Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 21, 2023 10:58:14 GMT -5
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. In your mind it is, perhaps. Before you call me out for caring too much about what you have to say, I’ll just add here that those two examples you’ve just given, are meaningless to the subject of Anne having decided for herself to keep herself and Charlie at Highfields on the Monday and Tuesday evenings. This is your simple cause and effect process being both universally and erratically applied and little more.
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. How so?
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? Yes. For all the criminal detection capability you claim to possess, for the most part, you seem to routinely overlook what the real culprit Richard Hauptmann was truly capable of and what the circumstantial physical evidence clearly demonstrates as his domain. The best you seem to do here is to split hairs. And that’s not even addressing the gross unlikelihood that Charles Lindbergh, given the massive scope of expected response and involvement of agencies ranging from the local sheriff up to and including the office of the President of the United States, would have ever considered such a hare-brained scheme as a fake kidnapping for a son he had absolutely no reason to want to “destroy”. It's just headshaking stuff really..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. This is not a regular ladder, and the builder of this ladder would have had firsthand knowledge as to how it would have to be progressively maneuvered from horizontal to vertical position, to ensure it remained “locked” and did not “scissor. It’s exactly the way Kelvin Keraga, a very accomplished carpenter, did it both times. From start to finish, it took less than about a minute.
Dowel pins to lock two or all three sections with rungs face down on the ground. Grab left (true right) lower rail about half way point with left hand. Grab the overlap of first and second sections of right side rails (true left) with right hand and begin to raise the entire structure while keeping the ladder from rotating over 90 degrees counter-clockwise. Contact wall of house ‘target area’ with top (true right) rail tip and keeping forward pressure, rotate entire structure counter-clockwise until top (true left) tip softly contacts wall. Position and firm up base. Not complicated but it does take a defined process.
Regarding your conclusion that all of this happened while the kidnapper(s) for some yet-to-be-determined reason, felt they were required to perch precariously on one width of tongue-and-groove flooring while trying to do the above, demonstrates that you haven’t yet grasped the true condition of the ground below the nursery south-east corner window.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 21, 2023 11:08:56 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? Can someone else perhaps chime in here and provide their impressions of Marguerite Junge's accounting of events relating to the Lindbergh travel plans of Saturday, February 27, 1932 and Skean's ultimate absence from Charlie's nursery? I'm not snubbing you here Michael, but I am interested in hearing other perspectives beyond one person's interpretation of another's flawed personal accounting of this event.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 21, 2023 11:26:49 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. Yes, four books and maybe four or even a dozen more of the same to come.. it reminds me a bit of the runner who always travels half of the remaining distance to the finish line, ie. he never gets there. Look, I'm not knocking the level or conscientious dedication of your research, but there's probably a veritable mountain of police reports you've read and haven't even yet considered writing about yet. Bottom line: Is there anything out there that demonstrates conclusively that Charles Lindbergh conspired to "destroy" his son? And please don't say you're just keeping us hungry for more, while conspiring to drop the real bombshell in Volume 17!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. I applaud you here. I'm actually going through the process of weaning myself off both now. Maybe cold turkey is better. Not so easy to escape either one though because they're just about everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 21, 2023 12:53:56 GMT -5
Joe or Michael, could you provide a link to Marguerite Junge's autobiography? Is there anything else that she writes about where her version of events is questionable? My impression of her was that the family found her a bit too talkative and opinionated, didn't she once get let go because of this, or am I mistaken?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 21, 2023 13:19:58 GMT -5
Joe or Michael, could you provide a link to Marguerite Junge's autobiography? Is there anything else that she writes about where her version of events is questionable? My impression of her was that the family found her a bit too talkative and opinionated, didn't she once get let go because of this, or am I mistaken? Hi Norma, I can well understand how anyone would have found Marguerite Junge talkative and even verbose, based on her writing style. Here it is. Information on the kidnapping begins on page 10 and unfortunately ends abruptly at page 11. Margeurite Junge Unpublished Manuscript.pdf (871.13 KB)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 21, 2023 19:42:39 GMT -5
Yes, four books and maybe four or even a dozen more of the same to come.. it reminds me a bit of the runner who always travels half of the remaining distance to the finish line, ie. he never gets there. Look, I'm not knocking the level or conscientious dedication of your research, but there's probably a veritable mountain of police reports you've read and haven't even yet considered writing about yet. Bottom line: Is there anything out there that demonstrates conclusively that Charles Lindbergh conspired to "destroy" his son? And please don't say you're just keeping us hungry for more, while conspiring to drop the real bombshell in Volume 17! There are four volumes of books to read. I cannot post all of what I've written because, that's why I wrote them in the first place. There's quite a bit of information that you clearly resist, not because it isn't important, but because of what you wrote above. Anything that points in Lindbergh's direction you resist or ignore. Or, if you think I believe it does, then you treat it the same way. And so, spoon feeding you will not help. We've just been through weeks of "debate" over something that, like