|
Post by Michael on Dec 24, 2022 13:19:34 GMT -5
I've always been baffled by the Narrative/Whateley sections in the FBI Summary Report. For example, it says Whateley last saw the child at 5:30PM, that his wife came down to get him for Lindbergh after he found the child missing instead of Gow, and that both he and Lindbergh read the ransom note before searching. Since much of it relied on 2nd hand information, I merely chalked it up to improper sourcing such as newspaper reports which it sometimes does. However, the answer concerning this mystery is something that I think certain people are going to be upset about. I've spent the last two days reading through some new material and found an interview conducted by a Special Agent about this very subject which was written in 1933. The information found within the Summary comes directly from his report. And his source? He was interviewing Whateley.
Happy Holidays everyone!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Dec 24, 2022 19:09:20 GMT -5
I've always been baffled by the Narrative/Whateley sections in the FBI Summary Report. For example, it says Whateley last saw the child at 5:30PM, that his wife came down to get him for Lindbergh after he found the child missing instead of Gow, and that both he and Lindbergh read the ransom note before searching. Since much of it relied on 2nd hand information, I merely chalked it up to improper sourcing such as newspaper reports which it sometimes does. However, the answer concerning this mystery is something that I think certain people are going to be upset about. I've spent the last two days reading through some new material and found an interview conducted by a Special Agent about this very subject which was written in 1933. The information found within the Summary comes directly from his report. And his source? He was interviewing Whateley. Happy Holidays everyone! Michael, not to cast any doubts on the veracity of Whateley's recollection or how 'upsetting' all of this might be, but can you for now, identify the date on which the Special Agent interviewed Whateley? Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 24, 2022 22:07:31 GMT -5
Michael, not to cast any doubts on the veracity of Whateley's recollection or how 'upsetting' all of this might be, but can you for now, identify the date on which the Special Agent interviewed Whateley? Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Thanks Joe. Can I ask why you think the date of the report is relevant considering Whateley was dead on May 23, 1933? Seems to me the guy would remember when he read the note. Its keeping a lie straight that's a little harder to do. Like saying it was his wife, and not Gow, who was the one to ask him to go see Lindbergh. Immediately after the event, everyone said it was Gow - to include Whateley. That's a hard one to get wrong in such a short period of time if that's what really happened.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Dec 25, 2022 10:40:06 GMT -5
Michael, not to cast any doubts on the veracity of Whateley's recollection or how 'upsetting' all of this might be, but can you for now, identify the date on which the Special Agent interviewed Whateley? Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Thanks Joe. Can I ask why you think the date of the report is relevant considering Whateley was dead on May 23, 1933? Seems to me the guy would remember when he read the note. Its keeping a lie straight that's a little harder to do. Like saying it was his wife, and not Gow, who was the one to ask him to go see Lindbergh. Immediately after the event, everyone said it was Gow - to include Whateley. That's a hard one to get wrong in such a short period of time if that's what really happened. I'm not judging this information without knowing more about your ‘teaser’, although you seem to have already drawn some conclusions here. Of course, the timing of Whateley’s statement to the Special Agent could be of considerable importance, when measured against his March 3, 1932 testimony, a time in which one would think events of the previous two evenings were still relatively fresh in his mind. A few immediate questions come to mind. How can Whateley say that he and Lindbergh looked at the note before searching, when Trooper Frank Kelly opened the envelope in the presence of a half dozen or so witnesses in the nursery, well after the search of their house and grounds? This is a big one to screw up, and so I’d immediately want to know more about how this specific line of questioning was directed and was anything somehow misinterpreted here. The same goes for the Betty vs. Elsie situation. By all outward appearances, the symptoms of Whateley’s perforated ulcer didn’t impact him until shortly before his death, but I believe his general state of mind following the kidnapping took a decided turn for the worse, in spite of any ‘stiff upper lip’ tendencies he would desperately have tried to maintain within his position. That kind of behavioral deception in itself, would not have been good for his overall health. So yes, I’d love to know how much time over the course of fourteen and a half months had elapsed between Whateley’s first police statement and this one you’re referring to.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 25, 2022 11:45:37 GMT -5
I'm not judging this information without knowing more about your ‘teaser’, although you seem to have already drawn some conclusions here. Of course, the timing of Whateley’s statement to the Special Agent could be of considerable importance, when measured against his March 3, 1932 testimony, a time in which one would think events of the previous two evenings were still relatively fresh in his mind. A few immediate questions come to mind. How can Whateley say that he and Lindbergh looked at the note before searching, when Trooper Frank Kelly opened the envelope in the presence of a half dozen or so witnesses in the nursery, well after the search of their house and grounds? This is a big one to screw up, and so I’d immediately want to know more about how this specific line of questioning was directed and was anything somehow misinterpreted here. The same goes for the Betty vs. Elsie situation. By all outward appearances, the symptoms of Whateley’s perforated ulcer didn’t impact him until shortly before his death, but I believe his general state of mind following the kidnapping took a decided turn for the worse, in spite of any ‘stiff upper lip’ tendencies he would desperately have tried to maintain within his position. That kind of behavioral deception in itself, would not have been good for his overall health. So yes, I’d love to know how much time over the course of fourteen and a half months had elapsed between Whateley’s first police statement and this one you’re referring to. He can say it if that's what really happened. Pretty simple if you think about it. There were no "tactics" being used here. It was about the identity of the corpse. Whatelely told the Agent he hadn't seen it. So, if we apply your logic here, he shouldn't have been able to remember that. He properly explained that only two people in a position to know were both Gow and Lindbergh who saw and identified the corpse. Basically, according to the report, Whateley did all the talking about what he remembered. There's nothing about his health or mention of his struggling to remember. Do me a favor and read the Summary at pages 45-6 and 67-8. After you do, are you going to tell me the FBI didn't believe it? Next, you aren't really saying Whateley couldn't remember that he didn't read the note prior to searching by telling the Agent interviewing him that actually he did? These aren't little changes, variations, or mistakes. What he said revealed stark differences between the accepted narrative from March 1st. The memory issue seems to be as I've stated above .... its hard to remember a lie but it's easy to remember the truth. He was interviewed about a month before he died. We already know what he said on his deathbed so it all makes sense. Whateley was the weak link for sure as he almost immediately demonstrated after the crime. Too bad the FBI didn't know the story he told the police originally or I'm quite sure this whole thing would have been solved. He was no Violet Sharp, and if they had him alone and leaned on him, he most certainly would have broken down. Whateley was the key to the kidnapping and Condon the key to the extortion. They had what they needed but badly mishandled it. Anyway, I expect that you may have received a new "Sit N Spin" for Xmas so there's no time like the present to take it for a test drive. I recommend that you try considering the obvious first before using it and see what you come up with.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Dec 25, 2022 12:29:52 GMT -5
