|
Post by chanteyman2 on Aug 12, 2011 13:04:47 GMT -5
I have been doing a lot of reading on the L.K.C. and have a number of questions. Here is one. We know the shutters were warped on the window in question and couldn't be latched. The window itself must have also been unlocked. Beside the shutters,were the other windows in the room locked from the inside as well?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 12, 2011 18:12:33 GMT -5
The carpenter who installed the shutters said there was no way they could be warped. He may have retracted that under pressure, but that was what he initially said. Michael would know for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 12, 2011 18:49:49 GMT -5
You're right Jack.
This was first published in Lloyd's book. I found the referenced report myself after reading about it. There's nothing said about it afterwards, in fact, they only interview him about the Workers.
So its something to think about and I know Kevin has a theory about this that's very interesting.
This is a good question. I know we discussed it before (I think back in '06) but I honestly don't remember what was developed. It's going to take some time for me to research. I will get back to you on it. What I do remember from the discussion was that Kevin said the windows "sealed" when locked.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 14, 2011 9:37:42 GMT -5
Here is a source for the information you were looking for: There were three windows in that room all unlocked, one open, two of the windows had the shutters closed and locked and the window entered was the one window that had the open shutter, that was not locked. They went directly to the window that the shutter was not fastened. [Inspector Harry Walsh, Jersey City PD, Board of Strategy Conference, 5-18-32] Just as a side note... this is only one source, and I've learned over the years its good to cross reference material in order to make sure its 100% accurate. It is a solid source nevertheless and one we'll have to accept until otherwise challenged.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 16, 2011 17:38:57 GMT -5
Well no sooner I say that and I find a challenge.... The corner window in the nursery was partially raised when the child was put to bed that night. The French window in the room was also open, but the third window was locked, as were also their shutters, but the shutter on the south-east window could not be bolted because of the fact that it was warped, but the two shutter were pulled together and stayed in place without being locked. [Agent Sisk 10-27-34] Just something to think about. I do want to continue to check other sources, to include the trial testimony, however - the testimony was coached based upon what the State believed the Defense were going to say.....so, I don't put as much faith in the testimony as I do the Reports.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 21, 2011 18:51:57 GMT -5
When Schoeffel was asked by the Press about the windows this is what he told them: Window on south side was open. Two windows on east side were closed but not locked. Shutters were closed and locked except one which could not be locked. That was the one entered. [Publicity Room State House Answers, Series No. 3, March 7, 1932] While this seems like the best source - a word of caution. They lied about the ransom note in exactly one of these sessions. Not saying it isn't true but its important that I point this out.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 21, 2011 23:26:07 GMT -5
Facts can't even figure out the windows. So the enigma goes on... Kevkon said it best to me a while back - it's all pretty silly.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 22, 2011 1:26:14 GMT -5
So you've got three police officers and the people in the house each saying different things about the position of the windows at the time of the crime plus a most likely experienced carpenter's opinion as well, and there is still no conclusion even about the window junk. What a dead horse!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2011 16:29:52 GMT -5
There are several reasons for the differing answers: - Lies
- Ignorance
- Misunderstandings/Mistakes
- Truth
- All of the above
In order to get to the bottom of this its important to know why the various reasons would exist. That's why its necessary to get all of the sources together in order to make an informed decision about the true situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2014 20:58:41 GMT -5
Michael,
I have a question about go-betweens in the LKC. In an old newspaper dated March 3, 1932 I saw pictures of Arthur Springer, who was Dwight Morrow's personal secretary before his death and still employed by Betty Morrow, and Douglas G. Thompson, former mayor of Englewood NJ in an article that said Colonel Charles Lindbergh had selected these men to act as go-betweens in the kidnapping case.
I was checking through my Gardner book but couldn't find this mentioned to confirm it. Would you know if Lindbergh actually picked these men to be go betweens?