I wrote earlier, you would have embraced IF Jung recounted things the way you would have "liked." I cannot compete with this type of mentality. The bottom line is there is a totality of evidence which shows there were multiple people involved and at least one person on the inside. Wolfe, as just one small example, was suspicious of Gow's behavior on the night in question. And who was telling Gow to keep her mouth shut? Conclusive, no, suspicious - YES. You, of course, will shrug it off. Then there's Gow yelling out that "Lindbergh" said she "wouldn't be touched." Again, very suspicious. Of course, once again, you won't think so and come up with some cockamamie excuse to "explain" it away. But you see, these things ADD UP. There aren't just two, there are many more. One may not come to the conclusion I have, but they must first read everything without the type of clear bias you possess. So no, I don't expect anything would make a difference to you. Jesus Christ himself could resurrect again and tell you he was involved and you'd still engage in your beer & pretzel routine. I applaud you here. I'm actually going through the process of weaning myself off both now. Maybe cold turkey is better. Not so easy to escape either one though because they're just about everywhere. It's hard at first until you start seeing the results. Results, by the way, that are almost immediate. Anyway, Splenda taste just like sugar and if it caused cancer I'd be dead already.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 21, 2023 19:47:21 GMT -5
Can someone else perhaps chime in here and provide their impressions of Marguerite Junge's accounting of events relating to the Lindbergh travel plans of Saturday, February 27, 1932 and Skean's ultimate absence from Charlie's nursery? I'm not snubbing you here Michael, but I am interested in hearing other perspectives beyond one person's interpretation of another's flawed personal accounting of this event. No need to snub, just admit that if her version supported that the dog was at the Vet's office you'd hold a drastically different position about Jung's account. We both know you would.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 21, 2023 20:02:39 GMT -5
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. You don't "know" why? Okay, that's a start I guess.... Seem to be taking it easy on him aren't you? He testified he did not recall. According to your "rule" applied to Jung, that's it for believing him. You are getting things twisted up, again, all because you see it leading to the accusation against him. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, stop doing that! Look at it for what it is. Stop pretending you wouldn't treat it differently depending upon the implications. That is EXACTLY what you are doing. Thus, one standard for the things you do not "like" and a different one for those you do. One for people you like and a different one for those you do not. I believe you know exactly what you are doing but in the off chance you don't then take a step back and think about it. 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. If that makes you feel better about your flawed reasoning then "okay." I've already been asked to look at other stuff concerning other cases but I'll tell them "no." 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. There it is again Joe. Everything is based upon the theory with you. It's what absolutely dictates how you will approach everything. 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.
It was Lindbergh's rule during the investigation that he was running. Next, you are trying to eliminate what two of the most informed investigators were saying. And why are you singling out these specific two? You are doing it again Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 21, 2023 20:06:48 GMT -5
Regarding your conclusion that all of this happened while the kidnapper(s) for some yet-to-be-determined reason, felt they were required to perch precariously on one width of tongue-and-groove flooring while trying to do the above, demonstrates that you haven’t yet grasped the true condition of the ground below the nursery south-east corner window. Actually Joe, you have no clue as I have previously proven.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 22, 2023 15:49:25 GMT -5
“Fools rush in………” Joe’s invitation for others to chime in with their opinions on Skean’s absence acknowledges that for at least three months there has been very little contribution to this almost daily debate other than that from the two protagonists. Whether Skean’s absence was deliberate or accidental is indeed an important point and the relative lack of contribution from others is puzzling. But is it? The debate began with each side giving their respective opinion with supporting evidence. However it now seems to be turning in circles with the same arguments being advanced by each side, spiced up with liberal interpretations of the other’s motives, personality and psychology. It has become a contest between contributors rather than between contributions.
This may account for others preferring to “Let them fight it out” rather than engaging themselves.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Jan 22, 2023 20:16:29 GMT -5
Sherlock, you are correct in your assessment. I suspect that the argument is staged and made to call attention to the Board when interest is fading, and the two adversaries post their contrary argument to call attention to the Board and increase the number of readers/members. I also note that items that might be of importance are often ignored and the sparring simply goes on.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 22, 2023 20:46:54 GMT -5
Sherlock, you are correct in your assessment. I suspect that the argument is staged and made to call attention to the Board when interest is fading, and the two adversaries post their contrary argument to call attention to the Board and increase the number of readers/members. I also note that items that might be of importance are often ignored and the sparring simply goes on. There's nothing going on to recruit membership. Next, everyone is welcome to post whenever and whatever they like (with a few exceptions). I mean, you just proved it by your post above - right? No one has restricted your views in any way so feel free to continue.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 22, 2023 21:04:54 GMT -5
