Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 29, 2023 11:04:10 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 I appreciate your added insight here Sherlock, and yes all of the abovementioned considerations, in isolation and combined, represent possibilities. While the many dogs of the Morrow and Lindbergh households were obviously loved and appreciated by both families and staff, they were still essentially viewed for the reason they were acquired, as pets. As such, I believe their presence would not have always been viewed as compulsory, as say a family member's would have been. In a general sense, I tend to believe Skean was not even considered to be “on the radar” as far as him being a critical element towards Charlie’s safety and security. And true, the misery of Charlie and then Anne’s advancing cold conditions combined with any required maintenance for the well-being of Skean, might well have been one of the tipping points that ultimately decided against him being at Highfields during some later point in the weekend. Thanks to Sue, here’s a little snippet from the June 27, 1931 Niagara Falls Gazette: “Sometimes when the Lindberghs drive over to their new place they bring along their young Scotty puppy, "Skean" who is devoted to Charlie and quite as playful as the baby himself.“ It’s the only pre-kidnapping reference I’ve seen yet which describes Skean accompanying Charlie and the Lindberghs to Highfields, albeit during it’s basic construction period, a time when they would have been only visiting there for the afternoon. And for what it’s worth, according to this Julia Blanshard story, apparently Skean didn’t always make these trips.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Jan 29, 2023 12:35:32 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. So, are you withdrawing your recollection blending possibility at this point and Aida's recollection is correct as it is written? I must ask if you are backing away from this possibility because I applied it to Junge's written work?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. What indications are you seeing that Anne and Elsie decided together to intentionally change the arrival time of the Breckinridges on February 27th. This is serious and not innocent in my estimation. They apparently agreed to lie to the police officers taking their statements. Can you post examples of these indications you are seeing? This is important stuff. You called Aida's document an official statement. Was her statement an official police statement?
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. If her memoir, as you call it, is based upon her understanding of what usually took place, it sounds like the recollection blending you described about Aida's document. She does get Skean's name wrong. It could just be a recall error since as you have mentioned, it is 5 years after the kidnapping. It is an odd error though. We could speculate about it. Scium is Latin for "I know". It makes one wonder what Junge might have really known and wanted to write about in this memoir but it is, sadly, incomplete. 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? I do not know if the Breckinridges ever visited Highfields previous to February 27, 1932. I hope you are able to find out if they did and share it on this board. I really don't plan to keep posting. I enjoy reading this board and learning things about this crime.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. I did some "board" surfing and there is a thread about Oren Root. What I learned from those posts is that Alva was a helper to Anne on the weekends they would go to Highfields as Betty Gow did not go. She must have had the weekends off. So I guess this would put Alva there more than just this one weekend. On this thread it says Alva was a teenager and the stepdaughter of Henry Breckinridge, Aida being Alva's mother. Although Charlie was not kidnapped from the home over that 2-day weekend, it was mentioned on that Oren Root thread, at that time it was being posted on, that no known statements were available for the Breckinridges, so I would guess that includes anything by Alva Root. Why do you call her a potential X factor?
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jan 30, 2023 10:53:13 GMT -5
This is just an additional comment on Junge's manuscript statement pertaining to what occurred on February 27th in regards to Skean. I believe that Skean's absence from the nursery on March 1st needs to be closely examined to determine if it was a planned event or if it just occurred innocently (we don't even have any record as to whether Skean in fact had been left behind on prior weekend visits to Highfields; just a general conclusion that he always went). I would assume that most of those who have examined the LKC would agree that if the dog had been in the nursery that night, a kidnapping by strangers would most likely not have occurred.
Junge appears to be the only individual who provides any information on this important issue. I would submit that the briefness and confusion of her one sentence statement could be due to heresay. I believe that it is possible that her diary notes reflect what another Morrow employee may have told her, not what she (Junge) actually witnessed that day (I know from experience that an investigator always has to be cognizant of heresay when interviewing a witness). Junge clearly uses heresay in this manuscript, as on page 10 when she relates information about Highfields that she received from Betty Gow and the Whateleys. If (yes another if here) Junge wasn't actually present at Next Day Hill that Saturday, a fellow Morrow employee could have related the incident to her at a later time and gave it to her in very general terms---the dog was running in the park, Mr. Lindbergh decided he couldn't wait for its return, and therefore the family left that day without Skean. This could reasonably explain why Junge's diary description of what happened is very brief and somewhat confusing. If Junge was not physically present, she would not have known that on that Saturday the family had left Next Day Hill at different times and in separate vehicles. She would not have know the exact sequence of events that day, and she would have assumed the family left in their normal manner as a family unit (technically "the family" consisting of Charles, Anne and the child did all leave that day without Skean, just at different times and in different vehicles). Heresay information has its value and can be accurate, so I'm not suggesting this senario to devalue her statement, just to explain its briefness and confusion on how and when the family departed. I see no reason to believe that Junge is lying when she wrote this explanation to expain Skean's absence at Highfields. It provides a reasonable and innocent reason why Skean was left behind, and for me it provides no evidence that Lindbergh pre-orchrastated this in furtherance of a crimal conspiracy.
Of course one could speculate that if Lindbergh had a plan in place to have his child snatched and murdered, then he could have used this unexpected absence of Skean from the Hopewell house to reach out and have the plan executed that weekend. Likewise, if real kidnappers had generated an inside source of information in the Morrow staff, this source could have contacted the kidnappers and in addition to telling them that the child was at Highfields, they could have advised them not to be concerned about the child's dog as he was still in Englewood at the Morrow's estate. As stated before there are far too many ifs and possibilities here, but for me Junge gives a reasonable explanation as to Skeans absence from the nursery.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 30, 2023 14:27:35 GMT -5
Of course one could speculate that if Lindbergh had a plan in place to have his child snatched and murdered, then he could have used this unexpected absence of Skean from the Hopewell house to reach out and have the plan executed that weekend. Likewise, if real kidnappers had generated an inside source of information in the Morrow staff, this source could have contacted the kidnappers and in addition to telling them that the child was at Highfields, they could have advised them not to be concerned about the child's dog as he was still in Englewood at the Morrow's estate. As stated before there are far too many ifs and possibilities here, but for me Junge gives a reasonable explanation as to Skeans absence from the nursery. To your point about "ifs," I think this can be applied everywhere to all things. I certainly get your point, but we are at the mercy of all sources - right? In this regard, I've read the various books that have made certain assertions - with sources to back it up. But researching this case myself, when I went to the Archives, I found additional sources that contradicted the earlier sources utilized by these Authors. One author being a former FBI Agent. But we can't all sit here and do nothing with the sources we currently have by considering there might actually be others out there which could upset it. That itself is speculation isn't it? And so, for me, I compare and contrast what we do have, then apply other information as it is found or discovered to possibly adjust based on it. As far as hearsay goes, she certainly does utilize it in places. For example, she was not in "Hopewell" when the intruder was looking in the window. But we know, from at least one later account, that this event did indeed occur. There's that "compare and contrast" strategy I was talking about. It's a "control" to use by comparing one unknown fact to the other. But when it comes to the fact that Lindbergh left Skean behind, I personally don't even need Junge's account to know he was responsible since, as is known by all, he ran the family affairs. If he wanted to abort the entire trip, then that's what would have occurred. Do we need Junge to write that in her diary to understand this to be true? Absolutely not. Also, when considering her account, she writes: I personally made this horrifying experience working for the Morrows, although I was not at the original place of the crime. Following my diary which I began on March 2nd 1932, I want to write the absolute truth about my most dreadful months of nervous strain, and my personal opinion of the whole case. We could speculate that her story about Lindbergh may have come through hearsay, but since she worked there, it seems just as probable, if not more so, that given what she wrote above she knows this information herself. I'd rather have the actual diary of course, but we're lucky to have this. Again, there could be another source 'out there' and then we'll have to address that accordingly. For me, unless its coming from the Staff walking him, or the person meant to round him up for Lindbergh, I think another Staff member is probably about the best source we can get. A newspaper reporter, for example, who didn't work there or did not cite their sources doesn't even come close to upsetting this account. What I've done here is ask several questions as it relates to whether or not this was intentional: Question. Who left Skean behind? Answer. Lindbergh Question. Would the dog sleeping in or near the nursery door have prevented the crime? Answer. Most likely yes. Question. Among the evidence discovered, did it appear the possible intruder was prepared for any dog? Answer. No. Question. Did the Intruder seem to have inside information? Answer. Absolutely yes. Question. Why was the shutter warped? Answer. We do not know. Question. Why wasn't it repaired? Answer. Because Lindbergh said the house was "too new." Question. Did the family suspect a kidnapping? Answer. Yes, Lindbergh's Father In Law told him to get security or the child would be kidnapped. Question. Did Lindbergh hire Security? Answer. No, he said he didn't want people to think he was afraid. Question. Did Wahgoosh bark? Answer. No. Question. Why not? Answer. Lindbergh lied on the stand suggesting the dog wouldn't have. This goes on for pages and pages.... When Gow is seen being reprimanded by Lindbergh, what did he say? What did Gow yell out when she was being pressed by Garsson? It never ends. For me, I'm not willing to ignore all of this and the total sum indicates there's something else going on. As I continue on this course, and see everything seems to have to do with Lindbergh, in one way or another for this crime to have actually occurred, I begin to see other things. Like, for instance, it's like once he buys "Thor." Apparently he wasn't worried about people thinking he was afraid at this point. Right? Or when he claims to trust his employees and defends them but later confesses they should be considered suspects. It's an unlimited amount of fuel to any theory that involves him. It never ends. Not one, two, or three things, but just about everything. There are modern day people who have been convicted of crimes who didn't look this suspicious.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 31, 2023 11:38:07 GMT -5
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. So, are you withdrawing your recollection blending possibility at this point and Aida's recollection is correct as it is written? I must ask if you are backing away from this possibility because I applied it to Junge's written work?Guest, that’s a nice shade of blue.. gives an effective contrast on my work monitor and easy on the eyes!
