|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 16, 2012 22:42:50 GMT -5
Looking forward to it, Michael! And Bookrefuge, I see what you're saying about only a day or so being needed for a general physical workup. Again, I should've been a little clearer: When I say the 2-4 day wait period mentioned in the note could've been for "running tests", I'm speaking broadly. Specifically, I mean running tests and keeping the baby under some form of close observation for a couple days. Additionally, 2-4 days would also be A) sufficient time to get the $50K payoff together (Lindbergh couldn't have started doing this advance without perhaps raising some suspicion), and B) about the right amount of time to make this look generally like an actual snatch-and-return kidnapping, all before the largest manhunt in history could really get going. Either way, I'm just speculating about the 2-4 days (indeed, everything I suggest is entirely speculation). It's not crucial to the theory. The 2-4 days mentioned in the note may not have meant anything other than as stated: "In 2-4 days we'll tell you when/where to drop off the money."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 17, 2012 5:15:00 GMT -5
As it relates to Eugenics, all I know is what I've read in certain books over the years. In the War Against the Weak, Edwin Black makes his case for the transitions of certain Agencies from their original intent over to Eugenic studies/focus. I personally haven't done the type of research I would feel comfortable in answering such a specific question.
This would require a good degree of research in order to ensure whoever's been assigned that label agrees with it. Do you happen to have someone particular in mind?
I think once the Ransom Note showed that it was mailed from NY then much focus went there. Do you mean originally?
This is a good point, and one that should be considered among the host of all the other stuff which could be possible. I think any theory should consider all the evidence and the possibilities which could exist as a result.
Another good point we haven't talked about much. What do you think about it?
Thanks for your posts and I look forward to more of your thoughts and ideas.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 17, 2012 15:28:54 GMT -5
Michael, I don’t know why you keep making a fuss about the Sheriff. Since you respect Gardner, here’s what he says, referring to Lindbergh and the ransom note (p. 23): “He left it unopened and told Whateley to call the Hopewell Police and the New Jersey State Police.” Now to me, when a crime has been committed, it makes sense to start with the nearby local police before you move up to the state level, and that’s what they did at Highfields. But what difference does it really make which one got called first? You keep bringing up the “Sheriff.” Why? Why do you think this is so significant? Do you think the Sheriff was in on the “practical joke"? Please clarify why you keep stressing that Lindbergh’s “intent” was to call the Sheriff. When it comes to figuring out ideas in your mind, which you HAVEN”T expressed, that IS Rocket Science. If you explained things CLEARLY the first time, you wouldn’t have to keep explaining. You’re not the only person whose time gets wasted by this. Please carefully note the context here: This is Michael responding to my challenge to support his assertion that Lindbergh sent Charlie to preschool early in order to “force him to be normal.” Note that Michael avoids my challenge to support his assertion; instead of providing documentation (which he presumably would if he could), he resorts to criticizing me—a pattern which is repeated throughout this thread. Great. Show us some. I’ve been waiting all through this thread. So far, hardly a blip on the documentation radar screen. In fact, last time I looked, the radar technician had fallen asleep, despite that Starbucks espresso grande. Michael is partly, but not entirely, correct regarding my making a “diagnosis.” Charlie had hair nodes. I used the phrase, “Trichorrhexis nodosa.” That may sound like a “diagnosis”—and to a degree it is-- but it is also a broad term that refers to hair nodes, and it embraces hair nodes from MANY causes, both congenital and traumatic. One such cause is overexposure to ultraviolet rays. Since Michael has said the heat lamp was overused, I felt this presented a rather logical cause for the nodes. I admit this was a guess, but I think it was a reasonable guess based on the data I had available. On this board, we often offer ideas about aspects of the LKC that we haven’t personally SEEN. Just for a recent example, Michael claims Lindbergh sent Charlie to preschool early to “force him to be normal” even though Michael apparently hasn’t SEEN proof of that. Note that in my original post that I said it “likely” resolved the mystery of the nodes, not “definitely.” Looking back, I do agree that my language was still too affirmative about that, but if Michael (or anyone else) has a better explanation for the nodes, they are welcome to present it. Michael here is referring to the point I have made—repeatedly with documentation—that the 14 drops of viosterol was NOT a “mega-dose” but a normal dose—just 4 drops more than the prescribed MINIMUM for rickets PREVENTION recommended by the American Medical Association. For those of you who wish to see this 1930 AMA article, here it is for the third time: www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19312700903.html;jsessionid=8B7464EEC377D65601C6C53CF3D0F5CAI have consistently asked Michael to provide documentation that Charlie was on a “mega-dose.” The only “documentation” he has ever produced is Lloyd Gardner’s remark that 14 drops were the equivalent of a bottle of cod liver oil. Let’s quote Michael again: OK, now we check out this 1931 newspaper ad for Viosterol: news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19310129&id=YTNXAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2EMNAAAAIBAJ&pg=6881,707691 The manufacturer boasts that viosterol was 100 times stronger than cod liver oil. In terms of what? Vitamin D concentration. That’s it. That all “equivalency” means here. Viosterol was simply highly concentrated Vitamin D. There was no “mega-dose.” If Charlie was getting a “mega-dose,” then so was every other kid in America who was taking this vitamin supplement. When Michael says “You have no idea what the hell you are talking about,” what he’s really saying is: “The American Medical Association didn’t know what the hell it was talking about.” The documentation is plain; I’ve posted it, and the argument should have ended long ago. Saying “You have no idea what the hell you are talking about” is not a substitute for evidence. Anyone who tried pulling that kind of an approach in a courtroom—well, you can imagine how far they’d get before the judge stopped it. Michael, if you have undisclosed documentation that supports your claim that Charlie was on a mega-dose, provide it. And don’t fall back on “cod liver oil equivalency.” That is deader than dead codfish. It is equivalency only in terms of Vitamin D supplementation. You say “I am not going to chase my tail trying to get you to see something you do not want to see.” Michael, clearly it is YOU who won’t see what he doesn’t want to see. I’ve put the documentation right in front of you, and you won’t accept it. I have consistently asked you to produce counter-documentation, and you consistently don’t do so. All I get is generalities, evasions and accusations. I’m starting to feel like I’d get straighter answers from “Doc” Condon. In fact, I think I’ll call Max Rosenhain and ask him to get a couple of cold ones ready for me and good ol’ Jafsie. Oh—but wait, I forgot, it’s still Prohibition.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 17, 2012 16:28:19 GMT -5
From this day henceforth you will get nothing from me. Don't ask because you will not get. So by all means continue to tell this Board (and whoever wants else wants to listen) whatever tales you have based upon whatever pictures and/or documents you have never seen (excepting what you may have googled the night before and/or read in a book by one of of the various Authors you (apparently) know more then).
