|
Post by Michael on Jan 25, 2023 23:10:43 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a relatively short time period after February 27th, 1932 as opposed to Junge's statements made five years later in her unpublished manuscript.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. Good post Lurp, I was hoping you would jump in here. A couple of points/observations/questions... A lot of this has to do with "ifs," and frankly, we have no choice because of the lack of investigation. Firstly, you are correct that they interviewed all Morrow Staff, many with different investigators. The main questions were about Betty Gow and she was the focus. I'm not sure if it was a case of tunnel vision, or what, but many of these people were never revisited after the focus shifted. Some were after Sharp's suicide, but of course, the questions were about her. The FBI investigated Sharp, and were heavily rebuked by Lindbergh because they were doing so outside of the leadership of Schwarzkopf, and what Schwarzkopf didn't know, Lindbergh didn't know. And so, Lindbergh complained all the way to the President, despite the fact it was due to the FBI investigations that they were actually able to track down Brinkert. As time wore on, the FBI relied on PI T.J. Cooney who had contacts inside the house, one of which was Junge. The FBI later interviewed Junge on several occasions and she was deemed both valuable and competent. Fact is, most of the information on the Staff in the FBI Summary comes from either Cooney or Junge herself. Next, I agree with your assessment that if both Breckinridge and Anne are correct, then Anne left after Lindbergh. While we don't know what time the Breckinridges had lunch, 4PM is a rather specific time. Anne's times are specific as well, making her 7:30PM arrival number all the more important. Again, if they left at 4PM, where did they go before arriving at Highfields? I ask because you didn't address this discrepancy and I'm interested to see what you think. My guess is they stopped somewhere for a good amount of time. However, Breckinridge doesn't mention that so we're left to guess at it. Does it not seem reasonable they returned to Englewood for any number of reasons before making the trip down? Seems to me this cannot be ruled out and it makes sense considering Junge's recollection. Which leads me again to the same point I've made over and over. Why would she lie? Or, how could she be so sure about something she was not actually sure about? It's too specific while at the same time a rather harmless explanation. To me, she's in a position to know AND she obviously believed it or she wouldn't have written it down. So if the dog was at the Vet, it's pretty clear she would have known about it and its just as good an explanation as the one she gives in her "diary" / manuscript. Finally, I think most are straining a little to come up with an explanation as to why no one else brought the dog down. I'll say it again, and I believe this without any hesitation, if Lindbergh said he was going to bring the dog down that would be it. Even if left behind, no one would have taken the initiative to do something Lindbergh had already said he was going to do. There's just too many examples to point to which reveal his personality, traits, rules, and actions concerning certain events. Just look at the wedding example I gave. Mrs. Morrow was almost the equivalent of the Queen of England here in the US. Not quite, but for America pretty darn close. And Lindbergh physically grabbed her by the wrist and yelled at her, angrily ordering her not to do something simple - over what? Because of the perception he couldn't cut the cake with the knife he had. Now imagine how he treated Anne. Now imagine if you're a staff member. There's no one doing anything to upset this guy if they can help it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 26, 2023 10:50:05 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. Lurp, it’s great to see your comments on this subject. Your perspective and objectivity are always very welcome and valuable additions, and I certainly hope it encourages others to join in on this discussion!
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? Aida testified in her statement that Lindbergh had driven earlier that day to the Rockefeller Institute on his own, presumably in the morning and ostensibly to continue work he was actively engaged in there at the time. This does make sense to me considering his arrival at the Breckinridge apartment, according to Aida, occurred “shortly after luncheon.” Even if Lindbergh had driven directly from Next Day Hill to the Breckinridge apartment, I find it very doubtful he would have considered bringing Skean with him, knowing full well Anne would be in a much better position to have Skean accompany her, Charlie and Alva Root later that day. For the above reason, I find Junge’s claim that Lindbergh “couldn’t wait for Skean to return from his walk,” to be of little credence, considering Lindbergh would have had no good or practical reason for bringing the dog with him when he left Next Day Hill alone on the Saturday morning. 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. I’ve also mentioned this point previously. Agreed. Lindbergh, had he harboured any intention to ensure Skean was absent from Charlie’s nursery, would have had no way of knowing if Skean was, or was not, at Next Day Hill if he had swung around there enroute from the Breckinridge apartment. This would have been inordinate risk-taking on his part and would have essentially kaiboshed any plan to aid and abet the kidnapping of his son. From the chronology of the day, it would appear Lindbergh, Henry and Aida left the NYC apartment about the same time that Anne, Charlie and Alva Root left Next Day Hill, around 4:00 pm.
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. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of good information out there relating to Skean’s purported veterinarian visit. As you indicate, the NJSP’s lack of follow through on this aspect of the case is derelict. On the other hand, while 20/20 hindsight clearly revealed the tragedy of Skean not having been in Charlie’s nursery on the night of the kidnapping, that his presence there was not previously considered to have been a critical measure towards Charlie’s safety and security, might well have dictated this “non-event” having been somewhat downplayed. Regardless, it's clear that the newspapers seemingly picked up on the subject of who and where the dogs were much much more than official investigators did! I've also read about the purported veterinarian visit, which I believe occurred in Princeton, but there seems a real dearth of factual information here, even within a full newspapers.com search between the 1930's and 1980's. Most accounts of Skean or "Skeet" seem to simply confuse and put him in the actual role of the Highfields resident dog, Wahgoosh.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Jan 26, 2023 10:58:08 GMT -5
I have been following this conversation with interest. What I am seeing is that the real purpose of this thread is to determine if Skean was actually left behind as a nefarious act on Lindbergh's part or not. Using the various statements/recollections of those persons who would be in a position to have knowledge of these events of February 27, 1932 is all we have to guide us about this. Unfortunately, these same documents can also leave us with issues about the timeline of who was truly where and when. Trying to reconcile these statements/recollections to get a clearer picture is proving to be challenging.
Example: Aida Breckinridge claims on page one of her statement that she arrived at Hopewell in time to see Charlie being put to bed on Saturday, Feb. 27th. That would put the Breckinridges arriving in Hopewell almost on the heels of Anne. Charlie was in bed at 7 p.m. according to Anne's statements. Anne has the Breckinridges arriving after Charlie is in bed. This means Lindbergh arrived with the Breckinridges closer to 7:30. Aida is wrong about her early arrival time or Anne is lying/not recalling correctly the arrival time of Lindbergh and the Breckinridges.
Can we really determine what the truth is since statements do conflict with each other in this way. Aida says she was present for Charlie's bedtime and Anne says she arrived after Charlie had gone to bed. So how can we be really sure what time Lindbergh and the Breckinridges left New York and how this impacts Skean being left behind for any reason?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 26, 2023 11:06:08 GMT -5
I believe there is a good explanation to the issue of the apparent missing few hours between the 4:00 pm time it appears that Lindbergh, Henry and Aida left the Breckinridge NYC apartment and the 7:30 pm time which both Anne and Else Whateley claimed Lindbergh and the Breckinridges arrived at Highfields. I submit that Anne Lindbergh was simply mistaken about the actual time they arrived at Highfields. It was not 7:30 pm, as she and Elsie later claimed, but in the late afternoon, around 5:00 to 5:30 pm, just before or after the arrival of her husband and the Breckinridges.