I'm not judging this information without knowing more about your ‘teaser’, although you seem to have already drawn some conclusions here. Of course, the timing of Whateley’s statement to the Special Agent could be of considerable importance, when measured against his March 3, 1932 testimony, a time in which one would think events of the previous two evenings were still relatively fresh in his mind. A few immediate questions come to mind. How can Whateley say that he and Lindbergh looked at the note before searching, when Trooper Frank Kelly opened the envelope in the presence of a half dozen or so witnesses in the nursery, well after the search of their house and grounds? This is a big one to screw up, and so I’d immediately want to know more about how this specific line of questioning was directed and was anything somehow misinterpreted here. The same goes for the Betty vs. Elsie situation. By all outward appearances, the symptoms of Whateley’s perforated ulcer didn’t impact him until shortly before his death, but I believe his general state of mind following the kidnapping took a decided turn for the worse, in spite of any ‘stiff upper lip’ tendencies he would desperately have tried to maintain within his position. That kind of behavioral deception in itself, would not have been good for his overall health. So yes, I’d love to know how much time over the course of fourteen and a half months had elapsed between Whateley’s first police statement and this one you’re referring to. He can say it if that's what really happened. Pretty simple if you think about it. There were no "tactics" being used here. It was about the identity of the corpse. Whatelely told the Agent he hadn't seen it. So, if we apply your logic here, he shouldn't have been able to remember that. He properly explained that only two people in a position to know were both Gow and Lindbergh who saw and identified the corpse. Basically, according to the report, Whateley did all the talking about what he remembered. There's nothing about his health or mention of his struggling to remember. Do me a favor and read the Summary at pages 45-6 and 67-8. After you do, are you going to tell me the FBI didn't believe it? Next, you aren't really saying Whateley couldn't remember that he didn't read the note prior to searching by telling the Agent interviewing him that actually he did? These aren't little changes, variations, or mistakes. What he said revealed stark differences between the accepted narrative from March 1st. The memory issue seems to be as I've stated above .... its hard to remember a lie but it's easy to remember the truth. He was interviewed about a month before he died. We already know what he said on his deathbed so it all makes sense. Whateley was the weak link for sure as he almost immediately demonstrated after the crime. Too bad the FBI didn't know the story he told the police originally or I'm quite sure this whole thing would have been solved. He was no Violet Sharp, and if they had him alone and leaned on him, he most certainly would have broken down. Whateley was the key to the kidnapping and Condon the key to the extortion. They had what they needed but badly mishandled it. Anyway, I expect that you may have received a new "Sit N Spin" for Xmas so there's no time like the present to take it for a test drive. I recommend that you try considering the obvious first before using it and see what you come up with. I believe your quoted page number references are a tad askew, but no worries as I understand what you’re referring to. In the meantime, I suggest you take a break from your own long appreciated wooden-model Sit ‘N Spin, or at least try turning the other way for a while. It’s no secret that the FBI Reports can be notoriously inaccurate and this has been discussed many times, with you often leading the charge. So I’m naturally curious as to why they suddenly hold such apparent reverence in your eyes, relative to this accounting of events. Actually, I’m not that curious.. lol. Anyway, let’s see how this ‘new information’ plays out, the Whately interview given a full 13 months after the kidnapping. I’m sure we’re all eyes and ears. And hopefully, you’ll be good enough to actually post these documents so that any ensuing discussion is not just limited to whatever you might choose to dispense for consideration here. Given your superficial treatment of Marguerite Junge's accounting of the Skean-related events of Saturday, February 27, 1932, I'm just a bit uneasy here.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Dec 25, 2022 16:05:54 GMT -5
I'm not judging this information without knowing more about your ‘teaser’, although you seem to have already drawn some conclusions here. Of course, the timing of Whateley’s statement to the Special Agent could be of considerable importance, when measured against his March 3, 1932 testimony, a time in which one would think events of the previous two evenings were still relatively fresh in his mind. A few immediate questions come to mind. How can Whateley say that he and Lindbergh looked at the note before searching, when Trooper Frank Kelly opened the envelope in the presence of a half dozen or so witnesses in the nursery, well after the search of their house and grounds? This is a big one to screw up, and so I’d immediately want to know more about how this specific line of questioning was directed and was anything somehow misinterpreted here. The same goes for the Betty vs. Elsie situation. By all outward appearances, the symptoms of Whateley’s perforated ulcer didn’t impact him until shortly before his death, but I believe his general state of mind following the kidnapping took a decided turn for the worse, in spite of any ‘stiff upper lip’ tendencies he would desperately have tried to maintain within his position. That kind of behavioral deception in itself, would not have been good for his overall health. So yes, I’d love to know how much time over the course of fourteen and a half months had elapsed between Whateley’s first police statement and this one you’re referring to. He can say it if that's what really happened. Pretty simple if you think about it. There were no "tactics" being used here. It was about the identity of the corpse. Whatelely told the Agent he hadn't seen it. So, if we apply your logic here, he shouldn't have been able to remember that. He properly explained that only two people in a position to know were both Gow and Lindbergh who saw and identified the corpse. Basically, according to the report, Whateley did all the talking about what he remembered. There's nothing about his health or mention of his struggling to remember. Do me a favor and read the Summary at pages 45-6 and 67-8. After you do, are you going to tell me the FBI didn't believe it? Next, you aren't really saying Whateley couldn't remember that he didn't read the note prior to searching by telling the Agent interviewing him that actually he did? These aren't little changes, variations, or mistakes. What he said revealed stark differences between the accepted narrative from March 1st. The memory issue seems to be as I've stated above .... its hard to remember a lie but it's easy to remember the truth. He was interviewed about a month before he died. We already know what he said on his deathbed so it all makes sense. Whateley was the weak link for sure as he almost immediately demonstrated after the crime. Too bad the FBI didn't know the story he told the police originally or I'm quite sure this whole thing would have been solved. He was no Violet Sharp, and if they had him alone and leaned on him, he most certainly would have broken down. Whateley was the key to the kidnapping and Condon the key to the extortion. They had what they needed but badly mishandled it. Anyway, I expect that you may have received a new "Sit N Spin" for Xmas so there's no time like the present to take it for a test drive. I recommend that you try considering the obvious first before using it and see what you come up with. Michael, Joe is correct unless you say Kelly lied about opening the ransom envelope??? This is confusing. Unless...Whatley knew what was written BEFORE the envelope was sealed and placed on the windowsill.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Dec 25, 2022 16:48:41 GMT -5