I personally do not have time to entertain that or your hypocrisy - and I won't. So please, leave me out of it from now on.
*******
There's another Book I wanted to recommend before I forget (which I read in early '08): The Immortalists by David M. Friedman.
Now we can get down to brass tacks: LJ's Theory.
My first comment is this theory shows a lot of time and thought on your end LJ. I am impressed by how you offer it as a “theory” then attempt to cover it the best you can from all angles. Realizing this is a "theory" is important as well, but by the same token, regardless if one buys into it or not - there is much to learn from what you’ve done here.
My comments aren’t necessarily going to be based upon my personal views although they might. Certain points you make could work that I won’t personally believe - but I won’t claim something is “no good” based upon that, and other things you’ve listed I believe to be true and have said so in the past. Next, there’s a lot up in the air to hash out as well. So please accept what I post in the spirit in which it is written.....
Unless I say otherwise, then I think those points/areas can "work." Since the Baby’s health can be debated from just about every angle, I think your compromise is a legitimate position to take. That can always be amended as more information becomes available (if need be). This would apply to ALL of the information you, me, or anyone else lists in situations that are debatable. The pictures of CJr. "question" is a perfect example of that. So while it can complement this particular theory, it’s possible it doesn’t apply if and when we learn more. And if it doesn't, then it could have a neutralizing effect based upon what it actually might.
See my point?
I personally don't believe Anne had this type of influence on the situation. What I have seen in my research is she would follow her husband in lockstep regardless of her personal feelings. But I think if this scenerio actually happened we must consider perception as a major factor.
Outsider to handle this: yes. Breckenridge or Thayer being that person I’d say: no. I base this on all the material I have read over the years involving them both. It’s a general response but perhaps we can get into it a little further if you ever decide to pursue it more. But again, I am not the “end all” concerning anything debatable so perhaps you won’t agree with my position or see something I don’t or just differently than I do. But I feel strongly enough about it to at least make mention of my position.
Sounds possible to me and explains the low ransom request. However, are you suggesting there is no money up front? That they have to risk all to get the $50K? Let me add my 2 cents here and say the $50K seems an odd figure because it’s one that occurs in several places related to Lindbergh. If a gang were hired (by anyone) I’ve never believed that Ransom was supposed to have been collected.
Yup.
That would explain it.
Again, this is a coherent and good working theory. Thanks for putting it together!
I grew up In Lambertville. When I was young I remember many people, who were alive at the time, talking about the trial and the crime as they remembered it. They all said they believed Hauptmann was involved but wasn’t alone. Next, they all would say something about “talk” concerning the child, his health, and being an embarrassment to Lindbergh. Rumor yes, but one that never seemed to escape anyone who ever spoke to me. Honestly, I never completely understood this until I began to research.
So I learned about Lindbergh's attitude from the Files. Knowing the files weren't open when I spoke to these people, I had wonder to myself exactly where they learned about it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 17, 2012 16:38:28 GMT -5
The title of this thread is The Case against a Eugenics-Motivated Murder. Now to that end what if we all assume that Lindbergh's view of eugenics presaged the Nazis and that Charlie was in some way seriously ill. So we have someone with a motive ( to eradicate a bad gene pool and avoid embarrassment) and let's further assume that Lindbergh was capable of eliminating his son through whatever means possible. Ok, so someone please walk me through this scenario step by step. For example, when and who diagnoses Charlie's ailment? Is this diagnosis performed with only Lindbergh, his son, and the examiner present? Is there no second or third opinion? At what point does the plan to eliminate the problem begin? Who does Lindbergh contact regarding this? Why doesn't Lindbergh just carry out this job himself? How do we end up with one Richard Hauptmann and how many steps does it take to get to him?
Finally, BR this one is for you;
I called the sheriff But I didn't call no state police, oh no! Oh! I called the sheriff But I didn't call no state police, ooh, ooh, oo-ooh.) Yeah! All around in my home town, They're tryin' to track me down; They say they want to bring me in guilty For the calling of the state police, For the life of a rickety child.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 18, 2012 0:34:32 GMT -5
Kevin, I think I explained--all hypothetically, with big 'ifs' in front of everything--at what point the plan to eliminate the problem would've began (when Lindbergh starting working with Carrel, kicking into high gear when Anne realized she was pregnant again); who Lindbergh would've contacted regarding all this (his lawyers); why Lindbergh wouldn't have carried out the job himself (to make it look to everyone like his child was forcibly taken as opposed to voluntarily surrendered, because that would then beg the question of why); and how we get from Lindbergh to Hauptmann (Lindbergh knows Breckinridge/Thayer, they know of Condon, Condon knows of Hauptmann). As to who would've diagnosed the baby--part of my point is that it never got that far. Further as to these issues of diagnoses, the baby's health (and the attendant viosterol debate): What I'm beginning to think now is that whether or not there was something seriously wrong with the baby, in any event, the point may've been that it was enough that Lindbergh perceived there was, possibly due to his own hyper-perfectionism and association with the eugenicist Carrel. In Lindbergh's mind, this could've inflated average, run-of-the-mill problems with the baby into the notion there was something nebulously, generally "wrong" with him. Now, this obviously isn't treatable, but one of things we know the baby definitely had was rickets. So, okay then, that's what he was being treated for (whether with a mega or average dose of Vitamin D)--because rickets, at least, is what could be tangibly, actively treated. But I don't know that the treatment dosage for the rickets really matters all that much, because I don't think the rickets are the key here, either way. I don't think Lindbergh would've minded (or minded anyone knowing) that his son just had rickets (plenty of kids did). Rather, the key might be that, again, in addition to the rickets, Lindbergh simply felt there was something more wrong with the baby--not to the extremity that he would murder him in cold eugenicist blood, but to the point where he might've been worried enough to feel the baby had to be checked out. He's put the baby outside in his crib to fend for himself, he's sent him to school where he got kicked around a bit--these sound like attempts to toughen someone up. And if you feel the need to toughen someone up, the implication is you think they're weak in some way. However, whether Lindbergh perceived his son as weak or whether the baby actually had something else wrong in addition to rickets, Lindbergh may not have known what to do but get him checked out--somewhere by someone--or to send him away. But this needed to be done in such a way that couldn't be perceived as an admission by Lindbergh that he had doubts about the superiority of his