“Fools rush in………” Joe’s invitation for others to chime in with their opinions on Skean’s absence acknowledges that for at least three months there has been very little contribution to this almost daily debate other than that from the two protagonists. Whether Skean’s absence was deliberate or accidental is indeed an important point and the relative lack of contribution from others is puzzling. But is it? The debate began with each side giving their respective opinion with supporting evidence. However it now seems to be turning in circles with the same arguments being advanced by each side, spiced up with liberal interpretations of the other’s motives, personality and psychology. It has become a contest between contributors rather than between contributions. This may account for others preferring to “Let them fight it out” rather than engaging themselves. I wholeheartedly agree that I've been repeating myself. Unfortunately, I feel like I must when my points are ignored or "forgotten" about and the debate continues like they were never mentioned. And so, I can't allow the debate to continue in that way which forces me to repeat myself. Joe and I have been going round and round for years so I'm sure nobody is afraid to say whatever they think or feel, but if they are they shouldn't be. We "talk" to each other in a way that we would never do with anyone else. Next, I am quite glad to see you say that you believe Skean's absence is important. I feel the same way. It's but just one "cog" in a wheel of about a hundred of them. Just look at how Lindbergh acted after receiving the Boad Nelly note telling him where to find his son. They get on the plane and he switches the wiring so that when Breckinridge was piloting the plane it turned right when he wanted to go left and ascend when he wanted to descend. Sorry, but the purpose of the flight was to find his child, but he's obstructing the search by pulling pranks like this. And it is beyond inappropriate. He's not acting like a frantic concerned father, as Joe would have you believe through his fictional countless descriptions depicting him as such. Instead, he's acting like he knows the child won't be found so he's looking to entertain himself as he goes through the motions. And what's worse, he did it time and time again and again when he was with Curtis. First and foremost when he rejected a plane search despite the fact it would cover more ground. No, he wanted a boat ride on which he pulled "prank" after "prank" victimizing everyone who was supposed to be there to assist him in finding his son. Can anyone imagine a father searching for his kidnapped son saying " to hell with it, let's play cards" (??!!) It's indefensible and a clear indication that something else is going on. Exactly what is debatable as one considers each event or fact on its own, but once all are piled up and considered in their totality, it's a hard one to get around. Lastly, one of Joe's main tactics is to label anyone who sees this stuff, as believing Lindbergh "murdered" his own son. And yet, and I've said this repeatedly as well, there are several variations to ANY theory involving Lindbergh. Personally, I believe it was "sold" as the kid being taken away to a home or something in order to get everyone on board who was needed to be. But I also see an Eugenicist, who mistreated his pregnant wife who was terrified to say anything to him during that cross country flight. If he's willing to subject his wife to unconscionable behavior like this under the circumstances, I have no problem at all believing, if he thought his son was "defective" in some way, to treat him similarly. It's all right there. Of course that doesn't prove he did, but denying, ignoring, "forgetting," or making up cockamamie excuses for it ALL seems silly to me. Anyway, that's where I'm at and I hope everyone feels free to express whatever is on their minds. That's what this Board was designed for.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 23, 2023 8:46:13 GMT -5
Hi Michael, I hesitated before posting the above but I’m pleased that my comments were received as constructive, not wishing to offend anyone.
If we survey the kidnapping epidemic of the early 1930s virtually all the cases follow a pattern. We have a normal well-to-do family going about their daily business, dad is going to work, the kids to school, mum and the servants at home making cherry pie etc. There is nothing in the family circumstances which is any different from a thousand other days preceding the kidnap. Also the behaviour of the parents is as one would expect following a child abduction: they follow the advice of the police and don’t interfere.
The Lindbergh case is almost unique in that non of the above applies. This case is peppered with one-off events and inappropriate behaviour both before and after the abduction as detailed in your posting. While any single one of these may be innocent, it is stretching the laws of probability to breaking point to believe they are all unrelated to the child’s disappearance in some way. There are just too many of them to be explained away.
Likewise, the guilt of Hauptmann depends on him having astounding good luck in negotiating the many obstacles to success: choosing the right day, time, knowledge of the child’s location, entering the nursery from a rickety ladder without making a sound, escaping undetected etc. etc. Again: the laws of probability.
For me, the only way to reconcile these coincidences is for Lindbergh to be at one end of the chain of command, insulated from getting his hands dirty and Hauptmann to be at the other end. He is the hands-on abductor for whom everything has been fixed to make entry and departure of the nursery problem-free. The need for good luck disappears. Hauptmann is told an insider has kept the path clear and has been paid off. He is told the child is drugged and will not awaken. In fact the child has already been killed humanely (morphine?) He believes it is a genuine kidnap for ransom. He goes ahead anyway to extort the cash.
Yes, there are objections to this scenario. It is however an attempt to bridge the “either it was Lindy or Bruno” deadlock which has plagued this case for far too long.
Best regards,
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 23, 2023 15:31:07 GMT -5
Well, I'll chime in. Reading Marguerite Jung's overly verbose and effusive description of the family members and the kidnapping, it's almost hard to take her account seriously. Five years after the kidnapping, she states that it was Lindbergh who left Skean behind, and it may have happened that way, but there certainly were other opportunities for Skean to get there with other household members. Her account is not something I would hang my hat on.
She certainly liked Mr. Morrow, my goodness! Does anyone know why she was writing this, and why she stopped?