He can say it if that's what really happened. Pretty simple if you think about it. There were no "tactics" being used here. It was about the identity of the corpse. Whatelely told the Agent he hadn't seen it. So, if we apply your logic here, he shouldn't have been able to remember that. He properly explained that only two people in a position to know were both Gow and Lindbergh who saw and identified the corpse. Basically, according to the report, Whateley did all the talking about what he remembered. There's nothing about his health or mention of his struggling to remember. Do me a favor and read the Summary at pages 45-6 and 67-8. After you do, are you going to tell me the FBI didn't believe it? Next, you aren't really saying Whateley couldn't remember that he didn't read the note prior to searching by telling the Agent interviewing him that actually he did? These aren't little changes, variations, or mistakes. What he said revealed stark differences between the accepted narrative from March 1st. The memory issue seems to be as I've stated above .... its hard to remember a lie but it's easy to remember the truth. He was interviewed about a month before he died. We already know what he said on his deathbed so it all makes sense. Whateley was the weak link for sure as he almost immediately demonstrated after the crime. Too bad the FBI didn't know the story he told the police originally or I'm quite sure this whole thing would have been solved. He was no Violet Sharp, and if they had him alone and leaned on him, he most certainly would have broken down. Whateley was the key to the kidnapping and Condon the key to the extortion. They had what they needed but badly mishandled it. Anyway, I expect that you may have received a new "Sit N Spin" for Xmas so there's no time like the present to take it for a test drive. I recommend that you try considering the obvious first before using it and see what you come up with. Michael, Joe is correct unless you say Kelly lied about opening the ransom envelope??? This is confusing. Unless...Whatley knew what was written BEFORE the envelope was sealed and placed on the windowsill. ILoveDFW, to your latter point. That hypothetical scenario would then by necessity, have to place Lindbergh and Whateley pretty much in direct contact with Hauptmann, the author of the nursery ransom note and all of the others. What are the odds of that having happened, besides about 0.00%, not to mention the fact that Kelly opened the nursery note in the presence of at least 6 other witnesses, well after Lindbergh and Whateley had searched the grounds. Might that witnessing group have actually included Whateley, and his later FBI statement just inaccurately recollected that moment to incorrectly imply he saw the note before it was opened? I don't know but I'd really like to know for sure, either way. Based on LJ's previous spoiler alert which identifies Whateley, Michael's recent thread targeting Whateley, as well as group discussion of Mariah Fredericks' The Lindbergh Nanny, I'm starting to intuit a little connection on its own here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 25, 2022 17:52:10 GMT -5
ILoveDFW, to your latter point. That hypothetical scenario would then by necessity, have to place Lindbergh and Whateley pretty much in direct contact with Hauptmann, the author of the nursery ransom note and all of the others. What are the odds of that having happened, besides about 0.00%, not to mention the fact that Kelly opened the nursery note in the presence of at least 6 other witnesses, well after Lindbergh and Whateley had searched the grounds. Might that witnessing group have actually included Whateley, and his later FBI statement just inaccurately recollected that moment to incorrectly imply he saw the note before it was opened? I don't know but would sure like to find out for sure either way. No, it doesn't. First and foremost, even if Hauptmann wrote that note, and I'm not sure he did, it doesn't mean he'd have to be in direct contact with anyone in that household. The idea that he wrote it, therefore, he must be there that night is flawed. I am in possession of something now, written by someone else, who I have never met in my life. Michael, Joe is correct unless you say Kelly lied about opening the ransom envelope??? This is confusing. Unless...Whatley knew what was written BEFORE the envelope was sealed and placed on the windowsill. What Joe offers is a false choice. It's not one or the other. If what Whateley TOLD the Agent is correct, that means both he and Lindbergh saw the note before it was sealed in the envelope. As a reminder, many investigators believed this was an inside job. Even more believe inside job with outside help. Whateley confessed on his deathbed that there was inside help. Unless your name is Joe, its kinda hard to ignore. Especially considering Lindbergh "forgot" about his dinner engagement, refused to hire security, and left Skean behind on the "kidnap" weekend. If we go to Kelly's report, when he opened the letter, the only people in the room were Lindbergh, Chief Williamson, and Cpl. Wolf - with Keaten and Schoeffel later appearing who also read the note. Whateley wasn't there to read it over Lindbergh's shoulder. Joe's only "hope" is that Whateley was misremembering. That perhaps he did such a thing a day or two after the kidnapping but thought it was before they began their search. The problem is, the report I discovered demonstrates he was perfect in his recollection about the corpse, who saw it, and who could identify it. There's the "test" to Joe's theory and Whateley just passed with flying colors. And yet, we are supposed to believe he couldn't remember what he himself did? As I wrote earlier, and Joe is pretending to forget, the FBI Summary is right in places and wrong in others. The places they are wrong is due to lack of proper sources. However, this source is Whateley himself from an investigation made by their very own Special Agent. Here's what the FBI Summary says: On page 46: After the discovery of the ransom note, which was read by Lindbergh and his butler, Ollie Whately [sic], Colonel Lindbergh and Whately immediately ran outside of the house and searched the grounds nearby. On page 67: Whatley last saw Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. at 5:30 P.M., March 1, 1932, at which time both were in the pantry.On page 68: At 10:00 P.M. he was informed by his wife that Colonel Lindbergh wanted to see him immediately; that the baby had disappeared.www.scribd.com/doc/40111342/Summary-1#This differs from his original statement to police. In his March 3 statement he doesn't mention the note. It does say this: Page 1: ...and to the best of my knowledge the Linberg [sic] baby was up in bed, because the last time I saw the child was about 6:00 P.M.