stock. Rather, it had to be an outside force taking the baby from him. To do this, Lindbergh would've needed to bring in outsiders. Now, as to this issue of the "outsiders"--well, first, Michael, thank you for the various points you've made; insightful as always. My idea (my guess, I should say) that the "outsiders" were Breckinridge and/or Thayer is based entirely on the facts that Lindbergh saw them regularly; that they were discreet, trustworthy professionals--two of Lindbergh's very few close friends--who would've known how a kidnapping would be handled by the police and what kind of questioning the family circle would be subject to; and that, as well-connected sophisticates, these guys would've known everyone in NY, where they lived and worked. Also, one or both of them seem to be present--directing traffic right beside Lindbergh--at all points throughout the investigation. There's also the fact that Lindbergh called Breckinridge before anyone else on discovering the kidnapping, which struck me as perhaps being some sort of coded message or signal (seeing as how Lindbergh did the same sort of thing when the baby was born). Additionally, from what I've been able to find, Breckinridge's whereabouts were never fully accounted for that night. And come to think of it, if I'm remembering correctly, he, like Lindbergh, was also supposed to be at that NY dinner, but showed up to Highfields later that night not in evening clothes, which he would've been wearing had he gone to the dinner. So, if he didn't go either, where was he? Maybe at home, waiting for a certain phone call...? Anyway, all this constituted my thinking as to Breckinridge's/Thayer's possible connection, but I admit it might be pretty thin, pretty circumstantial. This is an angle I would definitely like to pursue, however, and am anxious to hear why you feel Breckinridge and Thayer wouldn't have been involved, and where to look for the "outsider" you mention. As to Anne not needing to be gotten around, that she would've marched lockstep with whatever Lindbergh wanted: Yes, I think that's largely true. My thinking here is not that Lindbergh would've been worried she would've put her foot down and refused to let the baby be taken (as you say, she wouldn't have), but rather that Lindbergh would've weighed his options as far as Anne was concerned, saying to himself "Either I let her be terrified for a couple days, making her think the baby's been taken by someone else, or I risk her hating me by taking him from her myself, maybe permanently." I don't know, for as much of a cold fish as Lindbergh could be, I think he still cared for his wife and children, and wanted their affection as much as anyone would--in his own way, that is. Taking that "way" into account, I can see him employing this kind of chilly rationalization. But again, I could be wildly off the mark on this. And as to the kidnappers not getting anything up front--yeah, from the outset that bothered me too. All I can think is that A) it was the Depression and a lot of people were desperate for cash, whether anything was up front or not, B) maybe these people were paid something up front, but not enough to raise suspicion with whoever handled Lindbergh's money (his banker or broker or whoever else), or C) these guys may've been willing to take nothing up front, knowing that they were going to turn the tables on Lindbergh later and he'd be forced to pay them whatever they demanded. In any case, you've said that if a gang was hired, the ransom was never meant to be collected. If that's true, what incentive do you think a gang would've had to commit the crime? Do you mean the ransom was never meant to be collected in the sense that Lindbergh had no intention of paying the men he hired, and, on realizing this, they turned the tables on him? I'm not trying to bring everything back to my theory, just wondering what you mean exactly. But anyway, thanks again for your comments. I hope you'll continue them on this post.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 18, 2012 8:38:02 GMT -5
LJ, I admire your thoroughness. What I don't agree with is the idea that all of these people, Breck, Ann, etc would just fall into lockstep with Lindbergh. There are things people will do and there are things they won't. If your brother or best friend asked you to lie about a innocuous event, you might. If the same asked you to participate in a crime or an immoral act, would you. Am I to believe that Ann Morrow was a stooge and that Col Breckinridge had no moral compass? And let's not forget that all of the actions required for this involve highly visible people, yet there's no trace.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 18, 2012 10:40:20 GMT -5
Well, I think it's clear that Lindbergh was a very powerful guy. His celebrity status allowed him to take charge of virtually all things around him. Likewise, it seems to me that, because of this, the people in his circle were eager to help him, all acquiescing and falling in lockstep with him in one form or another: "This guy singlehandedly made it across the Atlantic, using nothing but a superhuman mix of brains and courage; he is to be respected in all things and, generally speaking, he knows best." Given this, if someone like that asked somebody close to them to participate in something shady, I can see where they would readily do it. And it may not have been framed as a crime or immoral act, but as a necessary evil: "I've weighed all other options, and, believe me, this is unfortunately the only way." To go along with this doesn't necessarily make someone a stooge or mean they have no moral compass, just that they were heavily influenced by a powerful, charismatic, highly respected celebrity--one who may've honestly felt he had no choice but to do what he did. However, my point about Anne in all this is that she wouldn't have known, one way or the other. And I don't think this has to make her a stooge. In the forward to Hour of Gold, written decades later, she describes herself during this period as "a girl"--one who had just lost her baby. Rather than a stooge, I think she was very young and naive, and, as such, trusted and believed her husband unquestioningly, at least at that stage of their lives. And Breckinridge I don't know about. My reasons for thinking he might've been involved are completely circumstantial, and Michael seems to think he had nothing to do with it. I'm eager to hear why, but, if he wasn't, there may've been another outsider brought in--one who had less of a moral compass, enabling him to more readily participate. And as to nothing but highly visible people being involved in this: Hauptmann and any similar individuals weren't highly visible people. Condon was a little more visible, but only in his own bailiwick. When you get to someone like Breckinridge or Thayer (or someone like them)--they're well-connected people, but hardly famous celebrities, unable to step outside without the paparazzi chasing them. The only one who fits that bill was Lindbergh. So it might follow, then, that he had to involve a handful of people who weren't as visible. And if, additionally, no one is given anything but the most necessary information, nothing's on paper and/or things are disguised--the kidnappers' fee disguised as a ransom payment, for instance--well, in that case, there really wouldn't be much of an obvious chain of evidence (especially at this point). Either way, again, it's all just a theory; I could be wildly off course.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 18, 2012 11:35:13 GMT -5
No matter how you spin it, it still means that people were willing to engage in activity which was criminal and pretty disgusting. These people are not fools, they would know exactly what was going on. And how could Ann not be a stooge? What is it about this case that makes people think the woman are oblivious idiots???