Thanks Joe, for the link.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 23, 2023 17:38:14 GMT -5
First and foremost, everyone else please join in this discussion. I don't want to be 'that guy' in the Supermarket who is an Express Lane hog. I know I'm not the only one with an opinion and it's important to see what everyone else thinks. Well, I'll chime in. Reading Marguerite Jung's overly verbose and effusive description of the family members and the kidnapping, it's almost hard to take her account seriously. Five years after the kidnapping, she states that it was Lindbergh who left Skean behind, and it may have happened that way, but there certainly were other opportunities for Skean to get there with other household members. Her account is not something I would hang my hat on. I'm glad you did. With all due respect to Joe, I find your perspective more grounded in reason and less in emotion. It's for this reason I need to pick your brain if you don't mind... Do you believe Jung forgot/misremembered or was lying? If lying, what's the motivation? And there's two parts to this: Motivation to make up the reason and motivation not to offer the real reason. Next, if lying is the reason, why such an innocuous story? Last one on this ... why would she think it wouldn't be challenged or that she wouldn't be called out if this fabrication was ever published? Next, if one decides not to believe her story, now we are back to square one. Okay, so being there, what happened? We couldn't know. But what we do know is that all the rules surrounding the family were dictated by Lindbergh. So, for me, that strongly suggests he was most likely behind the decision to leave him behind. And even so, it could have been for a very simple reason, like the one Jung offered. Right? So even if the guy was the "master mind" behind the crime, it's unlikely he'd say he was going to leave the dog behind for that reason. And if he's not behind it, and an actual victim, then he's leaving him behind for what other reason? Well, the dog wasn't back in time. Sounds reasonable to me. So let's skip ahead to this other reason that Joe first offered and you appear to agree with. Well, I agree too. There were several opportunities to bring him down, even after Lindbergh decided he didn't want to wait for his return from his walk. I say that because I believe Jung's account. For me, this is further proof that Lindbergh didn't care to have him brought down - whether Jung's story was legit or wasn't is of no consequence to this end. Again, this is the guy who set the rules, so if he wanted Skean brought to Highfields he certainly would have been. Clearly, this doesn't mean there's anything nefarious. Lindbergh could have cared less one way or the other, but it does not invalidate my point - does it? She certainly liked Mr. Morrow, my goodness! Does anyone know why she was writing this, and why she stopped? This "manuscript" was donated by Dick Anderson. His wife is Jung's niece I believe. I remember him saying no one knew why it was never finished. He's a member of this Board, but I haven't seen him post in quite some time. If you run a search on Jung, you might be able to locate his posts about it as well as some other information relating to the Jungs.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 23, 2023 18:10:07 GMT -5
Oh, I don't think she's lying, and it may well have happened just as she said, but she did write this 5 years later. After reading her memoir, I don't think you can conclude that it was Lindbergh's edict that Skean not be there for the entire weekend. I think you jump from something that was simply Lindbergh could not be bothered to wait to this nefarious intent to keep the dog away just from Jung's flowery account.
What if someone, say Ellerson, had actually brought Skean down with him? Don't you think that if there was inside help they would have just kept him in the kitchen while the kidnap occurred?
Thanks, Michael, I'll try and do that search.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 23, 2023 20:37:35 GMT -5
Oh, I don't think she's lying, and it may well have happened just as she said, but she did write this 5 years later. After reading her memoir, I don't think you can conclude that it was Lindbergh's edict that Skean not be there for the entire weekend. I think you jump from something that was simply Lindbergh could not be bothered to wait to this nefarious intent to keep the dog away just from Jung's flowery account. What if someone, say Ellerson, had actually brought Skean down with him? Don't you think that if there was inside help they would have just kept him in the kitchen while the kidnap occurred? Thanks for getting back to me Norma. No, I'm not concluding a Lindbergh edict based on Jung's account. I am basing it on my research into his behavior. He ran the show concerning his family, just like he ran the investigation. Can you imagine anyone else telling the police, they couldn't be in a certain area of the Bronx during the ransom payoff? I've got it somewhere that he actually "forbid" them from going past a certain street. He literally restricted an entire Police force from many city blocks - and they complied. Or how about that they couldn't watch certain mailboxes? Or when he went with Curtis they couldn't come along? Then we look at Nurse Coppin. By all accounts, she was a very good nurse. But she refused to change to Lindbergh's methods so she was dismissed. It didn't matter that the child was improving under her care. I've given the example of the dead seagull. All those Staff members who must have walked past it. Doesn't make sense UNLESS Lindbergh is in the equation, after which it makes perfect sense. So yes Ellerson could have brought down Skean. I submit he absolutely would have, beyond any and all doubt, if Lindbergh requested this be done. Without it, he's there and there's no directive to do it. I can't imagine anyone, who knows the dog was left behind by Lindbergh, to have done something like that without request or permission. Any ideas about what to do with him if someone brought him down without being requested to do so is a moot point as it relates to Jung's story. The discussion can move to this scenario, as to what would have happened to Skean if that occurred. I'm looking at it that Lindbergh left him behind as being step one to this situation. All the "what ifs" don't exist because he wasn't brought down. Seems like a rather easy solution to me. Then again, it could all have been coincidence - along with everything else just as Sherlock suggested.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 24, 2023 11:26:32 GMT -5
First of all, thanks Sherlock for stepping in here with your fair and constructive criticism. This discussion board has always been a great place for a ready and interesting exchange of facts and insights by members clearly engaged in seeking truthful answers to an amazingly enduring mystery. It can definitely stagnate though and even get tedious at times for a number of content reasons, not the least of which is the one you’ve identified. What happened recently reminds me a bit of a hockey game, where regular play is suddenly interrupted by two combatants who then proceed to go toe to toe, hammering each other silly. The game basically comes to a stop, until they wear each other out, the referees step in, or a combination of both.
I’m certainly not against playing this game with a degree of passion and heart, but I’ve always believed a logical and rational approach will more often than not, produce the most satisfactory results while keeping overall group engagement strong and the ideas flowing. As much as this case is still feeling the effects of the Scaduto/Kennedy/A&M period where Richard Hauptmann was seemingly transformed from noteworthy villain into a kind of cult scapegoat hero figure, I do believe it’s been slowly and deliberately ratcheting positively forward again over the past forty years.