Page 2: I stayed down in the living room reading a paper and at 10:10 P.M. Betty hurried came rushing in and said, "The baby is gone." When I got upstairs in the nursery the Colonel was there and he told me to hurry and call the police in Hopewell, which I did.Based on LJ's previous spoiler alert which identifies Whateley, this group's discussion of Mariah Fredericks' The Lindbergh Nanny, and Michael's recent post targeting Whateley, I'm starting to intuit a little set up as to why Olly has suddenly been seized upon here as the inside 'help' in this thread. That's wrong Joe. I started this thread due to a recent discovery. Additionally, I've never read the Novel referred to in LJ's post, and I wrote about Whateley's confession back in 2016 in V1. If any other book refers to a confession, well then my book would have to be the source for it. While I realize people enjoy fictional accounts, I don't have any room in my head for the invasion of that information to creep.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 25, 2022 23:54:02 GMT -5
The Lindbergh Nanny was well done, but as I pointed out, it's a work of fiction which says that Whateley did it, wittingly or unwittingly. I also don't think the author gets that right, since she starts with the false premise of him giving tours of Highfields, which apparently never happened. That being said, Michael, you say that Whateley was the key to the whole thing. Can you elaborate on that? That makes it sound like he really was somehow behind the kidnapping, or do you mean that if police had leaned on him he would've cracked and revealed what he knew, which would've given everything away?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 26, 2022 8:44:36 GMT -5
The Lindbergh Nanny was well done, but as I pointed out, it's a work of fiction which says that Whateley did it, wittingly or unwittingly. I also don't think the author gets that right, since she starts with the false premise of him giving tours of Highfields, which apparently never happened. That being said, Michael, you say that Whateley was the key to the whole thing. Can you elaborate on that? That makes it sound like he really was somehow behind the kidnapping, or do you mean that if police had leaned on him he would've cracked and revealed what he knew, which would've given everything away? What I mean is that Whateley knew what really happened. As reflected spread out in all four volumes, there's plenty to indicate this as well as the fact he was the type to "crack." I also believe there's indication that his conscience was bothering him early on. What we see revealed in V4 is that Captain Maines wrote, in the 1960s, that Hoffman had something on this and that Lloyd Fisher had an actual confession. Maines wrote that it was Banks, but since these two men were often confused, its clear to me he's referring to Whateley because Banks was never dying in a hospital. The absence of such a document can be explained by the fact Fisher's documents were burned by his partner Herr. It's all about reading everything. So when one piece comes to light one has all of the other information to compare it to. With all due respect to Joe, he reads everything, but if it doesn't implicate Hauptmann he'll tune it out, and dare I say, forgets about it. When I found this report (actually in the form of a letter as many of these documents are), I nearly fell out of my chair because I instantly remembered what was in the FBI Summary. That portion was something I personally had dismissed as a error based on faulty sourcing - but I never forgot about it. If I had, I would have rolled along without batting an eye. Fact is, this document legitimizes what's written in the Summary because it shows it relied on an FBI investigation conducted by an FBI Agent. So when Sisk, et. al. wrote it, there can be no doubt they consulted the documentation and that man who wrote it, to find out what Whateley told him. In a nutshell, if someone like Inspector Walsh leaned on Whateley, like he did with Condon along the Palisades Cliffs, Whateley would have broken down and cried like a baby and we would have the total story about what really happened. Clearly early on Gow was a little sketchy too, but Lindbergh reeled her in. When it came to Condon, he would have revealed more about the extortion. He almost cracked a few times but the rivalry between the agencies, and his fear of the consequences, are what saved him time and time again. Thru Condon we would have known exactly what was going on with the extortion and thru Whateley about the "kidnapping" itself. When it comes to the tours, one might argue, that because I found this document which proves the legitimacy of the Whateley information within the Summary, there might be a similar one which proves the tours. This is a little different because I have so many sources which disprove tours occurred. I am extremely confident that the tours represent what they heard concerning the Humes visiting. There's just too many documented incidents of Whateley chasing people away, and absolutely zero at the NJSP Archives of giving random people tours.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Dec 28, 2022 11:51:18 GMT -5
The Lindbergh Nanny was well done, but as I pointed out, it's a work of fiction which says that Whateley did it, wittingly or unwittingly. I also don't think the author gets that right, since she starts with the false premise of him giving tours of Highfields, which apparently never happened. That being said, Michael, you say that Whateley was the key to the whole thing. Can you elaborate on that? That makes it sound like he really was somehow behind the kidnapping, or do you mean that if police had leaned on him he would've cracked and revealed what he knew, which would've given everything away? What I mean is that Whateley knew what really happened. As reflected spread out in all four volumes, there's plenty to indicate this as well as the fact he was the type to "crack." I also believe there's indication that his conscience was bothering him early on. In Whateley’s position and given the tragic events that took place, any normal person’s conscience would have been bothering him, if he felt that he might have even been in part, unwittingly responsible. He was the 24/7 housekeeper at Highfields and so it would have been within his responsibility to ensure that any issues relating to the facilities were addressed and maintained accordingly. This would have included deficiencies like sticking front doors and a set of shutters that would not lock properly. The fact these were not addressed before March 1, 1932 would certainly have raised regret in his mind, even though Lindbergh himself downplayed this potential avenue.
