|
Post by jdanniel on Jun 12, 2012 16:53:47 GMT -5
Are you considering a co-author? Jd
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 12, 2012 17:40:51 GMT -5
Michael, I strongly urge you to hire a professional writer to assist with the project. Your knowledge is much too valuable and unique not to be published.
Of course, many other people—scientists, sports stars, politicians, etc.--have hired writers to get their ideas into a highly readable book form.
Professional writers can be high-priced, so you might want to come up with something like profit-sharing (split the royalties). If a writer charged you by the hour, you might have to dig up the rest of that ransom money in Summit to pay him off.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jun 12, 2012 18:18:59 GMT -5
mike, you think the ransom notes were never meant to be collected? thats absurd
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 12, 2012 19:21:11 GMT -5
Thanks for the advice. I'm sure (eventually) I will come up with a solution.
Well, you know, I think it could be thought of as absurd when considering all the myths we've been spoon fed. But once they are dispelled by what really happened, then the once unlikelyhood becomes a very real possibility.
If we believe someone said something they didn't, was somewhere they weren't, believed something they did not, or acted in a way they did not - it impacts everything we know (or thought we knew) about this Crime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2012 19:44:58 GMT -5
Michael, please don't be discouraged!! Complete your chapters. Then address making the book readable. So, Michael, you don't think the ransom money was supposed to be collected? No more notes, no Dr. Condon, no cemetary meetings........nothing? ? O.K. Now that I have got my head to stop spinning, why would someone take Charlie, leave a note saying they want $50,000 but never plan to collect it? I suppose if the kidnapping was a cover-up because Charlie was already dead due to some unknown cause, someone who knew the truth decided they wanted the money to remain quiet about what happened. Why the special signature then? Why would you need that if there were not going to be any negotiations? When I first read about this crime, I got the impression that Lindbergh and Breckinridge worked very hard to make sure there contact was made with the kidnappers. I wondered why they did that. The original note said they would be in contact in 2-4 days. All Lindbergh needed to do was wait for the second note about where to deliver the money. So if this kidnapping is really a cover up, then who wrote that nursery note........Lindbergh?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 12, 2012 20:21:44 GMT -5
Michael, I may be wrong, but I think statements like this could be one reason you’ve been advised to get writing assistance. The statement is tantalizing, but it doesn’t really communicate to us, it just leaves us with a lot of vague impressions. We’d like to know WHO you mean, WHAT they didn’t say, etc. —we need the specifics. Otherwise, like Amy says, it leaves our heads spinning as we try to guess what you’re talking about. I realize you’ve made unique discoveries that you want to save for your book—I appreciate your dilemma there. But if that book is still years away, it’s kind of frustrating for us to hear these half-pieces of vague information.
Reading the whole statement as you gave it, it DOES sound to me (as it apparently did to Amy) like you might be referring to Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jun 12, 2012 20:50:19 GMT -5
IM NOT TALKING ABOUT MYTHS, I JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW YOU CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 12, 2012 22:06:40 GMT -5
By the way, Michael, I feel like we’re hitting you kind of hard today, so I just wanted to say—Thanks for running this board. You answer a ton of questions, and post rare documents in response to our requests—documents that no one else could provide. As the host, you have to be open to a lot of viewpoints, and try to be fair to everyone—and of course, like the rest of us, you have your own life to live, and you're trying to write a book on the LKC at the same time. So I think you’re entitled to occasionally be fuzzy on a few of your answers.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 12, 2012 22:56:03 GMT -5
I second Bookrefuge and Amy. Michael, thank you for running this board. Your knowledge of the case is remarkable and the materials you regularly share with us are truly invaluable. Also, to further piggyback on Amy and Bookrefuge, you simply must finish your chapters. However long it takes. As a writer myself (many years in DC-area theater), I know that no matter how bad you may think it is, push through, get at least a completed structure, then go back and tear it up, re-edit, offer it to others for their take, whatever. Something like this, on this particular subject (the ultimate cold case, second only to Jack the Ripper, in my view)--it's definitely worth it. Don't worry about how it sounds for now, about making read or sound like a book. Just write the facts down as you know them, as simply and cleanly as possible. Start there, and the story and form will come. Now--the ransom was never meant to be collected? The child was meant to never be seen or heard from again? Are you suggesting some kind of Beneath The Winter Sycamores scenario? The baby was sickly or in some other way "defective" in Lindbergh's (or someone else's) view, so he was gotten rid of?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 13, 2012 5:41:04 GMT -5
Over the years, based upon many different factors, I've believed more then one person was involved. I also believe someone was in charge, and that person paid whoever else was involved.
