn't left in the crib in the first place. Anyway, before anyone tries to spin this, the Curtis situation needs to be looked at. Lindbergh took up with Curtis because of certain parts of his story. One part involved a member of Lindbergh's staff who supposedly locked the pantry door to allow the kidnapper to utilize the door! Again, if Lindbergh trusted them to the point where police weren't allowed to lie detect them, why is he accepting Curtis's story? These things all interconnect.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Dec 13, 2022 16:47:27 GMT -5
Dogs and 100% guilty lone wolf Oswald aside, what is the most likely time for Charlie’s kidnapping through the nursery window to have occurred? In her diary, Anne Lindbergh puts it around 8:30 pm, stating the kidnappers had a head-start of an hour and a half before Betty discovered the empty crib. That’s odd because Lindbergh and the kidnappers would have arrived only minutes apart or even at the same time. Allowing for the time to set up the ladder, climb it, etc., the two parties could not have missed each other. Did Anne ever explain her reasoning for the timing? This post fits right in with what Lanphier told Hoover, on March 19, concerning what Lindbergh previously told him. That the crime occurred before he got home. Ask yourself how this squares with the noise he supposedly heard? It doesn't, so we can go back to what he told Williamson, that it didn't impress him because it was a windy night. So if you're a Lindbergh fan, there's your answer - he was thinking it was the wind. If not then there's no need to explain. The other thing he told Lanphier is that two people were involved. One took the child out of the window, and the other left via the front door. Here again, we know that front door was sticky due to the fact Lindbergh had placed a call to have it repaired while simultaneously neglected the warped shutters. This, to me, is a hard set of circumstances to get around, but let me continue. The claim was that the 2nd person had to leave the note on the sill after the window was closed because it would have blown off if one man tried to leave it there first before shutting the window. Again, this is coming straight from Lindbergh to Lanphier. Of course Hoover didn't buy it asking why it wasn't left in the crib in the first place. Anyway, before anyone tries to spin this, the Curtis situation needs to be looked at. Lindbergh took up with Curtis because of certain parts of his story. One part involved a member of Lindbergh's staff who supposedly locked the pantry door to allow the kidnapper to utilize the door! Again, if Lindbergh trusted them to the point where police weren't allowed to lie detect them, why is he accepting Curtis's story? These things all interconnect. Lindbergh’s suggested scenario of the kidnapping having occurred between 8 and 8:20 pm and been committed by two persons made sense, with one to carry Charlie to a waiting car and the other to grab the ladder and place it where it was found. A lone kidnapper could not have carried child and ladder at the same time – and why make two trips, wasting valuable getaway time? But why not just leave the ladder in place against the house after the snatch, regardless of how many kidnappers there were? If he or they knew about Lindbergh’s NYU alumni dinner, as had been proposed, there was no reason to expect Lindbergh home by 8:20 pm (or at Highfields at all for different reasons). The getaway car had plenty of time to get away to anywhere. Yet Lindbergh did come home at 8:20 pm. If the ladder had been left in place, his car’s headlights would have caught it. He’d have known what that meant. Then what? He’d have had to race upstairs into the nursery, find the empty crib, find the note, call the police immediately, have the kidnappers pursued while they were still within catching distance… The entire evening would have unfolded differently. If only! Or was Betty Gow intended to find the child missing at 10 pm during her assigned routine? For that, it was essential for the ladder to have been removed.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 4, 2023 12:15:43 GMT -5
I had an interesting conversation with researcher Wayne McDaniel recently. Wayne raised an excellent point with respect to Skean’s absence from Highfields on the weekend immediately before the kidnapping. If one first assumes that Lindbergh planned to ensure Skean would not be in Charlie’s nursery for what by all expectations, would be just another regular weekend visit to the new house, why then did he not have it arranged for the kidnappers to strike on the Saturday evening? Or better yet, Sunday evening during the time in which Charles and Anne drove Henry and Aida Breckinridge to Princeton Railway Station? Given the standard schedule for Anne and Charlie to return to Next Day Hill on Monday morning or afternoon, Lindbergh would have had no way of knowing on Saturday that Anne would ultimately decide to remain at Highfields with Charlie for the Monday and further, Tuesday evenings. From the above, it is reasonable to conclude that Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery, in no way played a role towards a hypothetical faked kidnapping planned for the weekend of Saturday, February 27, 1932.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Jan 4, 2023 14:06:31 GMT -5
Perhaps Lindbergh consulted with the spirits through Peter and Mary of the Temple of Divine Power and so knew in advance that the baby would be ill on Monday and Tuesday.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2023 19:41:59 GMT -5
I had an interesting conversation with researcher Wayne McDaniel recently. Wayne raised an excellent point with respect to Skean’s absence from Highfields on the weekend immediately before the kidnapping. If one first assumes that Lindbergh planned to ensure Skean would not be in Charlie’s nursery for what by all expectations, would be just another regular weekend visit to the new house, why then did he not have it arranged for the kidnappers to strike on the Saturday evening? Or better yet, Sunday evening during the time in which Charles and Anne drove Henry and Aida Breckinridge to Princeton Railway Station? Given the standard schedule for Anne and Charlie to return to Next Day Hill on Monday morning or afternoon, Lindbergh would have had no way of knowing on Saturday that Anne would ultimately decide to remain at Highfields with Charlie for the Monday and further, Tuesday evenings. From the above, it is reasonable to conclude that Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery, in no way played a role towards a hypothetical faked kidnapping planned for the weekend of Saturday, February 27, 1932. We can ask a million "why" questions, none of which, lead to the conclusion you have just drawn. In the end, if the family stayed over it was because Lindbergh approved it. If he wanted them to return, they would have regardless of what Anne wanted to do. Next, he called at 7PM and said it was too late to come home. What was he doing? Where did he go? There's some questions for you Joe. Then, the very next night, he calls at the same time, 7PM, and says he'll be a little late, and gets home at 8:25PM proving he wasn't in NYC or Englewood when he made that call. Not only that, he blew off his engagement at the dinner because, as he himself claimed, he "forgot." Why did Lindbergh admit to Lanphier that whoever did this had certain inside information then protect each and every insider? Why did he tell Cowie everyone should be a suspect but protected everyone from getting a lie detector test? Like I said, there's a million questions to be asked. So yes, keep asking those questions. Skean's absence, caused by Lindbergh, is but ONE of MANY things HE was responsible for which allowed this crime to occur. Ignoring it all is asinine.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 5, 2023 11:19:06 GMT -5
I had an interesting conversation with researcher Wayne McDaniel recently. Wayne raised an excellent point with respect to Skean’s absence from Highfields on the weekend immediately before the kidnapping. If one first assumes that Lindbergh planned to ensure Skean would not be in Charlie’s nursery for what by all expectations, would be just another regular weekend visit to the new house, why then did he not have it arranged for the kidnappers to strike on the Saturday evening? Or better yet, Sunday evening during the time in which Charles and Anne drove Henry and Aida Breckinridge to Princeton Railway Station? Given the standard schedule for Anne and Charlie to return to Next Day Hill on Monday morning or afternoon, Lindbergh would have had no way of knowing on Saturday that Anne would ultimately decide to remain at Highfields with Charlie for the Monday and further, Tuesday evenings. From the above, it is reasonable to conclude that Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery, in no way played a role towards a hypothetical faked kidnapping planned for the weekend of Saturday, February 27, 1932. We can ask a million "why" questions, none of which, lead to the conclusion you have just drawn. In the end, if the family stayed over it was because Lindbergh approved it. If he wanted them to return, they would have regardless of what Anne wanted to do. Next, he called at 7PM and said it was too late to come home. What was he doing? Where did he go? There's some questions for you Joe. Then, the very next night, he calls at the same time, 7PM, and says he'll be a little late, and gets home at 8:25PM proving he wasn't in NYC or Englewood when he made that call. Not only that, he blew off his engagement at the dinner because, as he himself claimed, he "forgot." Why did Lindbergh admit to Lanphier that whoever did this had certain inside information then protect each and every insider? Why did he tell Cowie everyone should be a suspect but protected everyone from getting a lie detector test? Like I said, there's a million questions to be asked. So yes, keep asking those questions. Skean's absence, caused by Lindbergh, is but ONE of MANY things HE was responsible for which allowed this crime to occur. Ignoring it all is asinine. I fully expected you to come swinging in on a chandelier in response to my post, sword clenched tightly between your teeth. And you certainly didn’t disappoint with this latest instalment of bafflegab. In fact, you’ve flown right through the hall yelling and screaming, and crashed through the plate glass window at the far end. Just let me know if you’re ever up to intelligently debating each singular point on these sketchy laundry lists you routinely cart out. I’ll go toe-to-toe with you, if need be, while objectively exploring each point based upon its own merit. Would you ever consider doing that? As for my previous post, I’m quite sure others here will understand its true value. This, despite your clumsy and transparent attempt to usurp the value of Wayne’s excellent observation and its true implications towards the Lindberghs’ planned Highfields weekend of Saturday, February 27, 1932.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 5, 2023 22:59:06 GMT -5
I fully expected you to come swinging in on a chandelier in response to my post, sword clenched tightly between your teeth. And you certainly didn’t disappoint with this latest instalment of bafflegab. In fact, you’ve flown right through the hall yelling and screaming, and crashed through the plate glass window at the far end. Just let me know if you’re ever up to intelligently debating each singular point on these sketchy laundry lists you routinely cart out. I’ll go toe-to-toe with you, if need be, while objectively exploring each point based upon its own merit. Would you ever consider doing that? As for my previous post, I’m quite sure others here will understand its true value. This, despite your clumsy and transparent attempt to usurp the value of Wayne’s excellent observation and its true implications towards the Lindberghs’ planned Highfields weekend of Saturday, February 27, 1932. Hey Joe, been watching Pirate movies lately? The only things missing are an eye patch and the parrot. You've got one helluva imagination, I will give you that. Listen, you are mis-characterizing my rebuttal. I have no issue with Wayne's question, heck, I've wondered about that myself. My issue is with you latching onto it with both hands and holding onto it with a death grip like it proves something. It does not. Clearly, it didn't happen until Tuesday because they weren't ready. That could be for all kinds of reasons. Perhaps the ladder wasn't finished? Or maybe the symbol maker wasn't available? Any number of things could answer this question. Perhaps it required some last minute loose ends on Lindbergh's part which he took care of on Monday. He was trying to get that door fixed around that time as well. Nothing erases Lindbergh's actions which directly allowed this crime to occur. The only counterargument here is bad luck and/or coincidence. Now apply all of my previous points in spades and consider that Whateley indicated it was an inside job. Any glimmer of hope you immediately snatch and assign it to the gold standard. Wayne's question was a question - nothing more. It does not erase or undo the things we absolutely know happened.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 6, 2023 13:33:11 GMT -5