What we see revealed in V4 is that Captain Maines wrote, in the 1960s, that Hoffman had something on this and that Lloyd Fisher had an actual confession. Maines wrote that it was Banks, but since these two men were often confused, its clear to me he's referring to Whateley because Banks was never dying in a hospital. The absence of such a document can be explained by the fact Fisher's documents were burned by his partner Herr. It's all about reading everything. So when one piece comes to light one has all of the other information to compare it to. With all due respect to Joe, he reads everything, but if it doesn't implicate Hauptmann he'll tune it out, and dare I say, forgets about it. You say I tune out anything that doesn’t implicate Hauptmann? I have to believe that for whatever reason after 22 years, you haven’t yet truly understood the damning nature of the circumstantial physical evidence against Hauptmann. How long can you continue to stand behind him like this while you’re out chasing butterflies just about everywhere else? You cart out a whole litany of wishy-washy unsubstantiated claims against poor old Whateley, a guy that just wanted to do his job for a well-to-do family, but ended up not doing the best job at it. In spite of his reserved British nature, he just couldn’t handle the scope of the tragedy that hit so close to home. Olly wasn’t guilty of anything more than that. If he had have been, even in just some small way with malice, the entire world would have been clearly aware of his crime over ninety years ago.
When I found this report (actually in the form of a letter as many of these documents are), I nearly fell out of my chair because I instantly remembered what was in the FBI Summary. That portion was something I personally had dismissed as a error based on faulty sourcing - but I never forgot about it. If I had, I would have rolled along without batting an eye. Fact is, this document legitimizes what's written in the Summary because it shows it relied on an FBI investigation conducted by an FBI Agent. So when Sisk, et. al. wrote it, there can be no doubt they consulted the documentation and that man who wrote it, to find out what Whateley told him. Okay, it seems the real information is seeping out here. That this chair-tipping document is actually a letter, and it’s based on something Whateley told the writer? So, is it then someone's interpretation of an opinion? Why don’t you just post the ‘letter’ so that others can weigh in on what they consider to be its real, potential value, as opposed to playing the preacher role here and disseminating only what you see fit for general consumption?In a nutshell, if someone like Inspector Walsh leaned on Whateley, like he did with Condon along the Palisades Cliffs, Whateley would have broken down and cried like a baby and we would have the total story about what really happened. Clearly early on Gow was a little sketchy too, but Lindbergh reeled her in. When it came to Condon, he would have revealed more about the extortion. He almost cracked a few times but the rivalry between the agencies, and his fear of the consequences, are what saved him time and time again. Thru Condon we would have known exactly what was going on with the extortion and thru Whateley about the "kidnapping" itself. Ridiculous. Walsh’s silly debacle along the Jersey Palisades openly exposed his enormous ego which he had simply allowed to take hold of his investigative senses. As Condon related in Jafsie Tells All.. "Checkers for Curtis, croquet for Condon." Walsh was sure of himself here, but of course came away with absolutely nothing because Condon was innocent of what Walsh accused him of doing and being. Condon rightly shoved Walsh’s accusations right back into his face. Whateley and Gow were also innocent of any criminal wrongdoing relating to the kidnapping, but they didn’t possess Condon’s level of refusal to be unjustly targeted. In the end, Betty got it together because she understood that she had nothing of a direct and criminal nature to hide within the kidnapping.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Dec 28, 2022 12:14:44 GMT -5
ILoveDFW, to your latter point. That hypothetical scenario would then by necessity, have to place Lindbergh and Whateley pretty much in direct contact with Hauptmann, the author of the nursery ransom note and all of the others. What are the odds of that having happened, besides about 0.00%, not to mention the fact that Kelly opened the nursery note in the presence of at least 6 other witnesses, well after Lindbergh and Whateley had searched the grounds. Might that witnessing group have actually included Whateley, and his later FBI statement just inaccurately recollected that moment to incorrectly imply he saw the note before it was opened? I don't know but would sure like to find out for sure either way. No, it doesn't. First and foremost, even if Hauptmann wrote that note, and I'm not sure he did, it doesn't mean he'd have to be in direct contact with anyone in that household. The idea that he wrote it, therefore, he must be there that night is flawed. I am in possession of something now, written by someone else, who I have never met in my life. You’re not sure Hauptmann wrote the nursery note, regardless of what you must be aware of that directly connects him to the nursery, the nursery note, the remainder of the ransom notes and both cemeteries? Do you have any other leading candidates with a conclusively-proven criminal connection to this case that come to mind here, or would you just prefer to continually direct attention away from Hauptmann, by randomly targeting other individuals to assist your own agenda? I just have to wonder how much longer you can keep this up.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 28, 2022 19:54:24 GMT -5
You’re not sure Hauptmann wrote the nursery note, regardless of what you must be aware of that directly connects him to the nursery, the nursery note, the remainder of the ransom notes and both cemeteries? Do you have any other leading candidates with a conclusively-proven criminal connection to this case that come to mind here, or would you just prefer to continually direct attention away from Hauptmann, by randomly targeting other individuals to assist your own agenda? I just have to wonder how much longer you can keep this up. I've studied the ransom notes for decades and to be honest I'd have to say I'm 50/50 on whether he actually penned them out. As far as the content, there can be no doubt, if he was the actual writer, that what was written was heavily influenced if not created by someone else. That's where I'm at. I can understand if someone else feels comfortable enough to draw a conclusion but I'm not there. If I was, believe me, I'd tell you. I've seen plenty of other handwriting that looks similar, those supposed "unique" 'x's included. Even the experts used for the Forensic Files, there were none who "identified" that handwriting. One of which, by the way, I'm almost certain concluded that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note in that case. What you are doing is a common mistake. You are making an assumption then using it to conclude something else. Even if Hauptmann wrote that note, that doesn't place him in the nursery. It doesn't harm the possibility, but that's about it. I've already gone to great lengths to, what I believe, erases all doubt that Rail 16 and S-226 match. That took me years, and there were no shortcuts. Had I taken them, I would have made the same mistake everyone else who said he built that ladder made... You know, falsely claimed he climbed into his attic to saw that floorboard. Never happened - did it Joe? So, by your logic above, it had to have. And yet, it did NOT. Are you beginning to see my point now? Sometimes it pays to think a little about the possibilities instead of worrying about YOUR agenda. When you claim its me who has one, I'd say its more projection than anything else. I've proven I don't have one by and through my information on Rail 16.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 28, 2022 20:43:24 GMT -5