Here is why:
In her statement, Aida Breckinridge claims that she, Henry and Lindbergh arrived at Highfields on Saturday, February 27, 1932 and were met my Olly Whateley. They were then served his “delicious tea,” which they enjoyed before the fireplace. Afterwards, she and Anne joined Alva who was in the nursery playing with Charlie and his Noah’s Ark, noting that, “he seemed very happy and full of vitality.” After Charlie’s dinner, he was put to bed before Anne, Aida and Alva went downstairs to join Charles and Henry for their own dinner. During dinner and then afterwards in the living room, they talked about politics and the economy. Overall, Aida’s recollection of their arrival and events that took place leading up to their bedtime about 10:30 pm, is precise and detailed, much more so than both Anne’s and Elsie’s comparatively-cursory statements.
I’d even submit that Anne and Elsie possibly agreed ahead of time and quite mistakenly, to peg the time of the arrival of Charles and the Breckinridges at about 7:30 pm, at some point prior to their pending interviews. In any case, a 7:30 pm arrival for Charles and the Breckinridges seems quite doubtful against Aida Breckinridge’s detailed recounting of events and most notably, seeing Charlie still up and about well before his bedtime.
Again, given everything Aida Breckinridge claims to have occurred from the time she arrived at Highfields , I’d submit that everyone probably arrived there at about the same time on Saturday, February 27, ie. somewhere between 5:00–5:30 pm.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2023 12:06:20 GMT -5
I have been following this conversation with interest. What I am seeing is that the real purpose of this thread is to determine if Skean was actually left behind as a nefarious act on Lindbergh's part or not. Using the various statements/recollections of those persons who would be in a position to have knowledge of these events of February 27, 1932 is all we have to guide us about this. Unfortunately, these same documents can also leave us with issues about the timeline of who was truly where and when. Trying to reconcile these statements/recollections to get a clearer picture is proving to be challenging. Example: Aida Breckinridge claims on page one of her statement that she arrived at Hopewell in time to see Charlie being put to bed on Saturday, Feb. 27th. That would put the Breckinridges arriving in Hopewell almost on the heels of Anne. Charlie was in bed at 7 p.m. according to Anne's statements. Anne has the Breckinridges arriving after Charlie is in bed. This means Lindbergh arrived with the Breckinridges closer to 7:30. Aida is wrong about her early arrival time or Anne is lying/not recalling correctly the arrival time of Lindbergh and the Breckinridges. Can we really determine what the truth is since statements do conflict with each other in this way. Aida says she was present for Charlie's bedtime and Anne says she arrived after Charlie had gone to bed. So how can we be really sure what time Lindbergh and the Breckinridges left New York and how this impacts Skean being left behind for any reason? Glad to have you jump in here too because we need everyone's perspectives. Your main point is what is most troubling to me. The discussion should be, first and foremost, why was Skean left behind? The problem is that its the second part that is guiding some to conclude it wasn't Lindbergh. That is crazy to me. It's not how I think, and I cannot grasp the notion of considering where a fact leads before deciding its real or not. It's driving me nuts. What sources do we have? One is a newspaper report and another is an employee in a position to know. What are the odds? Very good that the staff member is correct. And so, if the odds are good what do we have to upset it? Very little. Next, what can be developed from this fact? That's where, I believe, the serious debate should occur. One thing doesn't mean the other, but its the threat of this specific debate that upsets a simple yet basic fact. It goes on all over the place concerning this case and it shouldn't. Next, and this isn't personal Joe, I see various "rules" set forth that aren't applied evenly or consistently. Jung clearly wrote that she was following her diary of " March 2nd 1932" and picked it up 5 years later to refer to in order to write this story. So the information isn't 5 years old. It's right there in black and white. When did Aida Breckinridge right about her recollections? I think Wayne is the only person who might be able to answer this. Aida's recollections are dated to show what she remembered occurred on the days in question and don't strike me as being written down in real time. It reminds me of the Rosner manuscript, which does the same thing, but was written at a much later date. So that needs to be answered if possible. For me, Aida's document is very similar in nature to Junge's but we must also consider that neither was something made to the Police like an actual Statement was. Regardless, both are valuable documents and need to be considered. Mistakes can be made by both and it's important to determine which, if any were. The Jung document, for example, accurately retells a story about an intruder looking in the window of Lindbergh's dining room window. We absolutely know this to be true from other accounts written much later than the Jung manuscript was. Next, this idea to completely eliminate the source, as Joe did, based on her writing the "family" left without the dog, makes little sense to me. She clearly credits Lindbergh for the reason the dog was left behind. Without considering the implications I think everyone would agree it makes sense. He dictated the affairs concerning his family. Again, the obstacle is that I've included it with the MOUNTAIN of other suspicious events and circumstances that point toward Lindbergh's possible involvement. For that, the fact he was responsible for Skean being left behind "must" be eliminated. I believe there is a good explanation to the issue of the apparent missing few hours between the 4:00 pm time it appears that Lindbergh, Henry and Aida left the Breckinridge NYC apartment and the 7:30 pm time which both Anne and Else Whateley claimed Lindbergh and the Breckinridges arrived at Highfields. I submit that Anne Lindbergh was simply mistaken about the actual time they arrived at Highfields. It was not 7:30 pm, as she and Elsie later claimed, but in the late afternoon, around 5:00 to 5:30 pm, just before or after the arrival of her husband and the Breckinridges. Here is why: In her statement, Aida Breckinridge claims that she, Henry and Lindbergh arrived at Highfields on Saturday, February 27, 1932 and were met my Olly Whateley. They were then served his “delicious tea,” which they enjoyed before the fireplace. Afterwards, she and Anne joined Alva who was in the nursery playing with Charlie and his Noah’s Ark, noting that, “he seemed very happy and full of vitality.” After Charlie’s dinner, he was put to bed before Anne, Aida and Alva went downstairs to join Charles and Henry for their own dinner. During dinner and then afterwards in the living room, they talked about politics and the economy. Overall, Aida’s recollection of their arrival and events that took place leading up to their bedtime about 10:30 pm, is precise and detailed, much more so than both Anne’s and Elsie’s comparatively-cursory statements. I’d even submit that Anne and Elsie possibly agreed ahead of time and quite mistakenly, to peg the time of the arrival of Charles and the Breckinridges at about 7:30 pm, at some point prior to their pending interviews. In any case, a 7:30 pm arrival for Charles and the Breckinridges seems quite doubtful against Aida Breckinridge’s detailed recounting of events and most notably, Charlie still having been up and about well before his bedtime. Again, given everything Aida Breckinridge claims to have occurred from the time she arrived at Highfields , I’d submit that everyone probably arrived there at about the same time on Saturday, February 27, ie. somewhere between 5:00–5:30 pm. After reading what I've written in response to Guest, take a look at Joe's explanation to this box he put himself in by fully embracing the Aida Breckinridge document. Not only has he ignored the fact that Lindbergh couldn't remember where he was on March 1 in 1935, or couldn't remember what day he went to Highfields in 1933, he now says Anne's official March 1932 statement to police is incorrect. Not only that, he has her colluding with Elsie about the timing! Again, I'm all for this type of thing IF it's done consistently. Joe's reasoning is soley based on disputing anything that may implicate Lindbergh. Since he called at 7PM and was home by 8:25PM on March 1st, he needs the 7:30PM time to be wrong so (POOF!) its Anne and Elsie who are mistaken. So Breckinridge's story is 100% accurate and everything else that creates a problem is wrong. See how that works? There is no consistency aside from anything that makes Lindbergh look suspicious is to be discounted for just about any reason he can think up. My advice is if one has a rule or standard they apply to information, they need to keep it consistent and not slide it around or dropped when it applies to something they do or do not like. I'm going to emphasize my post with an example, the type I usually make but often gets completely ignored... but I'm going to do it anyway. If the DNA testing ever gets done on the Nursery Note and it turns out NOT to be Hauptmann's guess what? That still doesn't mean he did not write it. That's a fact and what I am doing is being consistent with applying things evenly. For whatever reason, some can't seem to do this. It's maddening.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 26, 2023 12:42:25 GMT -5
Michael, as you are such an abiding adherent of Junge's statement that Lindbergh, family with him at the time, left Skean behind, how would you justify this given the fact that Lindbergh did not even drive to Highfields with Anne and Charlie on the Saturday in question? I'm not trying to corner you here, just curious as to precisely, (or speculatively) you envision the essential logistics developing and unfolding here. Are you suggesting perhaps that by virtue of the fact Lindbergh didn't bring Skean, then everyone else would have felt compelled to do as he did, eg. Anne and up to and including Betty Gow in her trip to Highfields on Tuesday afternoon? I understand you're putting your faith wholeheartedly in Junge here, but I do hope you've also employed a little logical deduction within this conclusion of yours.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 26, 2023 12:57:15 GMT -5
Jung clearly wrote that she was following her diary of " March 2nd 1932" and picked it up 5 years later to refer to in order to write this story. So the information isn't 5 years old. It's right there in black and white. So if Junge wrote contemporarily in her daily diary, words to the effect that "the family drove together on Saturday, February 27, 1932," what does that tell you about her powers of instantaneous recollection for that specific day? Don't look now, but you may have just shot yourself in the foot..