I fully expected you to come swinging in on a chandelier in response to my post, sword clenched tightly between your teeth. And you certainly didn’t disappoint with this latest instalment of bafflegab. In fact, you’ve flown right through the hall yelling and screaming, and crashed through the plate glass window at the far end. Just let me know if you’re ever up to intelligently debating each singular point on these sketchy laundry lists you routinely cart out. I’ll go toe-to-toe with you, if need be, while objectively exploring each point based upon its own merit. Would you ever consider doing that? As for my previous post, I’m quite sure others here will understand its true value. This, despite your clumsy and transparent attempt to usurp the value of Wayne’s excellent observation and its true implications towards the Lindberghs’ planned Highfields weekend of Saturday, February 27, 1932. Hey Joe, been watching Pirate movies lately? The only things missing are an eye patch and the parrot. You've got one helluva imagination, I will give you that. Listen, you are mis-characterizing my rebuttal. I have no issue with Wayne's question, heck, I've wondered about that myself. My issue is with you latching onto it with both hands and holding onto it with a death grip like it proves something. It does not. Clearly, it didn't happen until Tuesday because they weren't ready. That could be for all kinds of reasons. Perhaps the ladder wasn't finished? Or maybe the symbol maker wasn't available? Any number of things could answer this question. Perhaps it required some last minute loose ends on Lindbergh's part which he took care of on Monday. He was trying to get that door fixed around that time as well. Nothing erases Lindbergh's actions which directly allowed this crime to occur. The only counterargument here is bad luck and/or coincidence. Now apply all of my previous points in spades and consider that Whateley indicated it was an inside job. Any glimmer of hope you immediately snatch and assign it to the gold standard. Wayne's question was a question - nothing more. It does not erase or undo the things we absolutely know happened. Arrgghh.. I don’t watch much TV, Michael. In fact, the 20 or so hours of World Junior Hockey I watched over the past week-and-a-half is probably double what I normally view in general over a 3 month stretch. I’m not a fan of pirate movies either and it was simply the swashbuckling audacity of your post that brought that occupation to mind. BTW, sorry we had to bounce you guys in the semi-finals on our road to yet another gold medal. What you say about the possibility of a delay within a hypothetical planned faked kidnapping, was actually one of my first thoughts during the conversation I had with Wayne. But here is the bottom line. That Skean was not included for whatever reason in what was planned to be yet another Lindbergh regular weekend visit to Highfields, after which Anne and Charlie were fully expected to return to Next Day Hill on Monday morning or afternoon, demonstrates that the Scottish Terrier’s absence was not connected to a planned faked kidnapping for that specific weekend. Period. Of course, you then try to impress that it would then have been Lindbergh’s decision for Anne and Charlie to stay over on Monday evening and then the Tuesday evening, thereby opening up a new faked kidnapping ‘window of opportunity.’ But you are wrong about that. Anne and Charlie had the colds, and it was Anne, the child's mother who made the call to stay over. As much as you’d like to, you just can’t hang Skean’s absence on Lindbergh for the reason you imply, without conclusive proof he acted with criminal intent. BTW, that's basically the way the law and justice system work. Look, I know how much of a fan you are of all these irritating, nagging little issues and ‘non-conformities’ that somehow lead you to believe Lindbergh was intentionally behind them, in order to set the stage for a faked kidnapping. Over the years, you’ve accumulated an impressive laundry list of such material, despite the fact you have no conclusive proof that any one of them was an act of criminal intent towards that purpose. Clearly, you’ve been able to slip at least a dozen or so of these examples past some of the members of this board. And why not? At the time, this case was investigated more than any other in criminal history, so you stand a pretty good chance of coming up with even more in the future, based on the sheer volume of available information to consider and manipulate. Of course, that doesn’t by necessity make any one example valid towards your point, does it? Each and every one of your laundry list items must be able to stand up on its own two feet without being helped by the others. Now, shall we try to focus on the real facts relating to Skean's absence from Charlie’s nursery? First of all, how much do we truly know about Skean’s actual whereabouts during the period immediately leading up to Saturday, February 27, 1932, and over the next three days when he might have been brought to Highfields for Charlie’s benefit? Just where was Skean that would have made him so seemingly unavailable during this time? Was he really out for a walk when Charles Lindbergh apparently could not wait for him to return, as Marguerite Junge claimed in her memoirs a full five years after the kidnapping? Was she just waxing wistful imagery here to convey the cruel and tragic consequence of Skean not having been able to make the trip? At the time of the kidnapping, the newspapers were talking about two of the dogs that were routinely at Highfields, (presumably Skean and Wahgoosh) with one of them being referred to as a “Sealyham Terrier.” They claimed this dog was being treated at the Princeton Kennels for some ailment and therefore was not available to Charlie and family on that weekend. Sealyham Terriers are not black in colour though; they are white, some with brown accents. This leads to other questions. Was the press correct about a Sealyham Terrier having been sent to the kennels, or could they have mistakenly believed the dog at the kennels was a Sealyham when it was actually Charlie’s little buddy, the black Scottish Terrier, Skean? This subject is far from being cleared up, and I'd safely venture it involves much more than just one seamstress's flawed memoirs account.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jan 6, 2023 14:06:20 GMT -5
I am in agreement that the newspapers often printed wrong information. For instance, the Lindbergh dogs had two names, and sometimes with various spellings. Skean was also spelled "Skion." There are accounts that a sick dog in the Lindbergh household went to the kennels over the weekend of February 27, 1932. Is there any evidence that one of their dogs went for treatment for a cold? They give the day as Saturday. Is there a document in the NJ Archives that supports that one of the their animals received dog care in Princeton that weekend? See below for a reference to a Lindbergh dog referred to as "Acouche." According to this account, docile Accouche was present in the house on March 1, 1932, but the "sealyham terrier" was at a kennel for a "canine ailment." "Morrow Expressed Fear For Safety of Grandchild" Pittsburgh Post-Gazette March 7, 1932 Page 2 Bottom Left news.google.com/newspapers?nid=gL9scSG3K_gC&dat=19320307&printsec=frontpage&hl=enHere is a picture of "Skion" on the front page of the Wilkes-Barre Record for September 21, 1934: www.newspapers.com/clip/44722994/the-times-leader/
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jan 6, 2023 15:06:36 GMT -5
The Kennels at Mount Rose:
In one of the diaries of English author James Agate, there is an entry that mentions kennels in Mount Rose, and a vague connection to the Lindbergh baby.
I found it a number of years ago, and I thought it was strange that a British person had peculiar information about the LKC.
If you put in the words: "Kennels at Mount Rose," Agate's whole autobiography comes up on the Internet Archive.
When reading Agate's entry, he does not make it clear who the person was that was on duty at the kennels on the day of the kidnapping.
Maybe someone can figure out who he is referring to?
Important questions:
What is the name of the person who was working at the kennel on the day of the kidnapping?
What was the name of the kennel?
Where exactly was the kennel located?
Here is a snippet form Agate's Ego 5, published in 1942:
"The man has had an eventful career. Spent some time in the States and was in charge of kennels at Mount Rose within a mile of the spot where the Lindbergh baby was found, and was on duty on the day of the kidnapping."
(I think it's on page 31.)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 6, 2023 20:13:58 GMT -5
Arrgghh.. I don’t watch much TV, Michael. In fact, the 20 or so hours of World Junior Hockey I watched over the past week-and-a-half is probably double what I normally view in general over a 3 month stretch. I’m not a fan of pirate movies either and it was simply the swashbuckling audacity of your post that brought that occupation to mind. BTW, sorry we had to bounce you guys in the semi-finals on our road to yet another gold medal. What you say about the possibility of a delay within a hypothetical planned faked kidnapping, was actually one of my first thoughts during the conversation I had with Wayne. But here is the bottom line. That Skean was not included for whatever reason in what was planned to be yet another Lindbergh regular weekend visit to Highfields, after which Anne and Charlie were fully expected to return to Next Day Hill on Monday morning or afternoon, demonstrates that the Scottish Terrier’s absence was not connected to a planned faked kidnapping for that specific weekend. Period. Of course, you then try to impress that it would then have been Lindbergh’s decision for Anne and Charlie to stay over on Monday evening and then the Tuesday evening, thereby opening up a new faked kidnapping ‘window of opportunity.’ But you are wrong about that. Anne and Charlie had the colds, and it was Anne, the child's mother who made the call to stay over. As much as you’d like to, you just can’t hang Skean’s absence on Lindbergh for the reason you imply, without conclusive proof he acted with criminal intent. BTW, that's basically the way the law and justice system work. What you are doing is considering this in a vacuum. Sure, if the only issue with Lindbergh was that he left Skean behind, which he did, then one could argue its not enough. But that's not the situation, in fact, FAR from it. Very far. The plan to "kidnap" this child could have been for any of the days they were there. I don't care when the child was expected back in Englewood because that did not occur. And everyone agrees this happened because someone who knew they were there at the time somehow shared this with the culprits. And yes, just like when old man Morrow forbid Lindbergh to put pregnant Anne in his plane for the cross country flight, he told him to go pound sand and used her as a test dummy anyway. So of course, when the family stayed or went, it was entirely up to him. Again, if he said "no" that would have been that because Anne would have acquiesced, just like all the other times. He ran the show. Heck, the guy controlled the investigation and you want me to believe he wouldn't control his wife in this situation? That's silly. So of course I'm going to bring this fact up. Should I say to myself that you won't like it then just keep quiet about it? In the end, the 'crime' may have been pushed back for any number of reasons. Or it could have been planned for Tuesday all along. Regardless, the child was there when he supposedly shouldn't have been, ultimately allowing it to occur on this date. Again, no group of people found their way to Highfields, a place where on March 1, even Breckinridge had to stop at Princeton University to get directions to. And