I can’t really say that I’m backing away from something I haven’t unequivocally embraced. At this point, I’d like to consider both scenarios as possibilities, given the current lack of further information to conclude one way or another. It really has nothing to do with Junge’s memoirs. As I later realized, the conversation I had had with a writer / researcher in NYC actually dealt with Oren Root’s (not Henry and Aida) claim that he had visited “Hopewell” the previous weekend, although I wonder if Oren was actually at Highfields, or just visiting someone in the Hopewell area. Oren also claimed to have been to Highfields on a number of previous occasions. As things stand therefore, I do not know if Henry and Aida had previously visited Highfields. Considering the second-to-last Lindbergh family visit had occurred a full three weekends prior on Saturday, February 6, 1932, I do find value in Aida Breckinridge’s very detailed accounting of their visit on the weekend of February 27th. Reasonably, what other weekend, with Alva having been there as well, could Aida have been referring to here?
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. What indications are you seeing that Anne and Elsie decided together to intentionally change the arrival time of the Breckinridges on February 27th. This is serious and not innocent in my estimation. They apparently agreed to lie to the police officers taking their statements. Can you post examples of these indications you are seeing? This is important stuff. You called Aida's document an official statement. Was her statement an official police statement?I believe you’re overstating the gravity of something that I’m only suggesting might, quite innocently have occurred. Anne and Elsie were essentially ‘landlocked’ together after the events of March 1, 1932, where normally they would have not seen each other at times for a few weeks between Highfields visits. I have in no way implied that they collaborated with the intention of “lying” to the police. Elsie didn’t give her statement until March 10 and Anne, on March 11 and 13. Unless Elsie and Anne were strictly prohibited from talking with each other about any events leading up to, and those after the kidnapping, I feel quite certain there would have been plenty of opportunity to rehash their collective understanding of events, given they both experienced such a large part of them together.
I’d also throw this thought into the overall equation, relating to the veracity of eyewitness accounting. Anne, Charles, Ollie and Elsie clearly, had developed particular routines and patterns as they related to their coming and going to Highfields, along with the actual time spent there. Specifically, would they have had any reason to note a high level of added detail within normal routines, prior to the kidnapping tragedy? For an infrequent visitor like Aida Breckinridge, who would have viewed her Highfields visit as a kind of special occasion, it seems to me her awareness would have been more heightened and therefore, her accounting of personally-experienced events would tend to be more detailed.
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. If her memoir, as you call it, is based upon her understanding of what usually took place, it sounds like the recollection blending you described about Aida's document. She does get Skean's name wrong. It could just be a recall error since as you have mentioned, it is 5 years after the kidnapping. It is an odd error though. We could speculate about it. Scium is Latin for "I know". It makes one wonder what Junge might have really known and wanted to write about in this memoir but it is, sadly, incomplete. Again, I have no conclusive reason to believe that Aida has done any recollection blending here, and I only presented it as a possibility. I do feel strongly that if Junge had had any desire to have her memoirs published, she mercifully, somehow, would have come to the realization her poorly written and overly folksy accounting (Was she trying to emulate Carlisle MacDonald or Will Rogers here?) would not have been well received. I’ve also considered the possibility there is actually nothing further to the manuscript and what we have, is all there ever was. I have limited personal experience in going through this endeavour, but reasonably, how much would one feel compelled to write before having the good sense to enquire with a publisher as to its potential value for readers? If she had submitted these eleven pages, I venture the reaction would not have been a favorable one for her. I do not know if the Breckinridges ever visited Highfields previous to February 27, 1932. I hope you are able to find out if they did and share it on this board. I really don't plan to keep posting. I enjoy reading this board and learning things about this crime.This was my error, as I confirmed this past Sunday with the researcher I had had my original conversation with. It was actually Oren Root, and not the Breckinridges. So at this point, I don’t know if Henry and Aida had previously visited Highfields. And I would encourage you to keep posting here, as your input is valuable. I know for a fact, you could teach us all a thing or two about this endearing and enduring case. I did some "board" surfing and there is a thread about Oren Root. What I learned from those posts is that Alva was a helper to Anne on the weekends they would go to Highfields as Betty Gow did not go. She must have had the weekends off. So I guess this would put Alva there more than just this one weekend. On this thread it says Alva was a teenager and the stepdaughter of Henry Breckinridge, Aida being Alva's mother. Although Charlie was not kidnapped from the home over that 2-day weekend, it was mentioned on that Oren Root thread, at that time it was being posted on, that no known statements were available for the Breckinridges, so I would guess that includes anything by Alva Root. Why do you call her a potential X factor?Your board surfing was timely! In fact, Aida in her statement does indicate that Alva would try to answer, in her own statement, the question as to whether Charlie’s bathroom light was on or off, when Aida left Alva’s room for bedtime. To my understanding, there is no available statement by Alva. I certainly do hope one surfaces eventually, although it seems unlikely at this point, given that Michael would probably have found it at the NJSP Archives. Could it possibly be in the NYPD files, if Alva had in fact, provided a statement to that organization only, given her place of residence?