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 26, 2023 13:25:19 GMT -5
For what it may or may not be worth, here's an entry from the New York Daily News, dated Monday, March 7, 1932. Apparently, the canine in question was indisposed at the kennels for the kidnap weekend and beyond. in fact , it states that Col. Lindbergh hadn't even been able to yet retrieve him because he had other things on his mind. Indeed! As I've previously noted in this thread, there appears to have been some confusion as to the name of the Terrier breed associated with Charlie's companion, Skean. Here, he's referred to here as a lighter-coloured "Sealyham," when in fact, he was a black "Scottish Terrier." Wahgoosh is also referred to separately, and often mistakenly, as "Trixie."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2023 13:30:53 GMT -5
Michael, as you are such an abiding adherent of Junge's statement that Lindbergh, family with him at the time, left Skean behind, how would you justify this given the fact that Lindbergh did not even drive to Highfields with Anne and Charlie on the Saturday in question? I'm not trying to corner you here, just curious as to precisely, (or speculatively) you envision the essential logistics developing and unfolding here. Are you suggesting perhaps that by virtue of the fact Lindbergh didn't bring Skean, then everyone else would have felt compelled to do as he did, eg. Anne and up to and including Betty Gow in her trip to Highfields on Tuesday afternoon? I understand you're putting your faith wholeheartedly in Junge here, but I do hope you've also employed a little logical deduction within this conclusion of yours. It's amazing how you've ignored so much of what I've written. Wait a minute, no its not. Looking at what you've just done and asking me to justify something? Is that a joke? Furthermore, there's nothing to "justify." Like I wrote once before, which you promptly ignored, I remember many specific details about when my dog died. I don't keep a diary, but if I did, I don't expect I would have recorded who left with whom. For that I'd probably consider what typically occurred. It's all common sense really. So if Junge wrote contemporarily in her daily diary, words to the effect that "the family drove together on Saturday, February 27, 1932," what does that tell you about her powers of instantaneous recollection on that specific day? Don't look now, but you may have just shot yourself in the foot.. See above. It's not that hard Joe. It's so easy, we don't even need Junge although that seals it. Lindbergh ran the roost. For example, if the family got ready to leave and he told them to unpack and skip the weekend that's what would have happened. Any thoughts like Anne overruling him or Ellerson objecting and bringing them down anyway is outrageous fantasy. And so, if that's how it was with the family, why would it be any different concerning the dog? Anyway, applying your "rule" of "disbelief" means nothing Lindbergh, Anne, or Elsie ever wrote or said can be trusted anymore and should be rejected. Here is where you've already shot yourself in the foot multiple times. The only question now is who else you will be adding to the list.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2023 13:39:14 GMT -5
For what it may or may not be worth, here's an entry from the New York Daily News, dated Monday, March 7, 1932. Apparently, the canine in question was indisposed at the kennels for the kidnap weekend and beyond. in fact , it states that Col. Lindbergh hadn't even been able to yet retrieve him because he had other things on his mind. Indeed! As I've previously noted in this thread, there appears to have been some confusion as to the name of the Terrier breed associated with Charlie's companion, Skean. Here, he's referred to here as a lighter-coloured "Sealyham," when in fact, he was a black "Scottish Terrier." Wahgoosh is also referred to separately, and often mistakenly, as "Trixie." View Attachment imgur.com/a/CGA68hG
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 26, 2023 13:51:40 GMT -5
So if Junge wrote contemporarily in her daily diary, words to the effect that "the family drove together on Saturday, February 27, 1932," what does that tell you about her powers of instantaneous recollection on that specific day? Don't look now, but you may have just shot yourself in the foot.. See above. It's not that hard Joe. It's so easy, we don't even need Junge although that seals it. Lindbergh ran the roost. For example, if the family got ready to leave and he told them to unpack and skip the weekend that's what would have happened. Any thoughts like Anne overruling him or Ellerson objecting and bringing them down anyway is outrageous fantasy. And so, if that's how it was with the family, why would it be any different concerning the dog? Anyway, applying your "rule" of "disbelief" means nothing Lindbergh, Anne, or Elsie ever wrote or said can be trusted anymore and should be rejected. Here is where you've already shot yourself in the foot multiple times. The only question now is who else you will be adding to the list. You're incredible. You just categorically ignored sound logic that couldn't be clearer if it jumped out of the dark in front of you, to slip backwards a few gears into your "Big Bad Lindy" routine. The same defense you usually use on me during other discussions, and that I've now become adept at seeing for what its worth and ignoring. I’ll resist any further engagement in these kind of behaviour-oriented construction scenarios on your part other than to say this. I believe some of your latest three-or-four-degrees-removed examples of Lindbergh’s known abnormal and questionable behavioural traits in familial and other relationships, as usual, spiced up nicely with your own personal brand of editorial patter, in this case, has precious little to do with the totality of actual evidence relating to the known events leading up to Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery between Saturday, February 27 and March 1, 1932. My apologies for the run-on sentence here, but hopefully it kept you engaged and attentive from beginning to end.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2023 14:02:34 GMT -5
You're incredible. You just categorically ignored sound logic that couldn't be clearer if it jumped out of the dark in front of you, to slip backwards a few gears into your "Big Bad Lindy" routine. The same defense you usually use on me during other discussions, and that I've now become adept at seeing for what its worth and ignoring. I’ll resist any further engagement in these kind of behaviour-oriented construction scenarios on your part other than to say this. I believe some of your latest three-or-four-degrees-removed examples of Lindbergh’s known abnormal and questionable behavioural traits in familial and other relationships, as usual, spiced up nicely with your own personal brand of editorial patter, in this case, has precious little to do with the totality of actual evidence relating to the known events leading up to Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery between Saturday, February 27 and March 1, 1932. My apologies for the run-on sentence here, but hopefully it kept you engaged and attentive from beginning to end. "Sound logic?" Is that what you are calling it now? I suppose that's what you call your commentary concerning the newspaper article you just posted as well? Take a look at that picture Joe. Skean is on the left. Who are those two "Sealyhams" on the right? Either named "Trixie?" Imagine that. Like I wrote earlier, this is getting tiresome.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Jan 26, 2023 15:24:32 GMT -5
