Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2013 10:50:58 GMT -5
I so agree, which is why I post some of my "theories". Feedback is so important when trying to find the truth and I rely on those who have more knowledge and understanding of this case to guide me. I have been looking on this board for Rab's various posts on the ransom money to broaden my perspective on this packing order spending idea. Although, from what I have read so far, it seems that it could be a possibilitybut because there is so much ransom money that was never accounted for, it makes me hesitate to draw a firm conclusion on it. I am so glad that I am not writing a book or anything which could require one to commit to certain things in order to advance their theory.
Exactly. So the kidnapper(s) pull out one FR $20 and one FR $5(not paying attention to order) to test the waters on what will happen when they spend the money. We need to remember that Condon told CJ that if the money were marked he had no knowledge of it. So they need to see what will happen when they start to spend this money. That is when they learn that the serial numbers have been recorded and they delay the spending a bit while deciding what to do. Since no more than 4 FR $20 are ever found and none of the FR $10 are ever found perhaps the decision is made to launder them in order to have usable, traceless money. Afterall, when looking at Hauptmann's spending after the ransom was paid he could not have been flooding the moneypool with all those $20's and $10 in order to buy the things he did, make stock purchases and send Anna to Germany etc. Some of those bills would have been identified, especially early on, when the banks were first caught up in the demand to look for the ransom money.
So the $10 GC's that made up the 1933 Faulkner deposit were in packing order. Since we don't know who made that deposit and the handwriting is clearly not Hauptmann's then someone had to be assisting Hauptmann, even if they did nothing more than fill out the deposit slip for him or it could mean someone else had ransom money.
In looking back at some of the older posts concerning the ransom money, the packing order spending conclusion seems most distinguishable when it come to tracing the gold certs being spent by Hauptmann in 1934. The garage money seems to be mostly in the packing order also. Although not every bill was spent that way, the fact that they all appear to be consistent with the packages of money found in that garage does exist.
So, Michael, is there a packing order ransom bill link that ties the 1933 spending to Hauptmann's 1934 spending? Wasn't there a period of time in 1934 when no ransom money was being found? Sorry to have to ask you this but Rab has not been posting lately so I can't ask him.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 23, 2013 19:00:57 GMT -5
Wasn't there a period of time in 1934 when no ransom money was being found? It was the Winter months extending into the first couple of days into March 1933: As you can see, Schwarzkopf blames it on "publicity" of the tracing efforts. However, "Lone-Wolf" advocates blame Hauptmann's Florida trip. For me, if money could be in circulation and not discovered, ever, then how can't it be when Hauptmann is in Florida? Next, why wouldn't Hauptmann pass ransom on this trip? Why only launder money where you live? To me that doesn't make sense, unless you are being held accountable by or to someone located in the area in which you live. One of Rab's points is/was the possibility of Bank Tellers becoming lazy then just stopped looking. And finally, there was a suspicious incident in Newtown, PA which could have been an attempted passing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 12:32:38 GMT -5
Good point. If the money is out there, then where certain people are and when should not make any difference in the discovery of the bills.
From what I can see when reviewing the FBI summary report chronology, there are 3 notable gaps in the spending of the ransom money:
April 15, 1932 thru May 18, 1932 - During this time the corpse of Charlie is discovered.
Dec. 23, 1932 thru March 2, 1933 - Hauptmann goes to Florida in January returning in February.
June 19, 1933 thru Nov 19, 1933 - The Lindberghs are on their transatlantic flight from July till December.
I have difficulty believing that the banks were checking and then not checking and then checking again and then not checking again to cover these gaps of no ransom money being in circulation.
I see this as being a real possibility when you look at the gaps in spending I mention above. It suggests someone is overseeing the use of the ransom money. In Rab's archive report on the $10 dollar GC's that were spent you will see that the gaps in this spending coincidence closely with the gaps I mention above. This form of spending the ransom money creates yet another pattern of spending besides the packing order one. It seems everywhere you turn in this case you run into controls over everything!
I have never heard about this! Do tell, Michael, please!!
I also want to ask you why the FBI chronology report doesn't cover any more dates that ransom money was spent after Feb. 1, 1934. Was there another gap in spending? I know that Rab's report on the 10's shows the last $10 being found as Feb. 13. No more 10's show up until Aug 20, 1934 which I believe brings use to when Hauptmann's spending comes into play. Would you be able to comment on this?