this even after he had just visited. Once there, we're expected it was by pure accident the child was there too allowing these culprits to strike. And they were prepared with the note and ladder, but NOT for the dog. And of course they head straight for and enter the right window. Etc. etc. etc. We saw in the NOVA show where John Douglas, Mark Falzini, and Kevin Klein all tried to raise the ladder, together, and the "war dance" that ensued in the process. This occurred on a sunny day with no wind. Yet we're expected to believe one man did it while standing on a boardwalk, at night, with the wind howling? And leaves only one print facing the house? Doesn't add up. Then we look at everything concerning Lindbergh and it all starts to make sense. Look, I know how much of a fan you are of all these irritating, nagging little issues and ‘non-conformities’ that somehow lead you to believe Lindbergh was intentionally behind them, in order to set the stage for a faked kidnapping. Over the years, you’ve accumulated an impressive laundry list of such material, despite the fact you have no conclusive proof that any one of them was an act of criminal intent towards that purpose. Clearly, you’ve been able to slip at least a dozen or so of these examples past some of the members of this board. And why not? At the time, this case was investigated more than any other in criminal history, so you stand a pretty good chance of coming up with even more in the future, based on the sheer volume of available information to consider and manipulate. Of course, that doesn’t by necessity make any one example valid towards your point, does it? Each and every one of your laundry list items must be able to stand up on its own two feet without being helped by the others. By simply referring to each and every one of the MANY issues that Lindbergh was responsible for, whether it be by act, omission, what he said, did not say, or thru contradictions, as a "laundry list" as if that somehow undermines them does not work. It doesn't. There's too many and there's the accumulation to consider. The totality of these things are beyond suspicious. And this other thing, by saying I am "manipulating" the facts. I'm not. They are what they are and there's just too many to ignore. Now, shall we try to focus on the real facts relating to Skean's absence from Charlie’s nursery? First of all, how much do we truly know about Skean’s actual whereabouts during the period immediately leading up to Saturday, February 27, 1932, and over the next three days when he might have been brought to Highfields for Charlie’s benefit? Just where was Skean that would have made him so seemingly unavailable during this time? Was he really out for a walk when Charles Lindbergh apparently could not wait for him to return, as Marguerite Junge claimed in her memoirs a full five years after the kidnapping? Was she just waxing wistful imagery here to convey the cruel and tragic consequence of Skean not having been able to make the trip? At the time of the kidnapping, the newspapers were talking about two of the dogs that were routinely at Highfields, (presumably Skean and Wahgoosh) with one of them being referred to as a “Sealyham Terrier.” They claimed this dog was being treated at the Princeton Kennels for some ailment and therefore was not available to Charlie and family on that weekend. Sealyham Terriers are not black in colour though; they are white, some with brown accents. This leads to other questions. Was the press correct about a Sealyham Terrier having been sent to the kennels, or could they have mistakenly believed the dog at the kennels was a Sealyham when it was actually Charlie’s little buddy, the black Scottish Terrier, Skean? This subject is far from being cleared up, and I'd safely venture it involves much more than just one seamstress's flawed memoirs account. All this has been gone through. Lindbergh left him there. The manuscript was clear. Calling it "flawed" has been addressed but you have no other recourse but to say it over and over as if that's going to change the situation. It doesn't. She was there Joe. She had personal knowledge and was in the perfect situation to know. She isn't bashing Lindbergh, instead, merely stating a fact she could reveal that everyone wanted to know. Again, all I am doing is repeating myself because this has already been discussed previously.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 11, 2023 13:10:10 GMT -5
What you say about the possibility of a delay within a hypothetical planned faked kidnapping, was actually one of my first thoughts during the conversation I had with Wayne. But here is the bottom line. That Skean was not included for whatever reason in what was planned to be yet another Lindbergh regular weekend visit to Highfields, after which Anne and Charlie were fully expected to return to Next Day Hill on Monday morning or afternoon, demonstrates that the Scottish Terrier’s absence was not connected to a planned faked kidnapping for that specific weekend. Period. Of course, you then try to impress that it would then have been Lindbergh’s decision for Anne and Charlie to stay over on Monday evening and then the Tuesday evening, thereby opening up a new faked kidnapping ‘window of opportunity.’ But you are wrong about that. Anne and Charlie had the colds, and it was Anne, the child's mother who made the call to stay over. As much as you’d like to, you just can’t hang Skean’s absence on Lindbergh for the reason you imply, without conclusive proof he acted with criminal intent. BTW, that's basically the way the law and justice system work. What you are doing is considering this in a vacuum. Sure, if the only issue with Lindbergh was that he left Skean behind, which he did, then one could argue its not enough. But that's not the situation, in fact, FAR from it. Very far. The plan to "kidnap" this child could have been for any of the days they were there. I’m considering this in a vacuum? Exactly why Skean was left behind is currently not clear, in large part due to Marguerite Junge’s flawed recollection that the family travelled from Next Day Hill to spend the weekend at Highfields together. They didn’t, and I shouldn’t have to keep telling you this. There is no corroboration to this notion on her part that Lindbergh actually “left Skean behind,” something she only believed to be the case when she wrote her memoirs a full five years after the kidnapping. Your dutiful acceptance of this one highly-questionable account would seem to fly in the face of your normally professed mantra of searching for the absolute truth no matter how uncomfortable or unacceptable it may seem to some. Do you see who’s actually positioned in a vacuum here?
Then you’re suggesting Lindbergh would have thought it a good idea to plan a faked kidnapping of his child on a day they normally wouldn’t be at Highfields.. If Lindbergh himself had been behind such a foolish scheme, wouldn’t that have been equivalent to him showing his dirty hand? Would he not have first hand knowledge of the fact they were normally not there on a Tuesday evening? I don't care when the child was expected back in Englewood because that did not occur. And everyone agrees this happened because someone who knew they were there at the time somehow shared this with the culprits. Well, you really should care that the child was expected to be back at Next Day Hill on Monday. It’s a critical requirement to a weekend planned fake kidnapping. Lindbergh would have had no way of knowing Charlie would develop a cold and further that Anne would then catch it. And Lindbergh had nothing to do with Anne’s decision to remain at Highfields for the Monday and Tuesday evenings. I don’t agree that someone had to tip off the kidnapper(s) that the child would be at Highfields on Tuesday evening. The kidnapper(s) in all likelihood, had no reason to clear reason to believe the Lindberghs were not permanent residents of Highfields. Demonstrate conclusively that Richard Hauptmann somehow had access to an inside connection within one of the two households, and you will have my attention. Until then, this is just more of your speculation and it goes nowhere except down another rabbit hole.And yes, just like when old man Morrow forbid Lindbergh to put pregnant Anne in his plane for the cross country flight, he told him to go pound sand and used her as a test dummy anyway. So of course, when the family stayed or went, it was entirely up to him. Again, if he said "no" that would have been that because Anne would have acquiesced, just like all the other times. He ran the show. Heck, the guy controlled the investigation and you want me to believe he wouldn't control his wife in this situation? That's silly. So of course I'm going to bring this fact up. Should I say to myself that you won't like it then just keep quiet about it? Clearly, Charles Lindbergh did not exercise sound judgment as a conscientious father-to-be would have, when he insisted on flying for so many hours at high altitude while Anne was 7 months pregnant. But the tabloid stories that Charlie was deaf, mentally challenged, couldn’t walk or talk and whatever else they implied, were nothing more than vicious sensationalism. Your inference as well, that Lindbergh would essentially have ordered Anne to remain at Highfields for the Monday and Tuesday evenings, when it was actually her call to make, is just more “Big Bad Lindy” speculation on your part. She made the call to stay over for reasons of her and Charlie’s health. In the end, the 'crime' may have been pushed back for any number of reasons. Or it could have been planned for Tuesday all along. Regardless, the child was there when he supposedly shouldn't have been, ultimately allowing it to occur on this date. The only person(s) planning this crime for the Tuesday were the kidnapper(s) who in all likelihood, had no idea the child wasn’t supposed to be there. See above as to why Lindbergh would not have planned a fake kidnapping on a Tuesday evening.Again, no group of people found their way to Highfields, a place where on March 1, even Breckinridge had to stop at Princeton University to get directions to. And this even after he had just visited. I believe the kidnapper Hauptmann became comfortable with the route to Highfields by leaving the Bronx about mid-afternoon, a time that would still allow him to establish a good visual appreciation of landmarks and possible detours along the way. Getting to the Hopewell area as darkness was falling would then allow him to do his surveillance of the house with less exposure and possibility of detection. It would also allow him to establish patterns of movement within the house as lights were turned on and off, as well as the location of the nursery.
Henry Breckinridge was only a passenger to Highfields on his Feb. 27th weekend visit, so he may not have been paying close attention to the route to feel he could comfortably drive there in the dark of the following poor weather Tuesday evening. Which is probably why he conscripted his stepson Oren Root to guide him. As it turned out, Root wasn’t really needed as the house was lit up with lights blazing and could be seen for miles around.
Once there, we're expected it was by pure accident the child was there too allowing these culprits to strike. And they were prepared with the note and ladder, but NOT for the dog. And of course they head straight for and enter the right window. Etc. etc. etc. We saw in the NOVA show where John Douglas, Mark Falzini, and Kevin Klein all tried to raise the ladder, together, and the "war dance" that ensued in the process. This occurred on a sunny day with no wind. Yet we're expected to believe one man did it while standing on a boardwalk, at night, with the wind howling? And leaves only one print facing the house? Doesn't add up. Then we look at everything concerning Lindbergh and it all starts to make sense. We’re talking about Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery here on the weekend of Saturday, February 27, 1932. The rest of your response is more conflated laundry list material that demonstrates your confusion about what took place at the based of the nursery window, relative to the actual leeward conditions of the ground on the night March 1, 1932. And you’ve obviously never seen Kelvin Keraga assemble and erect his exact reproduction of the kidnap ladder, as I have on two separate occasions with one of those having been all three sections. No problems there my friend and it doesn’t take a committee if one person knows what he is doing. I believe the situation you're referring to was likely a case of “Too many cooks..”