See above. It's not that hard Joe. It's so easy, we don't even need Junge although that seals it. Lindbergh ran the roost. For example, if the family got ready to leave and he told them to unpack and skip the weekend that's what would have happened. Any thoughts like Anne overruling him or Ellerson objecting and bringing them down anyway is outrageous fantasy. And so, if that's how it was with the family, why would it be any different concerning the dog? Anyway, applying your "rule" of "disbelief" means nothing Lindbergh, Anne, or Elsie ever wrote or said can be trusted anymore and should be rejected. Here is where you've already shot yourself in the foot multiple times. The only question now is who else you will be adding to the list. You're incredible. You just categorically ignored sound logic that couldn't be clearer if it jumped out of the dark in front of you, to slip backwards a few gears into your "Big Bad Lindy" routine. The same defense you usually use on me during other discussions, and that I've now become adept at seeing for what its worth and ignoring. I’ll resist any further engagement in these kind of behaviour-oriented construction scenarios on your part other than to say this. I believe some of your latest three-or-four-degrees-removed examples of Lindbergh’s known abnormal and questionable behavioural traits in familial and other relationships, as usual, spiced up nicely with your own personal brand of editorial patter, in this case, has precious little to do with the totality of actual evidence relating to the known events leading up to Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery between Saturday, February 27 and March 1, 1932. My apologies for the run-on sentence here, but hopefully it kept you engaged and attentive from beginning to end. Promise to resist. PLEASE. You drag things out ad nauseam.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Jan 26, 2023 15:33:57 GMT -5
I am trying to work my way through all these posts that have followed mine. You both cover a lot of points and clearly sit in opposition to each other for various reasons.
So far as Aida Breckinridge's claim that she was present at Hopewell during Charlie's bedtime, from what the statements say from people who were present at the house on the evening of February 27th, we have Ollie Whateley who makes no mention of the presence of the Breckinridges that night for tea or dinner. Anne Lindbergh and Elsie Whateley claim the Breckinridges arrived later than Aida claims. Aida is alone in making this claim unless there is someone else who can validate that claim. So I guess its just a matter of who one wants to believe and then go from there?
I try not to eliminate someone's recollection because of an error or oversight. Junge's document has the Lindberghs leaving in the morning on February 27th. This is clearly an error in her recollection. Whateley's statement to the authorities makes no mention of the Breckinridges arrival at Hopewell or serving them tea or dinner on February 27th. We know they were there that evening though. This could be an oversight on his part. Sometimes things don't always get mentioned for one reason or another.
With the above in mind, I have considered this in relation to Skean being left behind. Could it be that Lindbergh picked up the Breckinridges earlier than the usual time, as Aida mentions, because he wanted to make a stop at Next Day Hill before going on to the Hopewell house? This would not have seemed like any big deal to the Breckinridges so Aida doesn't mention the stop in her document. They could have arrived while Anne was still there. Anne could have been waiting for Skean to arrive back from his walk. Lindbergh could have told Anne to go ahead and go and he would bring Skean down. Lindbergh might well of waited a bit but then decided to leave without him. This would put the arrival of Lindbergh and the Breckinridges at Hopewell not long after Anne arrived. Sounds logical to me but we have no way of really knowing for certain since there are discrepancies in recollections and statements.
I am sorry for this long post. I will go back to just reading. Thanks for everything you all share on this board.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 26, 2023 17:44:31 GMT -5
I agree with Guest, that does sound like a possible scenario and one that fits with Junge's recollection. I was thinking there may have been some phone communication between Charles and Anne after he left where he told Anne not to wait for Skean because he would stop and get him and then he never did, and Junge mixed that up to be Lindbergh who didn't wait when it was really Anne.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jan 26, 2023 20:08:09 GMT -5
Once again I stand to be corrected if I am in error here, but the only statement I have seen from anyone involved with the case back in 1932 as to why Skean was not taken to Highfields in Hopewell on February 27th is the following one given by Junge's unpublished manuscript:
"Unfortunately that last weekend before the kidnaping Scium had just gone for a stroll in the park, and Colonel Lindbergh could not wait for him to return, therefor [sic] they [sic] family had to drive off without the dog."
Junge appears to be saying in her manuscript that she wrote this account from the notes in her diary that she started on March 2, 1932 (as Michael has previously noted). As Joe has previously indicated, we know that the latter part of her above sentence is incorrect as Charles did not leave with his family on that Saturday. If we nevertheless accept the first part of her above sentence as being accurate, then Charles left Skean behind either that morning when he was leaving for NYC or sometime after 4 PM when he may have returned to Next Day Hill with the Breckinridges in an attempt to get Skean at that time. I don't see whereJunge gives a time as to when Charles left without the dog. So whatever time this allegedly occurred, Junge is saying that the dog was not available for Charles to take with him. For me, Junge's wording about Skean going for that "stroll" could be interpreted to mean that Skean got loose and was on his own exploring the woods and park surrounding Next Day Hill, and not just out being walked by a Morrow staff member. For all we know Skean may have had a habit of doing this on occassions (as many dogs, especially intact males do), and Charles knew from its past escapades that the dog could be gone for hours. Regardless, Junge gives us a brief but reasonable explanation as to who left the dog and why he was left that Saturday. For me, Charles's decision to not wait for Skean to return was reasonable and certainly not something he could have pre-arranged to ensure that Skean would not be at Highfields that weekend. Since the family was scheduled to return to Next Day Hill on Monday morning it is easy to see why no attempt was made on Sunday to have Skean brought from Next Day Hill to Highfields for such a very short period of time (not to mention that knowing Charles's personality he was probably highly p/o at the dog for running off).