This last question has raised my brow line at least two inches upon reading it. The FBI report lists the finding of a $50.00 ransom bill on Nov 10, 1932. I thought that the fifties were never given to CJ but retained by Lindbergh in the car. Is this a typo on the part of the FBI or maybe the publishers of the book? I hope you can explain this so I can lower my brows back to normal position!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 25, 2013 14:34:10 GMT -5
From what I can see when reviewing the FBI summary report chronology, there are 3 notable gaps in the spending of the ransom money It's always been a sticking point for me to say there was a "spending gap." I call it a "finding gap." It is an irresistible conclusion that $5s were out there, at the very least, during these times. For me that's the "control" to this "test." But that's not to say there wasn't a "spending gap," however, its less likely when you apply this variable. The other thing is so much went on its easy enough to apply an explanation for why this may have occurred (assuming a "spending gap" had actually happened). So while I cannot rule it out, I am skeptical. I have difficulty believing that the banks were checking and then not checking and then checking again and then not checking again to cover these gaps of no ransom money being in circulation. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I recall it being explained as "fatigue." I also think that, if word of money being found would excite a search, word that none is being found would do just the opposite. I believe it was Wilson who came up with the added incentive of "bonuses" for those who were finding the bills in addition to the possibility of part of the reward. This was done to assist in the Bank Tellers search. I'd have to re-check the date on this if you are interested because bills may have been credited as being found because of it. However, my argument above would apply here too. I have never heard about this! Do tell, Michael, please!! I also want to ask you why the FBI chronology report doesn't cover any more dates that ransom money was spent after Feb. 1, 1934. Was there another gap in spending? The FBI Summary was written on 2/16/34 for the dates March 1, 1932 thru February 1, 1934. This is important because you'll find information that can sometimes disprove information contained in that report dated after it was written. So it shows Sisk is writing what he believes up to point in time it was typed up. This last question has raised my brow line at least two inches upon reading it. The FBI report lists the finding of a $50.00 ransom bill on Nov 10, 1932. I thought that the fifties were never given to CJ but retained by Lindbergh in the car. Is this a typo on the part of the FBI or maybe the publishers of the book? I hope you can explain this so I can lower my brows back to normal position! This must be a typo. Do you have the page #? Although I appear to be acting stupid sometimes its usually because I haven't read the FBI Summary cover to cover in about 12 years. I typically just go to the files first and use it as a back-up if I need to. As a result I miss some stuff that's in there that doesn't seem to be anywhere else. ALL Fifties were removed so none could have been spent. I have evidence in Reports of (2) $5s being discovered on Nov. 10th: - (B 57929278 A) traced back to Anna Celman spent at "Gents Furnishing Store" 254 - 5th Ave.
- (B 34534059 A) traced back to Child's Restaurant Deposit 570 Lexington Ave.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 23:12:50 GMT -5
"Finding gap" does sound better. Agreed, a lot of things were going on. I was just noting that during these "gaps" certain things happened at the same time. I was not attempting to offer an explanation for the lack of bills being found. Sorry if it appeared that way.
After the initial excitement about the ransom being paid and the banks being alerted to watch, I am sure over time interest in checking the $5, $10 and $20 dollar bills against that extensive serial number list began to wane. I also see the lack of bills being found by tellers when they first started checking also curbing their enthusiasm to keep checking. This must have resulted in some of the ransom bills never being found even though they were in circulation. Up until Hauptmann's arrest in 1934 only $5,020 dollars in ransom bills was recovered through the banks. And $3,000 of the $5,020 came as one direct deposit (J.J.Faulkner $2,980 + $20). That leaves only $2,020 coming from circulated money over a period of 2 years and 5 months. It is easy to understand why interest in checking would fall away and needed an incentive like you mention in your post to encourage tellers to try harder to identify ransom bills. Seems the money was being spent slowly. Could this mean only one person was spending money? Wouldn't you see a larger amount of bills being spent if you have accomplices who are spending their share of the ransom? Or is it possible that Hauptmann could have had an accomplice who was not in it for the money but for some other reason?
It appears on page 61 and it is indeed a typo! The summary says the bill was traced to H. Lambert Clothing Co. 254 5th Ave. New York City. This is the same address you say a $5 ransom bill was traced to. Thank you Michael for clarifing this!!