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 18, 2012 12:47:05 GMT -5
At this point, let me say this. I think most readers of this board know by now that I have no difficulty defending my position on this thread from Michael’s rebuttals. But I also agree there is no further value to these back-and-forth exchanges. Rebuttal leads to counter-rebuttal and it never ends. It’s become a spinoff of Lloyd’s book: “The Quarrel that Never Dies.” I said what I needed to say on the topic of eugenics-related murder. Of course, I’ll respond to other contributors’ comments and queries as appropriate. But as far as these exchanges between me and Michael go, I agree that we should end them, and I prefer to do so on a light note. Remember Letterman’s “Top Tens”? Well, here’s my list of:
THE TOP TEN THINGS I’D RATHER BE DOING THAN HAVING THESE ENDLESS EXCHANGES
(10) Smell Edward J. Reilly’s breath (9) Listen to John F. Condon tell me his life story for the third time (8) Buy a used car from Millard Whited (7) Listen to Arthur Koehler giving a detailed history of all the various types of North American wood grains (6) Have Septimus Banks as my “designated driver” (5) Whistle at Charles Schippell’s daughter in front of Schippell (4) Have Amandus Hochmuth try and shoot an apple off my head with a .45 (3) Loan Isidor Fisch $10,000 on a handshake (2) Double-cross Lindbergh’s dog “Thor” (1) Invest my entire life savings in a Gaston Means business proposition
Michael might enjoy seeing #4.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 18, 2012 12:57:55 GMT -5
Well, in all this, I don't think Lindbergh hoodwinked everyone. I don't think he could have. I think he would've had to bring in others (whether Breckinridge, Thayer, or someone else) who knew exactly what was going on. So, okay then--they knew. I've explained why they might've participated anyway. I also think getting around someone who's young, naive, and trusts you implicitly, doesn't necessarily make that person an oblivious idiot.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 18, 2012 13:15:36 GMT -5
I guess what I am getting at LJ is that these alternate theories almost always incorporate the participation of others without regard to them as individuals with their own morals and intelligence. Hence successful people like Breckinridge become pawns. Intelligent woman like Ann Morrow and Ana Hauptmann become clueless but adoring subservient Stepford wives. The real world does not work this way. Just take a close look at a single aspect of this eugenics theory, the (alleged) diagnosis and realization that the child was far more ill than just a case of rickets. In the real world, how do you suppose this would occur? I would say it's a fair bet that given the wealth and notoriety of the parents ( notice plural), Charlie would see a succession of specialists. At the very least Van Ingram would recommend this. And the Ann, the Morrow family, the friends of the family, and the staff are all in the dark? Every single one of them? They are all under the spell of CAL? This is the stuff of fiction where a writer controls the knowledge and actions of all of the characters. It is not the basis for factual crime.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 18, 2012 14:21:03 GMT -5
I think these people certainly had their own morals and intelligence, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for basically moral and intelligent people to ever act in unintelligent or immoral ways and become pawns under certain circumstances. To assume otherwise--well, to me, that's how the real world doesn't work. Anyway, forget Anne for the time being. If this is anything like how it went down, I'm willing to concede she could've been brought into this and been told what was going on. Either way, the main thing, really, would not have been to fool her, but to fool and misdirect the press and public (something Lindbergh made almost a sport of, both before and after the kidnapping). And once again, I'm not saying that the baby was necessarily seriously ill (and therefore would had to have seen a whole succession of specialists; you're right), but only that it may've been Lindbergh's perception that his son was generally weak and an embarrassment, and, as such, needed to be sent away (whether temporarily or permanently) to be either diagnosed one way or the other, and/or treated if it turned out there was something tangibly wrong. In any case, I'm not married to this theory I've proposed. That being said though, I would like to hear some hard, actual facts as to why none of it could've possibly worked.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 18, 2012 16:24:59 GMT -5
A couple of years back, well maybe more then that, Gary and I were going over a theory like this involving hired hands. I believe we both accepted the possibility that a Gang would take 1/2 the money up front then 1/2 once the job was over. The $50K was simply the figure in the Ransom Note to legitimize the "kidnapping." But like you added in your theory...."the Kidnappers had other plans" then proceeded to try to collect that additional amount too.
That would depend on how far you think they actually did go or how much they actually knew. It was my description concerning Anne following CAL in "lockstep" and if I didn't believe that I wouldn't have posted it. However, I didn't say it to suggest she was a equal partner in, say, the murder of her son. I say it to suggest even if she considered something might have been "off" about what happened or suspected something she would never say a word about it. You cannot look at the various examples (backyard, etc.) then claim she would have behaved normally if it involved her husband. Next, how do we now know about the 2 previous "kidnappings" Lindbergh pulled? It wasn't Anne telling the Police all about it like we would expect.
Not a word about it from her.
It was leaked by Gow who wasn't even there when it happened. And it was Gow, coincidentally, who let out "I was promised I wouldn't be touched" once Investigators were getting a little too hairy for her liking.
When was she promised?
Breckenridge was not only a Lawyer but a personal friend of Lindbergh. I understand why LJ would consider him being the nexus, or the "Missing Link" if you will. However, while he would have done his job to protect Lindbergh, and did, from all the things I've read I see him making certain points and asking specific questions that lead me to believe he's not "involved." Schwarzkopf considered bringing him up on charges for "compounding a felony", or at least suggested it be looked at for consideration, but I promise you that Lindbergh wouldn't have allowed it.
But the bottom line is that you absolutely MUST consider all of these things first before ruling items both in and out. But I like the term "moral compass" because if you apply it to Lindbergh "north" doesn't point where everyone else's does.
Now that doesn't mean he killed his son, but like HE said himself - he should have been a Suspect. So if HE is saying this why is it so absurd for us to consider?