Up to and including its time, the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case stood absolutely alone in the amount of exposure and scrutiny it received by an army of investigators, government agencies, the tabloid press and most everyone in the civilized world. There were literally no stones unturned towards finding the perpetrators. Simply put, this case, often through investigative incompetence, exposed almost everyone who had even a slight brush with it and even those who didn’t, for better but mainly worse. As such, it produced more documentation than any one person could reasonably consume, attempt to digest and offer for consideration. That is, until Michael came along. No disrespect intended here, but I’ve often noted he could quite easily fill another dozen or so volumes to his Dark Corners series and still not be done. Despite the depth and excellence of his research efforts, I believe the basic problem here continues to be sorting through what is quite often a mountain of hay for needles that are actually meaningful. I also think it’s fitting for this recent discussion to be taking place in this very thread, “Skean’s Absence from Charlie’s Nursery.” I began this thread in an attempt to effectively address the proliferation of what I’ve referred to as “laundry lists” often appearing on this discussion board, and which tend to suggest that Charles Lindbergh, for whatever reason, somehow conspired in a chain leading down to Richard Hauptmann, for the elimination of his first-born son from his and the lives of everyone else surrounding him. Charlie's real health situation is another single thread I'd love to see covered with full disclosure and objectivity. By focusing on just one of these common items at a time and drilling down into it until it can’t be logically and rationally exposed and discussed any further, I’d like to believe will eventually provide the kind of answers that are incontrovertible, inarguable and unanswerable. At the very least, they can be individually ratcheted forward to the best possible position for future discussion, when more additive information is uncovered.
From the one documented account we have on this subject, Marguerite Junge’s unpublished manuscript, it seems clear that she was not able to accurately recall the specifics of the Lindbergh travel plans for Saturday, February 27, 1932. Her circa 1937 recollection of Charles, Anne and Charlie leaving Next Day Hill as a family unit is in part, categorically incorrect. In fact:
*** Charles left earlier that day on his own for the Rockefeller Institute, before traveling to the Breckinridge’s apartment, where he visited and then departed with them for Highfields later that afternoon. He did not travel to Highfields with Anne and Charlie on this particular day.
*** Junge’s account appears to be the only account which even suggests that Skean was “out for a walk” and therefore, missed this specific weekend trip to Highfields. Was he actually out walking or was he unavailable for another reason?
*** Anne, Alva Root and Charlie were driven to Highfields by Henry Ellerson on the Saturday afternoon. Anne could have brought Skean with them, if he had been available then.
*** Betty came out to Highfields on the following Tuesday afternoon and could also have brought Skean with her, if he had been available.
The real question here appears to be, was Skean even available at all to be with Charlie, between Saturday, February 27 and Tuesday, March 1, 1932? Further, was it even considered to be important enough for Skean to be at Highfields? Certainly his absence was lamented after the kidnapping, but was this simply a case of 20/20 hindsight? I’m not certain, but I’ve always believed Junge’s recollection may quite possibly represent a kind of anecdotal remembrance only on her part, one along the lines of other weekends where she may have personally witnessed the family departing for Highfields with Skean very much in tow. Anne’s diary entry that the kidnapping may never have occurred indicates to me she may have felt personally responsible in some way for Skean’s untimely absence. In any case, I highly doubt she’s taking a shot at her husband here, if she felt he had had anything to do at all with deliberately ensuring Skean didn’t make the journey this time, or ordering people not to bring him, as has been speculated here.
Finally, I believe there is still much fertile ground remaining here for meaningful and further collaborative discussion, as opposed to what appears to be by some, full and rigid adherence towards one unsubstantiated recollection of an individual who we don’t even know for certain, personally eyewitnessed this history-shaping event.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 24, 2023 13:46:16 GMT -5
I am going to have to repeat myself again unfortunately. The topic everyone was asking about was why Skean was left behind. I have multiple letters to Governor Hoffman, J. Edgar Hoover, Schwarzkopf, etc. etc. posing this question. Various Newspaper reports and Detective Magazine asked within the pages of their articles on this case as well. I submit this is what prompted Jung to write about it within her manuscript because she knew the answer. It's fairly simple. As anyone who read it can see, Jung offers a rather innocuous explanation: Skean was out for a walk, and Lindbergh did not want to wait for him. I believe some may look at this fact to see how it may affect their theory on the case. If it helps, they embrace it. If it harms it, they reject it. I'm asking everyone to look at it without any prejudice or bias and simply on its face. Jung was there. Jung was in a position to have the answer to the question everyone wanted to know. She offers it without any fingers being pointed at anyone for wrongdoing. So what does that mean? Next, there does not seem to be any reason to doubt her account. Actually, there is no reason. This idea that she got the travel arrangements wrong harms nothing about her specific recollection about Skean's whereabouts. And so, she is either making this rather simple explanation up, an explanation that implicates absolutely no one of wrong doing in any way, or she is telling the truth. Again, the main point/topic was why Skean was left behind and not who left with whom. So bringing this up is red herring in my opinion. Again, I have on several occasions asserted that if Jung said that Skean had been at the Vet's office, Joe would have fully embraced her