Enjoyed reading the letter you posted from the Newtown Bank. Thanks! Did the NJSP ever follow up on the license plate number given in the letter?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 27, 2013 17:52:15 GMT -5
"Finding gap" does sound better. Agreed, a lot of things were going on. I was just noting that during these "gaps" certain things happened at the same time. I was not attempting to offer an explanation for the lack of bills being found. Sorry if it appeared that way. My mistake for misunderstanding it. Regardless, if you had offered this up as an explanation its still something to consider. Whether I agree or disagree doesn't validate or invalidate anyone's ideas or thoughts. I don't want to come across that way and hopefully I'm not. That leaves only $2,020 coming from circulated money over a period of 2 years and 5 months. It is easy to understand why interest in checking would fall away and needed an incentive like you mention in your post to encourage tellers to try harder to identify ransom bills. Seems the money was being spent slowly. Could this mean only one person was spending money? Wouldn't you see a larger amount of bills being spent if you have accomplices who are spending their share of the ransom? Or is it possible that Hauptmann could have had an accomplice who was not in it for the money but for some other reason? It's so hard to say whether not some or all of the "unaccounted for" money was in circulation but missed. I think some have suggested this as an explanation for why ransom money was turning up after Hauptmann's arrest. Then again, some may have not been spent which means it was somewhere other then in Hauptmann's possession. That suggests to me there's others involved. Even the amounts attributable to Hauptmann could have been laundered by someone else. I've always believed while he was at the Stock Market all day long someone else was actually laundering that money. I have a pretty good idea how it was being done, but I'd rather not say at the moment. Enjoyed reading the letter you posted from the Newtown Bank. Thanks! Did the NJSP ever follow up on the license plate number given in the letter?
|
|
John (not Cemetary)
Guest
|
Post by John (not Cemetary) on Oct 27, 2013 19:45:20 GMT -5
Certainly BRH, had he decided a year or so early to kidnap Charlie, could have taken several trips to Highfields to learn the route. And during the week Olly Watley gave people guided tours of the house; he could have paid Watley to take him through. But anyone with a car could do the same thing, either from the Bronx or anywhere else. As for the Monday evening observations Lloyd Gardner in his book The Case That Never Died: The Lindbergh Kidnapping points out that Monday the usual household routines were not followed. Charles Lindbergh did not come to Highfields that night; he stayed at Next Day Hill. In his absence Anne ignored his orders, left a lot of lights on and looked on on Charlie frequently between 7 and 10 pm, something that Charles had strictly forbidden. On Tuesday evening Charles was back and enforced his policy that no one looks in on Charlie between 7 and 10 pm.
So if BRH or any single person did the whole kidnapping how did that person learn of the household routine? And if you look at a picture of the ladder it is about 2 feed below Charlie's window. And the ladder is unstable. And BRH suffered from dizziness as a result of a traumatic brain injury during WWI. So are we to believe that a man who suffers from dizziness climbs an unstable ladder to a second story window, pulls himself up the last 2 feet to enter the window, takes a child out of his crib, carries him back to the window, maneuvers his way back out and then--but then he has had to leave the child behind to get on the ladder. And so the child is on the floor of the room out of reach. Just how does he do that? Showing there must have been more than one person involved does not prove BRH was not involved. But it is hard for me to believe any single person could have done this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 28, 2013 7:03:16 GMT -5
John, I think it does smell of extortion, though maybe not quite the kind we would assume. First, it's interesting that $50K was the same amount stipulated in a kidnap threat made against one of Lindbergh's sisters-in-law a few years prior to the LKC. That may've been just a coincidence, but, at any rate, since it was such a low amount, I think $50K was a just a handy, nominal, throwaway sum. The amount didn't really matter because, I believe, the ransom was originally never meant to be paid. I think the people who removed CAL Jr. from Highfields had already been paid upfront but then decided to blackmail Lindbergh for an extra $50K, treating the ransom as if it was meant to be paid all along. Constance Morrow's extortion "attempt" first came to light in Liberty Magazine. Later, A&M brought this out in their book. I've studied that case because of these implications. It appears to me the Perpetrator here never meant to collect the ransom. In my opinion, He (Long) had some sort of mental illness where he enjoyed the thrill of the fear it created. Regardless, the point remains that someone may have been given/borrowed ideas as a result of this matter. With this is mind, I have always been in a position to actually interact with guys who commit all types of crimes. My nature is, even before I became entrenched in this research, is to ask for details - the "whys" and "hows." It became very clear to me if this event had been a "contract" to where someone hired others to commit this - they certainly would have been given at least half of their fee upfront. The idea would be to collect the rest upon completion of the job. Funny thing is, that both Gary and I independently believed this to be true, and as I see others, like LJ, come up with his own variation of it then I think its worth considering. With this in mind