Consider that almost immediately after the crime, Whateley said it had to be an "inside" job - after which he never made another comment to the Press again. I think when you read through certain investigations you get the flavor about how Staff were groomed. That independent proclamation was a unique occurrence.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 18, 2012 22:27:23 GMT -5
Michael, the idea that a gang would take half up front and half afterwards is a plausible one (and that the full $50K was the sum mentioned in the note to make this look like that much more of an actual kidnapping), but I'm still wondering what you mean by the ransom was never meant to be collected. I mean, were these people that Lindbergh wouldn't have had to actually pay for some reason...? And your points about Anne are excellent: If she wasn't told what was going on, she still could've suspected something, but, either way, wouldn't have said a word. In either case, she's doesn't come off as a fool (which we know she certainly wasn't). Makes sense to me and seems perfectly in keeping with her character. Also, as to this idea of Breckinridge's involvement (or not), was it ever determined where he was on the night of the kidnapping? Am I wrong that he was supposed to be at that NY dinner, but apparently didn't show up? And if not Breckinridge (or Thayer) who would this "missing link" have been? I ask this using my theory only as a working hypothesis: Assuming for a moment this is what actually happened--if not his lawyers, who then, hypothetically, would've been Lindbergh's NY contact or missing link to Condon, Hauptmann, and the rest? Donovan...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2012 11:30:23 GMT -5
I am catching up on all the great posts concerning your theory, LJ. It is great how you took the time to put together a possible scenario for the kidnapping. I have not even tried to do that yet so I certainly admire you for it.
If Lindbergh is involved with the kidnapping of his son, then I would agree that there must have been a health issue at the heart of this. I would add serious enough that Lindbergh wanted him removed permanently. I would love to think that the 2-4 days mentioned in the nursery note was for testing but I don't really think it was. I don't think little Charlie was to ever return to Highfields. I think the nursery note was the cover to make Charlie's departure look like a kidnapping and nothing more. I think Anne believed that Charlie was kidnapped for real this time. She says that she thought it was another joke until she saw Charles' face. If having Charlie institutionalized was being considered (like I thought), then I guess Lindbergh never spoke to Anne about it.
There is no doubt that Breckinridge was 100% in step with Lindbergh through this whole event. He is the first person Lindbergh calls himself. He wants Breck there from the very beginning because he trusts him and knows that Breck with do whatever he needs him to do.
Thayer comes into this case through Colonel Donovan. Thayer brings in Mickey Rosner who goes to Owney Madden for assistance. Perhaps we should be looking at Owney Madden a little harder. Maybe there could be some type of link between Madden and Condon/Fisch and then Hauptmann. I have never(yet) read anything that suggests Hauptmann had a direct relationship with any underworld figures. Plus I still think there must of been a local connection of some sort with the kidnappers.
I think the footprint evidence shows at least two or three persons at this crime scene. I also think the driveway and boardwalk were used by the kidnappers. That is why there are no approaching footprints to the scene.
I like the idea of the front door being unlocked allowing one of the kidnappers access to the inside of the house and up to the nursery. I thought you laid that out really well. Having the baby handed out the window to an accomplice who is on the ladder is the way I see it happening. I don't think the physical evidence found in the room supports a window entry.
I believe that the $50,000 ransom was just put in the note to make it look like what it was supposed to be.........a kidnapping for money. When the game plan changed the kidnappers decided to go for the $50 thousand anyway. They had possession of the body of Charlie and they used it to get that $50,000.
The lack of fingerprints in the nursery where there should have been some is still troubling. Anne and Betty's prints should have been on the southeast window since they admitted to handling it when they were putting Charlie to bed. I suppose the kidnapper who entered the nursery room could have destroyed some of those prints when he opened the window and shutters to hand the baby out. No doubt he had gloves on when in the room.
I still flip-flop back and forth over the insider assistance. There is a case to be made on both sides of the issue so I am keeping an open mind to this.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 19, 2012 13:21:45 GMT -5
Thanks, Amy, for your thoughts! Good stuff. Bearing in mind that I still consider everything and anything about this purely hypothetical, I think this issue of insider assistance, which you say you go back and forth on, is covered by the supposition that Lindbergh himself was the insider. As to the lack of fingerprints in the nursery: Well, I too would think that the kidnapper certainly wore gloves, but perhaps, in all this, Lindbergh himself, before the police arrived and the nursery was dusted, found a moment to wipe the room down in certain key spots that he assumed the kidnapper would had to have touched. After all, Lindbergh wasn't in the room, so, OCD as ever, he may've been making double sure: "I would think this guy wore gloves, but I can't be 100% positive. But if his identity is discovered later on for any reason and his prints are in the house--well, that links him to me and then the game is up." Or, what I like even better is the possibility that part of the plan was for the kidnapper to wipe those spots down as he went through the room, to make it look like "WE HAD TO ENTER AND EXIT SECRETLY THROUGH THE WINDOW--THAT IS, NO ONE LET US IN THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR OR ANYTHING--AND, HAVING COME THROUGH THE WINDOW, WE HAD TO TOUCH HERE, HERE, AND HERE"--that is, making it look like that much more of an ordinary kidnapping or burglary, with no inside help. And the kidnapper obviously wouldn't have wanted to leave his own fingerprints to telegraph this, so, to leave this trail, he had no option but to erase the existing ones with a wipedown of certain key spots in the room. And I'm perfectly willing to discard the idea that the 2-4 day wait period was code for the amount of time the baby would spend under some form of observation in a hospital before being returned. You've said (as I believe Michael has before) you think the baby was meant to be taken from the house and never seen or heard from again. But if he was never meant to be returned because of some real or imagined health issues, where was he supposed to go and, more importantly, how would he have been kept permanently hidden from Anne or the public? Since, for now, we seem to feel the baby's health could've somehow been the trigger for all this, could it be that there was some real or imagined health problems with the baby that Lindbergh didn't want to deal with. He's not so cold-blooded as to kill or euthanize him, but Lindbergh feels the baby needs to be put in an institution. Ever image-conscious, he can't admit that by doing it himself (added to which, he knows Anne wouldn't want it), so he stages a kidnapping to make it appear that the baby was forcibly taken rather than voluntarily surrendered (because the latter would beg the question of why). The idea is that the "hostage" will never be returned, and, meanwhile, he's living somewhere else and Lindbergh just checks up on him over the years? But things obviously never got that far, as the men Lindbergh brought in to help him ended up double-crossing him and so forth. It's true that, 25 years later, Lindbergh managed to keep a whole hidden family(s) a secret from the rest of the world, maintaining a relationship with them without leaving much evidence behind of that (or even of their existence), so I suppose something like this could be possible... But how could you trust whoever had the baby in their custody to not recognize the most famous child in America and blab it around? Not having that happen over the course of, say, a temporary 2-4 day window is one thing, but no one putting two and two together for any longer than that...? One the other hand, could it be that this was why there were "no pictures that look like him, none recent enough"? Lindbergh, "planning this for a year already" or thereabouts, stopped taking photos of the baby well in advance of this--even cutting his hair--so he'd be less recognizable to whoever would've been taking care of him? I don't know, maybe I'm going way too far now. Either way, as I said, it's all just speculation. In any event, I think I see what you mean about the $50K being a figure put into the note to make it look like a kidnapping-for-ransom, before the kidnappers decided to actually go for it. Michael, is this what you mean when you say the ransom was never meant to collected? Not that these guys were never meant to get anything for their trouble, just not the specific $50K stipulated in the note?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 19, 2012 15:07:17 GMT -5
Hi, Amy. Where do you see evidence of a serious health issue? You say you don’t believe Anne was in on a kidnapping-murder plot, yes? Here are just some questions to ponder:
1--Why do Anne’s letters over a period of nearly two years show steady normal growth and development for Charlie? (See my original post) This was a happy kid who could talk, laugh, run and play.