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 1, 2014 22:20:25 GMT -5
i think amy, that they were picked before condon entered the picture
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 2, 2014 8:13:38 GMT -5
There are several people you will find from time to time assigned that title. Dudley Field Malone was someone else I've seen referred to as an intermediary. I just think, in the beginning, many offered their services and Lindbergh would say they were acceptable if the Kidnappers made contact. The only written documents I've found permitting specific intermediaries was for both Bitz & Spitale and Condon. Of course that doesn't mean they do not exist but I haven't found any where I would expect to. So I'd say its more probable there were verbal indications along these lines.
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Aug 2, 2014 9:26:39 GMT -5
I have snipped this from another post I made the other day. It deals with my basic trust of Betty Gow. Sisk's statement sounds ridiculous to me. It was cold that night and windy. Why would windows be left open ? My question here is why Ms. Betty would go back and open a window right after Anne had closed them. Then we have the window shutter locking from Betty Gow's statement which does verify what Ann said about the closing: " I put this on him and put him under covers to sleep. Mrs. Lindbergh and I went around to the windows, fixing the shutters, and when she left the room I opened one window in the rear. This window opens inward. I opened the window half-way Mrs. Lindbergh left the room before I did. This was about seven-thirty. Mrs. Lindbergh and I locked the shutters, "Okay, never worked as a nanny myself but this tells me that Mrs. Lindbergh wanted the windows closed in the kid's room ! I see a total one-up-manship in this. Betty was in charge and Mrs. L. wasn't going to have her way. Right up next we have " and when she left the room I opened one window in the rear. This window opens inward. I opened the window half-way Mrs. Lindbergh left the room before I did. "
So, after she had accompanied Mrs. L. on her window locking / shutter closing, she goes back and opens a window. She does this with a sick baby in the room whose mother just closed the windows. I believe they say the temp that night was 35 - 40 degrees and it was windy. Then Betty stutters and repeats the same darn statement. Her first stutter but there is another: 1) Then Mrs. Whateley asked me to come upstairs, which I did. She showed me some dresses and we talked. Suddenly I looked at my watch and said, “It is nearly ten o’clock, I have got to go to the baby. I went in the bathroom, lit the light and put the electric heater.
2) I opened the door, crossed the room , closed the French windows, plugged in electric heater and then crossed to the baby’s cot.....
She has just left the room opening a window in spite of Anne's closing them and now she goes for the electric heater ? That's two times almost without drawing breath that she mentions the heater. I think she was covering up the fact that the window had been opened after Ann had closed them and she was hoping to warm the room before they entered it.....but then..... she was left explaining why the heater was on. So she engineered the story of having both opened and closed the window all while the baby was still there. This all makes me think of a statement Lou Schmidt (JonBenet Ramsey) made about his former success with solving murders. He said some thing like 90% of the time, it's the obvious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2014 12:58:07 GMT -5
Steve, That is the impression I got when I read the article. It predated Condon's entry into the case. Thanks for your comment.
