Post by Michael on Jan 31, 2007 21:59:49 GMT -5
There are so many mysteries within this mystery. It's what is so damn interesting about the case because solving it requires one to solve each and every sub-mystery in order to at least grasp at a theory....
Take Lindbergh's 'mix-up' concerning his scheduled attendance at the NYU dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. He was supposed to have gotten his dates confused and missed it. Anne claimed in her statements to be listening for Lindy's car and then is the one to remind him he had forgotten about the dinner. Is it me or did anyone else think to themselves why she was listening for him in the first place if she had expected him to be at the dinner?
And if Lindbergh had believed the dinner was on a different date - why is Anne not informed of this change either before or after she tells Lindy he missed his engagement?
It had been alleged that Chancellor Brown was to blame for Lindy's confusion, by the newspapers, and therefore it wasn't his mistake. Unfortunately the newspapers have proven to be a very dubious source for trustworthy information. Therefore, I turn to the source material for this interesting tid-bit of information to consider:
Take Lindbergh's 'mix-up' concerning his scheduled attendance at the NYU dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. He was supposed to have gotten his dates confused and missed it. Anne claimed in her statements to be listening for Lindy's car and then is the one to remind him he had forgotten about the dinner. Is it me or did anyone else think to themselves why she was listening for him in the first place if she had expected him to be at the dinner?
And if Lindbergh had believed the dinner was on a different date - why is Anne not informed of this change either before or after she tells Lindy he missed his engagement?
It had been alleged that Chancellor Brown was to blame for Lindy's confusion, by the newspapers, and therefore it wasn't his mistake. Unfortunately the newspapers have proven to be a very dubious source for trustworthy information. Therefore, I turn to the source material for this interesting tid-bit of information to consider:
In company with Sergeant Zapolsky of the New Jersey State Police, Agent Manning conferred with Attorney James M. Phelan, 39 Broadway, New York City, on September 28, 1933, with further reference to this case, and during the conversation that took place a piece of information was developed concerning which I desire to advise you. On the night of March 1, 1932, Colonel Lindbergh was scheduled to attend a dinner given at New York City by the Board of Regents of New York University. It appears that Chancellor Brown of this university, through his secretary, at the request of a Mr. Barto of the firm of J.P. Morgan & Company, extended an invitation to Colonel Lindbergh by letter to attend the dinner. A Miss Betty Sheetz, reported to be a high type of young lady and further described as a social reisterite, of Montclair, N.J., was then Colonel Lindbergh's secretary. Miss Sheetz upon the receipt of Chancellor Brown's letter, made a proper notation on Colonel Lindbergh's engagement record that the dinner was scheduled to be held on the evening of March 1, 1932. Subsequent thereto a second letter was received from Chancellor Brown explaining to Colonel Lindbergh that March 1st had been incorrectly designated in the previous letter and advising that the dinner was to be given a few days later. Accordingly, Miss Sheetz corrected the date on her engagement record. There was a mix-up it seems in the whole affair, although Colonel Lindbergh was under the impression all during that time that the dinner was to be held on the evening of March 1, 1932, which was in fact the correct date despite Chancellor Brown's second letter. In view of the above, there is suggested the possibility that one of the servants employed by the Sheetz family or any family having knowledge of the above dinner date, would be in a position to know the movements of Colonel Lindbergh on the night of March 1, 1932 or at least have knowledge of the time at which he would be absent from his Hopewell estate. (SAC Cullen to Hoover, 10-6-33)