I came to the position that this $50K was indeed a ruse, but that certain elements within this group decided they had Lindbergh over a barrel then decided to extort this sum too. It could be merely because they were Criminals. Or it could be because the child was accidentally killed, therefore, their back-end money was withheld as a result. I personally believe the child was meant to be killed but there are so many new twists which can come from this theory that should all be considered in my opinion. Certainly BRH, had he decided a year or so early to kidnap Charlie, could have taken several trips to Highfields to learn the route. And during the week Olly Watley gave people guided tours of the house; he could have paid Watley to take him through. But anyone with a car could do the same thing, either from the Bronx or anywhere else. Here's where it gets worse.... There were no guided tours given by Whateley. In fact, there is no evidence there were tours given by anyone at all. The source material reveals just the opposite. The NJSP interviewed everyone. No Stranger ever made it into the house, excepting the movers. Even delivery people never made it past the kitchen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2013 12:52:16 GMT -5
Last words on this: You did not misunderstand. I did not make it clear. In going back over that post, I failed to say that what I linked with a dash wasn't an explanation. Anyone who reads that post will see it the way you did, not the way I was seeing it when I wrote it, which was, while money was not being found these things were going on with the main characters in this crime, Charlie, Hauptmann and Charles and Anne Lindbergh. And you don't come across as invalidating ideas. You are honest with your opinions. I count on that when throwing ideas out there. And in closing this out all I can say is that it is a very good thing that I am not planning on writing a book on this case. In short order, I would have to follow it up with one entitled "What I Really Meant Was....."!!!!
I really feel that this is what is going on with the money also. On another thread when I was trying to understand how Hauptmann alone was stock trading and laundering ransom at the same time, I had difficulty seeing this. If Hauptmann's way of laundering the money was by making small purchases with large bills he would have needed to spend the majority of his waking hours shopping instead of watching the stock board and making investments.
Thanks for posting the search made on the license plate number. Looking at the date on the letter sent to NJSP and the date the search was made it is evident that this was followed up quickly. Ithaca NY is a long way from Newtown PA. It is quite a distance to travel just to spend a $20.00 GC. It really makes you wonder....was it or wasn't it ransom money!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 29, 2013 6:00:41 GMT -5
And in closing this out all I can say is that it is a very good thing that I am not planning on writing a book on this case. Don't say that just yet! And also, even with the amount of time I have invested, someone could easily go to the Archives, open a file, then read a Report that I have multiple times but see something that evaded me. That's just how this works. Both frame of mind and perspective are extremely important. In fact, as we see by our discussions, we could all read Lloyd's book and see various things differently. Our interpretations can be completely different even with the exact same information in front of us.
|
|
|
Post by mufti on Jan 26, 2018 19:08:26 GMT -5
Good effort but there's a lot of reasons this falls apart.
First off, why have a kidnapping that involves a shooting? This is unlikely even in the thirties to result in a payoff and the only reason it worked here was because Lindbergh took over the case on his own. I really doubt the police thought this was a lone wolf one man job, but with Hauptmann not talking and no other living suspects then they made the best case they could. Making a more complicated case would just show they have doubts about the case and make a conviction less likely.
So at a minimum there must have been someone else designated to care for the kid, somewhere, if this is a plan that is remotely reasonable. Like comes up time and again, is Hauptmann a genius or an idiot? You have to pick one or the other at some point not mix them up willy nilly whenever it's convenient as many people (and the police case against him) seem to do. If he managed to do all this by himself then you have to lean towards genius, but killing the kid out of hand is purely an idiot move as are many other things like simply spending the ransom money with no attempt to launder it.
Second, when and where did he make this ladder and how did he conceal this from Anna and all his neighbors in some tiny rattrap? His wife seems pretty honest to me and totally clueless about her husband so he concealing this does not seem too likely. Every guy who's been married or lived with a girlfriend knows even the tiniest thing will eventually be scrutinized by a woman, there is absolutely no hiding anything. So already we have to have another place and/or another person involved just with the ladder. Where? Who?
The Majestic. Is this a cunning fake alibi? If not then it's fabulous coincidence that his first day on the job is the day of the kidnapping. Either way, this completely blots out the idea of reading the newspaper to find out Lindbergh's plans. Not to mention that he likely really was simply at work that day and picked up his wife. So if he is truly a lone wolf then there has to be at least one major miracle here. He miraculously picks just the right day, which also happens to be a day this job starts, and he manages to make a difficult drive with no problems and get back in time to pick up his wife without drawing any suspicion even though he just murdered a child in cold blood.