I believe the Signature itself was either added to make the note look authentic or added for the purposes of a later extortion and/or double-cross. I don't think the child was to be returned or the Ransom Money to have been collected orginally. Condon was brought in later just as the later Note says.
I certainly do not think Lindbergh wrote the Ransom Note but the amount asked for seems less then coincidental - just as A&M suggested.
I am being vague on purpose. But what I am trying to do is show how I will be attacking this "problem" by exposing the truth about things, presented over the years as proof positive, that are not true. Also, facts that were omitted or never noticed that hugely impact our way of thinking.
I am Steve. You think about something for years in a certain way. But consider many of the facts which lead you to this are different. Some things embellished, omitted, or lied about. It changes History.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jun 13, 2012 6:24:13 GMT -5
i guess your going to wait and put it in your book. the evidence against hauptmann never changed, nor his actions and lies after the arrest
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 13, 2012 7:02:27 GMT -5
Well certainly it has. Just the Rail 16 issue is one off the top of my head. For me its solved now, and both sides were wrong. I think the idea that since we see evidence of involvement then everything is attributable to him - even if its not - isn't a good position to work from. It's the easiest sure.
More good advice. I was just venting a little. Although I think I've said this a million times before.... there are so many sources to reference. There are days I spend without typing a single sentence because all I do is search for something. For me, I cannot move on from a subject until I know that I covered it completely. Additionally, I want to present what I've discovered in a way that does it justice - I cannot imagine doing all of this work only produce a 2nd Grade Level Book. I can remember when Lloyd's book first came out. I can tell you the man is a Genius and has been blessed with intellectual abilities that have far exceeded mine on the day he was born. And still those who didn't want the contents of his book to be true were pointing to Editing mistakes as a way to distract people from its contents.
My goal isn't royalties - its the truth presented in a way that can only be debated from a good faith perspective. I also want to throw in that if I think something is important, its very possible others may not. This Board has proven to be a "Control" to tunnel vision and over the years helped to keep me in line. You could have a High School Student wonder onto the Board, read one of our threads, then upset an argument I have based solely on common sense. Sometimes we get lost in the woods and I know that I am not above it all.
Anyway, let's get back to the thread.....
Look at our recent discussions. Many here voiced an opinion this crime was based upon more then just ransom. There have been other theories since that night which involved the child being raised elsewhere. A joke gone wrong. An act of a mad-man. A revenge. A murder. Extremely high risk - low reward.
50K - the amount the Extortionist demanded for Constance's safety. This too was never meant to be collected.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 13, 2012 9:04:17 GMT -5
Michael, based on this and other statements you made above, it certainly appears that you believe Lindbergh was the one who “hired” the abductors. Who else but Lindbergh could be “double-crossed”? I am gathering that you therefore believe (A) Lindbergh hired the abductors to remove the child; and that (B) the abductors, perhaps not content with their pay, decided to extort an additional $50,000 from Lindbergh, confident that he would never prosecute them since they could turn the tables by incriminating him. This does raise some problems, however. You say that, based on Rail 16, BRH was involved, though in ways more limited than previously thought. But why would BRH go to the chair to save Lindbergh? It also raises the question of why Lindbergh would want his child removed. Here again, the most likely reason would perhaps be that something was wrong with little Lindy’s health. A couple of things about that, though. Lindbergh wanted a large family, and had 5 more children by Anne. From all accounts of the other kids, he was a good father. Cal Jr. could run, talk, and play. I just don’t see Lindbergh getting rid of the kid because of health problems that were, from what we know, not critical. From what I know of Lindbergh, he was a man who took on problems and solved them. I expect that would have applied to a child’s health situation as well, and I don’t see him staging a kidnapping as the solution. Incidentally, if Lindbergh wanted to eliminate the baby, there were probably simpler ways to do it than conspiring in a staged kidnapping. He could have drowned the kid in the bathtub or dropped him from the second-floor window, and said it was an accident. Then again, if you are right, and Lindbergh hired the abductors, the question is raised: did he intend the kid to be killed or just