|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 20, 2014 15:05:41 GMT -5
are you saying they gave her the furs for false testimony?
|
|
|
Post by deedee1963 on Aug 20, 2014 15:55:25 GMT -5
are you saying they gave her the furs for false testimony? No. Actually I hadn't thought of that, Steve. Lol. But I do find it to be a very luxurious article of clothing for the "hired help" to be wearing . Does it strike you as odd that Betty is wearing such a fancy coat?
|
|
|
Post by deedee1963 on Aug 20, 2014 16:07:05 GMT -5
I'm looking at the Betty in fur photo again and I need to correct myself I think. It looks more to be a fur Stoll (sic?) of some kind. With a matching muff.
Still looks very plush to me for someone who was part of the staff. Who never seemed to want for for a job. During the heights of the Great Depresssion. Fancy.
I used to skim right over Betty in regard to this case until I read Duncan's posts. Now I don't know how I missed it all if these years. And now I see all kinds of things I missed before.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 20, 2014 16:14:54 GMT -5
I cant tell with black and white pictures how expensive gows clothes were, the jury looked like they bought there clothes on a street
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 17:34:32 GMT -5
From the photos I have seen of Betty, she did like to dress well. Being in her twenties she no doubt paid attention to the current styles when shopping. I would imagine she was paid decently for her nanny position and since she lived at Englewood she did not need to pay rent out of her earnings and probably ate most of her meals at Englewood. Like Violet, she would have been able to save money. However, I thought that Betty came to America with the hope of a better future and being able to marry someone above a factory type worker. So why then is she so seriously involved with someone like Red Johnson, who is a deck hand on a yacht? Why is she not looking for someone who could provide a more stable future??
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 22, 2014 19:17:43 GMT -5
To All:
I wonder if you have any comments on this little story about Betty Gow in Lloyd Gardner's "The Case That Never Dies" (paperback edition), p. 362, regarding her last day ever in the U.S., right after the guilty verdict in the Hauptmann trial:
That same day [as Hauptmann's transfer to Trenton State Prison, Feb. 16, 1935] in New York, Betty Gow forced her way through a crowd up the gangway of an ocean liner docked at the Panama Pier. Unable to locate her stateroom in the tourist-class deck, Betty panicked and soon found herself cornered on the first class deck. A middle-aged woman wearing glasses elbowed herself to the front. "Let's have a look at her," she called out, grabbing Betty's arm. "Let me alone," Betty cried. Yanking her arm away, she struck the woman in the face with her fist.
Gardner has an endnote citing the New Brunswick Home News as the source for this story.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2014 20:08:41 GMT -5
Gardner has an endnote citing the New Brunswick Home News as the source for this story. That's a true story and there are several sources for it.
|
|
|
Post by deedee1963 on Aug 22, 2014 22:04:40 GMT -5
To All:
I wonder if you have any comments on this little story about Betty Gow in Lloyd Gardner's "The Case That Never Dies" (paperback edition), p. 362, regarding her last day ever in the U.S., right after the guilty verdict in the Hauptmann trial:
That same day [as Hauptmann's transfer to Trenton State Prison, Feb. 16, 1935] in New York, Betty Gow forced her way through a crowd up the gangway of an ocean liner docked at the Panama Pier. Unable to locate her stateroom in the tourist-class deck, Betty panicked and soon found herself cornered on the first class deck. A middle-aged woman wearing glasses elbowed herself to the front. "Let's have a look at her," she called out, grabbing Betty's arm. "Let me alone," Betty cried. Yanking her arm away, she struck the woman in the face with her fist.
Gardner has an endnote citing the New Brunswick Home News as the source for this story.
Well this was very interesting indeed! She was feisty all right. Could be so many ways to interpret this. Both in her defense & not. It must have been frightening to be cornered. Yet a punch just because the woman grabbed her arm seems rather violent for a woman in the early 1930: who seemed to want to be part of the upper crust herself (or so she now seems to me). Well bred young ladies don't do that.. Or could it be she was afraid she wouldn't be allowed to leave perhaps? So many possibilities here. Thank you, Hurtlelable! Very interesting insight here.
|
|
|
Post by deedee1963 on Aug 22, 2014 22:31:28 GMT -5
Michael & forum, I have something to ask that I have searched the boards so I wouldn't have to ask but I can't find it & I can't stand it any longer so I'm going to ask so I can get this clarified.
What did Betty get arrested for that CAL needed to bail her out for? I would have thought it would be considered very bad for the nanny/nurse to a wealthy socially conscious family to be arrested. Quite scandalous.
Did Betty ever return to visit America or Canada for the remainder of her life? Especially of her brother remained here's living in America.
Why did Betty feel it necessary to have her virginity checked by a physician? That seems very odd to say the least. Why would she even feel the need to defend this unless she was accused of being slutty ? Who was accusing her of not being one?
And another question is was there ever a rumor that Betty suffered from a venereal disease or am I mixing her up with another character in this story? Or was the rumor that Red Johnsen had it?