story. Joe has yet to deny it because I think that's obvious at this point. So again, in order to get to the bottom of anything, one's theory cannot interfere in this way. As Norma pointed out above, to paraphrase, Jung may have been telling the truth, but that doesn't mean Lindbergh was involved in the crime. Exactly. The first step isn't to evaluate the value of the evidence as it pertains to a particular theory, but to first determine the likelihood if its true or not. After making that determination, THEN apply it to see where it might lead. Next, this idea that many people could have brought him down to Highfields, ex post facto, is absolutely true. All the more reason to ask why they did not. Here, this fact is being used to neutralize one thing when it actually assists in helping to prove it. Lindbergh set the rules. Lindbergh was in charge of his family's affairs. If Jung knew that Lindbergh left Skean behind, you had better believe it was known to everyone else. This idea that Gow, Ellerson, or anyone else would be proactive in bringing him down without a request or permission would never happen. It's a fairy tale to suggest otherwise. In any case, I highly doubt she’s taking a shot at her husband here, if she felt he had had anything to do at all with deliberately ensuring Skean didn’t make the journey this time, or ordering people not to bring him, as has been speculated here. I think this is part of the problem... No where in ANY of my posts did I say Lindbergh ORDERED people not to bring Skean down. I'm not sure if this is a tactic or a lack of basic reading comprehension skills. It's frustrating, especially when I have to constantly repeat myself either from previous posts or from my books to now correct things I never even said. There would be no need for Lindbergh to tell someone NOT to do something if he wasn't telling them TO do something. In the middle of everyone's joy, Betty Morrow experienced a moment of terror. As she whispered to Charles that she would get a sharper knife, he grabbed her by the wrist and growled "No! No!" in a tone she had never heard before and never forget. He managed to hack through the cake, and pieces were passed around. (Berg P202) This is who Lindbergh was. If he was treating Mrs. Morrow like this, who in their right mind would believe a Staff member would take the initiative to bring Skean down without permission? In the end, someone who was THERE gave us an account as to exactly why Skean was left behind. She didn't say Anne left him, and if she did, there wouldn't even be a debate because, again, Joe would like that reason. Next, is it a "reasonable" explanation? Of course it is. Does it implicate anyone of wrong doing? No. And there was a household of people to dispute it if this manuscript was ever published. So what's the issue? Well, the issue is the theory it could potentially support. A theory Jung obviously did not have in mind when she wrote this, in fact, she appears to be providing an explanation that would protect them as she offers up the innocent reason that Skean was merely out for a walk. So, it seems clear to me what's going on here and why there is any resistance to it at all - and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with Jung.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 24, 2023 14:46:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 25, 2023 5:06:30 GMT -5
The potential reasons why Skean was not brought to Highfields are covered elsewhere. But what does his absence from Charlie’s nursery indicate? A dog will often react by barking at an unfamiliar figure but would not react to staff or family members which it sees and smells on a daily basis. So if Skean’s absence was deliberate it may indicate that a foreign (as in non-staff or family) person was expected to lift the child from the crib as opposed to someone who Skean was familiar with. This also precludes scenarios like Ms Gow handing the child out of the window to someone on the ladder. Something most unlikely anyway if the illusion of a real kidnap was to be maintained.
One thing is for sure: if Skean’s presence was wanted but as he had gone for a walk Lindbergh had to leave him behind, instructions would be given to bring him to Highfields when he returned, or the next day. No such instruction was given and I strongly agree that no servant would act on their own initiative and bring the dog anyway. So if it was accidental, it could have been easily rectified. It wasn’t.
Both family and staff had to get the green light from Lindbergh before they could scratch their back.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 25, 2023 7:58:00 GMT -5
The potential reasons why Skean was not brought to Highfields are covered elsewhere. But what does his absence from Charlie’s nursery indicate? A dog will often react by barking at an unfamiliar figure but would not react to staff or family members which it sees and smells on a daily basis. So if Skean’s absence was deliberate it may indicate that a foreign (as in non-staff or family) person was expected to lift the child from the crib as opposed to someone who Skean was familiar with. This also precludes scenarios like Ms Gow handing the child out of the window to someone on the ladder. Something most unlikely anyway if the illusion of a real kidnap was to be maintained. One thing is for sure: if Skean’s presence was wanted but as he had gone for a walk Lindbergh had to leave him behind, instructions would be given to bring him to Highfields when he returned, or the next day. No such instruction was given and I strongly agree that no servant would act on their own initiative and bring the dog anyway. So if it was accidental, it could have been easily rectified. It wasn’t. Both family and staff had to get the green light from Lindbergh before they could scratch their back. Sherlock, I think you've missed an important consideration here in your synopsis. Firstly though, would you be kind enough to perhaps rewrite your sentence following “One thing is for sure:” so that it’s clear? Most importantly, do you realize that Charles Lindbergh was not even present at Next Day Hill at the time Anne, Alva Root and Charlie were driven to Highfields by Ellerson? Lindbergh would then have been somewhere travelling solo between the Rockefeller Institute and the Breckinridge apartment, before going on to Highfields with Henry and Aida. Why would you suggest that Lindbergh had left Skean behind when he was not even there to have acted on the matter one way or another? I believe that like Michael, you’re attempting to conclude something here, by beginning with a flawed assertion, based upon one flawed recollection which was recorded five years after the fact. A question for you: Have you considered that Skean's presence in the nursery may not have even been generally thought of as a critical element towards Charlie's safety and security, before he was kidnapped?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 25, 2023 9:39:33 GMT -5