I referred to Alva as a potential “X” factor, in that her presence, or non-presence at Highfields on a previous weekend when the Breckinridges were there, might have provided a clearer indication that Aida was correct or not within her recollections of the weekend of February 27, knowing that Alva was in fact, there. But as we don’t know for certain if Henry and Aida were there previously or not, (yet) this point seems basically moot for now.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 31, 2023 14:33:49 GMT -5
Just my recollection, as I have not had time to board surf, but didn't Henry Breckenridge need Oren's help getting to Highfields after the kidnapping as he knew the way (having been there multiple times) and Henry had not?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 1, 2023 8:13:10 GMT -5
Just my recollection, as I have not had time to board surf, but didn't Henry Breckenridge need Oren's help getting to Highfields after the kidnapping as he knew the way (having been there multiple times) and Henry had not? Henry Breckinridge appears to have been a bit apprehensive about finding Highfields by himself on the night of March 1, 1932. He had just been there the weekend before, but it seems unclear as to what time he and Aida would actually have arrived. It may have been nearing dusk or even after dark. And as he was a passenger only, perhaps he felt he might miss a turn or two along the way as they approached the general vicinity of the house. He knew his stepson Oren Root, only about 10 miles away at Princeton University, had been to the house a number of times previously, and so that probably inspired him to knock on Oren's dormitory door at 2:00 am the following morning, for directions. As it turned out, Henry would clearly have been able to see the Lindbergh house ablaze with lights from miles away.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 4, 2023 7:31:08 GMT -5
Of course one could speculate that if Lindbergh had a plan in place to have his child snatched and murdered, then he could have used this unexpected absence of Skean from the Hopewell house to reach out and have the plan executed that weekend. Likewise, if real kidnappers had generated an inside source of information in the Morrow staff, this source could have contacted the kidnappers and in addition to telling them that the child was at Highfields, they could have advised them not to be concerned about the child's dog as he was still in Englewood at the Morrow's estate. As stated before there are far too many ifs and possibilities here, but for me Junge gives a reasonable explanation as to Skeans absence from the nursery. To your point about "ifs," I think this can be applied everywhere to all things. I certainly get your point, but we are at the mercy of all sources - right? In this regard, I've read the various books that have made certain assertions - with sources to back it up. But researching this case myself, when I went to the Archives, I found additional sources that contradicted the earlier sources utilized by these Authors. One author being a former FBI Agent. But we can't all sit here and do nothing with the sources we currently have by considering there might actually be others out there which could upset it. That itself is speculation isn't it? And so, for me, I compare and contrast what we do have, then apply other information as it is found or discovered to possibly adjust based on it. Certainly, we’re better off by at least considering Junge’s account, even if it represents the only one available about Skean's absence, apart from news accounts that were actually written at the time, and not five years later. We can also question why that is. Was Skean’s presence in Charlie’s nursery ever even considered to be of any primal importance before the kidnapping, in effect a linchpin towards Charlie’s protection when sleeping alone in his nursery, or was Skean there perceived only as company and peace of mind for Charlie? We also don't know if Skean accompanied the Lindberghs on each and every one of their ten previous weekend trips to Highfields, before February 27, 1932. As you mention, other information can be very helpful, therefore it seems a bit limited to be saddled only by one inaccurate set of personal memoirs such as Junge's.As far as hearsay goes, she certainly does utilize it in places. For example, she was not in "Hopewell" when the intruder was looking in the window. But we know, from at least one later account, that this event did indeed occur. There's that "compare and contrast" strategy I was talking about. It's a "control" to use by comparing one unknown fact to the other. But when it comes to the fact that Lindbergh left Skean behind, I personally don't even need Junge's account to know he was responsible since, as is known by all, he ran the family affairs. If he wanted to abort the entire trip, then that's what would have occurred. Do we need Junge to write that in her diary to understand this to be true? Absolutely not. Also, when considering her account, she writes: I personally made this horrifying experience working for the Morrows, although I was not at the original place of the crime. Following my diary which I began on March 2nd 1932, I want to write the absolute truth about my most dreadful months of nervous strain, and my personal opinion of the whole case. Do you see how you easily you enable yourself to state that “Lindbergh left Skean behind” as fact, when this statement not only remains uncorroborated, but from all appearances, seems just as likely, that it was Anne who may actually have done this? We could speculate that her story about Lindbergh may have come through hearsay, but since she worked there, it seems just as probable, if not more so, that given what she wrote above she knows this information herself. I'd rather have the actual diary of course, but we're lucky to have this. Again, there could be another source 'out there' and then we'll have to address that accordingly. For me, unless its coming from the Staff walking him, or the person meant to round him up for Lindbergh, I think another Staff member is probably about the best source we can get. A newspaper reporter, for example, who didn't work there or did not cite their sources doesn't even come close to upsetting this account. We’re lucky to have Junge’s inaccurate accounting of Skean not having made it to Highfields that weekend? Why so? And you’d rather have the diary? I’d say that’s a bit of an understatement. The diary is an absolute necessity in order to validate the veracity of Junge’s claim in her memoirs, which were written five years after the kidnapping. Without it, we simply don’t know if she’s talking from direct personal experience, (which I find very hard to believe) hearsay or in an anecdotal sense based on her understanding of what usually happened.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 4, 2023 8:14:20 GMT -5
Of course one could speculate that if Lindbergh had a plan in place to have his child snatched and murdered, then he could have used this unexpected absence of Skean from the Hopewell house to reach out and have the plan executed that weekend. Likewise, if real kidnappers had generated an inside source of information in the Morrow staff, this source could have contacted the kidnappers and in addition to telling them that the child was at Highfields, they could have advised them not to be concerned about the child's dog as he was still in Englewood at the Morrow's estate. As stated before there are far too many ifs and possibilities here, but for me Junge gives a reasonable explanation as to Skeans absence from the nursery. What I've done here is ask several questions as it relates to whether or not this was intentional: Question. Who left Skean behind? Answer. Lindbergh Only according to Marguerite Junge, whose singular accounting of this “event,” is punctuated by two significant inaccuracies within its cursory and uncorroborated description.
Question. Would the dog sleeping in or near the nursery door have prevented the crime? Answer. Most likely yes. Agreed. Certainly, Skean’s presence would have posed a potentially significant roadblock. If he had begun barking before the kidnapper came through the window, it seems unlikely the kidnapping would have occurred. If Skean had not barked, but been on alert or even given a low growl discernible only to the kidnapper when he was on his way through the window, the kidnapper would then have been faced with the decision to proceed with caution utilizing whatever contingency measure he might have planned, or abort. Question. Among the evidence discovered, did it appear the possible intruder was prepared for any dog? Answer. No. We don’t know this for certain because no kidnapper confessed to his plans and possible contingencies to deal with such an unknown. At the same time, how likely would it have appeared to a kidnapper conducting a reasonable level of surveillance around Highfields, that a dog would even have been a potential issue? If he had carefully approached the house during a nighttime surveillance, it seems unlikely he would have encountered any sign or sound canine presence in and around Highfields.
Question. Did the Intruder seem to have inside information? Answer. Absolutely yes. When I began studying this case, this is what I believed. While I wouldn’t dispel that theory outright today, I also believe it’s critical to objectively examine each and every potential “inside information leak” to reasonably determine its independent and true value. Since Violet Sharp was exonerated, I don’t see any potential others that conclusively demonstrate this as having occurred. And I would never underestimate Richard Hauptmann for his resourcefulness, stealth and determination within achieving what he considered to be a clear enough kidnapping plan to be able to go forward with the real thing, despite him knowing full well, it was still going to be extremely risky.
Question. Why was the shutter warped? Answer. We do not know. Agreed, although best information seems to indicate it was some form of defect that went undetected at all levels of inspection by the installer, as a potentially major downstream issue.
Question. Why wasn't it repaired? Answer. Because Lindbergh said the house was "too new." This is the trial response given by Lindbergh and it’s clear you’re presenting it here in the absence of any objective further consideration. It was housekeeper Whateley’s role to remediate any known maintenance issues around the house, so it seems reasonable that Lindbergh in this statement, may have been protecting his employee to a degree here, by implying this deficiency was one that would have been addressed in time as the Lindberghs moved towards making Highfields their permanent home.
Question. Did the family suspect a kidnapping? Answer. Yes, Lindbergh's Father In Law told him to get security or the child would be kidnapped. Simple cause-and-effect logic doesn’t come close to addressing the true inter-personal dynamics here. Charles and Anne Lindbergh had both discussed this possibility. Before Highfields, they lived in relative peace and contentment at their rented farmhouse on Cold Soil Road without added security measures, and I believe they would have felt that the new house’s construction and its isolated location more easily accessible by air than road, represented a much-increased level of safety and security for them. As far I know, Dwight Morrow was not a psychic medium, so simply waving this claim around like an “I told you so!” red flag in 20/20 hindsight, seems a little ingenuous. If, hypothetically, Charlie had never been kidnapped, by the same logic, would you then be calling Dwight Morrow, a needless worry wart?
Question. Did Lindbergh hire Security? Answer. No, he said he didn't want people to think he was afraid. From Charles and Anne’s known statements, I believe it’s reasonable to conclude they didn’t want to have the locals thinking they were “above them,” or that that their home was some kind of bleak and forbidding fortress. And they wanted their children to grow up as normal children do. They made no efforts to prohibit locals from walking along the same trails they had been following for years. Both Lindberghs appeared to choose not to have to live within a bubble of continual fear and concern for their safety. Site security if they had opted for it, could have meant anything from a harmless old geezer with a nighstick, all the way up to a team of beefy guards with automatic weapons, killer dogs and electric fences. As you seem to like this concept so much, what level of security do you feel would have been appropriate here to effectively safeguard the Lindberghs from having their child kidnapped, if someone or some group, had had his/their mind set on doing just that?
Question. Did Wahgoosh bark? Answer. No. Question. Why not? Answer. Lindbergh lied on the stand suggesting the dog wouldn't have. It seems highly unlikely that Wahgoosh, where he usually rested and slept within the Whateley’s servant quarters and behind closed doors, would have barked at an intruder on the other side of the house, on this particularly stormy evening. And Lindbergh wasn’t the only one who didn’t think much of Wahgoosh’s general abilities as a consistent ‘barker’ or watchdog. Reginald Whateley, for one. Unequivocally stating that Lindbergh “lied” here, seems little more than contentious opinion.This goes on for pages and pages.... When Gow is seen being reprimanded by Lindbergh, what did he say? What did Gow yell out when she was being pressed by Garsson? It never ends. For me, I'm not willing to ignore all of this and the total sum indicates there's something else going on. Again, you clearly interpret these two events within a light that potentially aligns them only with your other speculative inferences. This doesn’t help to independently determine the truly objective meaning of either event.