Hence, unless some other information is developed, I have to believe that, yes, Charles did leave the dog at Next Day Hill but it could not have been something he preplanned as part of any conspiracy to have his child snatched away from Highfields on March 1st. Other actions on the part of Charles during this time period certainly need to be closely examined, but for me unfortunately this event of leaving Skean behind appears to be just some smoke with no fire behind it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2023 22:12:26 GMT -5
Hence, unless some other information is developed, I have to believe that, yes, Charles did leave the dog at Next Day Hill but it could not have been something he preplanned as part of any conspiracy to have his child snatched away from Highfields on March 1st. Other actions on the part of Charles during this time period certainly need to be closely examined, but for me unfortunately this event of leaving Skean behind appears to be just some smoke with no fire behind it. Now we are getting somewhere. I agree this does produce smoke. And, I would agree there was nothing to it IF it was the only occurrence that produced it. However, as I've tried my best to show in the books, there's many many more instances of Lindbergh doing things, or not doing things, saying things, or not saying things, that produce smoke. Individually, like this instance, they could be explained away as "coincidence" or "bad luck," Lindbergh being a "Weirdo" etc., However, looked at in their totality, I'm seeing a flame from where I'm sitting. Of course, it's all in the eye of the beholder. Look how long it took just to get people to see that Lindbergh was the responsible party for leaving him behind. ++++++++ An aside not in reply: The Lindberghs had TWO dogs. Skean and Wahgoosh. Some may spell both how they heard it pronounced or what they believed it was spelled based on how they called them. Skean was a Scotty, and as we can see from the picture he was black. A good looking dog if you ask me. Wahgoosh stayed with the Whateleys and Skean stayed with the Lindberghs in Englewood and came down to Highfields when the family came down. Later, they got the German Sheppard "Thor." The Morrow family had several dogs. At least one Scotty, and at least two that I always believed were Westies. The newspaper article that Joe kindly posted claims the dog in question at the Vet was a Sealyham. Sealyham's and Westies look an awful lot alike and both are white. The story itself refers to the dog as light colored. Although I do not know this for a fact, it seems quite possible a reporter caught wind that one of the other dogs was at the Vets and wrote up a story that misidentified him as Skean, who again, we know wasn't a Sealyham. As for Lurp's suggestion that Skean may have been off on his own, that's a real possibility, with the Estate being rather large and I believe these dogs had the run of the place - or perhaps he was being walked in a "park" - so who knows? The bottom line is that Jung's account offers an innocent explanation and doesn't accuse Lindbergh of anything in any way. The suspicion comes from the totality of the circumstances that involve Lindbergh in a multitude of situations as I've referred to above. This is but one cog in a wheel of about, what, a 100? Anyway, there's a lot to consider.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 27, 2023 9:19:30 GMT -5
You're incredible. You just categorically ignored sound logic that couldn't be clearer if it jumped out of the dark in front of you, to slip backwards a few gears into your "Big Bad Lindy" routine. The same defense you usually use on me during other discussions, and that I've now become adept at seeing for what its worth and ignoring. I’ll resist any further engagement in these kind of behaviour-oriented construction scenarios on your part other than to say this. I believe some of your latest three-or-four-degrees-removed examples of Lindbergh’s known abnormal and questionable behavioural traits in familial and other relationships, as usual, spiced up nicely with your own personal brand of editorial patter, in this case, has precious little to do with the totality of actual evidence relating to the known events leading up to Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery between Saturday, February 27 and March 1, 1932. My apologies for the run-on sentence here, but hopefully it kept you engaged and attentive from beginning to end. "Sound logic?" Is that what you are calling it now? I suppose that's what you call your commentary concerning the newspaper article you just posted as well? Take a look at that picture Joe. Skean is on the left. Who are those two "Sealyhams" on the right? Either named "Trixie?" Imagine that. Like I wrote earlier, this is getting tiresome. Michael, you misread what I was saying even though I thought I'd made myself clear. Please go back and have another read. My point about "Trixie" being that the press, at times mistakenly referred to Wahgoosh by this name. I was not calling Sealyham or Scottish Terriers by that name. Good photo though.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 27, 2023 10:16:10 GMT -5
You're incredible. You just categorically ignored sound logic that couldn't be clearer if it jumped out of the dark in front of you, to slip backwards a few gears into your "Big Bad Lindy" routine. The same defense you usually use on me during other discussions, and that I've now become adept at seeing for what its worth and ignoring. I’ll resist any further engagement in these kind of behaviour-oriented construction scenarios on your part other than to say this. I believe some of your latest three-or-four-degrees-removed examples of Lindbergh’s known abnormal and questionable behavioural traits in familial and other relationships, as usual, spiced up nicely with your own personal brand of editorial patter, in this case, has precious little to do with the totality of actual evidence relating to the known events leading up to Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery between Saturday, February 27 and March 1, 1932. My apologies for the run-on sentence here, but hopefully it kept you engaged and attentive from beginning to end. Promise to resist. PLEASE. You drag things out ad nauseam. Mary, I started this thread because of what I considered to be a general lack of information on the subject of Skean's absence from Charlie's nursery on the night of the kidnapping. Frankly, it left me wanting to know everything that was relevant to this event, even though I understood there was no guarantee of this happening. After all, we are dealing with a 90-year-old crime case that was not always managed well at the time. What else inspired me here was my basic objection to the fact this event was often being lumped together with other such inconclusive accounts to demonstrate some kind of conspiratorial "smoke before a fire," when I believe each and every one first has to conclusively be proven to actually be smoke, or nothing more than an innocent chain of events. This thread has already yielded and continues to bring additional information and insight to the forefront by many contributors with some very interesting exchanges. I'm pretty sure it's far from done, and may become even more detailed "ad nauseum" as you put it, for the sake of ultimate clarity and accuracy. May I kindly suggest that if you've already made up your mind one way or another or are not interested in contributing to the thread, you're certainly not obligated to. If you feel you have something to offer, I'm sure it will be read and considered.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 27, 2023 13:46:56 GMT -5
Michael, you misread what I was saying even though I thought I'd made myself clear. Please go back and have another read. My point about "Trixie" being that the press, at times mistakenly referred to Wahgoosh by this name. I was not calling Sealyham or Scottish Terriers by that name. Good photo though. I think you misunderstood my point. No worries though, lets avoid the risk of going back and forth over it for another week and just call it a "draw." Anyway, the picture comes from the NJSP Archives because of a donation made by Dick Anderson. The photo is from Marguerite Junge's photo album and there are plenty more interesting ones to view or copy if anyone decides to make the trip for themselves. Someone also donated photos from Trooper Sawyer as well as the Ellerson photo album so they are there as well. I was lucky enough to see them all over the years. Okay, so there seems to be a "general" consensus that Lindbergh was ultimately responsible for leaving Skean behind, but much disagreement over whether or not: It meant anything and/or whether it was just bad luck/coincidence. So my next question to anyone who cares to reply is this: If Skean was lying in the nursery, or near the nursery door, as was his custom when the "baby" slept, would an outside Kidnapper have been able to pull this crime off unscathed or without interruption?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 28, 2023 6:53:30 GMT -5