2--If Charlie was seriously ill, why did Anne take off for several months on a trip to the Orient? (July-October 1931, cut short by news of her father's death) 3--While Anne was gone to the Orient, Charlie was supervised by Mrs. Morrow. If Charlie had a serious health issue, why didn’t Mrs. Morrow notice it? She didn’t write to Van Ingen, inquiring if anything might be wrong, until much later (after the kidnapping).
4--Why did Dr. Van Ingen tell Mrs. Morrow nothing was seriously wrong? Was he, like the kidnappers, part of Lindbergh’s grand eugenics conspiracy? Now granted, at the time of the letter, he may have been observing client confidentiality. But if he extended that confidentiality to his pretrial deposition, then it looks like this respected pediatrician was “in on the conspiracy.”
5--Why did Elsie and Betty, who saw the baby every day, say the baby was normal? Were they, too, in on the eugenics conspiracy? Betty was interviewed when she was quite elderly, long after Charles Lindbergh died. Why did she reveal nothing? Was she still actively cowed by this conspiracy?
6--Why did visitors to the Lindbergh home, ranging from Red Johnsen to Will Rogers, say the baby was perfectly normal? Had Lindbergh forced them, too, into his grand eugenics conspiracy?
7--When exactly was this serious illness diagnosed? How does Lindbergh take Charlie to the doctor for a disease workup without Anne knowing about it?
8--If Lindbergh as a eugenicist is so worried the world will know he has fathered an unhealthy son--so worried that he'll commit murder over it--then why does he allow publication of a diet including viosterol, which immediately tips the world that his son DOES have a health issue (rickets)?
9--If Charlie is seriously ill, why did Lindbergh allow him to attend preschool, where symptoms of the illness should have been evident to teachers and other parents? (If this illness had no symptoms, then clearly it’s nothing to motivate a fake kidnapping.)
10--If Lindbergh wants to rid himself of Charlie, why doesn’t he just do it through an “accident” (dropped from a window, drowned in the bathtub). If the “Lone Eagle” could fly the Atlantic alone (he deliberately refused a copilot), why not do this alone? Why get into an elaborate fake kidnapping, which involves accomplices? Accomplices can spill the beans on you later.
11—Anne was pregnant with Jon at the time of the kidnapping. What did Lindbergh plan to do if Jon was born with the same health issue? Stage another fake kidnapping?
Now I realize it’s possible for us to “think up” answers to these questions, such as —Anne was lying in her letters about the baby’s health —Charles cruelly forced Anne to go to the Orient and leave behind a sick baby —Mrs. Morrow was too obtuse to notice the baby’s symptoms --Van Ingen, Betty, Elsie, Red Johnsen, etc. were all part of Lindbergh’s grand eugenics scheme
But our thinking up answers isn’t enough. The question is: (1) are the answers very credible, and (2) are they supported by evidence?
I know there are others who disagree, but for me personally, the collective evidence against the LKC being eugenics-motivated is overwhelming.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 19, 2012 16:01:10 GMT -5
I know your comments were addressed to Amy, Bookrefuge, but I'd like to respond. Your points are all good ones, and I couldn't agree more that this was not a eugenics-motivated murder (as per the title of this thread). To possibly answer your questions though, I'd like to (once again) summarize some ideas I've already put forth: Instead of being a eugenics-motivated murder, I'm wondering if it may've simply been, in Lindbergh's hyper-perfectionist, pseudo-eugenicist view (we know he thought this way and it could've been further reinforced by his association with Carrel around this time), that--to Lindbergh's mind, remember--something more was wrong with the baby than a case of moderate rickets (for which he's being treated because that's all anyone could actively treat here). We see possible evidence of Lindbergh trying to toughen the kid up (the outdoor crib incident, sending him to school too soon). And someone trying to toughen a person up carries the implication that that someone thinks the person is weak. This supposed weakness may not have been apparent at first, but once he got older, these so-called problems with the baby may've grown in Lindbergh's mind (and again, been further enhanced by his work with Carrel): He feels his son is weak, rickets being the least of the problems. He does not want to murder the baby over this, but, as Anne is pregnant again (getting pregnant before Lindbergh felt he really had cause to worry about his firstborn), the baby has to be sent away to, at the very least, be diagnosed with whatever the supposed problems are, should the same "problems" arise with their second child. But sending the baby away himself would be, to Lindbergh's mind, a public admission that his stock is inferior. He can't allow that to be implied, so he stages a kidnapping to make it appear the baby was taken away by forces beyond his control. Either way, since these serious health problems are all just Lindbergh's perception, no one else in the family circle is going to really pick up on them, because there probably wasn't actually much for anyone to pick up on: No one has the kind of high, perfectionist standards that Lindbergh has in the first place, and besides, it could've been that nothing was actually, seriously wrong with the baby. So there's no "grand eugenics scheme" here, that everyone would have to be involved in and keep their mouths shut about. And the murder aspect of this comes in later--not as a murder committed by Lindbergh or related at all to eugenics, but committed by those Lindbergh brought in to help and who double-crossed him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2012 16:23:28 GMT -5
LJ, I think you addressed this issue very well! Very glad you responded.
BR, My position is not one of Eugenics murder; never was. My humble opinion is that Lindbergh was seeking to put Charlie into an institution but something went wrong and Charlie died. That is NOT eugenics. I have read all your posts and links which were informative.
However. the above is my opinion at this time and I am sticking to it. When it changes I will certainly post it.