The Lindberghs planned to return to Next Day Hill on the Monday morning or afternoon. Charlie developed a cold on the Saturday which continued into the weekend. Anne decided to keep Charlie at Highfields Monday evening because Charlie was not better. Anne caught Charlie’s cold and was not feeling up to returning to Next Day Hill on Tuesday morning and again decided to stay over on the Tuesday evening. Charles Lindbergh did not “control” this situation, as you profess. I truly believe that once you let go of tired old notions such as Lindbergh having been in complete control of every situation all the time, you’ll add so much to your own levels of discernment and detection in a way that more closely complements the primal depth and excellence of your archival research efforts.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 11, 2023 13:16:46 GMT -5
Look, I know how much of a fan you are of all these irritating, nagging little issues and ‘non-conformities’ that somehow lead you to believe Lindbergh was intentionally behind them, in order to set the stage for a faked kidnapping. Over the years, you’ve accumulated an impressive laundry list of such material, despite the fact you have no conclusive proof that any one of them was an act of criminal intent towards that purpose. Clearly, you’ve been able to slip at least a dozen or so of these examples past some of the members of this board. And why not? At the time, this case was investigated more than any other in criminal history, so you stand a pretty good chance of coming up with even more in the future, based on the sheer volume of available information to consider and manipulate. Of course, that doesn’t by necessity make any one example valid towards your point, does it? Each and every one of your laundry list items must be able to stand up on its own two feet without being helped by the others. By simply referring to each and every one of the MANY issues that Lindbergh was responsible for, whether it be by act, omission, what he said, did not say, or thru contradictions, as a "laundry list" as if that somehow undermines them does not work. It doesn't. There's too many and there's the accumulation to consider. The totality of these things are beyond suspicious. And this other thing, by saying I am "manipulating" the facts. I'm not. They are what they are and there's just too many to ignore. In this kidnapping case, no singular item on any of your ‘lists’ can be deemed suspicious, until conclusively proven to have included some form and degree of criminal intent towards your proposed fake kidnapping. You haven’t done this with one example yet over the course of 22 years and believe me, I’d remember if you did. Here’s an appropriate image for you. Carefully arranging a bunch of half-baked pies on a display case in the front window of your bakery in the hopes that their tantalizing appearance and numbers will entice buyers, will not be good for business if your pastry customers have no intention of buying soggy, half-baked pies.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 11, 2023 13:22:30 GMT -5
Now, shall we try to focus on the real facts relating to Skean's absence from Charlie’s nursery? First of all, how much do we truly know about Skean’s actual whereabouts during the period immediately leading up to Saturday, February 27, 1932, and over the next three days when he might have been brought to Highfields for Charlie’s benefit? Just where was Skean that would have made him so seemingly unavailable during this time? Was he really out for a walk when Charles Lindbergh apparently could not wait for him to return, as Marguerite Junge claimed in her memoirs a full five years after the kidnapping? Was she just waxing wistful imagery here to convey the cruel and tragic consequence of Skean not having been able to make the trip? At the time of the kidnapping, the newspapers were talking about two of the dogs that were routinely at Highfields, (presumably Skean and Wahgoosh) with one of them being referred to as a “Sealyham Terrier.” They claimed this dog was being treated at the Princeton Kennels for some ailment and therefore was not available to Charlie and family on that weekend. Sealyham Terriers are not black in colour though; they are white, some with brown accents. This leads to other questions. Was the press correct about a Sealyham Terrier having been sent to the kennels, or could they have mistakenly believed the dog at the kennels was a Sealyham when it was actually Charlie’s little buddy, the black Scottish Terrier, Skean? This subject is far from being cleared up, and I'd safely venture it involves much more than just one seamstress's flawed memoirs account. All this has been gone through. Lindbergh left him there. The manuscript was clear. Calling it "flawed" has been addressed but you have no other recourse but to say it over and over as if that's going to change the situation. It doesn't. She was there Joe. She had personal knowledge and was in the perfect situation to know. She isn't bashing Lindbergh, instead, merely stating a fact she could reveal that everyone wanted to know. Again, all I am doing is repeating myself because this has already been discussed previously. I’m sure you’d like to believe this has all been gone through before, but I’m also sure you're very aware it has not. There’s much more to consider here beyond the one flawed Marguerite Junge memoirs accounting of this event, written a full five years after the kidnapping. We have far too many references within the press about the other Terrier (not Wahgoosh) having been indisposed due to some kind of canine ailment on that fateful weekend, albeit there is nothing conclusive yet here. What you’re doing here is choosing to slam the door on any further investigation which might very well shed new and informative light on this event. Wait a tick.. isn’t that normally supposed to be your hallmark? Supposedly. Instead though, it seems you'd rather play the role of the detective who finds a piece of evidence he’s looking for to cement his conviction, questionable as it may appear, and then quietly walks away, saying “Well, we know we got the right guy.” I know you know a thing or two about this effect from the scope of research you’ve done to correct the historical narrative. So why not here with the pivotal matter of Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery? I don’t think it takes a detective to recognize your express desire to hang Skean’s absence on Lindbergh alone, as yet “just another example” he acted with some kind of criminal intent and action. I’m just not buying your half-baked version of this event.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 11, 2023 20:40:04 GMT -5
I’m considering this in a vacuum? Exactly why Skean was left behind is currently not clear, in large part due to Marguerite Junge’s flawed recollection that the family travelled from Next Day Hill to spend the weekend at Highfields together. They didn’t, and I shouldn’t have to keep telling you this. There is no corroboration to this notion on her part that Lindbergh actually “left Skean behind,” something she only believed to be the case when she wrote her memoirs a full five years after the kidnapping. Your dutiful acceptance of this one highly-questionable account would seem to fly in the face of your normally professed mantra of searching for the absolute truth no matter how uncomfortable or unacceptable it may seem to some. Do you see who’s actually positioned in a vacuum here?
Then you’re suggesting Lindbergh would have thought it a good idea to plan a faked kidnapping of his child on a day they normally wouldn’t be at Highfields.. If Lindbergh himself had been behind such a foolish scheme, wouldn’t that have been equivalent to him showing his dirty hand? Would he not have first hand knowledge of the fact they were normally not there on a Tuesday evening? There's nothing flawed about Junge's recollection concerning exactly why Skean was left behind. Okay, so Junge forgets that Lindbergh left separately but does not about him leaving Skean behind. What's the issue? The main and major point is about Skean, because that's what everyone wanted to know about and she had the answer. Nobody was asking who left with whom. They were asking Lindbergh where he was on March 1, while on the stand in Flemington, and he supposedly couldn't remember. Ready to throw everything he said out? I didn't think so. This rebuttal you've formulated, shows how desperate you are to distance Lindbergh from the event of leaving that dog behind. She is a valid source whether you like it or not. She is quite clear about it and it IS the topic because she's writing about it to clear up all the speculation that surrounded his absence. She knew the answer because she was there. Claiming her account is "flawed" doesn't hold any weight. You are merely grasping at straws because you have no other recourse. It's a tired and desperate tactic. And who exactly engages in desperate tactics? We already discussed this back on 12/7 and now you are pretending we did not? You're like a magician making things disappear and pulling rabbits out of your a$$ when it's needed. It's both inconsistent and silly. Well, you really should care that the child was expected to be back at Next Day Hill on Monday. It’s a critical requirement to a weekend planned fake kidnapping. Lindbergh would have had no way of knowing Charlie would develop a cold and further that Anne would then catch it. And Lindbergh had nothing to do with Anne’s decision to remain at Highfields for the Monday and Tuesday evenings. I don’t agree that someone had to tip off the kidnapper(s) that the child would be at Highfields on Tuesday evening. The kidnapper(s) in all likelihood, had no reason to clear reason to believe the Lindberghs were not permanent residents of Highfields. Demonstrate conclusively that Richard Hauptmann somehow had access to an inside connection within one of the two households, and you will have my attention. Until then, this is just more of your speculation and it goes nowhere except down another rabbit hole. Actually you should care. He was supposed to be somewhere he was not indicating what? That whoever did this had knowledge they should not have had. It doesn't help your cause, in fact, it harms it. Unfortunately, you are too far gone to realize even this simple fact. And of course you don't agree. This despite the fact Lindbergh himself told many people he believed it too. And yet, he protected the very people included within the pool of those who it could have been. And so, just say that's not what happened. There's that rabbit again. You seem to have an unlimited supply.... Now you demand a smoking gun or "else" it couldn't have happened? Kinda like a tree falling in the woods not making a sound because no one was there to actually see or hear it? This despite the fact its laying on the ground. Don't quit your day job Joe. By your own argument, no one saw Hauptmann in the nursery. Heck, they had to use perjured testimony to show he was in Hopewell. And, by the way, if someone uses my car and drives to Flemington tonight, that does not mean I went to Flemington. It could mean I was there but that's it. Do try to follow your own rules. Clearly, Charles Lindbergh did not exercise sound judgment as a conscientious father-to-be would have, when he insisted on flying for so many hours at high altitude while Anne was 7 months pregnant. But the tabloid stories that Charlie was deaf, mentally challenged, couldn’t walk or talk and whatever else they implied, were nothing more than vicious sensationalism. Your inference as well, that Lindbergh would essentially have ordered Anne to remain at Highfields for the Monday and Tuesday evenings, when it was actually her call to make, is just more “Big Bad Lindy” speculation on your part. She made the call to stay over for reasons of her and Charlie’s health. Did not exercise sound judgement? You can say that again. Unfortunately, that's who he was Joe. Sorry you don't "like" the inference. The man was running the show. Again, it harms your position so you're back to your old rabbit tricks again. If Lindbergh said stay, they stayed. If Lindbergh said come back to Englewood, they would come back. Read "Wave of the Future." Anne is the author. Once finished, ask yourself where that was all coming from. The only person(s) planning this crime for the Tuesday were the kidnapper(s) who in all likelihood, had no idea the child wasn’t supposed to be there. See above as to why Lindbergh would not have planned a fake kidnapping on a Tuesday evening. Another rabbit I see. No idea? You've got to be kidding me! So they drove down to Hopewell " blindly?" What'd they draw up plays in the dirt just before they set out? How'd they know which window to go to? How'd they know the dog wasn't in the room? How'd they know Lindbergh wasn't sitting in the room with his trusty rifle? How'd they know when to strike? I believe the kidnapper Hauptmann became comfortable with the route to Highfields by leaving the Bronx about mid-afternoon, a time that would still allow him to establish a good visual appreciation of landmarks and possible detours along the way. Getting to the Hopewell area as darkness was falling would then allow him to do his surveillance of the house with less exposure and possibility of detection. It would also allow him to establish patterns of movement within the house as lights were turned on and off, as well as the location of the nursery.
Henry Breckinridge was only a passenger to Highfields on his Feb. 27th weekend visit, so he may not have been paying close attention to the route to feel he could comfortably drive there in the dark of the following poor weather Tuesday evening. Which is probably why he conscripted his stepson Oren Root to guide him. As it turned out, Root wasn’t really needed as the house was lit up with lights blazing and could be seen for miles around.
So "Hauptamann" is comfortable with the route? How'd he get comfortable? I mean, you just said above he didn't know the child "wasn't" supposed to be there. So he's driving to back and forth to Hopewell but has no clue about the family's routine? I wonder what he was doing all those times? Doesn't know about the dog, but can see the shutter is warped. Doesn't know the family routine but believes the child is there. It makes no sense Joe. Take off your blinders and think for God's sake. We’re talking about Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery here on the weekend of Saturday, February 27, 1932. The rest of your response is more conflated laundry list material that demonstrates your confusion about what took place at the based of the nursery window, relative to the actual leeward conditions of the ground on the night March 1, 1932. And you’ve obviously never seen Kelvin Keraga assemble and erect his exact reproduction of the kidnap ladder, as I have on two separate occasions with one of those having been all three sections. No problems there my friend and it doesn’t take a committee if one person knows what he is doing. I believe the situation you're referring to was likely a case of “Too many cooks..”