As I continue on this course, and see everything seems to have to do with Lindbergh, in one way or another for this crime to have actually occurred, I begin to see other things. Like, for instance, it's like once he buys "Thor." Apparently he wasn't worried about people thinking he was afraid at this point. Right? Or when he claims to trust his employees and defends them but later confesses they should be considered suspects. It's an unlimited amount of fuel to any theory that involves him. It never ends. Not one, two, or three things, but just about everything. There are modern day people who have been convicted of crimes who didn't look this suspicious. I believe the kidnapping represented a very weighty tipping point and ultimate smack-in-the-face realization that the Lindberghs were not safe within their current living conditions. If one mentally-ill carpenter from the Bronx could do what he did, how truly safe would they ever be without taking further security measures? There have been millions of individuals who have been falsely accused of significant crimes they didn’t commit. Our justice system(s) are far from perfect. It’s for this very reason that they need to maintain absolute vigilance in ensuring the prosecution of individuals is not limited to what can be shown to be speculative opinion. Against just one or two of the circumstantial physical pieces of evidence that convicted Hauptmann beyond a reasonable doubt, consider any of those that appear on the typical laundry lists here. Even numbering in the dozens, I believe you’d find each and every one of them summarily tossed out of any reasonable court of law, no matter how you tried presenting them all together as a package deal. At the end of the day, Lindbergh looks no more suspicious to me than the individual and true worth of anything I’ve ever seen thrown into the ring here that attempts to incriminate him. In short, adding or multiplying zeroes doesn’t get you anything more than zero.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 4, 2023 9:14:47 GMT -5
Here is something from Aida Breckinridge’s statement which I may have previously and unconsciously referred to when I stated that I believed she and Henry had visited Highfields in the weeks just before their weekend visit of Saturday, February 27, 1932.
From the bottom of page 1:
“He (Charlie) seemed very happy and full of viatality. When he saw me I said to him: “this is Mimi.” The baby remembered me from 2 weeks (“the week” is crossed out) before, and looking up in a very wistful way, he said: “Mimi, Mimi.” This impressed me tremendously – that a child of his age should have remembered my name so well 2 weeks afterwards.”
Here, Aida is claiming that she visited the Lindberghs, or at the very least had seen Charlie, two weeks before her February 27th visit to Highfields. As the Lindberghs were not at Highfields on the weekend of Saturday, February 13th, could this mean Aida visited them instead at Next Day Hill, or possibly the Lindberghs visited the Breckinridges in NYC?
So, back to my point about Alva Root perhaps having provided the key to Aida’s recollection of her daughter having been playing with Charlie when her and Henry arrived, could their visit of two weeks previously have represented the impetus for a blending of her recollections and its inferred earlier arrival time at Highfields on the 27th, than Anne and Elsie had both stated?
Unfortunately here, Aida is not clear as to the actual date of the previous visit, and of course she makes no reference to Alva having been there, so while this is additional information, ultimately things still seem far from crystal clear here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 4, 2023 10:01:33 GMT -5
*Certainly, we’re better off by at least considering Junge’s account, even if it represents the only one available about Skean's absence, apart from news accounts that were actually written at the time, and not five years later. We can also question why that is. Was Skean’s presence in Charlie’s nursery ever even considered to be of any primal importance before the kidnapping, in effect a linchpin towards Charlie’s protection when sleeping alone in his nursery, or was Skean there perceived only as company and peace of mind for Charlie? We also don't know if Skean accompanied the Lindberghs on each and every one of their ten previous weekend trips to Highfields, before February 27, 1932. As you mention, other information can be very helpful, therefore it seems a bit limited to be saddled only by one inaccurate set of personal memoirs such as Junge's. You are something else. Please go back and reread my replies. The newspaper accounts cite no source. The Reporter did not work for the Morrows. And, worst yet for this silly position, these accounts were referring to a SEALYHAM! Skean was a SCOTTY. Why do I have to repeat myself and why do I know that in a couple of weeks you are going to do this exact same thing again by pretending it was never discussed? There were other dogs in that house, which I've previously proven with a PHOTO, that at least two of which were either West Highland Terriers or SEALYHAMS. Next, Junge's account, as well as Walsh's letter, indicate that Skean always went with the family. Junge's account indicates he went along every trip except the one in question. I don't see how that can be interpreted any other way. Next, in Walsh's letter, he used the term "usually" which is clearly meant to show the exception being the night in question. I suppose one could make hay with that word, but only if they don't like the idea Skean accompanied them each time. And of course, that would apply to you. As a reminder, the whole reason this was an "issue" is because Skean was not there. Right? So, if you are correct, the SIMPLE answer would be that Skean did not always make the trip - the end. That's not what was happening though - was it? I don't know, maybe its me, but it seems like common sense. Of course one should always consider all possibilities, but it is rather easy enough to navigate without purposefully throwing down roadblocks to the truth. *Do you see how you easily you enable yourself to state that “Lindbergh left Skean behind” as fact, when this statement not only remains uncorroborated, but from all appearances, seems just as likely, that it was Anne who may actually have done this? Easily? The newspaper account has been debunked, and Junge was the only legitimate source - and a very good one at that. We went through this already, ad nauseam, but it seems like the amnesia bug has hit you again. *We’re lucky to have Junge’s inaccurate accounting of Skean not having made it to Highfields that weekend? Why so? And you’d rather have the diary? I’d say that’s a bit of an understatement. The diary is an absolute necessity in order to validate the veracity of Junge’s claim in her memoirs, which appeared five years after the kidnapping. Without it, we simply don’t know if she’s talking from direct personal experience, (which I find very hard to believe) hearsay or in an anecdotal sense based on her understanding of what usually happened. There you go again with the bout of forgetfulness. Not flawed at all. Referring to her diary for the information about Lindbergh leaving Skean behind. A diary written on March 2. She worked there and, along with other staff, was in the best position to have this information. Face it Joe, there is no other conclusion to draw here especially considering Lindbergh was in charge of his family's affairs. We don't even need Junge to know who's decision it was.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 4, 2023 10:57:18 GMT -5
Like I wrote, my list of questions posted here merely scratches the surface. Think about that for a second as I try to get through Joe's rebuttals..... Only according to Marguerite Junge, whose singular accounting of this “event,” is punctuated by two significant inaccuracies within its cursory and uncorroborated description. As previously discussed, her account of Lindbergh leaving the dog behind comes from her diary which was written on March 2. The trivial error, about who left with whom, appears to have come from her memory, not the diary. Since her memory was five years old, as you've repeatedly pointed out, then it makes sense she relied on what normally occurred. Diary vs. Memory. Again, its common sense. Agreed. Certainly, Skean’s presence would have posed a potentially significant roadblock. If he had begun barking before the kidnapper came through the window, it seems unlikely the kidnapping would have occurred. If Skean had not barked, but been on alert or even given a low growl discernible only to the kidnapper when he was on his way through the window, the kidnapper would then have been faced with the decision to proceed with caution utilizing whatever contingency measure he might have planned, or abort. Everything they did seems deliberate and precise. They purposely left behind footprints, a letter, a ladder, and a chisel. There is no evidence of a "contingency measure." We don’t know this for certain because no kidnapper confessed to his plans and possible contingencies to deal with such an unknown. At the same time, how likely would it have appeared to a kidnapper conducting a reasonable level of surveillance around Highfields, that a dog would even have been a potential issue? If he had carefully approached the house during a nighttime surveillance, it seems unlikely he would have encountered any sign or sound canine presence in and around Highfields.