In Whateley’s position and given the tragic events that took place, any normal person’s conscience would have been bothering him, if he felt that he might have even been in part, unwittingly responsible. He was the 24/7 housekeeper at Highfields and so it would have been within his responsibility to ensure that any issues relating to the facilities were addressed and maintained accordingly. This would have included deficiencies like sticking front doors and a set of shutters that would not lock properly. The fact these were not addressed before March 1, 1932 would certainly have raised regret in his mind, even though Lindbergh himself downplayed this potential avenue.Whateley had nothing to do with getting the Contractors to fix their work. We know that because it was Lindbergh, not Whateley, who called about getting the front door fixed. Of course, if Lindbergh told him to call and make arrangements, there can be no doubt he would have. By all accounts, it was Lindbergh who directed him to call the police the night of the kidnapping too. I've always thought that'd be a "given" but perhaps not. You say I tune out anything that doesn’t implicate Hauptmann? I have to believe that for whatever reason after 22 years, you haven’t yet truly understood the damning nature of the circumstantial physical evidence against Hauptmann. How long can you continue to stand behind him like this while you’re out chasing butterflies just about everywhere else? You cart out a whole litany of wishy-washy unsubstantiated claims against poor old Whateley, a guy that just wanted to do his job for a well-to-do family, but ended up not doing the best job at it. In spite of his reserved British nature, he just couldn’t handle the scope of the tragedy that hit so close to home. Olly wasn’t guilty of anything more than that. If he had have been, even in just some small way with malice, the entire world would have been clearly aware of his crime over ninety years ago. You just proved my point. If you remembered what you've read in my books, then you'd know what you've written above is complete BS. Next, I've uncovered certain facts that come from a variety of sources. It started out with just a few, but as I continued to research there was more and more. And I certainly didn't make anything up. How in the hell would I know what Captain Maines wrote in the 1960s back when I writing V1? I didn't even have his letter yet! Fact is, if this scenario involved Hauptmann, you'd embrace it wholeheartedly. Just admit it and tell the truth. If not publicly, try doing so in the privacy of your own home - maybe in front of a mirror. But you won't. No, because you don't "like" where this leads, so it must be quickly disposed of. That's up to you, honestly, because it makes no difference to me. This information needs to be considered and not shrugged off as you would hope it to be. Hopes, wishes, likes, and dislikes are your major obstacles. Seek everything, consider it without this soap opera mentality but instead apply a little more reality. Okay, it seems the real information is seeping out here. That this chair-tipping document is actually a letter, and it’s based on something Whateley told the writer? So, is it then someone's interpretation of an opinion? Why don’t you just post the ‘letter’ so that others can weigh in on what they consider to be its real, potential value, as opposed to playing the preacher role here and disseminating only what you see fit for general consumption? There are several types of official documents generated by the "FBI" at the time. One is a report, and another is a report written in the form of a letter from the investigator. Next, I could teach a class on the FBI Summary Report. Do you doubt this? Fact is, the Summary includes good information, questionable information, and bad information. I've always said, and correct me if I am wrong, it shouldn't be trusted unless there are other sources that back it up. Why? Because it shows how much the FBI was in the dark about many things at the time it was completed (2/34). Some sources were dubious, like the newspapers. Of course, not all newspaper reports were wrong, so that can be revealed by other sources we have. But what's right in this Summary is based on the investigations. Investigations they were privy to, or the investigations they conducted themselves. The value of this report I've found isn't the report itself. It is the fact it proves, beyond all doubt, that Whateley was interviewed, and this interview and the Agent conducting it IS the source for the information we are discussing. So read it and understand it's legitimate because for one, the authors of the Summary had access to this investigation. And, more importantly, to the Agent who conducted it. Furthermore, the rough draft of the Summary was vetted. Agents read it, then wrote out recommendations for changes or additions meant for the final version. The Agent in question, would have read this and NEVER allowed such a mistake to proceed. End of story. So while I believe the only counter argument that can be made was that Sisk, et. al., made a mistake by misinterpreting the report without ever speaking to its author, that mistake would have never made it thru the vetting process so I reject that position. Just look at the 2nd Autopsy mentioned in that Summary. Know where that came from? Yup, same investigation, but it was Agent Carney who made it by interviewing Dr. Mitchell. That's lucky for us because that 2nd autopsy is NOT at the NJSP archives. The Summary is exactly right about this because, once again, it came from their own investigation. And no, I won't be posting it because its what is in the Summary that's valuable, and I don't want it to turn up in somebody else's book - unless its the person who shared it to me in the first place of course. The report implies it, but the Summary says it beyond all doubt. You have the Summary so read it knowing this information is good. That investigation was in 1933, and the Summary was written in 1934. And again, the