taken away? Was Cal Jr. killed by mistake, or was it part of the “double-cross”? I am inevitably drawn to the lengthy deposition of William H. Wright, former intelligence officer with the Army Air Corps in South America. I posted the deposition under the thread “What does the Wright deposition mean?” lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=751Wright was certain that the baby was flown to South America. And you know, if Lindbergh wanted to humanely get rid of the child—without killing him—he’d almost HAVE to have him raised outside of this country to avoid detection. And who would know more than Lindy about intercontinental air transport? Wright’s statement reads with too much authority to be casually ignored. The two problems I have with it are (1) his description of Isidor Fisch, which can’t be correct, unless he confused him with someone else using an alias; and (2) if Cal Jr. went to South America, then who was that corpse? The roadside corpse matched up to Cal Jr. in too many ways—it would be one heck of a job to create a “ringer.” OK—LJ and I will write the book for you, Michael. We’ll collect all the royalties, and you can have all the glory. How does that sound to you, LJ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 10:00:33 GMT -5
Are you suggesting some kind of Beneath The Winter Sycamores scenario? The baby was sickly or in some other way "defective" in Lindbergh's (or someone else's) view, so he was gotten rid of? (LJ) I had this same thought too. The book did a good job of weaving together alot of the principle characters involved with this crime. I do think the ransom amount asked for was low making it not the primary objective of this whole "kidnapping". Putting the dollar amount into the note makes the disappearance of the child look like a kidnapping had taken place. If the note was not a real kidnapping note, then how many other things about this crime aren't real either? ?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 13, 2012 11:29:35 GMT -5
I'm totally up for that, Bookrefuge. Accept I'd probably do it for free, since I love writing/editing and just want to know what Michael's book has to say. And Amy, as to Beneath the Winter Sycamores: I've said this before and I hate to beat up on the author, but, while I thought the plot was intriguingly plausible in some respects, I couldn't understand A) why he wrote it as a novel (since it's ostensibly based on an actual letter the author came across), or B) what he was thinking in terms of dialog or organization. Case in point, Anne Lindbergh on hearing the baby's dead from Condon: "Oh that's okay, Doctor. I figured as much all along...<closes bedroom door>" Like I said, good story, good hypothesis--but the whole enterprise, in my view, was undermined by that kind of thing (and by countless typos). A bit off topic I know, but did anyone else who read the book notice any of this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 12:22:50 GMT -5
Beneath the Winter Sycamores does read like a novel and it makes it difficult to take the book seriously. Definitely the wrong way to present material you want taken as fact. In spots it reminded me of the way John Condon conveyed himself.
Putting Lindbergh in the driver's seat of this crime is something that most of us seem to be reluctant to do. He was Charlie's father and should have protective of him. Thinking this is the way to deal with a less than perfect son makes him look cruel to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 13, 2012 13:05:21 GMT -5
To be clear, I don't believe Lindbergh was in the driver's seat, so to speak. I don't know, I just never really liked him for the killer. But I am beginning to wonder now if there was more here than met the eye (well, that's seemed like the case to me for quite awhile now) and that Lindbergh knew more than he was telling, engaging in a cover up of...something, which, just because Lindbergh might've participated in it, doesn't necessarily make him the perpetrator of the crime. I think many anomalies of behavior on his part are explained if one accepts he knew more than he was telling, that he knew what really happened.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Jun 13, 2012 13:53:45 GMT -5
Somebody in Highfields knew something. Somebody.
A kidnapping taking place on the ONLY Tuesday the baby ever spent at Highfields.
Obstacles in the way of entry through the window...nothing moved, nothing broken.
An absence of fingerprints in the nursery. People entering the nursery after the alleged kidnapping and subsequently making statements to the effect that they did not see a ransom note (okay, they all might have been mistaken about that during the "confusion").
A lengthy delay between the discovery of the ransom note and the opening of it.
Oh wait...I'm sorry. It's all coincidence. Never mind. Jd
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 14:52:38 GMT -5
As jd says somebody in Highfields knew something. If Lindbergh knew what was going to happen and agreed with it doesn't that make him an accessory to this crime? His knowing in advance explains why he never went to that dinner in New York. Was he ever in New York that day at all?