I'm not even going to respond to this silliness. When I began studying this case, this is what I believed. While I wouldn’t dispel that theory outright today, I also believe it’s critical to objectively examine each and every potential “inside information leak” to reasonably determine its independent and true value. Since Violet Sharp was exonerated, I don’t see any potential others that conclusively demonstrate this as having occurred. And I would never underestimate Richard Hauptmann for his resourcefulness, stealth and determination within achieving what he considered to be a clear enough kidnapping plan to be able to go forward with the real thing, despite him knowing full well, it was still going to be extremely risky. Information leaked. No one has been exonerated from being that source. While one may say it could have been inadvertent, or possibly for different reasons other than an actual crime, it's impossible to suggest this was a blind luck occurrence. Agreed, although best information seems to indicate it was some form of defect that went undetected at all levels of inspection by the installer, as a potentially major downstream issue. While Watson insisted that shutter was not warped when his crew departed, it clearly was defective in some way on the night of the kidnapping. There's proof in Anne's statement that it was previously, but since you don't trust Anne then I suppose you reject that information? Or, in this case, do you fully believe what she had to say? This is the trial response given by Lindbergh and it’s clear you’re presenting it here in the absence of any objective further consideration. It was housekeeper Whateley’s role to remediate any known maintenance issues around the house, so it seems reasonable that Lindbergh in this statement, may have been protecting his employee to a degree here, by implying this deficiency was one that would have been addressed in time as the Lindberghs moved towards making Highfields their permanent home.
Again with the selective amnesia! Anne said that SHE was going to have it fixed. Nothing about Whateley falling down on his job. Next, if this was true, why wouldn't Lindbergh have said so on the stand? Perjury to protect a dead man - and for no reason? No, he implicates himself as being responsible. Furthermore, he himself called to have the defective door repaired, not Whateley - that same weekend - so clearly, you are inventing a reason to explain it away. And so, while there are sources to point to that prove Lindbergh was responsible, you point to NONE that Whateley was instead. This is the type of thing that makes it hard to take you seriously Joe. Simple cause-and-effect logic doesn’t come close to addressing the true inter-personal dynamics here. Charles and Anne Lindbergh had both discussed this possibility. Before Highfields, they lived in relative peace and contentment at their rented farmhouse on Cold Soil Road without added security measures, and I believe they would have felt that the new house’s construction and its isolated location more easily accessible by air than road, represented a much-increased level of safety and security for them. As far I know, Dwight Morrow was not a psychic medium, so simply waving this claim around like an “I told you so!” red flag in 20/20 hindsight, seems a little ingenuous. If, hypothetically, Charlie had never been kidnapped, by the same logic, would you then be calling Dwight Morrow, a needless worry wart? Not true. Anne had several encounters there that caused her fear. This is basic knowledge. Next, Dwight Morrow knew about threats and security. It might serve you well to do your homework before formulating a rebuttal. From Charles and Anne’s known statements, I believe it’s reasonable to conclude they didn’t want to have the locals thinking they were “above them,” or that that their home was some kind of bleak and forbidding fortress. And they wanted their children to grow up as normal children do. They made no efforts to prohibit locals from walking along the same trails they had been following for years. Both Lindberghs appeared to choose not to have to live within a bubble of continual fear and concern for their safety. Site security if they had opted for it, could have meant anything from a harmless old geezer with a nighstick, all the way up to a team of beefy guards with automatic weapons, killer dogs and electric fences. As you seem to like this concept so much, what level of security do you feel would have been appropriate here to effectively safeguard the Lindberghs from having their child kidnapped, if someone or some group, had had his/their mind set on doing just that? You've got a great fantasy script there Joe. Fact is, Lindbergh did believe he was above the locals. Heck, he wouldn't even let Allen in his house, and never once thanked him for finding his dead son. Is that the best you can do? Back to the drawing board.... It seems highly unlikely that Wahgoosh, where he usually rested and slept within the Whateley’s servant quarters and behind closed doors, would have barked at an intruder on the other side of the house, on this particularly stormy evening. And Lindbergh wasn’t the only one who didn’t think much of Wahgoosh’s general abilities as a consistent ‘barker’ or watchdog. Reginald Whateley, for one. Unequivocally stating that Lindbergh “lied” here, seems little more than contentious opinion. By all accounts, Wahgoosh was a barker. It doesn't matter where he slept, if he heard a noise, he barked. Lindbergh lied on the stand when he said he wouldn't expect Wahgoosh to bark. You are good at making up silly reasons for stuff like this so why not here too? Again, you clearly interpret these two events within a light that potentially aligns them only with your other speculative inferences. This doesn’t help to independently determine the truly objective meaning of either event. Am I supposed to take this seriously? I believe the kidnapping represented a very weighty tipping point and ultimate smack-in-the-face realization that the Lindberghs were not safe within their current living conditions. If one mentally-ill carpenter from the Bronx could do what he did, how truly safe would they ever be without taking further security measures?
How about this.... The new threats against him, his wife, and his new son, all had nothing to do with him. He actually cared what happened under these circumstances. All of the sudden, he starts to act normally, when before this crime, and during this investigation, he clearly did not. There have been millions of individuals who have been falsely accused of significant crimes they didn’t commit. Our justice system(s) are far from perfect. It’s for this very reason that they need to maintain absolute vigilance in ensuring the prosecution of individuals is not limited to what can be shown to be speculative opinion. Against just one or two of the circumstantial physical pieces of evidence that convicted Hauptmann beyond a reasonable doubt, consider any of those that appear on the typical laundry lists here. Even numbering in the dozens, I believe you’d find each and every one of them summarily tossed out of any reasonable court of law, no matter how you tried presenting them all together as a package deal. At the end of the day, Lindbergh looks no more suspicious to me than the individual and true worth of anything I’ve ever seen thrown into the ring here that attempts to incriminate him. In short, adding or multiplying zeroes doesn’t get you anything more than zero. Apply my original point in spades.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 18, 2023 19:35:46 GMT -5
*Certainly, we’re better off by at least considering Junge’s account, even if it represents the only one available about Skean's absence, apart from news accounts that were actually written at the time, and not five years later. We can also question why that is. Was Skean’s presence in Charlie’s nursery ever even considered to be of any primal importance before the kidnapping, in effect a linchpin towards Charlie’s protection when sleeping alone in his nursery, or was Skean there perceived only as company and peace of mind for Charlie? We also don't know if Skean accompanied the Lindberghs on each and every one of their ten previous weekend trips to Highfields, before February 27, 1932. As you mention, other information can be very helpful, therefore it seems a bit limited to be saddled only by one inaccurate set of personal memoirs such as Junge's. You are something else. Please go back and reread my replies. The newspaper accounts cite no source. The Reporter did not work for the Morrows. And, worst yet for this silly position, these accounts were referring to a SEALYHAM! Skean was a SCOTTY. Why do I have to repeat myself and why do I know that in a couple of weeks you are going to do this exact same thing again by pretending it was never discussed? There were other dogs in that house, which I've previously proven with a PHOTO, that at least two of which were either West Highland Terriers or SEALYHAMS. Next, Junge's account, as well as Walsh's letter, indicate that Skean always went with the family. Junge's account indicates he went along every trip except the one in question. I don't see how that can be interpreted any other way. Next, in Walsh's letter, he used the term "usually" which is clearly meant to show the exception being the night in question. I suppose one could make hay with that word, but only if they don't like the idea Skean accompanied them each time. And of course, that would apply to you. As a reminder, the whole reason this was an "issue" is because Skean was not there. Right? So, if you are correct, the SIMPLE answer would be that Skean did not always make the trip - the end. That's not what was happening though - was it? I don't know, maybe its me, but it seems like common sense. Of course one should always consider all possibilities, but it is rather easy enough to navigate without purposefully throwing down roadblocks to the truth. My January 26th post with its attached news clipping, identified the dog in question as a SEALYHAM, not a SCOTTISH Terrier. I’ve been very clear all along that I don’t know for a fact if Skean, a Scottie, was at the veterinarian on the weekend of February 26, 1932. News accounts like this should always warrant further scrutiny however, to determine how and why specific information came to light. Obviously, something sparked this story. Both of the Lindbergh dogs were at times, misidentified. Skean was mistakenly tagged as the dog who was sleeping through the kidnapping and Wahgoosh was at times, incorrectly referred to as “Trixie.” We both know full well that the newspapers didn’t always have all the information all the time. But they did also get some things right and were in fact at times on top of official investigators, actually feeding them information because of their innate abilities to sniff out the news. It’s called investigative journalism but you of course know this, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing news sources in your series of books. Just try keeping an open mind here and resist the temptation to fall lock step behind only one sketchy account like Marguerite Junge’s verklempt attempt to transform her apparent self-notoriety as seamstress at Next Day Hill, into a best seller. I’ve pointed out the reasons for this and you know full well what they are. Quite interesting really, as I recall having this same discussion many years ago and your brief retort only that Lindbergh "left Skean behind." And not knowing any better at the time, I accepted this as fact. If I knew then you had been referring to such a spurious account as Junge’s memoirs for your single source, we would not be having this same discussion today. As for what Walsh had to say, you clearly need to pick up a dictionary to add to your reading material. Here’s what 'Oxford' says the word “usually” means: “under normal conditions; generally.” Try processing that against your imaginative canvas that features Lindbergh deviously scheming to ensure at all costs, right down to Charlie's pet dog being out of the way, that his first-born son would be "destroyed" as planned. I still think you need to get off the keyboard and get your a** down to the NJSP Archives as their archivist.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 18, 2023 21:42:58 GMT -5