Once again I stand to be corrected if I am in error here, but the only statement I have seen from anyone involved with the case back in 1932 as to why Skean was not taken to Highfields in Hopewell on February 27th is the following one given by Junge's unpublished manuscript: "Unfortunately that last weekend before the kidnaping Scium had just gone for a stroll in the park, and Colonel Lindbergh could not wait for him to return, therefor [sic] they [sic] family had to drive off without the dog." Junge appears to be saying in her manuscript that she wrote this account from the notes in her diary that she started on March 2, 1932 (as Michael has previously noted). As Joe has previously indicated, we know that the latter part of her above sentence is incorrect as Charles did not leave with his family on that Saturday. If we nevertheless accept the first part of her above sentence as being accurate, then Charles left Skean behind either that morning when he was leaving for NYC or sometime after 4 PM when he may have returned to Next Day Hill with the Breckinridges in an attempt to get Skean at that time. I don't see whereJunge gives a time as to when Charles left without the dog. So whatever time this allegedly occurred, Junge is saying that the dog was not available for Charles to take with him. For me, Junge's wording about Skean going for that "stroll" could be interpreted to mean that Skean got loose and was on his own exploring the woods and park surrounding Next Day Hill, and not just out being walked by a Morrow staff member. For all we know Skean may have had a habit of doing this on occassions (as many dogs, especially intact males do), and Charles knew from its past escapades that the dog could be gone for hours. Regardless, Junge gives us a brief but reasonable explanation as to who left the dog and why he was left that Saturday. For me, Charles's decision to not wait for Skean to return was reasonable and certainly not something he could have pre-arranged to ensure that Skean would not be at Highfields that weekend. Since the family was scheduled to return to Next Day Hill on Monday morning it is easy to see why no attempt was made on Sunday to have Skean brought from Next Day Hill to Highfields for such a very short period of time (not to mention that knowing Charles's personality he was probably highly p/o at the dog for running off). Hence, unless some other information is developed, I have to believe that, yes, Charles did leave the dog at Next Day Hill but it could not have been something he preplanned as part of any conspiracy to have his child snatched away from Highfields on March 1st. Other actions on the part of Charles during this time period certainly need to be closely examined, but for me unfortunately this event of leaving Skean behind appears to be just some smoke with no fire behind it. Lurp, as I understand it, yes, Marguerite Junge’s unpublished manuscript appears to be the only accounting of Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery, by anyone directly associated with the Lindbergh family comings and goings around Next Day Hill. Given the fact that Junge apparently consulted her diary, which she began recording on March 2, 1932, the day after the kidnapping, it seems a bit of a headscratcher as to how she could have been so clearly mistaken to state that Charles, Anne and Charlie had left as a family unit only four days previous, the ultimate inference being that it was the Colonel who couldn’t wait for Skean to return for his “stroll in the park.” Although it seems Michael would prefer to “damn the torpedoes” and just forge ahead here, I can’t help but question the overall veracity of the singular Junge accounting of this event. While her manuscript might well reflect her diary entries in a general story telling sense, unless we can actually verify those specific manuscript entries relating to Skean’s absence from the actual diary document itself, we simply don’t know how accurate was the ultimate transcription from diary to memoirs five years later, at a time when it appears she was attempting to have them published. She even sounds somewhat proud of the fact that apparently no one else seems to have previously mentioned Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery, when she states, “This is another fact that so many people do not know and ask puzzled, why just that night was the watchdog not sleeping under Charlie’s bed? Scium was in Englewood, and not in Hopewell.” Her one significant mistaken recollection about the family having left Next Day Hill together, should be enough to underscore her apparent confusion, but here she is not even able to correctly spell the dog’s name! “Scium” is not even close to “Skean.” I have to wonder how much diary black and white print she’s actually referring to here, and what she is simply trying to recall to the best of her ability five years later, perhaps in a somewhat anecdotal sense based on what she understood to have been previous family routine. I don’t know if Junge's diary or photostats relating to this specific entry are available at the archives, and perhaps Michael would know this. Regarding the possibility of Charles Lindbergh, with his passengers the Breckinridges, having stopped off at Next Day Hill to pick up Skean, it’s certainly a possibility. As we’ve both discussed previously, if this had happened, it would most likely have been a benign and innocent action, primarily based around the fact Lindbergh would have had no way of knowing Skean was there wagging his tail waiting for him, or not. He would have had no control over this part. And there is still the matter of Aida Breckinridge’s profusely detailed account of her, Henry and Charles having arrived at Highfields in plenty of time for tea, talk and play with Charlie before he was put to bed, all of this happening before they had dinner, and which would put their arrival at a much earlier time than Anne Lindbergh claimed. In any case, I’m far from convinced at this point that Charles Lindbergh, even had reasonable opportunity to “leave Skean behind” either innocently, or conspiratorially. As always, it's great to have the benefit of your formidable experiential background and insights here on this subject and I look forward to your further input.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 28, 2023 8:40:58 GMT -5
I am trying to work my way through all these posts that have followed mine. You both cover a lot of points and clearly sit in opposition to each other for various reasons. So far as Aida Breckinridge's claim that she was present at Hopewell during Charlie's bedtime, from what the statements say from people who were present at the house on the evening of February 27th, we have Ollie Whateley who makes no mention of the presence of the Breckinridges that night for tea or dinner. Anne Lindbergh and Elsie Whateley claim the Breckinridges arrived later than Aida claims. Aida is alone in making this claim unless there is someone else who can validate that claim. So I guess its just a matter of who one wants to believe and then go from there? I try not to eliminate someone's recollection because of an error or oversight. Junge's document has the Lindberghs leaving in the morning on February 27th. This is clearly an error in her recollection. Whateley's statement to the authorities makes no mention of the Breckinridges arrival at Hopewell or serving them tea or dinner on February 27th. We know they were there that evening though. This could be an oversight on his part. Sometimes things don't always get mentioned for one reason or another. With the above in mind, I have considered this in relation to Skean being left behind. Could it be that Lindbergh picked up the Breckinridges earlier than the usual time, as Aida mentions, because he wanted to make a stop at Next Day Hill before going on to the Hopewell house? This would not have seemed like any big deal to the Breckinridges so Aida doesn't mention the stop in her document. They could have arrived while Anne was still there. Anne could have been waiting for Skean to arrive back from his walk. Lindbergh could have told Anne to go ahead and go and he would bring Skean down. Lindbergh might well of waited a bit but then decided to leave without him. This would put the arrival of Lindbergh and the Breckinridges at Hopewell not long after Anne arrived. Sounds logical to me but we have no way of really knowing for certain since there are discrepancies in recollections and statements. I am sorry for this long post. I will go back to just reading. Thanks for everything you all share on this board. Guest, I think you present a very logical possibility that Charles, Henry and Aida would have had opportunity to pick up Skean at Next Day Hill. After all, Next Day Hill would basically have been enroute for them as they drove from the Breckinridge apartment to Highfields. If there had been any prior agreement involved between Charles and Anne to ensure Charlie would have Skean with him for the weekend, certainly there was ample opportunity for more than one party to act here, up to and including Betty Gow’s trip to Highfields on the following Tuesday. To address one of your statements, while Junge comments in her manuscript that the Lindberghs usually departed Next Day Hill for Highfields on Saturday mornings, she makes no specific reference to what she believes to have been their departure time on Saturday, February 27, 1932. Aida Breckinridge’s statement is clearly distinct from others not only from the standpoint of their inferred arrival time at Highfields, but within so many aspects of its content. What most impresses me about Aida’s recollection is her high level of recalled detail and its conversational substance and colour, as she recounts things like the kitchen’s “cunning little curtains,” “a great fire burning” in the living room, “Slim” being in such a happy mood and