If Joe's timeline is correct then I submit that Junge is simply misremembering the events from five years previously. Does anyone dispute this timeline? Did Anne and Charlie leave for Highfields around the same time that Lindbergh left for New York?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 25, 2023 10:04:07 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I enjoyed your analogy of the hockey game with two players going toe to toe - spot on! Here's a re-write: Suppose Skean wasn't taken to Highfields because he (Skean) had gone for a walk. But the intention had been to take him. This could be rectified by a staff member bringing Skean to Highfields when he (Skean) was available. But no staff member would do this on their own initiative without knowing Lindbergh's opinion on the matter. A simple phone call to Highfields after CAL arrived there with Henry and Aida would be all that was needed. Also CAL didn't call Next Day Hill to order Skean's transport to Highfields. CAL wasn't at Next Day Hill so, you're quite right, my "Lindbergh had to leave him behind" is misleading. I also agree that Skean's presence may not have been considered essential for the child's safety which would explain why nobody took action to get him to Highfields. Ms Lindbergh's contrary post-facto opinion on this is well known. As I wrote earlier, the case is plagued with "convenient coincidences" and while some of them may have innocent explanations, including this one, it is a stretch for me to explain them all away. P.S. I'm not trying to conclude something based on a flawed assertion/recollection written five years later. Believe me: I haven't even read Ms Jung's paper. Regards, Sherlock
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 25, 2023 10:27:43 GMT -5
If Joe's timeline is correct then I submit that Junge is simply misremembering the events from five years previously. Does anyone dispute this timeline? Did Anne and Charlie leave for Highfields around the same time that Lindbergh left for New York? Norma, my understanding is that Lindbergh drove alone to the Rockefeller Institute on Saturday morning. The work he was doing at the time involved a procedure for the washing of blood corpuscles, in relation to the work he was doing on his perfusion apparatus. According to Aida Breckinridge, Lindbergh arrived at their apartment from the Institute “shortly after luncheon,” apparently earlier than he had been expected, So, unless he was basically just in and out of the Institute, I think it’s safe to assume he probably departed Next Day Hill sometime in the mid-morning or earlier. Lindbergh then carried on to Highfields with the Breckinridge's. Anne, Alva Root and Charlie were driven together to Highfields by Henry Ellerson. Anne claims in one of her statements they left Next Day Hill “in the afternoon” and arrived at Highfields “about 5:30 pm.” I agree with your thoughts that Junge in her memoirs, has simply misremembered the events which actually took place on that day.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 25, 2023 12:41:57 GMT -5
If Joe's timeline is correct then I submit that Junge is simply misremembering the events from five years previously. Does anyone dispute this timeline? Did Anne and Charlie leave for Highfields around the same time that Lindbergh left for New York? Norma, my understanding is that Lindbergh drove alone to the Rockefeller Institute on Saturday morning. The work he was doing at the time involved a procedure for the washing of blood corpuscles, in relation to the work he was doing on his perfusion apparatus. According to Aida Breckinridge, Lindbergh arrived at their apartment from the Institute “shortly after luncheon,” apparently earlier than he had been expected, So, unless he was basically just in and out of the Institute, I think it’s safe to assume he probably departed Next Day Hill sometime in the mid-morning or earlier. Lindbergh then carried on to Highfields with the Breckinridge's. Anne, Alva Root and Charlie were driven together to Highfields by Henry Ellerson. Anne claims in one of her statements they left Next Day Hill “in the afternoon” and arrived at Highfields “about 5:30 pm.” I agree with your thoughts that Junge in her memoirs, has simply misremembered the events which actually took place on that day. As anyone can see, Joe's timeline is complete fiction. What he is doing is making what he believes is an "educated" guess based on the Aida Breckinridge statement, something he did previously - and it blew up in his face. Am I the only one who remembers that? There is no source that gives us such a timeline. And Joe doesn't know where Lindbergh went, heck, Lindbergh supposedly didn't remember where he was on March 1 when he testified in January 1935. And yet, Joe never seems to dispute his accounts about anything else which seems extraordinarily hypocritical to me. Furthermore, in March 1933, Lindbergh couldn't even recall if he went to Highfields on Friday or Saturday 2/26 or 2/27. Again, Joe doesn't have a problem with these "mistakes" or "lapses" - just as long as they come from a source he happens to "like." And these are pretty BIG "mistakes" or a HUGE bout of "forgetfulness." Go figure. And so, if Lindbergh cannot recall where he was on this specific weekend, Joe sure as hell can't know either. It's reckless for him to present a theory as if it is a matter of fact but I can't tell him what to do, however, I can correct this stuff, for now, but I must admit it is getting very tiresome. Next, again, here is what the Aida Breckinridge statement says: Right after luncheon on Saturday, Slim came over to our apartment, earlier than he had expected, from the Rockefeller Institute, and somewhere around four o'clock, a little ahead of our schedule as I remember, he drove us down to Hopewell. So let's ask some questions any normal researcher would: Why did Lindbergh come early? What was Aida's source that Lindbergh came directly from