Why pick this time? No one breaks into a house at 830pm. At 3:00 am there is a good chance you can break into a house unobserved. At that time, anyone could be about and one glance could mean the end of your breakin before it even begins. It makes zero sense if you are acting alone in a strange place, but perfect sense if you have an accomplice who tells you exactly when and where to be to get the baby.
Casing the place also sounds easy, but is it? Probably not without getting seen. Even a year later people living in seclusion might remember someone who doesn't belong on a road making several visits, and you will most likely have trouble finding a place again in the dark if you have not been there for a whole year.
|
|
|
Post by mufti on Jan 26, 2018 21:08:08 GMT -5
My dad is sitting by the window on the left side of the photo (sitting next to his "mother and brother"). As you can see, he had a look all his own. This photo makes me wonder what he was thinking about as he looked out the window. I will rescan this image within a few days so you can see it clearly. Your dad looks scotch irish to me, not much like lindbergh to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by Miss dockendorf on Jan 27, 2018 7:17:39 GMT -5
Those are amazing points. And I agree completely Hauptmann had to have had help. No one shows up at 8:30 to snatch a baby unless they know they'd be able to do it quickly and get the hell out of there. And if it was more than one person when Hauptmann dropped the baby, which is what I think happened, his accomplishes said you're on your own. The plan went to hell once the baby was dead and they left Hauptmann to pay the price. As far as Anna I think she's like any wife and the thought that the foul miscreant that kidnapped a baby and in the process killed this baby couldn't possibly be her husband so if he was behaving strangely let alone building something in the attic I don't think she would be able to wrap her brain around it. I guess what I'm saying is she was possibly in denial with terror right behind it. Once the police had Hauptmann they were sailing and they would have loved to include Anna as his accomplice to care for the baby so she may have been aware she was in a very precarious situation. Of course when he was building that ladder he may have just given her some excuse as to what he was doing. I have never seen a lot to indicate what type of relationship they had let alone how domineering he was but if he said none of your business and that was the cue to butt out that might be what happened. Loved the comment 'even the tiniest thing will be scrutinized by a woman' never!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 22, 2018 19:15:04 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael. That’s a very good point. On Monday, we don’t have Lupica seeing a man, or the Conovers hearing a car, or any other neighbor reporting someone out of the ordinary. One thing that would be helpful to know would be what the weather was like on Monday. If it was good, I could see Hauptmann going down to Hopewell for a recon. But if it was lousy weather, highly unlikely. As I’ve been thinking this scenario through, the various pros and cons regarding the “lone wolf” theory have been going through my mind. Something else occurs to me. We’ve talked a lot about the undisturbed appearance of the nursery. If I was Hauptmann, and I was going through the window, one thing that would be essential would be staying as silent as possible. I don’t want that kid to wake up and start bawling. And I don’t want anyone downstairs to hear an unusual sound and come running. The fact that there were footprints of bare feet suggests that the kidnapper took off his shoes to minimize the sound as he crossed the nursery. The kidnapper would have wanted to move with great stealth, making sure he did not knock anything over. So it occurs to me that the undisturbed appearance of the nursery COULD be considered consistent with an intruder trying to be absolutely soundless. “Undisturbed” pretty much goes along with “silent.” Of course, I realize there are also completely different possible explanations for the appearance of the nursery. Also, if Hauptmann was the kidnapper, I wonder if he might have done a number of dry runs on his own, using the same ladder at some other location. He could have practiced going in and out of a second story window many, many times, even at night, maybe while holding a burlap bag filled with something heavy like a sack of flour, until the whole process was second nature. In other words, he would have pretty much done what that fireman in the NOVA special did. “Practice makes perfect.” This could possibly account for the kidnapper’s remarkable skill at entry and exit. We’ve all seen circus stunts that we could never do ourselves, but for the performers, the stunts are pretty easy, because they’ve had so much practice. Of course, the kidnapper wouldn’t have had the actual nursery or a live kid to practice with, the beer stein could not have been anticipated, etc.