effusing, “My, it’s wonderful to out of New York. It’s grand to be in the country!” Aida continues, describing in such intimate detail and seeming enthusiasm, the time spent by her, Anne, Elsie and Alva playing with Charlie before his dinner, right up until the time he was put to sleep. She talks at length about their dinner conversation, the economy and “Governor Byrd’s running for the Presidency on the Democratic ticket,” their specific seating arrangements at dinner and afterwards in the living room, (!) even “Slim’s cutout” in the wall between the living room and pantry that allowed access to the telephone from both rooms. And on and on she goes for four pages recounting their Saturday at Highfields all in the same manner, up to the time they all went to bed, even recounting Charles’s late night practical joke involving the house lights suddenly being turned on and off quickly, which threw everyone into a sudden state of pandemonium. Aida was one of those individuals who could basically walk into a room and light it up with her personality, poise and social ease. At the same time, she strikes me as the kind of person who truly enjoyed engaging with people, perhaps more so within her societal comfort zone, but nevertheless in a way that ultimately would have provided her to retain and later bring forth, a lot of detailed personal information. She also appears to have been quite adventurous and fearless, at least in her youth. Aida de Acosta Root Breckinridge was the first woman to pilot solo any kind of motorized aircraft, (a small dirigible) nearly six months before the Wright brothers first flew in a heavier-than-air powered aircraft. She even has her own Wikipedia page. Aida on her way to a polo match!As always, there are potential caveats to any event likelihood. It’s my current understanding that Henry and Aida Breckinridge also visited the Lindberghs at Highfields a few weeks previous to the one just before the kidnapping. Therefore, I don’t discount the possibility that she may be unintentionally “blending” certain elements of two individual recollections here, relative to the actual time they arrived at Highfields. If this was the case, then it might explain why her accounting would seemingly indicate they arrived closer to the time at which Anne, Charlie and Alva Root did. In a more general sense, I still tend to believe that Skean’s presence in Charlie’s nursery, while it might well have avoided the kidnapping and certainly was a 20/20 hindsight topic for discussion, (should've.. could've.. etc..) was never really "on the radar" as an item of critical importance, as the Lindberghs planned their fateful weekend trip. First and foremost, Skean was considered to be Charlie’s companion, and not his “watchdog” as Junge and the newspapers later reported. This certainly doesn’t excuse anyone for not realizing better before the fact, but I also believe the Lindberghs and their staff had in general, drifted into a relative state of complacency when it came to the family’s general safety and security at their Highfields location.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Jan 28, 2023 8:42:53 GMT -5
Wahgoosh did not belong to the Lindberghs. He was Whateley's dog and slept in the kitchen routinely.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 28, 2023 10:00:33 GMT -5
Wahgoosh did not belong to the Lindberghs. He was Whateley's dog and slept in the kitchen routinely. That's incorrect. Wahgoosh was a gift to Lindbergh from his mother. The puppy was named "Wahgoosh" after a Fox Terrier Lindbergh had in his younger days. That dog was killed when someone beat it to death with a crowbar. At the time, the dog was referred to as " his only friend" (Berg, p53). As I wrote before, Wahgoosh stayed with the Whatelelys so one might make the argument that he indirectly became their dog, but he belonged to the Lindberghs. Lurp, as I understand it, yes, Marguerite Junge’s unpublished manuscript appears to be the only accounting of Skean’s absence from Charlie’s nursery, by anyone directly associated with the Lindbergh family comings and goings around Next Day Hill. Given the fact that Junge apparently consulted her diary, which she began recording on March 2, 1932, the day after the kidnapping, it seems a bit of a headscratcher as to how she could have been so clearly mistaken to state that Charles, Anne and Charlie had left as a family unit only four days previous, the ultimate inference being that it was the Colonel who couldn’t wait for Skean to return for his “stroll in the park.” Not a "headscratcher" at all. I've written about it twice previously but you've either ignored it, forgotten about it, or are choosing to feign ignorance about it. Here is the most recent: Like I wrote once before, which you promptly ignored, I remember many specific details about when my dog died. I don't keep a diary, but if I did, I don't expect I would have recorded who left with whom. For that I'd probably consider what typically occurred. It's all common sense really. Jan 26, 2023 at 1:30pm I added the underline for emphasis and to assist with any future memory lapse. Although it seems Michael would prefer to “damn the torpedoes” and just forge ahead here, I can’t help but question the overall veracity of the singular Junge accounting of this event. While her manuscript might well reflect her diary entries in a general story telling sense, unless we can actually verify those specific manuscript entries relating to Skean’s absence from the actual diary document itself, we simply don’t know how accurate was the ultimate transcription from diary to memoirs five years later, at a time when it appears she was attempting to have them published. Here's the "funny" part - and I mean that in both ways. Not to beat a dead horse, but you have a very strange way of prioritizing your sources. I've spelled it out before and instead of disproving it you don't disappoint by actually proving it. Here you have fully embraced the Breckinridge accounts. I think one reason you mentioned was because of its colorful language or something ridiculously similar. But lets be frank, all it really has to do with is an attempt to neutralize the account you do not like. And you are willing to pull out all the stops to do that even if it harms other positions you have. You do that often, and when confronted with these contradictions, you merely ignore them, then later proceed as if it never even happened. You see Joe, I don't forget, or if I do, I'll remember sooner or later then remind you of it. Of course you'll rinse and repeat so here we are arguing the same things over and over again. So no, you aren't scratching your head. Here you are not only willing to overrule Junge, you ALSO overrule both Anne and Elsie by claiming they were "wrong" AND, as if that's not enough, actually colluding about the account all less than two weeks after the event. And you do all of this when you don't even know when Breckinridge wrote down her recollections! Judging from everything you've written in this thread, it seems a little hypocritical don't you think? Please take a step back and think about what I've written. You don't do this "everywhere," and I've noticed sound research along other lines, but when it involves Lindbergh or Condon everything changes for you.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 28, 2023 14:36:39 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 Sherlock, regarding what you refer to as “convenient coincidences,” I submit to you that each and every one of these, like Skeans absence from Charlie’s nursery, is due its required degree of scrutiny and logical debate to ensure they are actual “smoke/fire” or simply an innocent chain of events, entirely unrelated with any deliberate intent to commit a crime. That’s precisely why I initiated this thread, and it will not be the last one coming. If, in the final analysis, any of the list of “convenient coincidences” relating directly to the Lindbergh family inner or outer circle of influence, can conclusively and without further question, be demonstrated to have been conspiratorial in nature towards the commission of the ultimate kidnapping result, then there is truly something to hone in on. If, in the final analysis, these “convenient coincidences” can conclusively be demonstrated to be unconnected and innocent chains of events, then we have no crime committed, other than the one perpetrated by the one who actually stood convicted, Bruno Richard Hauptmann. I'm sure the above is something you already know but I do believe its important to reinforce the concept for the sake of continually keeping the playing field level and not canted the way it appears to get at times.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 28, 2023 16:27:32 GMT -5
Much of the discussion on Skean’s absence from the nursery has focussed on his usual position under Charlie’s bed. Any dog will react to the presence of strangers so its easy to label Skean as a watchdog. However his primary role was as a boon companion to Charlie, riding with him in the baby carriage, resting near the wheels of his stroller etc. A loving relationship had developed between Charlie and Skean.
Betty Gow remained at Next Day Hill that weekend because Anne wanted to foster a closer relationship with Charlie who, unsurprisingly, regarded Ms Gow as his primary carer. Could it be that Skean likewise was seen as a distraction for Charlie and a day or so (as originally planned) without him would help the bonding of Anne with Charlie?