Michael, I was surprised when I saw that in the newpaper. I wasn't aware of anything official being said about them. I am sure many people did offer to help any way they could. I seem to recall something about Princeton University President Hibben offering to act as go-between also. Thanks for checking this for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 10:56:52 GMT -5
I know that Betty Gow and Henry (Red) Johnson were on the short list during the initial investigation of the kidnapping. I know that they both were eventually cleared. When did the NJSP offically exonerate Betty and Red from the suspect list?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 12, 2014 17:51:35 GMT -5
I know that Betty Gow and Henry (Red) Johnson were on the short list during the initial investigation of the kidnapping. I know that they both were eventually cleared. When did the NJSP offically exonerate Betty and Red from the suspect list? This is a good question that I am not sure I can definitely answer. If you read the chapter on Red in Mark's book, I completely agree with what he sees because I am seeing it too. They are interested, seem to lose interest, then suddenly have interest again. Even once he's transferred over to Immigration they leave it open ended saying there's an agreement to make him available if they need to question him again - which I do not believe they ever intended to do so. (I think I know what was going on, but its a theory I am still developing which I'd rather not reveal at the moment.) So I suppose its once he's on the ship leaving the shores of the U.S. Moving on to Gow, it's my opinion she's dropped as a Suspect very early on despite Schwarzkopf's constant announcements that she hadn't been officially cleared. The New York Times reported that " the Police" declared she was " out" as a suspect on March 5th. Here's one time where I believe the Newspaper over what Schwarzkopf is reporting to the Press via his Official "Question and Answer" sessions - and later his "Press Bulletins." Lindbergh had absolved his Staff from involvement almost immediately. Certain Reporters would seek out and find "unofficial" sources for information (which usually came for a fee). At some point Schwarzkopf acknowledges this is going on then tells the Press who aren't willing to pay for information to lodge complaints by naming the names of the Troopers giving out unofficial information with specific and provable allegations. Regardless, there were investigations being constantly made concerning Gow and Red - even after Red was set free to sail home, but its always been clear to me that since Lindbergh claimed to believe Gow, Elsie, and Whateley weren't involved, then the Police were painted into a corner as far as they were concerned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2014 20:30:15 GMT -5
I agree. The authorities were really hindered by Lindbergh's control over this investigation. He really did deliver on that protection he promised Betty.
I will definitely check out Mark's chapter on Red and I will get back to you.
You know what I found interesting is that while Red Johnson was being detained, he was allowed to do a 12 part newspaper series called "My Adventures in the Lindbergh Case." The last chapter appeared May 2, 1932, 10 days before they found Charlie's corpse. I do hope he wasn't paid for sharing his "adventures."
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 12, 2014 20:48:36 GMT -5
red Johnson was grilled in Hartford conn, then was cleared. the guy who grilled him ended up being the lead investigator in the famous Hartford circus fire in the 40s
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 21:38:28 GMT -5
Wow, that is really early. What about the Whateleys? How long were they on the suspect list? Didn't Schwarzkopf send someone to England to investigate the backgrounds of Betty, Ollie and Elsie? I read Mark's chapter on Red Johnson. I see what you are saying about the fluctuating interest in Johnson. In fact the NJSP are purposely displaying no interest in Johnson. I am confused by that. I am certainly going to think on this. The Hartford Police did a serious grilling of him. So did the Newark Police and the Jersey City Police were the toughest according to Johnson. In the adventure series Johnson wrote, he claims that he was punched by the Jersey Police. Do you know if this is true? Johnson says that the Newark Police for the most part treated him very nicely after they exonerated him. They became quite friendly with him. I found this picture of Johnson taken when he was being transferred to the immigration officials. He does look like one of the guys walking with the Newark officers. www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-NJ-USA-APHS257553-Lindbergh-Baby-1932/6bed10f65adb4f38933769e816091d96/1/0I am really surprised he was held on Ellis Island from April 11, 1932 until July 21, 1932 when he sailed for Norway. It seems like a long wait. Perhaps there was still some concern about his involvement in the kidnapping that was still being resolved. I saw a picture on ebay that is supposed to be the fruit stand that Red worked at once he returned to Norway. Here is the link: www.ebay.com/itm/1934-Norwegian-Sailor-R-Johnson-Fruit-Stand-Oslo-Lindbergh-Case-Press-Photo-/400712559432?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item5d4c546b48