It also explains why he wasn't in a hurry to open the ransom note and also why he had to be nudged along by Dr. Condon to open the note that would tell him where his son was to be found. I would have ripped that note open the second Condon gave it to me!!! Lindbergh must have known that Charlie was already dead. That could be the only reason he would have been willing to wait 8 hours to open that note.
So if Lindbergh is in on this, then who might be the actual planner?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 13, 2012 15:25:22 GMT -5
I think we should slow down here. I deduced, from some remarks Michael made, that he apparently thinks Lindbergh was behind the kidnapping. That was my interpretation of his remarks, but Michael hasn’t responded to it yet. Nothing about the case has changed, nor has anything incriminating about Lindbergh been added that we haven’t heard before.
There are counter-points at many places. For example, Amy, you suggested that Lindbergh didn’t immediately tear open CJ’s note because Lindy already knew the child was dead. But if Lindy knew the child was dead, why did he pay CJ the ransom? Why did Lindbergh spend the next two days in a seaplane, scouring the area around Martha’s Vineyard? Was this just “for show”? Lindy wasn’t the type to worry about people’s opinion of him.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jun 13, 2012 15:31:45 GMT -5
Within the first ransom note delivered, the relatively brief nursery note, I’ve put together some personal observations and musings, which I first posted in Dec. 2008 and have since updated. I realize that many of these may possibly be attributed, in part to what we actually know now about Bruno Richard Hauptmann, whom I believe to be the author, however many of them may serve only to reinforce these traits. With the recent discussion on the nursery note, I thought I would again throw these thoughts onto the table.
Handwriting
- attempt to disguise normal handwriting style - written with wrong hand and/or pen held in awkward (higher up on barrel of pen) fashion to exaggerate or camouflage stroke characteristics - first four lines in second note also penned in some form of intentional subterfuge but then abandoned - arrogance, high level of self-confidence or possibly lack of awareness in police detection methods, through decision to employ personal handwriting and not pasted newspaper letters or typewriter
“Dear Sir” Salutation
– formal, overly embellished, indicates personal sense of superiority - conscious effort to establish an immediate foothold and present himself on an equal level with Lindbergh, whom the writer sub-consciously nevertheless, perceives to be of a higher caste
The Symbol
- punched hole locations to confirm same person identity in subsequent notes - overly elaborate and seemingly-extraneous artwork denotes level of thought given to the general plan and somewhat narcissistic tendencies of the writer - blue rings represent Hauptmann and Lindbergh side by side and equal in stature - both individuals now share the child (red sphere - blood) in the middle – distance between templated holes from left to right is approximately 27 mm and 23 mm, the years both Lindbergh and Hauptmann crossed the Atlantic (1927 and 1923 respectively) – wavy lines between holes represent the ocean crossed to get from one hole (location) to another
Slurred Ink
- whether intentional or not, denotes writer's desire to communicate first and foremost above and beyond a more professional presentation - same tendency illustrated in less than careful construction of ladder - someone with an Achilles Heel that he himself may have difficulty recognizing
Focus on Ransom Amount
- the first thing mentioned and establishes the writer's level of greed and desire for money - detail and analysis in the breakdown of the specific denominations presented indicates traits of obsessive-compulsive disorder
Brief Instructional Content
- says what he has to say for the time being until he is certain that Lindbergh complies with demand to deal in discretion and not call in police - also a subconscious indication this brevity was meant to portend a quick snatch and return of the child (dead or alive) for ransom payment - not originally intended to go beyond the 2 to 4 days stated which reinforces kidnapper’s belief Lindbergh would deal with him in private - a subconscious belief on the part of the writer that the impact of the discovery would require little more said to spur the Lindberghs' actions to recovering their child in the way the kidnapper demanded - despite his general level of self confidence, an uneasiness on the part of the writer, due to his relative position in life, about directly addressing Lindbergh in this opening note