This of course does not prove he was left behind intentionally but it may explain why no opportunity was taken to rectify the situation e.g. with the arrival of Betty on the Tuesday afternoon.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 28, 2023 20:02:47 GMT -5
Much of the discussion on Skean’s absence from the nursery has focussed on his usual position under Charlie’s bed. Any dog will react to the presence of strangers so its easy to label Skean as a watchdog. However his primary role was as a boon companion to Charlie, riding with him in the baby carriage, resting near the wheels of his stroller etc. A loving relationship had developed between Charlie and Skean. Betty Gow remained at Next Day Hill that weekend because Anne wanted to foster a closer relationship with Charlie who, unsurprisingly, regarded Ms Gow as his primary carer. Could it be that Skean likewise was seen as a distraction for Charlie and a day or so (as originally planned) without him would help the bonding of Anne with Charlie? This of course does not prove he was left behind intentionally but it may explain why no opportunity was taken to rectify the situation e.g. with the arrival of Betty on the Tuesday afternoon. I agree there probably would have been little thought given towards Skean's role ever being that of a "watchdog" even though it's clear his presence in Charlie's nursery would have at the least provided an interesting exchange between man and beast during the kidnapping. Skean was just another Next Day Hill Terrier essentially adopted by Charlie, who became his fast buddy. The mind set certainly changed into the real need for a watchdog only after the kidnapping and with the arrival of Pal / Thor. Your point that Skean's absence would have helped within the bonding of Anne and Charlie is an interesting one, but I tend to believe that would have become a discussion topic after the fact, if true. What I feel might have been considered is that on the Monday, when Charlie's cold would have been peaking, it was felt that Skean's presence and possibly his dander would only exacerbate this condition, which is why Betty didn't bring him with her on the Tuesday. Just a thought..
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Jan 28, 2023 22:02:57 GMT -5
"As always, there are potential caveats to any event likelihood. It’s my current understanding that Henry and Aida Breckinridge also visited the Lindberghs at Highfields a few weeks previous to the one just before the kidnapping. Therefore, I don’t discount the possibility that she may be unintentionally “blending” certain elements of two individual recollections here, relative to the actual time they arrived at Highfields. If this was the case, then it might explain why her accounting would seemingly indicate they arrived closer to the time at which Anne, Charlie and Alva Root did."
Joe, the quote above is from your response to a post I made. I hadn't been planning to do any more posting but I feel I need to speak with you about this statement.
Your current understanding is that the Breckinridges had visited Highfields at some point prior to February 27 and there could have been a "blending" of those two recollections resulting in the one document we have been discussing concerning Aida's recall of the visit of February 27. Based on this blending possibility of her recollection as suggested by you, then it seems I need to consider that Aida's February 27 document has errors in it.
Errors just like Junge. In fact, Junge's recollections of how the family would go to Hopewell together could also be why she wrote that the family went to Hopewell together on February 27. Junge is blending recollections too. In order to be fair to both of these women, I need to apply your blending possibility suggestion to both of them, otherwise I would be showing a bias and I don't want to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 29, 2023 6:20:31 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I can agree that Skean’s day job was as a companion for Charlie; he was a watchdog by default as all dogs are in a sense. It seems to be well accepted that Betty Gow remained at Next Day Hill to help encourage Anne’s bonding with Charlie at Highfields. However I don’t think this aspect was made public at the time. The reason being that it is an admission of less than perfect child care by the Lindberghs. Their frequent absences had led to Charlie bonding more closely with his nurse rather than with his mother. In common with most well-to-do families such things were best kept “In house” especially as the Lindberghs were portrayed as America’s perfect golden couple. The admission probably came from Anne in one of the books she wrote much later. Keeping Skean away from Highfields therefore may have several innocent explanations: encouragement of mother/son bonding, concern of an allergic reaction to the dog’s dander as you say, and/or merely wishing to avoid the extra chores of feeding and exercising the pooch (with limited staff) in what was intended to be a family bonding weekend. Along with these the more sinister option has to remain on the table as a possibility. Anne wrote that if Skean had been under Charlie’s bed the kidnap would not have happened. A simple statement of fact but is there a degree of self-reproach in those words? If it was Anne who decided not to bring Skean along any guilt feelings would be understandable. Grasping at straws on my part. Regards, Sherlock
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 29, 2023 9:39:07 GMT -5
"As always, there are potential caveats to any event likelihood. It’s my current understanding that Henry and Aida Breckinridge also visited the Lindberghs at Highfields a few weeks previous to the one just before the kidnapping. Therefore, I don’t discount the possibility that she may be unintentionally “blending” certain elements of two individual recollections here, relative to the actual time they arrived at Highfields. If this was the case, then it might explain why her accounting would seemingly indicate they arrived closer to the time at which Anne, Charlie and Alva Root did."Joe, the quote above is from your response to a post I made. I hadn't been planning to do any more posting but I feel I need to speak with you about this statement. Your current understanding is that the Breckinridges had visited Highfields at some point prior to February 27 and there could have been a "blending" of those two recollections resulting in the one document we have been discussing concerning Aida's recall of the visit of February 27. Based on this blending possibility of her recollection as suggested by you, then it seems I need to consider that Aida's February 27 document has errors in it. Errors just like Junge. In fact, Junge's recollections of how the family would go to Hopewell together could also be why she wrote that the family went to Hopewell together on February 27. Junge is blending recollections too. In order to be fair to both of these women, I need to apply your blending possibility suggestion to both of them, otherwise I would be showing a bias and I don't want to do that. Guest, yes, I raised this possibility of the prior Breckinridge visit and its potential meaning only because I remember reading or being told about it fairly recently. I can’t confirm this as fact though and will do my best to, one way or another. At the time, it didn't really mean a whole lot, but now I wish I had made a note! Of course, if true, it doesn't out of necessity mean that Aida is misremembering anything within her official statement. It seems to me that Aida was one of those individuals essentially "hardwired" to absorb and recall this level of detail. Conversely, I understand fully that her presumed timeline goes against the grain of what both Anne Lindbergh and Elsie Whateley claim was the arrival time of Charles and the Breckinridges. The question remains, who is mistaken here? As I’ve previously mentioned, there appears at times to me anyway, some indications that Anne and Elsie may have, quite innocently and with honest intent, discussed events prior to being interviewed in an attempt to provide what they felt was the most accurate picture available. Anne’s general feelings of inadequacy and not “measuring up,” might well have something to do with this need for affirmation on her part. I’m not saying this happened all the time to the point of it having become a routine of deceit, but there is clearly a sizeable disparity within both their and Aida’s recollections, and comparatively little detail offered by Anne and Else in their statements for a significant chunk of Saturday afternoon time. Regarding Junge’s unpublished memoirs, I have some real issues with it. Firstly, they were written about five years after the kidnapping. I don’t believe anyone can say for certain how accurately was the transcription between the actual diary entry relating to the kidnapping and this unpublished manuscript, as the diary appears to have been lost to time. How do we even know Junge had recorded Skean’s absence in her diary at the time? She got two significant and relative pieces of information very wrong when she wrote in her manuscript five years after the fact, that the Lindberghs drove to Highfields as a family, and that the dogs name was “Scium.” This to me, sounds indicative of a more anecdotal type of reference, based upon her understanding of what usually took place during Lindbergh weekend visits to Highfields. I tend to believe she somehow felt the need to simply “spice up” her memoirs with a little intrigue, in the sense she was revealing here for potential readers, a relatively little know fact about the case. In fact, she ends up putting her foot in her mouth. I’d like to pose this question and further thought to you Guest, and I hope you'll continue to post here. Do you know if the Breckinridge's previously visited Highfields in the month of February, 1932? What might well apply here to this entire equation, is the presence of other people and events. For example, if the Breckinridges did visit Highfields a few weeks prior, (yet to be confirmed one way or another) is Alva Root’s presence a potential “X” factor here? If for instance, Alva was only present for one of these two visits, then this might help to determine the veracity of the individual and quite contrary recollections by both Anne Lindbergh and Aida Breckinridge, given Aida's clear references to Alva having been there to help look after Charlie.
|
|