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2014 11:29:34 GMT -5
Red Johnson had worked on the yacht of Dwight Morrow's Morgan Bank partner Thomas Lamont. Lamont's E. 70th street mansion was on the same block as James Warburg's townhouse. This says that he can be at either place without inordinate suspicion. I investigate this in my book "The Lindbergh Baby Kidnap Conspiracy."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 16, 2014 8:55:57 GMT -5
Wow, that is really early. What about the Whateleys? How long were they on the suspect list? Didn't Schwarzkopf send someone to England to investigate the backgrounds of Betty, Ollie and Elsie? From what I can tell being "Suspects" and being "cleared" really weren't synonymous. Johnson was suspect then taken into custody. Back then, judging from what I've read, if the police believed someone was a material witness they could be detained as well. So I think it shows what level someone is at if they aren't taken in. Investigations were taking place, like I said above, but they were looking for connections that surrounded these people and not as much at the people themselves if you know what I mean. Almost immediately the Police were focused on the Purple Gang, and someone named "Scotty Gow" who they believed was related to Betty. It was on March 4th the NJSP sent a cablegram to Scotland Yard requesting investigations on both "Olly Whateley" and "Stanley J. (Scotty) Gow." On March 18th they sent the fingerprints of Ellerson, Burke, Betty Gow, and the Whateley's asking if there were "records" attached to any. Major Schoeffel went to England to meet with Scotland Yard about the handwriting on the notes. His trip had been leaked to the Press, and he was approached by Reporters who asked for his comment concerning the nature of his trip. There's an interview in The Triangle where he denies this occurred but the Official Reports say otherwise. Anyway, the interesting part about his trip was that (April 4th) he was surprised no prior request had been made to Scotland Yard for an investigation into Gow and her family there. As a result he made a request at that time. Adding to these interesting circumstances is the fact that Hoover wrote to New Scotland Yard in January 1934 requesting copies of the investigations they made concerning Banks, Edna Sharpe, Violet Sharpe, Gow, Ollie Whateley, and Elsie Whateley that he was under the impression had been conducted at the request of the NJSP back during the early stages of the investigation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 16, 2014 10:27:32 GMT -5
I read Mark's chapter on Red Johnson. I see what you are saying about the fluctuating interest in Johnson. In fact the NJSP are purposely displaying no interest in Johnson. I am confused by that. I am certainly going to think on this. The Hartford Police did a serious grilling of him. So did the Newark Police and the Jersey City Police were the toughest according to Johnson. In the adventure series Johnson wrote, he claims that he was punched by the Jersey Police. Do you know if this is true? I know that Red claimed he was assaulted in Hartford in a couple of places. Red's daughter said it was worse that what he made it sound ( Falzini p10). The first time I read his Adventure Series was back in '08 when Sue posted a link here for them. I believe it's possible one of the Cops retaliated against him for complaining about his treatment while at Jersey City to the Authorities at Highfields. But I will also say there's a degree of BS, and "ass kissing" going on in those stories as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2014 11:33:58 GMT -5
I guess this goes to the power of Lindbergh and how authorities would sit on their hands about certain people if that is what he wanted. It is sad that Hoover's FBI were kept at a distance during the early part of this case. We may not have as much to discuss now if they would have had the opportunity to participate right from the beginning.
I understand what you are saying about material witness verses suspect. Johnson was picked up like a suspect, interrogated like a suspect but not acknowledged by the NJSP as a suspect or even a person of the slightest interest to them. Yet he is never released from custody until July 1932! He just gets passed around, being held on $50,000 bail, until Immigration finally comes and takes him to Ellis Island.
In Johnson's "adventure" series he claims Hartford grilled him hard but I don't recall any mention of physical intimidation by them. I shall go back and check that though. He does mention the Jersey City incident you mention after he criticized the Jersey City police to the Newark Police. I can see that happening and it has nothing to do with interrogation.