—so he still would have needed the ability to “wing it” in many respects. Norma (Stella7), regarding why the kidnapper didn’t wait until everyone was asleep. The parents’ bedroom was next to the nursery (not that the kidnapper necessarily knew that, but it’s a good bet in any household). Going through the window would risk waking the nearby parents—I think the risks were at least a trade-off. When the parents are downstairs, they’re further away, there are other distracting sounds—conversation, maybe kitchen sounds, maybe the radio is still playing. But in the middle of the night, an unusual sound is more apt to stand out. Another factor—if this was Hauptmann—would be that if he waited until, say, 2AM, to pull the snatch, he wouldn’t be home to the Bronx until maybe 4AM, which would be really hard to explain to Anna. Also, I think the original plan may have been for the snatch to precede the time of Lindbergh’s anticipated return from the NYU dinner, even though it didn’t turn out that way. You also might be right about Anna’s memory. I can still remember precisely where I was when I heard about the Kennedy assassination. I was standing in our family’s dining room, and my mother rushed in to tell me. But if you asked me if can remember ANYTHING ABOUT THE EVENING BEFORE THAT, I would honestly have no clue. Of course, 50 years isn’t 2 and ½. So many things do not add up. The kidnappers stayed on the boardwalk on the approach to the house. There is no evidence they ventured off it to do a cursory inspection of the nursery from afar on the kidnap night. This is enormously problematic, as a would-be kidnapper has no idea if there's one or five people in the room he's about to enter. Stealing the child at the busiest time of night, instead of waiting until the late night or mid-day when many were out is also preposterous. Practicing the kidnap is one thing, but it doesn't account for the ridiculousness of having to launch himself nearly 3' into the nursery, over the windowsill, suitcase and, by a miracle, the beer stein and tinker toy. It also doesn't explain why a kidnapper, in a haste to leave, would risk making noise by somehow shimmying back onto the suitcase and out the window, all while holding a baby, as opposed to the far easier option of simply sliding the chest + suitcase quietly away from the window to allow for a far easier, and likely quieter, exit.
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Aug 9, 2019 9:39:28 GMT -5
Wagoosh DID NOT BARK. A DOG WOULD HAVE HEARD. tHAT FEIST LITTLE DOG WOULD HAVE BARKED HIS HEAD OFF.
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Aug 9, 2019 9:46:19 GMT -5
..meant to type "feisty"..I think Hauptman had been in that house before. He was a carpenter..workmen coming and going..perfect for casing the place. The ladder bothers me as a professional carpenter would have known how much weight it would hold and would have known if wood would splinter. I think the baby was doped or smothered as no provisions that we know were made for the child's care.
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Aug 9, 2019 11:52:10 GMT -5
If bloodhounds had been used that night, the child would have been found, That is a certainty. It seems incredible they were not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2019 13:13:47 GMT -5
You make some interesting observations with your posts. Wahgoosh was high strung and a barker for sure. Everyone in the Lindbergh house knew this to be true, except for Lindbergh apparently. How strange!
I agree that an experienced carpenter knows the woods he works with and what they are best used for. A good carpenter would have factored in his body weight and an additional amount to cover the child. But what if the builder didn't do such figuring because he knew the ladder was not going to be used for anything but a prop?
I believe the use of bloodhounds did come up. Offers came in from people who had such dogs and were willing to have them used on this case. Apparently these offers were not accepted. Why? My guess is Lindbergh said no.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 9, 2019 17:57:30 GMT -5
How does all of this have anything to do with the commission of TLC? Just a short answer will be OK.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2019 19:05:03 GMT -5
It's an INSIDE job! Short enough?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 9, 2019 20:25:15 GMT -5
Clear enough, but once again:
|
|
|
Post by Purple on Oct 17, 2019 0:24:06 GMT -5
Are Betty and Scotty Gow mentioned on this forum ?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 17, 2019 8:28:53 GMT -5
Are Betty and Scotty Gow mentioned on this forum ? Just a little bit here: lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/11/violet-sharpes?page=8A good book that involves the Purple Gang and the Lindbergh Kidnapping is " Mystery Man" by Robert Knapp. www.amazon.com/Mystery-Man-Gangsters-Murder-Michigan/dp/0991255704When it comes to the Purple Gang there were many overlaps, tangents, and even a whole different angle that occurred. But when it came to the Scotty "Scottie" character, like Sue wrote, there was no connection to Betty Gow. Since much of what occurred was in Michigan, then reports covering this mainly came from Federal Sources, Letters, and Michigan State Police. Reports in NJ were mainly a reflection of what was shared with them or what occurred in New Jersey relating to it.
|
|