authors had access to that investigation, and the Agents who conducted it. Hopefully that clears it up for everyone else. For you, I know the word of Jesus Christ himself won't suffice because you don't "like" it. We must proceed with what Whateley said. If one wants to consider it was a mistake on his part, I personally believe I've already upset that position earlier. Ridiculous. Walsh’s silly debacle along the Jersey Palisades openly exposed his enormous ego which he had simply allowed to take hold of his investigative senses. As Condon related in Jafsie Tells All.. "Checkers for Curtis, croquet for Condon." Walsh was sure of himself here, but of course came away with absolutely nothing because Condon was innocent of what Walsh accused him of doing and being. Condon rightly shoved Walsh’s accusations right back into his face. Whateley and Gow were also innocent of any criminal wrongdoing relating to the kidnapping, but they didn’t possess Condon’s level of refusal to be unjustly targeted. In the end, Betty got it together because she understood that she had nothing of a direct and criminal nature to hide within the kidnapping. Ridiculous? Absolutely nothing? You are living in an alternate reality. Gow "got it together" because why? Maybe Lindbergh making threats and offering promises had something to do with it perhaps?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Dec 30, 2022 11:59:27 GMT -5
In Whateley’s position and given the tragic events that took place, any normal person’s conscience would have been bothering him, if he felt that he might have even been in part, unwittingly responsible. He was the 24/7 housekeeper at Highfields and so it would have been within his responsibility to ensure that any issues relating to the facilities were addressed and maintained accordingly. This would have included deficiencies like sticking front doors and a set of shutters that would not lock properly. The fact these were not addressed before March 1, 1932 would certainly have raised regret in his mind, even though Lindbergh himself downplayed this potential avenue.Whateley had nothing to do with getting the Contractors to fix their work. We know that because it was Lindbergh, not Whateley, who called about getting the front door fixed. Of course, if Lindbergh told him to call and make arrangements, there can be no doubt he would have. By all accounts, it was Lindbergh who directed him to call the police the night of the kidnapping too. I've always thought that'd be a "given" but perhaps not. Whateley had nothing to do with getting the contractors to fix their work? Are you serious? What was he was being paid to do at Highfields during the week and on weekends when the Lindberghs weren’t there? Who would have been dealing with contractors on a regular basis as the house was being finished and deficiencies addressed?
This is what Elsie Whateley said in her Flemington testimony in response to Wilentz’s direct question concerning their roles in working for the Lindberghs:
"Well I was the housekeeper and my husband drove the car and waited on the table and did anything that was needed around the house."
Charles Lindbergh kept a very busy professional schedule with his research work, airline contract positions and many appointments and meetings. Is it reasonable to believe it was solely his responsibility to ensure the new house remaining work and deficiencies were attended to when he was only there a small fraction of the time and had a full time person in Olly Whateley to do just that? Highlighting one instance of Lindbergh having personally followed up with a contractor to address one of these deficiencies, and then using it to establish some kind of rule, is superficial and misrepresentative. If you have any other examples which clearly show Lindbergh had taken on Whateley’s role in this regard at Highfields, please identify them. You say I tune out anything that doesn’t implicate Hauptmann? I have to believe that for whatever reason after 22 years, you haven’t yet truly understood the damning nature of the circumstantial physical evidence against Hauptmann. How long can you continue to stand behind him like this while you’re out chasing butterflies just about everywhere else? You cart out a whole litany of wishy-washy unsubstantiated claims against poor old Whateley, a guy that just wanted to do his job for a well-to-do family, but ended up not doing the best job at it. In spite of his reserved British nature, he just couldn’t handle the scope of the tragedy that hit so close to home. Olly wasn’t guilty of anything more than that. If he had have been, even in just some small way with malice, the entire world would have been clearly aware of his crime over ninety years ago. You just proved my point. If you remembered what you've read in my books, then you'd know what you've written above is complete BS. Next, I've uncovered certain facts that come from a variety of sources. It started out with just a few, but as I continued to research there was more and more. And I certainly didn't make anything up. How in the hell would I know what Captain Maines wrote in the 1960s back when I writing V1? I didn't even have his letter yet! Fact is, if this scenario involved Hauptmann, you'd embrace it wholeheartedly. Just admit it and tell the truth. If not publicly, try doing so in the privacy of your own home - maybe in front of a mirror. But you won't. No, because you don't "like" where this leads, so it must be quickly disposed of. That's up to you, honestly, because it makes no difference to me. This information needs to be considered and not shrugged off as you would hope it to be. Hopes, wishes, likes, and dislikes are your major obstacles. Seek everything, consider it without this soap opera mentality but instead apply a little more reality. Capt. George Maines, the letter writing friend of Harold Hoffman, advising the Governor of claims made by others and also those who heard alleged information still from others.. Do you actually put any credence within Arch Loney’s ludicrous claim that attic board S-226 was added after Hauptmann’s arrest, as was conveyed by Maines? As for the alleged “Whateley confession” that Charlie was carried down the stairs to a waiting car, can you explain why is it that in another event of this sort, Whateley, again on his deathbed, is alleged to have fingered Betty Gow alone? I’ll simply take a stand here as I don’t have the time or energy to debate any more of this kind of nonsense. Michael, if you ever decided to apply just one tenth of the rigour and scrutiny you give the attic wood/ladder and handwriting evidence, towards this kind of unsubstantiated stuff, I think you’d actually be much closer to solving the remaing 10 or 15% of this case that wasn’t cleared up almost 90 years ago. Jim Fisher was spot on when he opined how difficult it is arguing against unproven negatives of this sort. You can come up with all kinds of great reasons to knock them down all day long but at the end of it, you still have to contend with their last words.. “Well, it might have happened..”