In Mark's book (page 11), he does mention that once Johnson was released to return to Norway he was continually followed by two people in a mysterious black car. This continued into 1934. He was clearly still considered a suspect by someone. Did Johnson ever find out who was following him?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 17, 2014 8:28:52 GMT -5
Did Johnson ever find out who was following him? Not that I am aware. It's also possible no one was and he was just paranoid. Mark is probably the only one who might actually know the answer to this question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2014 22:10:51 GMT -5
Michael,
In Anne's diary, Hour of Gold Hour of Lead, there is an entry dated Wednesday, April 6th, 1932 written from Hopewell to Evangeline Lindbergh. In this writing Anne mentions a bad fire on the Highfields property that "started down in the fields to the right, beyond the tree line you see looking out of the south windows." This would be looking out the back windows of the house. She says it was a windy day and the flames swept up the grass very quickly coming within a few feet of the house. Anne also mentions that the fire swept over about 200 acres.
Is this fire mentioned in any of the NJSP reports? Did they ever figure out what caused it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 14, 2014 8:59:15 GMT -5
Is this fire mentioned in any of the NJSP reports? Did they ever figure out what caused it? I assume you are asking me this for the same reason I looked into it myself.... that would be Williamson's theory of Locals being involved and his statement to the press that he believed the fire was connected. Not sure if everyone knows this but Williamson was not only Hopewell Police but also doubled as the Fire Chief as well. Since it was so long ago that I searched for information I could be forgetting something, however, I believe this was the only place it's mentioned in the files: Here's a little more from the Associated Press on it: For what it's worth, I found many newspaper articles from local areas in PA, NJ, and NY about the numerous brush fires. In them they warned people to stop throwing their lit cigarettes on the ground blaming this for most of the fires.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2014 10:11:57 GMT -5
Yes, plus the fact that the soil samples found with Charlie's remains were all local New Jersey soils. I don't think he ever left NJ. Whether the tie in is a local person or just a local place, or even both, I am not sure. The Lindbergh home sat on a large acreage connected to a number of local farmers etc. How thoroughly was Lindbergh's property actually searched? Did LE cover the entire estate? Also, for what its worth, I found this newspaper article about Lindbergh and Skean (Charlie's dog who was left behind at Englewood that final weekend Charlie was at Highfields) making a trip into the brush and wooded area around the Lindbergh estate. Was it just a walk to blow off stress or something else? news.google.com/newspapers?id=1FNZAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TEgNAAAAIBAJ&dq=charles%20lindbergh&pg=1207%2C1259736
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 15, 2014 22:04:07 GMT -5
To amy35 and others:
Thanks for that post of the link to the Rochester (NY) Evening Journal of March 3, 1932.
Fascinating to look at all the contemporaneous coverage in a newspaper published less than 48 hours after purported kidnaping.
Notice on the front page is a picture taken of little Charlie said to be from two weeks prior to that date. That is almost certainly incorrect, because the common wisdom now is that the Lindberghs never released any photos of Charlie taken after his first birthday.
Also noteworthy from the front page are many contemporaneous "leads" as to the whereabouts of the baby which, in retrospect, appear to come from vivid imaginations of wire service writers in various locations along the East Coast. What do you suppose is the main cause of this journalistic tendency to confuse the public? (It's a phenomenon very evident in modern media as well.)
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Sept 17, 2014 11:32:42 GMT -5
Amy35..That newspaper was full of interesting things! Especially that particular post card spelled the "Lindbergh" name incorrectly. Please note the little lines added on top of capital letters, match this postcard.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 17, 2014 21:52:49 GMT -5
To Aimee and all:
Not sure if the police were going through all of Lindbergh's mail at that time - a day or two after the purported kidnapping - but if they were, they would probably relegate the postcard whose image appeared in the newspaper to the "crank" pile. It didn't have the identifying "singnature" of the first ransom note found in the nursery, and furthermore, it would seem as if any REAL kidnapper trying to inform Lindbergh about the baby would be taking a foolish and unnecessary risk by doing so by postcard. The postcard message would be readable by postal personnel who could aid law enforcement in finding the individual who wrote and deposited the postcard. Clearly, any kidnapper/ransom seeker, from his own selfish point of view, could accomplish the same objective somewhat more safely by enclosing his message to Lindbergh in an envelope and paying an extra cent for postage.
|
|