LJ, I like your thoughts on the lack of current photos. He did look different from what was released. Perhaps that would have aided in placing him in an institution. Very good idea!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 19, 2012 16:24:44 GMT -5
LJ - I plan on commenting more but while I have a spare minute I'd like to inject something that I have been and will continue to.... One cannot rely on just those things they have. BR does this often and I've attempted to "help" prevent it because it can be both counterproductive and a road-block at times. For example, he asks: Great question. I would say it should then lead to the conclusion that something is amiss with it as a source. Yet, he takes the ball and runs with it then spiking it end zone using it as an "end-all" to support the conclusion he holds dear: That ends that - right? Well actually NO it doesn't. In fact, it proves this source he relies on isn't so good after all. So I would submit we go back to his original question as to "why" then answer it properly and not jump to any premature conclusions. Question all of this stuff as 100% reliable and leave the door open for material many have not yet seen. Remember, there are hundreds of thousands of Reports, Letters, and Memos waiting to be read and reviewed just at the NJSP Archives: Now although I have, over a 12 year period of time, gone through each and every collection multiple times, I would still be foolish to say I know everything there is to know. There is just that much....that much to review....that much to remember. Heck, I was shocked to hear Mark tell me that I was only the 2nd person he'd ever seen go through a select group of material. I thought, with ALL the books out there - that would be impossible. But it was true. Look, one things I've learned over the course of time I spent researching is that the less I knew the easier it was for me to challenge just about anything - at will. The more you know the harder it is to shrug things off. It's the exact opposite of what you think would be true. Just let me be clear.... I am not suggesting we don't ask questions. Ask away. But do not draw conclusions as fast as you can type the question. That would be and is - a HUGE mistake. Hopefully I will find a little time later to get some thoughts out there on this thread as well as on SOJacks...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 19, 2012 20:05:41 GMT -5
It would help me to answer this if I knew what your source was for it. Sorry about that - its just how my brain works. It will give me a jumping off point because there are so many places to check in order to make sure I'm not giving you bad information. I think I know but I want to make sure.
Multi-million dollar question. It's why I understand your line of thought behind who you've suggested. I just don't believe it was either of them. But because I've eliminated them doesn't mean you should. Don't let me talk you out of it.
Right. Suppose they were given "X"K (X = any figure you are comfortable with) a piece up front then another "X"K immediately after the "abduction." So once they have their money someone gets the bright idea to follow through on the extra 50 large that's in the note. It now becomes an extortion - just like Ellis Parker suggested.
Over the course of this extortion several "rumors" exist. One is the "Gang" broke up and some Members left. CJ tells Condon the "Leader" took away the symbol so there will be no more notes. If this is true I think its important to ask "why?" Well, one answer might be to stop any further extortion attempts because that is what this symbol represents. Next, Condon furthers one by saying CJ was "killed" by his Confederates. So the possibility exists that some of the original "gang" is no longer on board. Could all be BS but its something I think should be considered.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 19, 2012 21:57:08 GMT -5
Thanks for your remarks, Amy. However, even if murder was not Lindbergh’s intent, I would say that at least 9 of the 11 objections I raised would still apply to the situation you describe. (You said that "there must have been a health issue at the heart of this" and that it would have been "serious" if Lindergh had the baby removed.) What are the answers to these objections? And how is this famous baby to be institutionalized without ever being recognized? If Lindbergh planned secret institutionalization, then his conspiracy extends beyond his hired abductors—it extends to the doctors and workers at the institution who are awaiting this kid and have agreed to take care of him (even though Charlie presumably didn’t make it there). Why did none of these people ever come forward, even many years later?
LJ, you are saying that Lindbergh may have only imagined or exaggerated the baby’s problem? But if a medical institution agreed to accept the child, this implies that the institution concurs that the problem exists. You mentioned that “the baby has to be sent away to, at the very least, be diagnosed with whatever the supposed problems are.” But medical diagnosis does not normally require that one be “sent away,” certainly not by abductors. I really don’t see Anne objecting to having the baby worked up medically—remember, she’s supposed to be obedient to the tyrannical Lindbergh. And what happens if the diagnosis comes back: “Sorry, Lindy, your baby is normal”? What does Lindbergh do NOW? Tell Anne and the whole world: “Sorry, I faked the kidnapping because I wanted to get a medical diagnosis”? And LJ, think of the scandal if the baby was recognized at the institution, and word leaked out. Once the child’s INSTITUTIONALIZATION became public knowledge, wouldn’t that completely SCANDALIZE and EMBARRASS Lindbergh as a eugenicist, far more than if he’d left well enough alone?
Michael, you said “So please, leave me out of it from now on.” I’m trying to respect that, so I’m ignoring your remarks about me here. But remember, “leave me out of it” should work both ways.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 19, 2012 23:45:44 GMT -5
Bookrefuge, what I'm saying is that the baby was possibly sent away to be kept somewhere. I can't think of a reason for this other than perhaps some embarrassing health related issues, or, at the very least, the perception in Lindbergh's mind that there was something wrong with the baby. Say he was sent to an institution. First, to help keep the secret, no one at the hospital may've been told to expect anyone special ahead of time. The baby may not have been presented as CALjr right away. Rather, the plan may've been for a confederate to appear at the institution with him, with a note saying "Please call this number". Lindbergh picks up at the other end and says this is his child and he wants him evaluated and kept there, using utmost discretion and silence. Whether or not the baby has something seriously wrong, he's Lindbergh; what he says goes. The doctors keep their mouths shut because of doctor-patient confidentiality and Lindbergh's powerful status. Word never leaks out and Lindbergh is able to keep things under wraps in, I suppose, the same way he managed to pull off the same basic thing with his secret German families for so many years, while still maintaining contact with them. Or maybe the idea wasn't to send the baby to an institution at all, but somewhere else entirely. I'm open to that. So where else might he have been sent do you think? And Michael, I'm eager to hear more of your thoughts. I agree, too, we cannot just rely on what we have in front of us with this, because there are so many broken links in the chain.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 20, 2012 5:25:51 GMT -5
I agree. So if you start a board, and Administrate it, I promise not to follow you there. But I started this one so Members can learn from each other. So you may post your thoughts but there's absolutely no way you are going to tell me what I can or cannot do.
Ask yourself "why" Marie Cummings was fired.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 20, 2012 7:53:03 GMT -5
LJ, I just don’t think that could work. How could the hospital know it was really Lindbergh on the other end of the phone line? Would they institutionalize a child on such a tenuous basis? Especially after the news broke that the Lindbergh child was being sought by the police? And would Lindbergh—a careful planner--trust the situation to “whoever” his confederate happened to meet at the institution?