Rockefeller Institute? Did he merely stop there to pick something up? Is it possible, Lindbergh came from the Morrow Estate? Or, on their way to Hopewell, did Lindbergh stop off at Next Day Hill first before proceeding to his new home? And lastly, maybe she was wrong about what time they left? We don't know, and I'd prefer not to ask Joe to whip out his crystal ball again. Anyway, here is what we DO know... In Anne's March 11th said she claimed to have arrived at Highfields between 5:30PM and 6:00PM. In her March 13th statement she claimed Lindbergh arrived while she was washing dishes in the baby's bathroom around 7:30PM. If that is true, and he left directly from the City to Hopewell at 4PM, it took Lindbergh 3-1/2 hours to get there. This, of course, destroys Joe's previous assertion that it took about, what did he say, an hour to an hour and and half? So he merely ignores it, and attmepts to have his cake and eat it to all the while avoiding the real possibility Aida was "mistaken" about that 4PM timing. Clearly, everyone can be wrong about something, sometimes even something important, but that's okay - unless it happens to be Jung, who got something trivial mixed up. And lastly, if Lindbergh had said to Anne that HE would bring Skean, it wouldn't matter what time anyone left. I believe that like Michael, you’re attempting to conclude something here, by beginning with a flawed assertion, based upon one flawed recollection which was recorded five years after the fact. A question for you: Have you considered that Skean's presence in the nursery may not have even been generally thought of as a critical element towards Charlie's safety and security, before he was kidnapped? Joe knows that dogs bark at intruders. Lindbergh grew up with dogs, so he knew it too. Furthermore, Dwight Morrow told Lindbergh if he didn't get security, his son would be kidnapped. 2 + 2 = 4.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 25, 2023 13:27:01 GMT -5
I'll attempt to understand and address your hyperbole later Michael, if I have some free mad time available. Right now, I'd rather be doing my tax return in a tent full of hungry mosquitoes on a hot day as opposed to trying to deal with your latest blast of hysterical and disjointed nonsense. In the meantime, I hope others will try to continue on in a rational and logical manner towards a furthering of the truth in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 25, 2023 16:29:04 GMT -5
I'll attempt to understand and address your hyperbole later Michael, if I have some free mad time available. Right now, I'd rather be doing my tax return in a tent full of hungry mosquitoes on a hot day as opposed to trying to deal with your latest blast of hysterical and disjointed nonsense. In the meantime, I hope others will try to continue on in a rational and logical manner towards a furthering of the truth in this thread. No time except to write this? Well, at least you kept your Magic 8 Ball in the closet this time.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jan 25, 2023 20:34:31 GMT -5
There has been some interesting and excellent observations on this topic by all the contributors. I would just offer a few of my thoughts on it.
The statements of Anne Lindbergh and Aida Breckinridge were given in a relatively short time period after February 27th, 1932 as opposed to Junge's statements made five years later in her unpublished manuscript. We have no real knowledge whether Junge was using information from her diary that she said she started on March 2, 1932 or just using her recollections from five years prior.
Anne states that she arrived at Highfields between 5:30 PM and 6 PM, thus she would have left Next Day Hill sometime around 4 PM that Saturday. Aida Breckinridge states that Charles arrived at her apartment in NYC "right after luncheon" and that they left for Highfields around 4 PM, "a little ahead of schedule". If these statements are accurate, I think that most of us would agree that these statements indicate that Anne left Next Day Hill a number of hours AFTER Charles had departed from the Morrow residence earlier that day and while Charles was still in NYC. If, as Junge related in her manuscript, Charles had left the Morrow residence without Skean because he (Charles) had become impatient with waiting for the dog to return from his "stroll in the park", they why didn't Anne at 4 PM just put the damn dog in the car with her, the child and Alva Root for the straight drive to Highfields? For me the only reasonable explanations to this question would be:
**The dog was still "missing" and not available for Anne to take.
**The dog was having a physical problem and was being taken to a Vet kennel for treatment that weekend as some newspaper(s) had reported.
**Charles had called Anne at some point that midday/afternoon from NYC and told her that he did not have Skean but that he would stop at Next Day Hill on his way to Highfields with the Breckinridges later in the afternoon and pick up the dog.
For me, this last expanation doesn't seem realistic. Even if Charles insisted that he would stop for Skean, he would have no way of knowing whether the dog would be "gone" again or just eagerly sitting there waiting to jump in Lindbergh's vehicle for a trip to Hopewell. If Charles was truly involved in this criminal conspiracy and wanted to leave the dog at Next Day Hill, this return trip to the Morrow's residence would have been a real gamble on his part. Obviously it would have been very easy for Charles to have simply placed something in Skean's treats or food to incapacitate the dog for the weekend and thereby prevent its travel to Highfields.
There is just no excuse as to why the NJSP did not nail down this aspect of the investigation. It is my understanding that all 29 domestic emplyees at Next Day Hill were interviewed by Detectives of the Newark City Police Department, yet it appears that no inquires were made concerning the whereabouts of Skean that weekend. Since it was certainly an investigative concern that someone emplyed at Next Day Hill could have assisted the perpetrators of this crime, one would think that the NJSP would want to determine if any Morrow employee somehow made the dog "unavailable" for transport to Highfields on that weekend of the 27th. As I think someone else here has stated, just another loose end in this investigation that my never be resolved with any satisfaction all due to what I believe to be sloppy investigative work.
|
|