My January 26th post with its attached news clipping, identified the dog in question as a SEALYHAM, not a SCOTTISH Terrier. I’ve been very clear all along that I don’t know for a fact if Skean, a Scottie, was at the veterinarian on the weekend of February 26, 1932. News accounts like this should always warrant further scrutiny however, to determine how and why specific information came to light. Obviously, something sparked this story. Both of the Lindbergh dogs were at times, misidentified. Skean was mistakenly tagged as the dog who was sleeping through the kidnapping and Wahgoosh was at times, incorrectly referred to as “Trixie.” Yes, something did. Everyone wanted to know where the dog was and why it did not bark. The story is based on one or more misunderstandings. Once it came out, everyone believed Skean had been to the Vet. That's obviously why Jung addressed it up in her manuscript because she knew where Skean actually was. We both know full well that the newspapers didn’t always have all the information all the time. But they did also get some things right and were in fact at times on top of official investigators, actually feeding them information because of their innate abilities to sniff out the news. It’s called investigative journalism but you of course know this, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing news sources in your series of books. Just try keeping an open mind here and resist the temptation to fall lock step behind only one sketchy account like Marguerite Junge’s verklempt attempt to transform her apparent self-notoriety as seamstress at Next Day Hill, into a best seller. What you write is correct... Sometimes they got it right. However, sometimes they got it wrong, like above. Sometimes they flat out made things up to satisfy their Editors eager for a story, or an owner demanding "scoops" to sell papers. Some of the Reporters working for bigger papers had expense money they used to bribe Police for information. A perfect example was what I wrote about in V3, where Kelly sold copies of the crime scene photos he took in the nursery. But again, not all reporters engaged in this conduct either. Another example here was in V3 where we see that Kilgallen had the verdict early but chose not to use that information and waited for the actual verdict to be read by the Jury. Next, and this is important so listen up, not all cops were in a position to know for sure the information they were giving was actually correct. In the case of Skean, there was no police investigation into it. Just look at the NYU Dinner Lindbergh missed. As I wrote in V1, it was in the May 18th (!!!) meeting that the FBI was asking about it and Schwarzkopf's reply was they did not go into it. So forget about the cops investigating Skean. And if they had I have the report but I don't because, just as Schwarzkopf admitted, they didn't bother. So when an article like the one about Skean came out, we can only hope the source is legitimate. You know, like a person who was working in the Morrow household ... like Jung. I’ve pointed out the reasons for this and you know full well what they are. Quite interesting really, as I recall having this same discussion many years ago and your brief retort only that Lindbergh "left Skean behind." And not knowing any better at the time, I accepted this as fact. If I knew then you had been referring to such a spurious account as Junge’s memoirs for your single source, we would not be having this same discussion today. See above. And, once again, we both know if Jung's manuscript declared Skean was at the Vet you wouldn't be trying all these dirty pool tactics but instead embracing it and shouting it from the rooftops. As for what Walsh had to say, you clearly need to pick up a dictionary to add to your reading material. Here’s what 'Oxford' says the word “usually” means: “under normal conditions; generally.” Try processing that against your imaginative canvas that features Lindbergh deviously scheming to ensure at all costs, right down to Charlie's pet dog being out of the way, that his first-born son would be "destroyed" as planned. I still think you need to get off the keyboard and get your a** down to the NJSP Archives as their archivist. I read the reports everyday Joe. It's clear what he meant, and I can tell you from experience that Walsh wasn't using a dictionary. All this other added stuff has nothing to do with the point does it? So you are injecting it as a diversion. What are we in High School now? Anyway, the NJSP already has an Archivist and I am hearing a lot of good things about him. I do have to go back and search thru the Hoffman Correspondence file so it won't be long until I get to meet him I hope.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 19, 2023 8:31:25 GMT -5
My January 26th post with its attached news clipping, identified the dog in question as a SEALYHAM, not a SCOTTISH Terrier. I’ve been very clear all along that I don’t know for a fact if Skean, a Scottie, was at the veterinarian on the weekend of February 26, 1932. News accounts like this should always warrant further scrutiny however, to determine how and why specific information came to light. Obviously, something sparked this story. Both of the Lindbergh dogs were at times, misidentified. Skean was mistakenly tagged as the dog who was sleeping through the kidnapping and Wahgoosh was at times, incorrectly referred to as “Trixie.” Yes, something did. Everyone wanted to know where the dog was and why it did not bark. The story is based on one or more misunderstandings. Once it came out, everyone believed Skean had been to the Vet. That's obviously why Jung addressed it up in her manuscript because she knew where Skean actually was. Junge's memoirs doesn't make that appear obvious at all. If she had sought to "set the record straight" as you're suggesting, would she not have noted such a discrepancy, ie. that Skean was not at the vet as the newspapers had reported, but out for a stroll in the park? Sorry Michael, you haven't convinced me that Junge's flawed accounting of Skean's absence from Charlie's nursery has any reasonable credibility. We don't have her diary to back up what she said, so we simply don't know what she actually wrote in it, was trusting to her memory or had simply forgotten and filled in with anecdotal information, five years later.
While we may never know what spawned the story that Charlie's companion, a "Sealyham" (incorrect identification?) was at the Princeton Kennels, I do find it interesting that the story also reported Lindbergh still hadn't had time to pick him up from the kennels by the time this story came out around March 7, basically finding himself indisposed at Highfields with the investigation. And just where was Skean right after the kidnapping? There seem to have been no reports of him "pining" for Charlie around Next Day Hill or Highfields, nothing that I'm aware of in the intervening six days.We both know full well that the newspapers didn’t always have all the information all the time. But they did also get some things right and were in fact at times on top of official investigators, actually feeding them information because of their innate abilities to sniff out the news. It’s called investigative journalism but you of course know this, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing news sources in your series of books. Just try keeping an open mind here and resist the temptation to fall lock step behind only one sketchy account like Marguerite Junge’s verklempt attempt to transform her apparent self-notoriety as seamstress at Next Day Hill, into a best seller. What you write is correct... Sometimes they got it right. However, sometimes they got it wrong, like above. Sometimes they flat out made things up to satisfy their Editors eager for a story, or an owner demanding "scoops" to sell papers. Some of the Reporters working for bigger papers had expense money they used to bribe Police for information. A perfect example was what I wrote about in V3, where Kelly sold copies of the crime scene photos he took in the nursery. But again, not all reporters engaged in this conduct either. Another example here was in V3 where we see that Kilgallen had the verdict early but chose not to use that information and waited for the actual verdict to be read by the Jury. Next, and this is important so listen up, not all cops were in a position to know for sure the information they were giving was actually correct. In the case of Skean, there was no police investigation into it. Just look at the NYU Dinner Lindbergh missed. As I wrote in V1, it was in the May 18th (!!!) meeting that the FBI was asking about it and Schwarzkopf's reply was they did not go into it. So forget about the cops investigating Skean. And if they had I have the report but I don't because, just as Schwarzkopf admitted, they didn't bother. So when an article like the one about Skean came out, we can only hope the source is legitimate. You know, like a person who was working in the Morrow household ... like Jung. I have to believe the relative significance of Skean's absence from Charlie's nursery was probably not fully appreciated until well after the first wave of investigative attention into the substantial crime scene evidence and personal interviews had passed over. Somewhere though, a reporter decided to pursue this angle, that the dog who normally would have slept under Charlie's bed, was a no-show on the night of the kidnapping. It certainly didn't take them long to explore this angle and here again, investigative journalism was working by way of its own devices, picking up the pieces not being investigated, or even considered by the police. I’ve pointed out the reasons for this and you know full well what they are. Quite interesting really, as I recall having this same discussion many years ago and your brief retort only that Lindbergh "left Skean behind." And not knowing any better at the time, I accepted this as fact. If I knew then you had been referring to such a spurious account as Junge’s memoirs for your single source, we would not be having this same discussion today. See above. And, once again, we both know if Jung's manuscript declared Skean was at the Vet you wouldn't be trying all these dirty pool tactics but instead embracing it and shouting it from the rooftops. Not true. If Junge had said Skean was at the vet, and it was the only account of this having taken place, I'd be first questioning why this was not common knowledge. Having gained additional insight here for Junge's propensity for self-promotion and opportunity at the expense of factual information seen through the glaring errors in her memoirs account, that question would be very well founded.