LJ, for many reasons I’ve posted in this thread, I personally don’t think Lindbergh was trying to send his son anywhere. I know there are others who disagree.
Anyone who reads my above post can see that is obviously not what I told you. What I said was, since you yourself requested “please, leave me out of it from now on,” the courtesy should be extended both ways. If you intend to keep on ripping me and my posts, that's fine, but in that case I will definitely respond.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 20, 2012 10:43:05 GMT -5
All of these reverse engineering methods of looking at Lindbergh as the man behind this crime are very interesting and well thought out. There is, however, a fatal flaw with all of them. They fail to take into account the signature of this crime. Every crime has one and it is always unique and reflective of the person behind it. Look at how Lindbergh goes about achieving his objectives and then look at these scenarios regarding the elimination of his child. It's simply not the Lindbergh way and his signature is absent. On the other hand, we can see the signature of Richard Hauptman and that signature gets clearer as it receives more scrutiny ( see Sonofjacks posts). Now there is a place where Lindbergh's signature is present, the post crime investigation.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 20, 2012 11:25:08 GMT -5
Well, as I've said, I don't know how the nuts-and-bolts logistics of actually getting the baby into an institution or someplace similar would've worked exactly. Even if this was the plan, things never made it that far; that part of the plan was obviously never carried out, so it's hard to say. Looking at the big picture, though, what I see is a crime scene that looks very staged, the actions of the perpetrators very heavyhandedly telegraphed. As far as this goes, I can't think of a reason for this other than to try to deflect attention away from an insider who was controlling things. And, in terms of that insider, neither can I think of a person who could direct, control, or oversee something like this better than Lindbergh. Now, just because something is within someone's abilities (or even tendencies) doesn't necessarily mean they did it--but controlling, directing, and overseeing is what Lindbergh went on to do throughout the investigation, so, the more I look at it, the more I see his hand throughout this whole thing. If we also look at how Lindbergh treated the baby (the outdoor crib incident, sending him to school before it was necessary)--as I've said, these could be interpreted as attempts to toughen someone up. And if you feel the need to toughen someone up, it follows there is some general weakness on their part, real or perceived. And if we throw a moderate case of rickets into this and the fact that Lindbergh (already a perfectionist in his own right) is now working in the medical field with an out-and-out eugenicist--I don't know, all this might add up to a major health concern in Lindbergh's mind, something that needed to handled elsewhere, as it would've been seen as a tarnish to his Superman image had he just admitted to it. So the baby needed to spirited away by forces seemingly beyond his control and be sent...somewhere. But maybe not to a medical institution. There was, however, an orphanage nearby--a place where there wouldn't be anything odd about receiving anonymous children, so no eyebrows would be raised about a child arriving there when a nationwide manhunt for a child happens to be underway. "There are no photos that look like him, none recent enough," so no one recognizes the baby as that child--not the staff or the police if they were to search the orphanage. I don't know, rather than an institution, maybe the orphanage would've made more sense. The baby is adopted out, and Lindbergh, as he did later with his German families, checks up on him and manages to keep the secret for years. But, before any of this can happen, the men he brings in to help double-cross him. Of course, if the orphanage was meant as the holding place for the baby, I don't know why the kidnappers would feel the need to kill him. I mean, the only reason I can come up with for that would've been for lack of a place to keep a live child, but an orphanage would be the ideal place for that, so why would the kidnappers set themselves up for a murder charge, when they could have left the baby at the orphanage and only pretended to have him until they got the ransom? Or maybe--forget the issue of the baby's health for the moment--it was something else. Looking at a general pattern of behavior on his part, Lindbergh had pretended the baby had been kidnapped twice before. Could this have been a more elaborate attempt at another practical joke, one that got out of hand when his fellow hoaxers turned it into a real kidnapping? Seems a little farfetched, but I don't know. Maybe I'm just stuck on Lindbergh for the time being because, admittedly, I am seeing his hand throughout all this. Anyway, Michael, what are your thoughts on the practical-joke-gone-wrong angle and the orphanage angle? Also, what's your take on Donovan possibly having something to do with this? And who is Marie Cummings? And Kevin, I realize I'm proposing hypotheses based partly on things Lindbergh did elsewhere, suggesting they apply to the crime because they applied elsewhere, then saying "See, there's his signature"--so, okay, I'm willing to concede my reasoning might be circular or self-reinforced in places. But could you be a little more specific when you say Lindbergh's signature isn't present at all (except in the subsequent investigation)?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 20, 2012 14:24:54 GMT -5
Sure LJ. What is Lindbergh. He's a mechanic. He's a guy who prefers machines and science to people. That's why he was so successful in some endeavors but a disaster when it came to ones involving people. He really is the lone eagle, in a sense. Look at his plane, The Spirit of St Louis. It's a flying gas tank. Lindbergh assessed the needs of a transatlantic flight, reduced them to the essentials, and the result was the Ryan NYP. The issue of flying solo was never in doubt. You can see similar examples of other Lindbergh endeavors. If Lindbergh, for what ever reason, wanted to get rid of his child, he would approach it in the manner of Lindbergh. His signature would be simplicity and self reliance. He is not going to farm this out and he is especially not going to rely on a third or fourth party to make decisions. And he is absolutely not going to incorporate anything in his plan which opens up the possibility of losing control. It's just not him. And it doesn't matter at all what you consider his moral compass to be. It's not a question of whether he was evil or cold enough to eliminate his son. It is a question of how he would go about it.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 20, 2012 14:49:41 GMT -5
Sure. And I agree with much of what you say. I think Lindbergh was very much the Lone Eagle, as it were, but, just like smart people can still act foolishly sometimes, there are some things which even the lone-est of Lone Eagles have to bring other people in on (just to deflect focus from themselves if nothing else, in terms of an illicit act). If not, Lindbergh, to use your Spirit of St. Louis example, would've welded every rivet onto that plane himself, constructing it entirely on his own. He didn't, because, obviously, doing that entirely on his own wasn't really feasible. Instead, he had to use a team of designers and builders, and oversaw the operation himself. Using this example, I can see how the same pattern could've been repeated later. You said yourself that he was a mechanic, disastrous when it came to endeavors involving people. As I see it (for now), the kidnapping may--may--have been one of those disasters.
|
|