The Lindberghs planned to return to Next Day Hill on the Monday morning or afternoon. Charlie developed a cold on the Saturday which continued into the weekend. Anne decided to keep Charlie at Highfields Monday evening because Charlie was not better. Anne caught Charlie’s cold and was not feeling up to returning to Next Day Hill on Tuesday morning and again decided to stay over on the Tuesday evening. Charles Lindbergh did not “control” this situation, as you profess. I truly believe that once you let go of tired old notions such as Lindbergh having been in complete control of every situation all the time, you’ll add so much to your own levels of discernment and detection in a way that more closely complements the primal depth and excellence of your archival research efforts. These things are all interconnected or the crime does not occur. I'm sorry you don't like that but its true. Kevin Klein is a Master Carpenter and he was one of the three people. This demonstration was done other times as well, and one man could not do it. This, despite it was dark, windy, and the one man was supposed to be standing on that thin piece of wood. Next, I see you've retreated to your ridiculous position by saying Lindbergh wasn't in charge of his family again. It's like debating a Mental Patient.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 11, 2023 20:50:18 GMT -5
In this kidnapping case, no singular item on any of your ‘lists’ can be deemed suspicious, until conclusively proven to have included some form and degree of criminal intent towards your proposed fake kidnapping. You haven’t done this with one example yet over the course of 22 years and believe me, I’d remember if you did. Interesting rule about what can be or cannot be deemed suspicious. You can't be serious. No, I refuse to believe you aren't joking right now. Here’s an appropriate image for you. Carefully arranging a bunch of half-baked pies on a display case in the front window of your bakery in the hopes that their tantalizing appearance and numbers will entice buyers, will not be good for business if your pastry customers have no intention of buying soggy, half-baked pies. I don't have a bakery Joe. Where do you come up with this stuff?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 11, 2023 20:57:39 GMT -5
I’m sure you’d like to believe this has all been gone through before, but I’m also sure you're very aware it has not. There’s much more to consider here beyond the one flawed Marguerite Junge memoirs accounting of this event, written a full five years after the kidnapping. We have far too many references within the press about the other Terrier (not Wahgoosh) having been indisposed due to some kind of canine ailment on that fateful weekend, albeit there is nothing conclusive yet here. What you’re doing here is choosing to slam the door on any further investigation which might very well shed new and informative light on this event. Wait a tick.. isn’t that normally supposed to be your hallmark? Supposedly. Instead though, it seems you'd rather play the role of the detective who finds a piece of evidence he’s looking for to cement his conviction, questionable as it may appear, and then quietly walks away, saying “Well, we know we got the right guy.” I know you know a thing or two about this effect from the scope of research you’ve done to correct the historical narrative. So why not here with the pivotal matter of Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery? I don’t think it takes a detective to recognize your express desire to hang Skean’s absence on Lindbergh alone, as yet “just another example” he acted with some kind of criminal intent and action. I’m just not buying your half-baked version of this event. Again, asked and answered. Junge's recollection about why Skean was left behind is not flawed. Refer to my previous responses today and to also include going back to 12/7 when this was all discussed. Everything else you are assigning to me is pure fiction. You now want to dispute a first person eyewitness account with newspaper articles. Remember the articles that said Lupica claimed he saw Hauptmann? Or those that said Moore said he saw Hauptmann? Yup, there's plenty to choose from. And all of them were lies. Newspaper articles should always be considered from that viewpoint. They weren't always wrong, but many reporters had Editors hounding them for info. Sometimes they heard something and wrote it up as fact. Sometimes they just made it up. Like when they were paying people to make footprints on March 2 so they could take a picture of it claiming it was made by the kidnappers. I'm surprised at you Joe. Seriously, you do know better. What's gotten into you lately?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 14, 2023 9:29:25 GMT -5
I’m considering this in a vacuum? Exactly why Skean was left behind is currently not clear, in large part due to Marguerite Junge’s flawed recollection that the family travelled from Next Day Hill to spend the weekend at Highfields together. They didn’t, and I shouldn’t have to keep telling you this. There is no corroboration to this notion on her part that Lindbergh actually “left Skean behind,” something she only believed to be the case when she wrote her memoirs a full five years after the kidnapping. Your dutiful acceptance of this one highly-questionable account would seem to fly in the face of your normally professed mantra of searching for the absolute truth no matter how uncomfortable or unacceptable it may seem to some. Do you see who’s actually positioned in a vacuum here?
Then you’re suggesting Lindbergh would have thought it a good idea to plan a faked kidnapping of his child on a day they normally wouldn’t be at Highfields.. If Lindbergh himself had been behind such a foolish scheme, wouldn’t that have been equivalent to him showing his dirty hand? Would he not have first hand knowledge of the fact they were normally not there on a Tuesday evening? There's nothing flawed about Junge's recollection concerning exactly why Skean was left behind. Okay, so Junge forgets that Lindbergh left separately but does not about him leaving Skean behind. What's the issue? The main and major point is about Skean, because that's what everyone wanted to know about and she had the answer. Nobody was asking who left with whom. They were asking Lindbergh where he was on March 1, while on the stand in Flemington, and he supposedly couldn't remember. Ready to throw everything he said out? I didn't think so. This rebuttal you've formulated, shows how desperate you are to distance Lindbergh from the event of leaving that dog behind. She is a valid source whether you like it or not. She is quite clear about it and it IS the topic because she's writing about it to clear up all the speculation that surrounded his absence. She knew the answer because she was there. Claiming her account is "flawed" doesn't hold any weight. You are merely grasping at straws because you have no other recourse. It's a tired and desperate tactic. And who exactly engages in desperate tactics? We already discussed this back on 12/7 and now you are pretending we did not? You're like a magician making things disappear and pulling rabbits out of your a$$ when it's needed. It's both inconsistent and silly. You’re offering two opposing points of view here in your first two sentences and only the second one is correct. Why are you asking what the issue here is when you’ve just accepted what it is? Yes, Junge was mistaken about Lindbergh’s travels on Saturday, February 27, 1932, when she declared, he had travelled to Highfields with Anne and Charlie. It’s a flawed recollection on her part which by its very content and the logistics involved makes it unreasonable for her to unequivocally conclude that Charles Lindbergh “left Skean behind.” Buying her statement at face value as you apparently have, is not only a naïve and novice interpretation but at worst, demonstrates a clear lack of interest on your part in understanding the whole truth behind this event.
Well, you really should care that the child was expected to be back at Next Day Hill on Monday. It’s a critical requirement to a weekend planned fake kidnapping. Lindbergh would have had no way of knowing Charlie would develop a cold and further that Anne would then catch it. And Lindbergh had nothing to do with Anne’s decision to remain at Highfields for the Monday and Tuesday evenings. I don’t agree that someone had to tip off the kidnapper(s) that the child would be at Highfields on Tuesday evening. The kidnapper(s) in all likelihood, had no reason to clear reason to believe the Lindberghs were not permanent residents of Highfields. Demonstrate conclusively that Richard Hauptmann somehow had access to an inside connection within one of the two households, and you will have my attention. Until then, this is just more of your speculation and it goes nowhere except down another rabbit hole. Actually you should care. He was supposed to be somewhere he was not indicating what? That whoever did this had knowledge they should not have had. It doesn't help your cause, in fact, it harms it. Unfortunately, you are too far gone to realize even this simple fact. And of course you don't agree. This despite the fact Lindbergh himself told many people he believed it too. And yet, he protected the very people included within the pool of those who it could have been. And so, just say that's not what happened. There's that rabbit again. You seem to have an unlimited supply.... Now you demand a smoking gun or "else" it couldn't have happened? Kinda like a tree falling in the woods not making a sound because no one was there to actually see or hear it? This despite the fact its laying on the ground. Don't quit your day job Joe. By your own argument, no one saw Hauptmann in the nursery. Heck, they had to use perjured testimony to show he was in Hopewell. And, by the way, if someone uses my car and drives to Flemington tonight, that does not mean I went to Flemington. It could mean I was there but that's it. Do try to follow your own rules. I have no plans to give up my day job for the foreseeable future. I also think that retirement agrees with you, as I can already detect you’re beginning to loosen the prison wall and concertina wire restrictions you’d previously imposed on your judgment within this case, ie. seeing a criminal under every bed.
Next up, a little party icebreaker here for you. The tree that falls in the forest does not make a sound, if it cannot be heard by man, beast or is registered by means of an audio recording device. Sound waves, like radio waves, require a suitable receiver to render them audible. Sure, the tree might be lying on the ground, but if no man, beast or audio recording device was near enough to actually hear it fall, then it did not make a sound when it fell. Truth, mein freund.
Lindbergh was all ears (no pun) towards any reasonable theory that came to light, as he well should have been. It clearly demonstrates he wanted the case solved, and he wouldn’t have participated in it so actively had he not wanted to know. He also believed in the people that worked for him, but to imply he sheltered and protected them with criminal intent is not only inaccurate, it’s silly. They were all investigated satisfactorily enough to conclude they were innocent of any involvement. Look at Lindbergh’s personal participation in the Violet Sharp interviews. He did nothing to stop Walsh’s interrogation tactics, and simply came away with the belief she was innocent of any criminal wrongdoing relating to Charlie’s kidnapping. You believe the kidnapper(s) had knowledge they shouldn’t have had. It’s a reasonable inference, until you scrutinize each and every specific item that might lead one to that belief. That’s why each and every one needs to be fully explored with as broad a perspective as is possible.. not just through any one researcher’s findings leading to conclusions stated in a book, or series of books. And that’s why I created this thread as the first 'laundry list' item requiring fuller exploration.Clearly, Charles Lindbergh did not exercise sound judgment as a conscientious father-to-be would have, when he insisted on flying for so many hours at high altitude while Anne was 7 months pregnant. But the tabloid stories that Charlie was deaf, mentally challenged, couldn’t walk or talk and whatever else they implied, were nothing more than vicious sensationalism. Your inference as well, that Lindbergh would essentially have ordered Anne to remain at Highfields for the Monday and Tuesday evenings, when it was actually her call to make, is just more “Big Bad Lindy” speculation on your part. She made the call to stay over for reasons of her and Charlie’s health. Did not exercise sound judgement? You can say that again. Unfortunately, that's who he was Joe. Sorry you don't "like" the inference. The man was running the show. Again, it harms your position so you're back to your old rabbit tricks again. If Lindbergh said stay, they stayed. If Lindbergh said come back to Englewood, they would come back. Read "Wave of the Future." Anne is the author. Once finished, ask yourself where that was all coming from. Prove to yourself and everyone else here that Lindbergh ordered Anne to keep herself and Charlie at Highfields on Monday and Tuesday evenings. Until then, all of the speculation in the world will never fully bake this cream puff pie of yours.