Unaddressed Envelope
- fatal error to the writer's plans in that he gave no outward sign that Lindbergh must deal with him in private - indication of the writer's sense of superiority in assuming Lindbergh would open the envelope without first seeking help
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 13, 2012 15:44:18 GMT -5
If Lindbergh knew at some point and didn't say anything, yes, that would make him an accessory--but not necessarily a murderer or kidnapper. That's where I differentiate. Either way, it would seem that someone in that house knew something, yeah. That doesn't necessarily have to mean that this person let the kidnappers into the house (though that could be), only that they knew what had happened after the fact. I can't think of who would've been in a better position to know or implement a coverup than Lindbergh, but I don't know what was being covered up or who in the house would've been a party to the actual crime. I don't see either of the parents allowing something like this to happen to their kid (though, as I said, Lindbergh may've covered things up afterwards for whatever reason). As has been discussed (and, to my mind, satisfactorily established) Betty Gow had too much to lose by participating in this. So, the Whateleys then...? You've pointed out, Amy, that virtually everything's play with this case, so, honestly, I've gotten to the point where I don't what's myth and what's real or how to build a working theory out of any of it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 13, 2012 15:45:58 GMT -5
It's okay to guess. I will neither confirm nor deny. I think every person should be suspected in this way outlining the pros and cons to see what works and what does not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 16:48:38 GMT -5
But if Lindy knew the child was dead, why did he pay CJ the ransom? Why did Lindbergh spend the next two days in a seaplane, scouring the area around Martha’s Vineyard? Was this just “for show”? Lindy wasn’t the type to worry about people’s opinion of him. (BR)
BR, Lindbergh paid the ransom because he had no choice. Whatever role Lindy played in all this the extortionor knew. He had to pay up in order to end the extortion. Why did he spend two days searching for his child? He didn't do it for show the way you are presenting it. He had to do it because of Anne. He had to follow through with that search and then go out with Curtis too because Anne was hoping for the return of the child. I wonder how long he would have continued to do all that searching if Charlie's remains hadn't been found. That brought the closure both Anne and Charles needed badly.
LJ, I still feel that way. Everything is in play. Looking at Lindbergh as having guilty knowledge may answer some questions but not everything. When I orginally read about this case, I thought about an insider being involved and my first choice was Whately also. I thought he was the one who had the socks over his shoes and handled the ladder and possibly handed the child over to the kidnapper. I always thought Betty cared about the child too much to be involved. And I agree, it is very difficult to put a working theory together in this case.
Joe, I like all your observations about the nursery note. I am going to do some thinking on them. I was reading Mark Falzini's archival ramblings on the kidnap notes and he said something in the September 2008 post that I never knew. He said that the shape of the holes in the nursery note were unigue in that "they do not match the shape of the holes in any of the other notes." Could this mean that all the notes after the nursery note were created by someone else and not the person who created the nursery note? Help!!!
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 13, 2012 17:19:19 GMT -5
Reporter: “So, Michael. Do you think Cal Jr. was abducted by aliens from Mars?”
Michael: “I wouldn’t say yes and I wouldn’t say no. The airstrip Lindbergh was building in the Sourland Mountains would make an excellent landing site for a space ship. The Martians could have teleported themselves into the nursery, or blasted the shutters open with a ray gun. Nothing is off the table.”
Reporter: “Thank you, Michael. That certainly goes a long way toward helping defuse the long-standing mystery surrounding this case.”
So, Michael, we have two puzzles here. One is the kidnapping. The other is what you THINK about the kidnapping.
Sorry, just having some fun! I know you can’t reveal all.