I also found it interesting that Highfields was turned into a home for women with venereal disease. Once the Lindbergh's turned over their estate did they have any say so at all in what it was to be used for? Just curious.
Also is it now the common belief that Betty had sonething going on with CAL. Makes sense to me but I was curious what others thought about this possibility. To me it explains why the animosity seemed quite deep between Betty and Anne. I don't believe that CAL became a philanderer late in life. This is usually a lifelong pattern in males who cheat. And as we all now know, CAL went to great lengths to hide his other families. That is one secretive man that got away with what CAL got away with it in terms of having others families. On another continent.
Also has anyone ever thought of tracking down any of Betty's nieces of nephews that might exist to see if they have any old letters from her passed down in the family perhaps? Just a thought. I find it off Betty never married as she certainly seemed to like the men. Was she living so quietly so as not to bring attention to herself you think? Why if she did nothing wrong would she at least not want her own husband and or family done day? This is odd to me also.
I kept searching and searching & finally taught heck I'm just going to ask. You all are so knowledgeable in this forum & I appreciate everyone's insights so much. Even the ones I don't always agree with I learn from. And I am starting to believe that there was a whole lot more to Betty than I ever previously realized.
Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 22, 2014 22:45:36 GMT -5
betty lived a long life. I don't think she ever came back here. I think she died in 1996 I could be wrong mike can verify that.
|
|
|
Post by deedee1963 on Aug 22, 2014 23:44:58 GMT -5
betty lived a long life. I don't think she ever came back here. I think she died in 1996 I could be wrong mike can verify that. Thank you, Steve. Interesting that although she lived such a long life she never visited America again I think. I wonder if her brother continued to live in the U.S.? I'm wondering if Betty played a part in the events of March 1st, 1932 and was worried if she came back something could be pinned on her. This is what's crossing my mind anyway. No proof of course. I'm just speculating.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 23, 2014 10:00:13 GMT -5
What did Betty get arrested for that CAL needed to bail her out for? I would have thought it would be considered very bad for the nanny/nurse to a wealthy socially conscious family to be arrested. Quite scandalous. I've been looking for the Police Report concerning this event, which I have, but haven't located the folder its in yet. Nevertheless, Lloyd's book is a good source for this. I don't remember Lindbergh bailing anyone out though but I could be forgetting this and without the report in front of me I have to rely on my memory. But yes, it was scandalous most especially since everyone was presenting Betty as both "proper" and "respectable" when Police began asking around about her reputation. Did Betty ever return to visit America or Canada for the remainder of her life? Especially of her brother remained here's living in America. Her Brother William was electrocuted in 1931, and her other Brother(s) were in the UK. After the trial she never returned. Why did Betty feel it necessary to have her virginity checked by a physician? That seems very odd to say the least. This is news to me. Where are you getting this from? And another question is was there ever a rumor that Betty suffered from a venereal disease or am I mixing her up with another character in this story? Or was the rumor that Red Johnsen had it? Red absolutely had gonorrhea. This is properly documented in Lloyd's book as well. Whether or not Betty got it from Red has never been documented in any Report that I've been able to find.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 23, 2014 10:16:12 GMT -5
betty lived a long life. I don't think she ever came back here. I think she died in 1996 I could be wrong mike can verify that. According to Mark's book, July 16, 1996 ( p52).
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Aug 23, 2014 15:31:26 GMT -5
betty lived a long life. I don't think she ever came back here. I think she died in 1996 I could be wrong mike can verify that. According to Mark's book, July 16, 1996 ( p52). Hello, all. Michael, I believe the question deedee posted about Betty Gow's request for a physician's examination concerning her virginity came from George Waller's book. I'm just now finishing it. I'll look for the page, if you'd like it. Also, I've just taken Gardner's book out of my local library and will be getting into it next week. Published in 2004, I see. It has been checked out only one time. (I'm the second borrower. Talk about feeling all alone. )
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 23, 2014 18:06:11 GMT -5
There is a paperback edition of Gardner's book published in 2012. If you can get it, it would be preferable because it is newer.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 25, 2014 15:50:56 GMT -5
Michael, I believe the question deedee posted about Betty Gow's request for a physician's examination concerning her virginity came from George Waller's book. I'm just now finishing it. I'll look for the page, if you'd like it. I would appreciate that Rebekah. Since your post I've been searching for it but can't find the page.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Aug 26, 2014 16:14:11 GMT -5
There is a paperback edition of Gardner's book published in 2012. If you can get it, it would be preferable because it is newer.
Is there new information in the paperback?