As for what Walsh had to say, you clearly need to pick up a dictionary to add to your reading material. Here’s what 'Oxford' says the word “usually” means: “under normal conditions; generally.” Try processing that against your imaginative canvas that features Lindbergh deviously scheming to ensure at all costs, right down to Charlie's pet dog being out of the way, that his first-born son would be "destroyed" as planned. I still think you need to get off the keyboard and get your a** down to the NJSP Archives as their archivist. I read the reports everyday Joe. It's clear what he meant, and I can tell you from experience that Walsh wasn't using a dictionary. All this other added stuff has nothing to do with the point does it? So you are injecting it as a diversion. What are we in High School now? Anyway, the NJSP already has an Archivist and I am hearing a lot of good things about him. I do have to go back and search thru the Hoffman Correspondence file so it won't be long until I get to meet him I hope. I understand your personal interpretation of Walsh's report but certainly you can understand my own desire, and possibly others, to know exactly what he said here as opposed to what you choose to pass along. I'm pretty sure I don't have that specific report, so can you please post it for information?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 19, 2023 9:24:44 GMT -5
*Do you see how you easily you enable yourself to state that “Lindbergh left Skean behind” as fact, when this statement not only remains uncorroborated, but from all appearances, seems just as likely, that it was Anne who may actually have done this? Easily? The newspaper account has been debunked, and Junge was the only legitimate source - and a very good one at that. We went through this already, ad nauseam, but it seems like the amnesia bug has hit you again. You’re stating the Princeton Kennels newspaper story has been debunked by Junge’s flawed memoirs account, which is a piece of self-serving writing worthy of being termed bunk in itself? This position of yours, is becoming the essential ad nauseum here.
*We’re lucky to have Junge’s inaccurate accounting of Skean not having made it to Highfields that weekend? Why so? And you’d rather have the diary? I’d say that’s a bit of an understatement. The diary is an absolute necessity in order to validate the veracity of Junge’s claim in her memoirs, which appeared five years after the kidnapping. Without it, we simply don’t know if she’s talking from direct personal experience, (which I find very hard to believe) hearsay or in an anecdotal sense based on her understanding of what usually happened. There you go again with the bout of forgetfulness. Not flawed at all. Referring to her diary for the information about Lindbergh leaving Skean behind. A diary written on March 2. She worked there and, along with other staff, was in the best position to have this information. Face it Joe, there is no other conclusion to draw here especially considering Lindbergh was in charge of his family's affairs. We don't even need Junge to know who's decision it was. You have no idea what details relative to this event, Junge wrote in her diary, so you’re just blowing dust bunnies here from the start. And if Junge had have been reading from her diary, she would not have stated that Lindbergh left Next Day Hill with the family and she wouldn't have called Skean, “Scium?” Please stop pretending to know something from "on high" that you don’t, and pass it off as fact here.
I see you've also thrown in more of the "Big Bad Lindy" syndrome for good measure here. And I suppose you believe it was Lindbergh who ensured that Charlie would be at Highfields on the Monday and Tuesday evenings as well, thus making it easy for the shadowy fauxnapping group to do its nefarious deed?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 19, 2023 10:41:51 GMT -5
Like I wrote, my list of questions posted here merely scratches the surface. Think about that for a second as I try to get through Joe's rebuttals..... Only according to Marguerite Junge, whose singular accounting of this “event,” is punctuated by two significant inaccuracies within its cursory and uncorroborated description. As previously discussed, her account of Lindbergh leaving the dog behind comes from her diary which was written on March 2. The trivial error, about who left with whom, appears to have come from her memory, not the diary. Since her memory was five years old, as you've repeatedly pointed out, then it makes sense she relied on what normally occurred. Diary vs. Memory. Again, its common sense. Trivial errors? Relegating them to that status certainly indicates something that underscores your personal brand of common sense.
Agreed. Certainly, Skean’s presence would have posed a potentially significant roadblock. If he had begun barking before the kidnapper came through the window, it seems unlikely the kidnapping would have occurred. If Skean had not barked, but been on alert or even given a low growl discernible only to the kidnapper when he was on his way through the window, the kidnapper would then have been faced with the decision to proceed with caution utilizing whatever contingency measure he might have planned, or abort. Everything they did seems deliberate and precise. They purposely left behind footprints, a letter, a ladder, and a chisel. There is no evidence of a "contingency measure." We simply don’t know if there were any contingencies in place, because the kidnapper never confessed and revealed his plans and measures. They purposely left behind footprints did they? Then why, according to your position, would they have ever bothered to tiptoe precariously along the very narrow piece(s) of tongue-and-groove flooring which served as a walkway alongside the house? The fact is, they didn’t do this. The leeward ground directly alongside the house was protected from the elements more so than the ground further away from the house which of course did show the retreating footprints of the kidnapper(s). The crime scene evidence photo showing the ground where the ladder rails were impressed clearly demonstrates it was not "wet and sloppy" but relatively firm and of a composition that would not have afforded telltale prints made by stockinged feet. There are also strong indications that the sudden and unexpected breaking of the ladder effectively scuttled any previous plans to retreat back alongside the house and down the driveway.We don’t know this for certain because no kidnapper confessed to his plans and possible contingencies to deal with such an unknown. At the same time, how likely would it have appeared to a kidnapper conducting a reasonable level of surveillance around Highfields, that a dog would even have been a potential issue? If he had carefully approached the house during a nighttime surveillance, it seems unlikely he would have encountered any sign or sound canine presence in and around Highfields.
I'm not even going to respond to this silliness. I'm not sure you could if you tried, but please indulge me. How likely do you think it would have been for the kidnapper to have encountered a dog in or around the house if he had decided to get closer, walking in from Hopewell-Wertsville Road?
When I began studying this case, this is what I believed. While I wouldn’t dispel that theory outright today, I also believe it’s critical to objectively examine each and every potential “inside information leak” to reasonably determine its independent and true value. Since Violet Sharp was exonerated, I don’t see any potential others that conclusively demonstrate this as having occurred. And I would never underestimate Richard Hauptmann for his resourcefulness, stealth and determination within achieving what he considered to be a clear enough kidnapping plan to be able to go forward with the real thing, despite him knowing full well, it was still going to be extremely risky. Information leaked. No one has been exonerated from being that source. While one may say it could have been inadvertent, or possibly for different reasons other than an actual crime, it's impossible to suggest this was a blind luck occurrence. Violet Sharp’s fears relative to her having potentially given any “meaningful secrets of the household” to a newspaper reporter and concern about her social life with other men played on her mind given the tragedy and scope of the kidnapping all around her. No blind luck involved here for the kidnapper, but a very sizable degree of risk taken against the potential reward. Beyond what he was able to ascertain and accomplish through his own resourcefulness and abilities, he took advantage of an unexpected confluence of disparate events that aided him, but were not set in motion or maintained for his benefit. Agreed, although best information seems to indicate it was some form of defect that went undetected at all levels of inspection by the installer, as a potentially major downstream issue. While Watson insisted that shutter was not warped when his crew departed, it clearly was defective in some way on the night of the kidnapping. There's proof in Anne's statement that it was previously, but since you don't trust Anne then I suppose you reject that information? Or, in this case, do you fully believe what she had to say? Why do you state that I don’t trust Anne, or is this just another one of your tiresome debate tactic? Mrs. Morrow testified in a police report that the southeast corner window shutters would not lock on the nights of October 31 and November 1, 1931, so we know they were defective as early as that point. Given what we know about the house construction schedule, I believe its safe to conclude the shutters were probably installed just a short time before that first sleepover weekend.
This is the trial response given by Lindbergh and it’s clear you’re presenting it here in the absence of any objective further consideration. It was housekeeper Whateley’s role to remediate any known maintenance issues around the house, so it seems reasonable that Lindbergh in this statement, may have been protecting his employee to a degree here, by implying this deficiency was one that would have been addressed in time as the Lindberghs moved towards making Highfields their permanent home.