The only person(s) planning this crime for the Tuesday were the kidnapper(s) who in all likelihood, had no idea the child wasn’t supposed to be there. See above as to why Lindbergh would not have planned a fake kidnapping on a Tuesday evening. Another rabbit I see. No idea? You've got to be kidding me! So they drove down to Hopewell " blindly?" What'd they draw up plays in the dirt just before they set out? How'd they know which window to go to? How'd they know the dog wasn't in the room? How'd they know Lindbergh wasn't sitting in the room with his trusty rifle? How'd they know when to strike? No kidnapper(s) drove down to Hopewell blindly. This is just more of you playing Grandpa Simpson and yelling at all those clouds. Hauptmann would have done as much surveillance on Highfields as he felt was necessary. He knew there was enormous risk involved here and naturally there would have been certain elements of his kidnapping plan that would not have allowed him go beyond the constraints he would have recognized would keep him relatively safe from detection before and after the fact. We may never know for certain where he got all of the information he decided to run with, but I believe it's pretty clear no one from either household told him. He never confessed to one iota of involvement in this crime, even though anyone with a functioning brain can unequivocally recognize his stamp of personal primary involvement throughout based on the damning circumstantial physical evidence.I believe the kidnapper Hauptmann became comfortable with the route to Highfields by leaving the Bronx about mid-afternoon, a time that would still allow him to establish a good visual appreciation of landmarks and possible detours along the way. Getting to the Hopewell area as darkness was falling would then allow him to do his surveillance of the house with less exposure and possibility of detection. It would also allow him to establish patterns of movement within the house as lights were turned on and off, as well as the location of the nursery.
Henry Breckinridge was only a passenger to Highfields on his Feb. 27th weekend visit, so he may not have been paying close attention to the route to feel he could comfortably drive there in the dark of the following poor weather Tuesday evening. Which is probably why he conscripted his stepson Oren Root to guide him. As it turned out, Root wasn’t really needed as the house was lit up with lights blazing and could be seen for miles around.
So "Hauptamann" is comfortable with the route? How'd he get comfortable? I mean, you just said above he didn't know the child "wasn't" supposed to be there. So he's driving to back and forth to Hopewell but has no clue about the family's routine? I wonder what he was doing all those times? Doesn't know about the dog, but can see the shutter is warped. Doesn't know the family routine but believes the child is there. It makes no sense Joe. Take off your blinders and think for God's sake. You need to take your blinders off and once and for all attempt to understand exactly who we are dealing with here in Bruno Richard Hauptmann. You say you know the criminal mind. Well, I’d venture your dunce cap must be sitting in the corner ready to stick on your head the moment you start considering the personal capabilities, determination, iron will, ingenuity, adaptability talents, and willingness to take enormous risk for monetary reward, of your poster boy avatar.
We’re talking about Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery here on the weekend of Saturday, February 27, 1932. The rest of your response is more conflated laundry list material that demonstrates your confusion about what took place at the based of the nursery window, relative to the actual leeward conditions of the ground on the night March 1, 1932. And you’ve obviously never seen Kelvin Keraga assemble and erect his exact reproduction of the kidnap ladder, as I have on two separate occasions with one of those having been all three sections. No problems there my friend and it doesn’t take a committee if one person knows what he is doing. I believe the situation you're referring to was likely a case of “Too many cooks..”
The Lindberghs planned to return to Next Day Hill on the Monday morning or afternoon. Charlie developed a cold on the Saturday which continued into the weekend. Anne decided to keep Charlie at Highfields Monday evening because Charlie was not better. Anne caught Charlie’s cold and was not feeling up to returning to Next Day Hill on Tuesday morning and again decided to stay over on the Tuesday evening. Charles Lindbergh did not “control” this situation, as you profess. I truly believe that once you let go of tired old notions such as Lindbergh having been in complete control of every situation all the time, you’ll add so much to your own levels of discernment and detection in a way that more closely complements the primal depth and excellence of your archival research efforts. These things are all interconnected or the crime does not occur. I'm sorry you don't like that but its true. Kevin Klein is a Master Carpenter and he was one of the three people. This demonstration was done other times as well, and one man could not do it. This, despite it was dark, windy, and the one man was supposed to be standing on that thin piece of wood. Next, I see you've retreated to your ridiculous position by saying Lindbergh wasn't in charge of his family again. It's like debating a Mental Patient. I know Kevin Klein is a master carpenter but does that out of necessity make him an expert at raising a tricky, articulated ladder or trying to direct two other inexperienced multiple section ladder erectors to assist him at the same time? Try canning these types of stuffy and pompous assertions once and for all, in favour of decreased bias and increased objectivity. And I’m not even going to get into yet another useless debate about your flawed contention that whoever raised that ladder did so while standing on one width of tongue and groove flooring (walkway) at the base of the nursery. This is just another one of your laundry list items which fails to recognize other more important circumstantial physical evidence factors at the crime scene, not to mention the general investigative ineptitude of many of the the NJSP investigators. That one's on my list for a separate thread discussion.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 14, 2023 10:02:29 GMT -5
In this kidnapping case, no singular item on any of your ‘lists’ can be deemed suspicious, until conclusively proven to have included some form and degree of criminal intent towards your proposed fake kidnapping. You haven’t done this with one example yet over the course of 22 years and believe me, I’d remember if you did. Interesting rule about what can be or cannot be deemed suspicious. You can't be serious. No, I refuse to believe you aren't joking right now. Of course I’m serious. You know, I believe the single biggest restriction you place upon yourself is your inability to recognize that either Lindbergh is 100% guilty of conspiring to have his son "destroyed" or he's 100% innocent of participating in such an insanely-diabolical plan. There's no in-between here but that doesn't stop you from inching further out on that limb of yours. You still haven’t conclusively proven one point from your 20 plus year old laundry list. Demonstrate this to me now, if you disagree. Better yet, lay out your trump card Jack of Hearts point and we can discuss further on a separate thread. Here’s an appropriate image for you. Carefully arranging a bunch of half-baked pies on a display case in the front window of your bakery in the hopes that their tantalizing appearance and numbers will entice buyers, will not be good for business if your pastry customers have no intention of buying soggy, half-baked pies. I don't have a bakery Joe. Where do you come up with this stuff? Oops.. I thought you might of at least had the imagination to realize I was being metaphorical. Sorry about that!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 14, 2023 10:08:51 GMT -5
I’m sure you’d like to believe this has all been gone through before, but I’m also sure you're very aware it has not. There’s much more to consider here beyond the one flawed Marguerite Junge memoirs accounting of this event, written a full five years after the kidnapping. We have far too many references within the press about the other Terrier (not Wahgoosh) having been indisposed due to some kind of canine ailment on that fateful weekend, albeit there is nothing conclusive yet here. What you’re doing here is choosing to slam the door on any further investigation which might very well shed new and informative light on this event. Wait a tick.. isn’t that normally supposed to be your hallmark? Supposedly. Instead though, it seems you'd rather play the role of the detective who finds a piece of evidence he’s looking for to cement his conviction, questionable as it may appear, and then quietly walks away, saying “Well, we know we got the right guy.” I know you know a thing or two about this effect from the scope of research you’ve done to correct the historical narrative. So why not here with the pivotal matter of Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery? I don’t think it takes a detective to recognize your express desire to hang Skean’s absence on Lindbergh alone, as yet “just another example” he acted with some kind of criminal intent and action. I’m just not buying your half-baked version of this event. Again, asked and answered. Junge's recollection about why Skean was left behind is not flawed. Refer to my previous responses today and to also include going back to 12/7 when this was all discussed. Everything else you are assigning to me is pure fiction. You now want to dispute a first person eyewitness account with newspaper articles. Remember the articles that said Lupica claimed he saw Hauptmann? Or those that said Moore said he saw Hauptmann? Yup, there's plenty to choose from. And all of them were lies. Newspaper articles should always be considered from that viewpoint. They weren't always wrong, but many reporters had Editors hounding them for info. Sometimes they heard something and wrote it up as fact. Sometimes they just made it up. Like when they were paying people to make footprints on March 2 so they could take a picture of it claiming it was made by the kidnappers. I'm surprised at you Joe. Seriously, you do know better. What's gotten into you lately? And there are times, as you yourself have noted many times previously, when newspaper reporters used their investigative skills to pursue leads which may not have been deemed important enough for the police, and coming up with real answers. Like it or not Michael, that may well be what we have here. But we'll never know will we, unless we roll up our sleeves and try to determine exactly why Skean never made it to Charlie's nursery on the weekend and two days leading up to the kidnapping? That's four full days of missed opportunities for Charlie to have had his little buddy Skean with him.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 14, 2023 13:12:01 GMT -5
Of course I’m serious. You know, I believe the single biggest restriction you place upon yourself is your inability to recognize that either Lindbergh is 100% guilty of conspiring to have his son "destroyed" or he's 100% innocent of participating in such an insanely-diabolical plan. There's no in-between here but that doesn't stop you from inching further out on that limb of yours. You still haven’t conclusively proven one point from your 20 plus year old laundry list. Demonstrate this to me now, if you disagree. Better yet, lay out your trump card Jack of Hearts point and we can discuss further on a separate thread. There you go again Joe. Your entire position is based, not on the information, but what you think I think. I've never seen anything like it. It's why there can never be a "good faith" debate with you on this subject because whatever it is, you try to figure out how I might perceive it to assist in my beliefs. If you can draw a line from that topic to Lindbergh or Condon looking badly, you immediately reject it and start with these outrageous "rules," songs, poems, and "metaphors." Why not just be normal about it all? Simply look and evaluate without worrying about me? Next, trying to reprimand me about what's suspicious and what isn't is laughable. I've got over 26 years of reacting to suspicious behavior and have a damn good track record doing so. Oops.. I thought you might of at least had the imagination to realize I was being metaphorical. Sorry about that! World's WORST metaphor Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 14, 2023 13:22:57 GMT -5
And there are times, as you yourself have noted many times previously, when newspaper reporters used their investigative skills to pursue leads which may not have been deemed important enough for the police, and coming up with real answers. Like it or not Michael, that may well be what we have here. But we'll never know will we, unless we roll up our sleeves and try to determine exactly why Skean never made it to Charlie's nursery on the weekend and two days leading up to the kidnapping? That's four full days of missed opportunities for Charlie to have had his little buddy Skean with him. Yes, of course. As I wrote they weren't always wrong. Some reporters were more reliable than others. That takes a considerable amount of research to determine. But the only time they can be absolutely trusted is if there is another source that can back it up. Overruling a primary source with a newspaper account is, simply put, reckless. If there were no other sources that existed, we would have no choice but to at least consider these articles (probably just one that was picked up by various publications), but we have one from someone who was ACTUALLY THERE and didn't tell someone who wrote about it .... Jung wrote about it HERSELF.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 14, 2023 14:07:45 GMT -5
You’re offering two opposing points of view here in your first two sentences and only the second one is correct. Why are you asking what the issue here is when you’ve just accepted what it is? Yes, Junge was mistaken about Lindbergh’s travels on Saturday, February 27, 1932, when she declared, he had travelled to Highfields with Anne and Charlie. It’s a flawed recollection on her part which by its very content and the logistics involved makes it unreasonable for her to unequivocally conclude that Charles Lindbergh “left Skean behind.” Buying her statement at face value as you apparently have, is not only a naïve and novice interpretation but at worst, demonstrates a clear lack of interest on your part in understanding the whole truth behind this event.