Amy, that's an excellent point about CAL maybe doing it for Anne. Gotta think that one over, but gotta run right now.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jun 13, 2012 19:12:07 GMT -5
mike both sides are wrong on the wood?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 13, 2012 22:35:49 GMT -5
Amy, from a variety of recent remarks he has made, I have interpreted Michael’s theory to possibly be this: that Lindbergh arranged the abduction, but then was double-crossed by the kidnappers, who demanded $50,000. It looked like a ransom, but more correctly might be called blackmail. Lindbergh would not be able to allow the police to catch the extortionists, because if he did, they could turn the tables and say Lindbergh hired them. Michael declines to comment on whether that is his theory or not, and I respect his need to limit his remarks. IF this is Michael’s theory, and if the theory is correct, I still don’t agree that “Lindbergh paid the ransom because he had no choice.” Your take is that Lindy already knew the kid was dead, yes? That being the case, Lindy could have hedged and said, “I want proof the kid’s alive. I want more than the sleeping suit.” What could the extortionists then do? How far would they dare push Lindbergh? The crime was a two-way street. If the extortionists were caught, they’d get the chair, even if they took Lindbergh down with them. And if it was blackmail, paying the extortion wouldn’t necessarily “end” it. You know what they say about blackmail—once you’re in a blackmailer’s hands, they keep coming back for more. I actually don’t buy this whole theory, one reason being that I am not at all convinced that Lindbergh was motivated to arrange the abduction/murder of his own son. Hm—there IS one funny little “buzz” I just got, though. Bear with me. Have you seen Hitchcock’s Strangers on a Train? In that film of course, the villain—named Bruno incidentally—tries to arrange an “exchange” of murders with a tennis player named Guy he meets on a train. He murders the tennis player’s wife, then demands that Guy murder his (Bruno’s) father. When Guy, who had always dismissed the train conversation, refuses to hold up his end of the “bargain,” Bruno tries to blackmail him by threatening to plant an INCRIMINATING OBJECT (a cigarette lighter belonging to Guy) at the scene of the crime. The “buzz” I got is this. Remember how the baby’s pristine thumbguard mysteriously appeared at Highfields the day before the ransom was paid? This is just a “musing” by me—but it conjures the thought of someone telling Lindbergh, “Pay up that ransom, or that baby’s thumbguard will turn up someplace where it will incriminate YOU.” Then he pays the ransom, and the thumbguard is turned over in good faith. I’m just musing here, not serious. Incidentally, the tennis player’s love interest in that film was named Anne and she was the daughter of a U.S. Senator, and she had a younger sister who almost gets waxed, but I’ll shut up here. If you’d like to see more eery coincidences between Hitchcock and the Lindbergh kidnapping, see my thread “Hollywood Musings,” lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=737
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 13, 2012 22:37:48 GMT -5
Amy, if we continue to play with this notion that Lindbergh knew that the baby was dead or was involved in some other way, I too like the idea that he had to keep up appearances (pay the ransom, search Martha's Vineyard, etc.) for Anne's sake. More than that though (again IF he was involved), I think that his aloofness, his need for privacy, was actually part of a very carefully cultivated image that he wanted conveyed to the world. After all, if he honestly didn't want to be a public figure as much as he seemed to let on, he wouldn't have flown across the Atlantic in the first place. It always seemed to me that he did genuinely hate publicity, but only when it was inconvenient and intrusive, and, rather than not giving a damn about people's opinions, that he actually had a very carefully crafted public persona. This is admittedly just my impression, but, if we accept it for a moment, looked at in connection with the possibility that he already knew the baby was dead, it would then make perfect sense to me that Lindbergh would still go through the motions of searching and making sure the world (and his wife) saw this. But to continue with this notion of Lindbergh's involvement, I had a question for Michael: I know he heard about it while he was on a boat during the search, but is there any account of Lindbergh's initial reaction when he was told the baby's body had been found? I know that's a highly subjective way of determining guilt or guilty knowledge, but I was just curious if anything stood out to anybody about his reaction. And Strangers on a Train is one of my favorites, Bookrefuge (third to Psycho and Rear Window; Robert Walker as Bruno--incredible). But anyway, the thumbguard's incriminating Strangers-esque reappearance is a very interesting thought. But, like you, I don't know if I buy the whole theory of Lindbergh hiring the kidnappers to take the baby away, and then getting double-crossed and blackmailed. As you said, why would Lindbergh want his son gone in the first place? Maybe there was something about the baby, something "wrong" with him, that we don't know.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 14, 2012 7:03:48 GMT -5
Maybe the dingo killed the baby.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 14, 2012 7:48:24 GMT -5
Reporter: “So, Michael. What do you think of Kevkon’s theory that the dingo took the baby?”
Michael: “I wouldn’t say yes and I wouldn’t say no. Just because dingos haven’t been seen outside of Australia doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen. You must remember that Isidor Fisch was importing foreign animals for their furs; it’s just possible that he was starting a dingo farm. Also, this could explain why Wahgoosh didn’t bark—he wouldn’t rat on a fellow canine. Nothing is off the table.”
|
|