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Aug 26, 2014 16:20:34 GMT -5
Michael, I believe the question deedee posted about Betty Gow's request for a physician's examination concerning her virginity came from George Waller's book. I'm just now finishing it. I'll look for the page, if you'd like it. I would appreciate that Rebekah. Since your post I've been searching for it but can't find the page. I was pretty sure it was in her testimony, but when I reviewed Reilly's cross, it wasn't there. I'll keep looking. I wish Waller had included an Index like Gardner did. When deedee mentioned it, I clearly remembered her request. Someone had attacked her morality and made her very angry. I'll find it.
|
|
|
Post by deedee1963 on Aug 29, 2014 23:22:49 GMT -5
Thank you, Michael.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Sept 1, 2014 19:04:03 GMT -5
Michael, I believe the question deedee posted about Betty Gow's request for a physician's examination concerning her virginity came from George Waller's book. I'm just now finishing it. I'll look for the page, if you'd like it. I would appreciate that Rebekah. Since your post I've been searching for it but can't find the page. I can't find it either, Michael. I was so sure it was in Waller's book, because the memory was so recent, and I just finished the book. I've gone through my bookmarks and watched the Nova Documentary again, but I just can't find it. It's something that struck me as very odd for a woman to request. Maybe deedee remembers where she came across it.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Sept 1, 2014 19:06:14 GMT -5
There is a paperback edition of Gardner's book published in 2012. If you can get it, it would be preferable because it is newer.
The more I get into this book, the less I like Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 1, 2014 19:22:16 GMT -5
I can't find it either, Michael. I was so sure it was in Waller's book, because the memory was so recent, and I just finished the book. I've gone through my bookmarks and watched the Nova Documentary again, but I just can't find it. It's something that struck me as very odd for a woman to request. Maybe deedee remembers where she came across it. Thanks for trying. This sort of thing happens to me all the time so you're not alone!
|
|
|
Post by deedee1963 on Sept 5, 2014 18:14:55 GMT -5
Did anyone else find it ironic that Betty was such a little chippy (I guess allegedly) with Red Johnsen and Red had a veneral disease and that after the Lindbergh donated Highfields it became a home for women with venereal disaeases? Which surely had quite a bad stigma attached to it in the 1930's. I mean, if Red & Betty were intimate how could Betty not have contracted it? She went back to Scotland and never married or had children or seemed to have much of a life at all as far as I can tell. But previous to her return to Scotland Betty had seemed to want it all.
I just saw some irony here.
|
|
|
Post by deedee1963 on Sept 5, 2014 18:30:40 GMT -5
Something that I find bizarre to say the least is that Betty testified after the baby was taken that she and Mrs Whatley and Anne just sat around the table waitinbg until Mrs Lindberghs friend arrived in about an hour and said NOTHING? Only people who had knowledge beforehand would do that in my opinion. I have never ever believed that Anne Had any knowledge of this case until I read this. I just dont buy it.
Mr. Wilentz: Would you like to have a glass of water, Miss Gow? Q.... Now, Madam, then the Officers Wolfe and Williamson came in and what did you and the other, the ladies of the household do, while the officers were there? A. We sat in the sitting room downstairs. {Miss Gow, Mrs. Whately and Mrs. Lindbergh.} Q. Doing what? A. We didn't speak. Q. And for how long a period did that continue? A. Until Mrs. Lindbergh's friend arrived from New York, about an hour. Q. And all that time you mean that you ladies sat there in that room in silence? A. Certainly.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 5, 2014 20:04:33 GMT -5
not bizarre ann didn't know nothing. don't throw this stuff out its crazy
|
|
|
Post by deedee1963 on Sept 6, 2014 1:23:11 GMT -5
not bizarre ann didn't know nothing. don't throw this stuff out its crazy Steve, I'm not throwing this stuff out. I'm just thinking about certain aspects that I'm wondering about. And it IS very odd that this baby is suddenly missing from the house & three three women, one the mother, just sit around this table for about an hour & don't speak. No going over who might have done it. No getting on the phone & calling their mothers or other family members. No crying? No clutching a beloved toy or article of clothing & pressing it to their cheek & sobbing. And one of these women being the mother & the other his caregiver? Just sitting around waiting for Anne's friend? Nope. That's weird. I've been advocating for missing persons in cold cases for 8 years now. And I've now talked to hundreds of people who had a family member go missing. And parents don't quietly around a table when a child goes missing. I guess it's within the realm of possibility that this happened. But it's not usual. The norm would be to be discussing with each other what could have happened & maybe where else's could they look & their minds would be racing & they would be asking each other "Are you sure you checked so & so ?" or "Lets scour this house again." Especially since the men folk were out doing the ground search. The need is to do something. Anything. There is panic and there is upset & confusion & sometimes chaos but ppl do not sit quietly at the table. That is just WEIRD.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 6, 2014 2:22:37 GMT -5
fair enough, im sorry for the outburst. I won the football pool and had a few beers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2014 7:43:20 GMT -5
It could be they were told to sit quietly until Henry and Aida Breckinridge arrived. They were good friends of the Lindberghs. Aida was close to Anne and probably the friend she was waiting for plus Henry was their attorney. No doubt he had advised Lindbergh that everyone should wait until he arrived before saying too much. Just my guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2014 19:42:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ffosse on Dec 2, 2014 15:19:16 GMT -5
Gardner has an endnote citing the New Brunswick Home News as the source for this story. That's a true story and there are several sources for it. Being from Glasgow, I'm surprised Gow didn't give the other lady a 'Glasgow kiss' ie. headbutt rather than punching her. I'm Scottish myself and Glaswegians are particularly feisty.
|
|