I noticed you avoided my point about Lindbergh's testimony for a second time. The man claimed he didn't know where he was on March 1! If you are going to say Jung's account is invalidated by forgetting the specifics about the trivial part of her story, then you absolutely must invalidate everything Lindbergh testified to as well. Heck, everything he ever said by your measure here. But you do not do that - do you? Nope. So much for this argument against Junge's account. She was there. People wanted to know why Skean wasn't in Hopewell. She knew the answer. And she recorded exactly why. It's a simple fact that you obviously do not enjoy which accounts for all of the irrational resistance to it. I have no plans to give up my day job for the foreseeable future. I also think that retirement agrees with you, as I can already detect you’re beginning to loosen the prison wall and concertina wire restrictions you’d previously imposed on your judgment within this case, ie. seeing a criminal under every bed.
Next up, a little party icebreaker here for you. The tree that falls in the forest does not make a sound, if it cannot be heard by man, beast or is registered by means of an audio recording device. Sound waves, like radio waves, require a suitable receiver to render them audible. Sure, the tree might be lying on the ground, but if no man, beast or audio recording device was near enough to actually hear it fall, then it did not make a sound when it fell. Truth, mein freund.
Lindbergh was all ears (no pun) towards any reasonable theory that came to light, as he well should have been. It clearly demonstrates he wanted the case solved, and he wouldn’t have participated in it so actively had he not wanted to know. He also believed in the people that worked for him, but to imply he sheltered and protected them with criminal intent is not only inaccurate, it’s silly. They were all investigated satisfactorily enough to conclude they were innocent of any involvement. Look at Lindbergh’s personal participation in the Violet Sharp interviews. He did nothing to stop Walsh’s interrogation tactics, and simply came away with the belief she was innocent of any criminal wrongdoing relating to Charlie’s kidnapping. You believe the kidnapper(s) had knowledge they shouldn’t have had. It’s a reasonable inference, until you scrutinize each and every specific item that might lead one to that belief. That’s why each and every one needs to be fully explored with as broad a perspective as is possible.. not just through any one researcher’s findings leading to conclusions stated in a book, or series of books. And that’s why I created this thread as the first 'laundry list' item requiring fuller exploration. I don't think you know me as well as you think. Next, if a tree fell, it made a noise. Perhaps if I gave a long winded metaphor about a soggy loaf of bread, or a day old doughnut you might have better understood the point. Next, there's your Lifetime movie script again. Sure, he was "all ears" alright. Meanwhile, he was throwing buckets of water on Richard, stopping the boat searching for his son so he could retrieve Curtis's hat in order to tease him about it, and saying " the hell with it" (searching for his son), " let's play cards." Shall I go on? He protected the Staff. NJSP never checked anyone's shoes working in that house against the prints they found. Why? They took Lindbergh's word for it. Gow screamed out " I was promised I wouldn't be touched!" Who promised? " Lindbergh." Police wanted lie detectors for them. Lindbergh said no. Once again, there's another laundry list to consider. And next, Lindbergh had no business requiring himself to be at these interviews. If you think that makes him look innocent, well, that speaks for itself. If Sharp suspected (or knew) something that pointed to something Lindbergh would consider unfavorable, do you think she's say it in front of the man? His presence was either intimidating or reassuring. Neither have a place in an investigation like this. Nowadays, he would have been considered a suspect and treated as such. There's a reason for that Joe. Prove to yourself and everyone else here that Lindbergh ordered Anne to keep herself and Charlie at Highfields on Monday and Tuesday evenings. Until then, all of the speculation in the world will never fully bake this cream puff pie of yours. It's provable when we look at all the other examples as I've previously alluded to. The transcontinental flight. If there was ever a time Anne would have vetoed Lindbergh that would have been it. Just look at all of his past practices. Even the knife used on the cake at his wedding. It's all right there. No kidnapper(s) drove down to Hopewell blindly. This is just more of you playing Grandpa Simpson and yelling at all those clouds. Hauptmann would have done as much surveillance on Highfields as he felt was necessary. He knew there was enormous risk involved here and naturally there would have been certain elements of his kidnapping plan that would not have allowed him go beyond the constraints he would have recognized would keep him relatively safe from detection before and after the fact. We may never know for certain where he got all of the information he decided to run with, but I believe it's pretty clear no one from either household told him. He never confessed to one iota of involvement in this crime, even though anyone with a functioning brain can unequivocally recognize his stamp of personal primary involvement throughout based on the damning circumstantial physical evidence.You just disproved your original point. You need to take your blinders off and once and for all attempt to understand exactly who we are dealing with here in Bruno Richard Hauptmann. You say you know the criminal mind. Well, I’d venture your dunce cap must be sitting in the corner ready to stick on your head the moment you start considering the personal capabilities, determination, iron will, ingenuity, adaptability talents, and willingness to take enormous risk for monetary reward, of your poster boy avatar.
I see no value in this. Was there a point to it? I know Kevin Klein is a master carpenter but does that out of necessity make him an expert at raising a tricky, articulated ladder or trying to direct two other inexperienced multiple section ladder erectors to assist him at the same time? Try canning these types of stuffy and pompous assertions once and for all, in favour of decreased bias and increased objectivity. And I’m not even going to get into yet another useless debate about your flawed contention that whoever raised that ladder did so while standing on one width of tongue and groove flooring (walkway) at the base of the nursery. This is just another one of your laundry list items which fails to recognize other more important circumstantial physical evidence factors at the crime scene, not to mention the general investigative ineptitude of many of the the NJSP investigators. That one's on my list for a separate thread discussion. Joe, a carpenter knows how to lift a ladder. He built several ladders similar to the specs of the kidnap ladder and even tested some until they broke to see how much force it would take. Next, during the NJN documentary (Newman 1989), they asked several troopers to raise the ladder while under the window and one couldn't do it. Again, under optimal conditions and NOT like the windy, dark, muddy, while holding items and standing on a thin strip of board. If someone did in these conditions, it required a lot of practice. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 19, 2023 10:15:29 GMT -5
Of course I’m serious. You know, I believe the single biggest restriction you place upon yourself is your inability to recognize that either Lindbergh is 100% guilty of conspiring to have his son "destroyed" or he's 100% innocent of participating in such an insanely-diabolical plan. There's no in-between here but that doesn't stop you from inching further out on that limb of yours. You still haven’t conclusively proven one point from your 20 plus year old laundry list. Demonstrate this to me now, if you disagree. Better yet, lay out your trump card Jack of Hearts point and we can discuss further on a separate thread. There you go again Joe. Your entire position is based, not on the information, but what you think I think. I've never seen anything like it. It's why there can never be a "good faith" debate with you on this subject because whatever it is, you try to figure out how I might perceive it to assist in my beliefs. If you can draw a line from that topic to Lindbergh or Condon looking badly, you immediately reject it and start with these outrageous "rules," songs, poems, and "metaphors." Why not just be normal about it all? Simply look and evaluate without worrying about me? Next, trying to reprimand me about what's suspicious and what isn't is laughable. I've got over 26 years of reacting to suspicious behavior and have a damn good track record doing so. Nothing complicated here Michael, and please try not to act so defensively whenever you feel your feet becoming a bit too warm from the fire. My entire position is not based on what I think you think. Far from it. It comes first and foremost from the real and incontrovertible evidence within this case and not any one person’s interpretation as to what does or doesn't constitute suspicious behaviour. We both share opinions on this case and both are challenged here for them. If you’re not up to that any more, than just say so and I won’t bother you again. For all your claims that Lindbergh conspired to have his son destroyed, I’d just like to see one conclusively proven example of this. In 22 years, you still haven’t delivered, despite the clear seriousness of such a strange claim. Oops.. I thought you might of at least had the imagination to realize I was being metaphorical. Sorry about that! World's WORST metaphor Joe. Okay, maybe you don’t have as sweet a tooth as I do. How about you’re a pizza parlour owner and make the tastiest-looking pizzas, but your stone ovens don’t go beyond 120 Fahrenheit? Never mind.. I’m sure you got my point the first time.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 19, 2023 10:21:13 GMT -5
And there are times, as you yourself have noted many times previously, when newspaper reporters used their investigative skills to pursue leads which may not have been deemed important enough for the police, and coming up with real answers. Like it or not Michael, that may well be what we have here. But we'll never know will we, unless we roll up our sleeves and try to determine exactly why Skean never made it to Charlie's nursery on the weekend and two days leading up to the kidnapping? That's four full days of missed opportunities for Charlie to have had his little buddy Skean with him. Yes, of course. As I wrote they weren't always wrong. Some reporters were more reliable than others. That takes a considerable amount of research to determine. But the only time they can be absolutely trusted is if there is another source that can back it up. Overruling a primary source with a newspaper account is, simply put, reckless. If there were no other sources that existed, we would have no choice but to at least consider these articles (probably just one that was picked up by various publications), but we have one from someone who was ACTUALLY THERE and didn't tell someone who wrote about it .... Jung wrote about it HERSELF. Junge’s account is unsatisfactory because first and foremost, it doesn’t represent the essential facts behind the Lindberghs’ travels of Saturday, February 27, 1932. She begins with the premise that Charles, Anne and Charlie drove together from Next Day Hill to Highfields, which of course, is not true. She has mistakenly painted a flawed picture in her mind, from which she’s further concluded something most likely untrue. And it is very interesting that her account, written a full five years later, appears to be the only one out there. That in itself, should indicate that Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery was not perceived to have represented anything potentially criminal in nature. Otherwise, I imagine investigators would have at least made inquiries to determine the Scottie’s exact whereabouts for the critical time period.
If Junge had recalled that specific day five years later, how could she have reasonably deduced or remembered Lindbergh leaving Skean behind, when he had first visited the Rockefeller Institute before proceeding to the Breckinridge apartment in NYC and then driving them on to Highfields? Her accounting makes little sense. If anyone left Skean behind, it would have been Anne when she had Ellerson drive her and Charlie to Highfields on Saturday afternoon. It's very interesting that she herself, lamented the fact within her diary.