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 30, 2022 12:49:59 GMT -5
Whateley had nothing to do with getting the contractors to fix their work? Are you serious? What was he was being paid to do at Highfields during the week and on weekends when the Lindberghs weren’t there? Who would have been dealing with contractors on a regular basis as the house was being finished and deficiencies addressed?
This is what Elsie Whateley said in her Flemington testimony in response to Wilentz’s direct question concerning their roles in working for the Lindberghs:
"Well I was the housekeeper and my husband drove the car and waited on the table and did anything that was needed around the house."
Charles Lindbergh kept a very busy professional schedule with his research work, airline contract positions and many appointments and meetings. Is it reasonable to believe it was solely his responsibility to ensure the new house remaining work and deficiencies were attended to when he was only there a small fraction of the time and had a full time person in Olly Whateley to do just that? Highlighting one instance of Lindbergh having personally followed up with a contractor to address one of these deficiencies, and then using it to establish some kind of rule, is superficial and misrepresentative. If you have any other examples which clearly show Lindbergh had taken on Whateley’s role in this regard at Highfields, please identify them. Whateley did not have anything to do with the Contractors. You are trying to assign a duty to Whateley that he clearly did not have. Again, we have an example to point to. The fact you resist it shows how desperate you are. Lindbergh called to have the front door repaired. He could have told Whatelely to do this, just like he could have told him to do the same as it related to the shutters. But he did NOT. He certainly knew about the situation didn't he? And yet, nothing was done about it. Why? Since you like the testimony so much, why did you avoid Lindbergh's? Did he blame Whateley? So there's more proof your silly explanation doesn't hold water. Nope, Lindbergh blamed it all on the fact the house was " too new." Too new Joe. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. What this testimony absolutely proves is that Lindbergh, not Whateley, was in charge of these types of decisions. No one else on the planet would accept defective shutters on a new house for this reason. Not Whateley, not you, not me, not Wahgoosh - no one. Lindbergh was in charge, and they were left warped because he decided they should be for the reason HE TESTIFIED to. Capt. George Maines, the letter writing friend of Harold Hoffman, advising the Governor of claims made by others and also those who heard alleged information still from others.. Do you actually put any credence within Arch Loney’s ludicrous claim that attic board S-226 was added after Hauptmann’s arrest, as was conveyed by Maines? As for the alleged “Whateley confession” that Charlie was carried down the stairs to a waiting car, can you explain why is it that in another event of this sort, Whateley, again on his deathbed, is alleged to have fingered Betty Gow alone? I’ll simply take a stand here as I don’t have the time or energy to debate any more of this kind of nonsense. Michael, if you ever decided to apply just one tenth of the rigour and scrutiny you give the attic wood/ladder and handwriting evidence, towards this kind of unsubstantiated stuff, I think you’d actually be much closer to solving the remaing 10 or 15% of this case that wasn’t cleared up almost 90 years ago. Jim Fisher was spot on when he opined how difficult it is arguing against unproven negatives of this sort. You can come up with all kinds of great reasons to knock them down all day long but at the end of it, you still have to contend with their last words.. “Well, it might have happened..” Firstly, you are confused and I suggest before you formulate a rebuttal to re-read the information in the books. There's no need to proceed any further until such time that happens. I will say that Maines was Governor Hoffman's friend, and as such, was in a position to know what he wrote to Waller. Next, your point about Loney actually harms your position. Maines was accurately portraying Loney's position. That didn't make it right, but it shows Maines was correct concerning what Loney was telling him. As far as Whateley's confession goes... it needs to be considered. Especially since there's multiple pieces of information coming from different sources that show it did occur. I know its upsetting that I found this information (and no doubt will continue to find more) but I'm not the type of person that believes burying something is a good idea. I am sorry it never came out in one of the books you happen to like but if they put in the time I did, they would have found it too. By the way, how many of these "unproven" things have I already proven? Many as anyone who has read my books already know. And I did so sparingly because I did not want to hammer anyone. Just look at the Cahill book as an example. On page 348 at footnote 19, he claims Lindbergh never hid the child in a closet and pretended it was kidnapped and, what I would call, slams other authors who claim it occurred calling it " poor research." And yet, the evidence sits within the collections at the NJSP Archives - and also in my filing cabinets because I actually did the research to find them. Not finding something can be proven once you find it. Abandoning a search for whatever reason does not mean something doesn't exist or is not true.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2023 19:53:44 GMT -5
Just so everyone else knows... There are even more sources for what Whateley told the FBI during his interview. Keaten told Sisk the same thing, and there's another FBI document dated just after Hauptmann's arrest which repeats it. The only rebuttal that can be made is that Whateley was wrong, and that Keaten misremembered and/or relied on Whateley too. In the end, we definitely have two versions: Lindbergh read the note before the police were called, and the other being he refused to read, touch, or allow anyone else from doing so until the State Police arrived. That's been a criticism I've seen over the years where Discussion Board Members have asked how a Father could keep himself from tearing open that note. The note could have told him where to immediately find his son. Right? He didn't know what it said, it was obviously a missive from the criminals about how to get his son back, and he felt it was more important to wait to get fingerprints? And this is the guy who forbade a lie detector? This is the guy who didn't want the serial numbers on the ransom recorded? This is the guy who threatened Mulrooney when he suggested having his officers watch mailboxes and immediately retrieve letters? This is the guy who didn't want police to follow him to the Cemetery? Doesn't make any sense. His actions are all inconsistent with the idea he wanted to preserve that evidence. Evidence, by the way, that coincidentally did not exist.
So the man grabs his rifle and runs around outside looking for his son, but once he sees the note, that clearly anyone with half a brain would believe would lead to him, he does not open it? Why was he running around the yard? And why, when Williamson & Wolfe get there, was he still holding his rifle? Remind anyone of anything?
|
|