Again with the selective amnesia! Anne said that SHE was going to have it fixed. Nothing about Whateley falling down on his job. Next, if this was true, why wouldn't Lindbergh have said so on the stand? Perjury to protect a dead man - and for no reason? No, he implicates himself as being responsible. Furthermore, he himself called to have the defective door repaired, not Whateley - that same weekend - so clearly, you are inventing a reason to explain it away. And so, while there are sources to point to that prove Lindbergh was responsible, you point to NONE that Whateley was instead. This is the type of thing that makes it hard to take you seriously Joe. I try to take you seriously, Michael. Lindbergh, with his statement that the house was “too new,” is essentially protecting not only himself, but others who were well aware of the fact the southeast corner shutters would not lock. Clearly, no one had put two and two together that this condition would have made it that much easier for an intruder to gain access into the nursery. The fact remains, the shutters were not fixed, but it wasn’t because Lindbergh was sitting in his study, gleefully rubbing his hands together while conjuring up plans for the “destruction” of his son. This is where you need that XL reality pill.. Simply put, no one in that house really saw this thing coming. I’m not saying they shouldn’t have exercised more systemic and even daily caution. Had they done that, they might have started by locking all of their upstairs windows as a habit. But they didn’t, and this factor and the defective shutters were just two more of the unfortunate circumstances among a group of many, that ultimately merged together in tragedy. Simple cause-and-effect logic doesn’t come close to addressing the true inter-personal dynamics here. Charles and Anne Lindbergh had both discussed this possibility. Before Highfields, they lived in relative peace and contentment at their rented farmhouse on Cold Soil Road without added security measures, and I believe they would have felt that the new house’s construction and its isolated location more easily accessible by air than road, represented a much-increased level of safety and security for them. As far I know, Dwight Morrow was not a psychic medium, so simply waving this claim around like an “I told you so!” red flag in 20/20 hindsight, seems a little ingenuous. If, hypothetically, Charlie had never been kidnapped, by the same logic, would you then be calling Dwight Morrow, a needless worry wart? Not true. Anne had several encounters there that caused her fear. This is basic knowledge. Next, Dwight Morrow knew about threats and security. It might serve you well to do your homework before formulating a rebuttal. Just suggesting as a rule, you might want to consider being less of a cherry-picker. So then, if Anne was so concerned about her safety according to you, even though it’s quite clear she believed the local folk were just being curious and were harmless, just what is your point here?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 19, 2023 10:57:46 GMT -5
Like I wrote, my list of questions posted here merely scratches the surface. Think about that for a second as I try to get through Joe's rebuttals..... From Charles and Anne’s known statements, I believe it’s reasonable to conclude they didn’t want to have the locals thinking they were “above them,” or that that their home was some kind of bleak and forbidding fortress. And they wanted their children to grow up as normal children do. They made no efforts to prohibit locals from walking along the same trails they had been following for years. Both Lindberghs appeared to choose not to have to live within a bubble of continual fear and concern for their safety. Site security if they had opted for it, could have meant anything from a harmless old geezer with a nighstick, all the way up to a team of beefy guards with automatic weapons, killer dogs and electric fences. As you seem to like this concept so much, what level of security do you feel would have been appropriate here to effectively safeguard the Lindberghs from having their child kidnapped, if someone or some group, had had his/their mind set on doing just that? You've got a great fantasy script there Joe. Fact is, Lindbergh did believe he was above the locals. Heck, he wouldn't even let Allen in his house, and never once thanked him for finding his dead son. Is that the best you can do? Back to the drawing board.... Again, with the cherry picking and attempts to take the discussion off the rails. I’ve offered something very tangible, reasonable and worthy of further intelligent discussion. And as you’re so critical about Lindbergh not having installed security, I’m curious as to how you would have addressed this for Highfields. Any ideas, or are you going to just keep spiraling here with your armchair quarterback routine?It seems highly unlikely that Wahgoosh, where he usually rested and slept within the Whateley’s servant quarters and behind closed doors, would have barked at an intruder on the other side of the house, on this particularly stormy evening. And Lindbergh wasn’t the only one who didn’t think much of Wahgoosh’s general abilities as a consistent ‘barker’ or watchdog. Reginald Whateley, for one. Unequivocally stating that Lindbergh “lied” here, seems little more than contentious opinion. By all accounts, Wahgoosh was a barker. It doesn't matter where he slept, if he heard a noise, he barked. Lindbergh lied on the stand when he said he wouldn't expect Wahgoosh to bark. You are good at making up silly reasons for stuff like this so why not here too? Wahgoosh was not a “barker” by all accounts, and if he was in a position where it was not caninely (!) possible to have heard something he might have, a) barked at, or, b) not barked at, debate here seems pointless. We know for a fact Wahgoosh was behind closed doors in the Whately’s servants quarters at the time of the kidnapping, and most likely asleep. Give the pooch a break!Again, you clearly interpret these two events within a light that potentially aligns them only with your other speculative inferences. This doesn’t help to independently determine the truly objective meaning of either event. Am I supposed to take this seriously? Take it any way you want, but I suggest you try seeing each event for its true independent value and not just as a means to lobby accumulated and inconclusive points.
I believe the kidnapping represented a very weighty tipping point and ultimate smack-in-the-face realization that the Lindberghs were not safe within their current living conditions. If one mentally-ill carpenter from the Bronx could do what he did, how truly safe would they ever be without taking further security measures?
How about this.... The new threats against him, his wife, and his new son, all had nothing to do with him. He actually cared what happened under these circumstances. All of the sudden, he starts to act normally, when before this crime, and during this investigation, he clearly did not. I'd call it more of a life-event “wakeup call" that registered loud and clear.There have been millions of individuals who have been falsely accused of significant crimes they didn’t commit. Our justice system(s) are far from perfect. It’s for this very reason that they need to maintain absolute vigilance in ensuring the prosecution of individuals is not limited to what can be shown to be speculative opinion. Against just one or two of the circumstantial physical pieces of evidence that convicted Hauptmann beyond a reasonable doubt, consider any of those that appear on the typical laundry lists here. Even numbering in the dozens, I believe you’d find each and every one of them summarily tossed out of any reasonable court of law, no matter how you tried presenting them all together as a package deal. At the end of the day, Lindbergh looks no more suspicious to me than the individual and true worth of anything I’ve ever seen thrown into the ring here that attempts to incriminate him. In short, adding or multiplying zeroes doesn’t get you anything more than zero. Apply my original point in spades. Lindbergh in effect, is either 100% guilty or he’s 100% innocent of any wrong doing. It’s all about intent here and I see none on his part to aid and abet a kidnapping over my own twenty-two years of case study. I'm also quite certain if he had have, unmistakable guilt would have reared its ugly head long before now.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 20, 2023 11:51:22 GMT -5
On the Walsh report... You've ask me to do this in the past but don't seem to remember what I told you, so I will explain it again. First, everything written in my book is correct. Next, I handed you the counterargument on a silver platter. Right? It was me who gave you this possibility to consider which of course I knew you would run with. So insinuating I am somehow being subversive doesn't add up. One might ask "why" I did this knowing the course you would take. The answer is not only because that's how I approach everything myself, but because I am trying to be fair and consistent as I present my position. This is not something you do, in fact, if there's something you don't like its either shrugged off or we're told it cannot be trusted without anything that would qualify of a legitimate reason outside of a playground. Getting back to the report, as I told you before, it is written with very light pencil on multiple sheets of fragile paper. I considered typing it all out, but there's no good reason to do this. You will reject what you don't like or imply I'm not being sincere so there's absolutely no point at all for me to take this time consuming step. Just look at how you are butchering the Jung manuscript and misrepresenting what's written there as "flawed" when clearly it is not.
So in short: You don't "like" that Lindbergh left Skean behind. Therefore, Junge is a bad source. Meanwhile, a debunked newspaper account should be given equal consideration, because you do "like" that account. Also, tell me I wrongly interpreted Walsh, but do so without ever seeing Walsh. And why? Because you don't "like" it.
Anyway, I read thru your most recent replies and its nothing but more of the same. It's all just rinse and repeat as if it had never been previously stated and properly countered. It was Mary who protested that this had gone on long enough some time ago already and I am going to spare her the grief of continuing it into eternity. Besides, your weak responses do more for my position than anything I could write further. So by allowing your silliness to stand unanswered, instead of repeating all of my rebuttals for the umpteenth time, it is a far more effective strategy as far as I am concerned.
|
|