It’s apparent though that you just don’t like this possibility or further, the fact Betty could have brought Skean to Highfields the following Tuesday, (if he was even at Next Day Hill to bring along) so you just keep echoing Junge’s flawed accounting of the event. And why wouldn’t you, after alll? Makes a nice item for another great laundry list, especially when you can spice it up with a little dead seagull. Hopefully there are others here interested in establishing the real truth behind Skeans’s absence from Charlie’s nursery.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 19, 2023 22:43:11 GMT -5
Nothing complicated here Michael, and please try not to act so defensively whenever you feel your feet becoming a bit too warm from the fire. My entire position is not based on what I think you think. Far from it. It comes first and foremost from the real and incontrovertible evidence within this case and not any one person’s interpretation as to what does or doesn't constitute suspicious behaviour. We both share opinions on this case and both are challenged here for them. If you’re not up to that any more, than just say so and I won’t bother you again. For all your claims that Lindbergh conspired to have his son destroyed, I’d just like to see one conclusively proven example of this. In 22 years, you still haven’t delivered, despite the clear seriousness of such a strange claim. There's four books full of information to consider. The problem is that you absolutely DO hinge your beliefs based on what you think my position is. You've proven it here time and time again, and have admitted as much. All I am saying is think for yourself. You are way too concerned with my position that yours is always likely to be the opposite of whatever you think I think. And most of the time you are wrong about even that, so you set yourself up to oppose things I don't even believe in the first place. It's ridiculous. Okay, maybe you don’t have as sweet a tooth as I do. How about you’re a pizza parlour owner and make the tastiest-looking pizzas, but your stone ovens don’t go beyond 120 Fahrenheit? Never mind.. I’m sure you got my point the first time. I haven't eaten bread or sugar in years. I do eat sugar free cheesecake every Thanksgiving if that counts.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 19, 2023 22:57:38 GMT -5
Junge’s account is unsatisfactory because first and foremost, it doesn’t represent the essential facts behind the Lindberghs’ travels of Saturday, February 27, 1932. She begins with the premise that Charles, Anne and Charlie drove together from Next Day Hill to Highfields, which of course, is not true. She has mistakenly painted a flawed picture in her mind, from which she’s further concluded something most likely untrue. And it is very interesting that her account, written a full five years later, appears to be the only one out there. That in itself, should indicate that Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery was not perceived to have represented anything potentially criminal in nature. Otherwise, I imagine investigators would have at least made inquiries to determine the Scottie’s exact whereabouts for the critical time period.
If Junge had recalled that specific day five years later, how could she have reasonably deduced or remembered Lindbergh leaving Skean behind, when he had first visited the Rockefeller Institute before proceeding to the Breckinridge apartment in NYC and then driving them on to Highfields? Her accounting makes little sense. If anyone left Skean behind, it would have been Anne when she had Ellerson drive her and Charlie to Highfields on Saturday afternoon. It's very interesting that she herself, lamented the fact within her diary.
It’s apparent though that you just don’t like this possibility or further, the fact Betty could have brought Skean to Highfields the following Tuesday, (if he was even at Next Day Hill to bring along) so you just keep echoing Junge’s flawed accounting of the event. And why wouldn’t you, after alll? Makes a nice item for another great laundry list, especially when you can spice it up with a little dead seagull. Hopefully there are others here interested in establishing the real truth behind Skeans’s absence from Charlie’s nursery.
Stop cherry picking my arguments. Please address what I've written in full. Next, why did you drop the Whateley subject? Hear something that may have harmed your position perhaps? So instead of coming back and conceding you do what? You may think everyone will forget if you drop and/or evade the subject but I certainly won't. And, once again (what's this three or four times?), you have avoided my point about Lindbergh's testimony. If getting something trivial wrong means that all is invalidated, then what does not even remembering where one was on March 1? By your "rule" that should invalidate EVERYTHING Lindbergh ever said. But no, you believe everything, lock, stock, and barrel. This is why you can't be taken seriously. You have rules but do not apply them evenly or consistently. And here, you disqualify Jung's own first person account because she thought they all left together at the time she wrote this down. It's the silliest thing I've ever seen. Joe, my dog died about 8 years ago. I remember exactly where I was and what happened. I reasonably believe I know who left with whom, but if I got that part wrong ... does that mean my dog is really still alive? Of course not. The topic is my DOG, not the travel arrangements, so believing everyone left, as they usually did, doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Jung was a first party witness to the FACT Skean was left behind and by whom. So, to say it again, if you do not believe Jung, then you absolutely cannot believe Lindbergh. You cannot have it both ways. Fact is, if this manuscript was written EXACTLY the same EXCEPT to say Skean was at the Vet's office, you'd be shouting it from the rooftops. Just admit it Dude and don't be a hypocrite. And for me, if that was the case, I wouldn't even bring up his absence because it would be settled. I'd want to know why he was there, but the fact that he was wouldn't be an issue. See the difference?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 21, 2023 10:46:14 GMT -5
You’re offering two opposing points of view here in your first two sentences and only the second one is correct. Why are you asking what the issue here is when you’ve just accepted what it is? Yes, Junge was mistaken about Lindbergh’s travels on Saturday, February 27, 1932, when she declared, he had travelled to Highfields with Anne and Charlie. It’s a flawed recollection on her part which by its very content and the logistics involved makes it unreasonable for her to unequivocally conclude that Charles Lindbergh “left Skean behind.” Buying her statement at face value as you apparently have, is not only a naïve and novice interpretation but at worst, demonstrates a clear lack of interest on your part in understanding the whole truth behind this event.
I noticed you avoided my point about Lindbergh's testimony for a second time. The man claimed he didn't know where he was on March 1! If you are going to say Jung's account is invalidated by forgetting the specifics about the trivial part of her story, then you absolutely must invalidate everything Lindbergh testified to as well. Heck, everything he ever said by your measure here. But you do not do that - do you? Nope. So much for this argument against Junge's account. She was there. People wanted to know why Skean wasn't in Hopewell. She knew the answer. And she recorded exactly why. It's a simple fact that you obviously do not enjoy which accounts for all of the irrational resistance to it. I don’t know why Lindbergh didn’t provide more exacting detail about his whereabouts on March 1, 1932 or skipped the NYU Alumni Dinner, but I don’t out of necessity believe he was conspiring to destroy his son at any time during the day! I do know he was a very busy individual who literally threw himself into his work at the Rockefeller Institute with the kind of devotion the average person would have had little familiarity with, and believe he was actively working on a medical procedure involving the washing of blood corpuscles at the time. I also know that Lindbergh truly loved Charlie and would have harboured none of the dark imagery you attempt to associate between him and your own preferred interpretation of his son’s health condition and what he would have most wanted for his future.
Regarding Junge’s superficial and flawed accounting of the issue of Skean on Saturday, February 27, 1932, enjoy your retirement and do not consider moonlighting as a private detective.I have no plans to give up my day job for the foreseeable future. I also think that retirement agrees with you, as I can already detect you’re beginning to loosen the prison wall and concertina wire restrictions you’d previously imposed on your judgment within this case, ie. seeing a criminal under every bed.
Next up, a little party icebreaker here for you. The tree that falls in the forest does not make a sound, if it cannot be heard by man, beast or is registered by means of an audio recording device. Sound waves, like radio waves, require a suitable receiver to render them audible. Sure, the tree might be lying on the ground, but if no man, beast or audio recording device was near enough to actually hear it fall, then it did not make a sound when it fell. Truth, mein freund.
Lindbergh was all ears (no pun) towards any reasonable theory that came to light, as he well should have been. It clearly demonstrates he wanted the case solved, and he wouldn’t have participated in it so actively had he not wanted to know. He also believed in the people that worked for him, but to imply he sheltered and protected them with criminal intent is not only inaccurate, it’s silly. They were all investigated satisfactorily enough to conclude they were innocent of any involvement. Look at Lindbergh’s personal participation in the Violet Sharp interviews. He did nothing to stop Walsh’s interrogation tactics, and simply came away with the belief she was innocent of any criminal wrongdoing relating to Charlie’s kidnapping. You believe the kidnapper(s) had knowledge they shouldn’t have had. It’s a reasonable inference, until you scrutinize each and every specific item that might lead one to that belief. That’s why each and every one needs to be fully explored with as broad a perspective as is possible.. not just through any one researcher’s findings leading to conclusions stated in a book, or series of books. And that’s why I created this thread as the first 'laundry list' item requiring fuller exploration. Next, there's your Lifetime movie script again. Sure, he was "all ears" alright. Meanwhile, he was throwing buckets of water on Richard, stopping the boat searching for his son so he could retrieve Curtis's hat in order to tease him about it, and saying " the hell with it" (searching for his son), " let's play cards." Shall I go on? He protected the Staff. NJSP never checked anyone's shoes working in that house against the prints they found. Why? They took Lindbergh's word for it. Gow screamed out " I was promised I wouldn't be touched!" Who promised? " Lindbergh." Police wanted lie detectors for them. Lindbergh said no. Once again, there's another laundry list to consider. Here’s some breaking news for you, Michael. Lindbergh could at times be an irrepressible moron and boor behind that bright and shiny suit of hero armour. He began exhibiting this strange kind of behaviour from an earlier age and it basically stuck with him all his life. A psychiatrist might consider this an unnatural form of stress release, given his seeming inability to demonstrate appropriate and more socially acceptable emotional responses to situations we might take for granted. Sorry, but none of this makes him a murderer. Don’t stop trying though... it’s always great entertainment. Just let me know if you ever want to take any of these points, including your preferred interpretation of Gow shouting she was promised "she wouldn't be touched", for the purposes of carrying on a further and intelligent debate.
And next, Lindbergh had no business requiring himself to be at these interviews. If you think that makes him look innocent, well, that speaks for itself. If Sharp suspected (or knew) something that pointed to something Lindbergh would consider unfavorable, do you think she's say it in front of the man? His presence was either intimidating or reassuring. Neither have a place in an investigation like this. Nowadays, he would have been considered a suspect and treated as such. There's a reason for that Joe. I believe Lindbergh’s presence at the Sharp interviews most likely came about due to the information he was receiving from investigators, in that they truly felt they really were on to something with Sharp. Perhaps it was their way of allowing Lindbergh to personally experience that yes, it was possible that the kidnapper(s) had access to inside information from one or both of the households. I’m not saying every investigator felt the same way and I’m sure some of them wished he’d just butted out of the case in general. Pretty difficult for that to have happened though, given his public stature and personal desire to be part of the case solution. Walsh and Keaten were both obviously jealous and put out by the close relationship that developed between Schwarzkopf, Lindbergh and Breckinridge. Should this close relationship among the three colonels have been allowed to develop? No, but who at the time was going to stop it from happening? And Walsh was just doing what he did best in the case of Sharp (and Condon) by barking up the wrong tree.
|
|