|
Post by xjd on Mar 26, 2014 22:03:52 GMT -5
i've been following the recent "Blue Thread" posts, great stuff everyone! it's weird how the women's stories don't tally exactly. one would think that every detail of that night would be vividly recalled, but perhaps in the ensuing panic, etc. details were forgotten.
it seems pretty obvious that Richard made the ladder, possibly wrote the notes, may have been Cemetery John, and certainly passed the ransom money. but what with the possibility of multiple sets of foot prints, cemetery look-outs, etc. there had to have been a group involved. however i can't see some random group of criminally minded folks being able to enter an unknown house, snatch the baby, leave the house and property without 5 adults seeing and hearing nothing. they could not have accomplished all that just by observing the house from the woods.
one of those 5 had to be in on it:
Anne; unless she's an extraordinary actress, i just can't see her conniving to be part of this. i think if a person of her era and station in life had an "abnormal" baby, there were other more humane ways of dealing with that. rich families & their doctors would have had any number of hospitals, schools, clinics etc. to send special needs kids to.
CAL; weird as he was, the same reasoning applies here i think. also, the kidnapping and extortion seems too messy to be the working of CAL's mind, seems like most everything he undertook was at least well thought out, if daring.
Betty; obviously with the shady boyfriend, she sticks out. also, she hastens back to the UK after it's over with, is it true Anne didn't speak to her again? seems strange behavior towards the person (aside from the parents) who is closest to the dead child unless there is some estrangement?
Elsie; seems to have been gone over regarding her whereabouts during the evening etc., does not seem to have profited in any way. but is married to...
Ollie; here i feel on less sure ground. for one thing, he dies so very early and conveniently (from a trial stand-point). also, his actions that evening seem more vague?
any one else care to share if they think one of the closest "insiders" was in cahoots with the kidnappers?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 26, 2014 22:20:50 GMT -5
Having just posted similar ones myself, I very much agree with your reasons why the kidnappers would've needed some kind of insider assistance. But to answer your question and narrow your list down even more, of those people you named, who has the dispassionate, mechanical nature needed to keep big family secrets and execute complex plans, as well as the clout to control a police investigation? Further, who on your list did in fact do these things (whether at the time of the kidnapping or at some other time)? Certainly, the kidnapping got messy, as you say, which is definitely something this person would've been highly averse to. But that being said, sometimes the best laid plans spiral out of even the most methodical person's control.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Mar 27, 2014 7:15:34 GMT -5
lightninjew, i always enjoy your posts and your take on the situation is extremely possible. the biggest obstacle in the whole investigation was CAL himself, and that would make sense if he really didn't want the case solved. however, i can't reconcile the way the sloppy way the case progressed with a guy who could be argued as the world's most influential man. unless the theory is CAL was a sick bastard who reveled in the thought of others suffering, i'm stumped as to what his reasoning would be. prank gone wrong? getting rid of a special needs child? there had to have hundreds of ways to make Charlie "disappear" (at least from public view) or cover up an accidental death that would place no blame or scrutiny on CAL.
lj, please refresh my memory on what you think CALs motivation would be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 8:47:42 GMT -5
I just wanted to put a few thoughts onto this thread that xjd started. Spending time on this board has shown me the need to consider everyone whether you want to or not. That includes CAL and yes, Anne. Very hard to do but necessary. You need to start neutral and work from there. I have started with Charlie being central and then building various theories around what I learn to help reveal the possible reasons he went missing and who might be involved.
Was Charlie the victim of a real kidnapping by outsiders only? Was Charlie the victim of an accidental death? Was Charlie the victim of a jealous family member? Was Charlie a victim because of a deteriorating health condition requiring him to disappear? Was Charlie the victim of a hired mercy killing that turned into an extortion?
I have considered and still am considering people from the list xjd posted. My first thought when going through each one is what would be their motivation in this crime.
Anne: She is the most difficult to see as guilty of anything. Yet, I now know that she lied under oath. There has to be a reason she did that. I don't think it can be put aside. There is a truth about this case that needs to be kept private and buried forever. Is it about Charlie or someone else?
CAL: We have all been looking at eugenics as his motivation for being involved with this crime. However, I do also consider he would stage a kidnapping to cover up what happended to Charlie if it involved another family member either through accident or mental illness.
Betty Gow: No doubt she held some very strong opinions about the Lindberghs as people and as parents. She is seeing it all in real time. I currently do not see her as one of the planners of a kidnapping. If she has a role, she would have to be compelled by someone else to aid in Charlie's disappearance and this would come from an insider, not her boyfriend.
Elsie Whateley: The whole blue thread issue has put her on my radar. She now has to step up and lie about the shirt and thread. It puts the events of what was really going on in that household the day and evening of March 1 under the microscope for me. She would be involved from a cover-up stand-point.
Ollie Whateley: He was originally my first choice as the insider help for an outside kidnapping source. He certainly could have provided a lot of the necessary information needed by outsiders to pull off this abduction. He knew the house, the grounds, the family routine and schedule and the need to leave the front door unlocked and keep Wahgoosh quiet. He sounds like the perfect guy, so why am I now hesitant to see him as this disloyal person? I think it is because I am having issues with seeing him, Elsie and Betty as perpetrators of a crime against this family. I think that they would all be loyal to the point of covering up something to protect the family. I just don't see them plotting a kidnapping against the Lindberghs and especially against Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 27, 2014 13:54:19 GMT -5
Hi XJD. As I said, I think the investigative sloppiness and incompetence were created intentionally and was all part of the plan: Taking control of an investigation (despite no experience along those lines) and then not permitting police to do their job by refusing to allow them at the ransom drop or to put tracking devices on mailboxes; allowing and thereby tacitly encouraging competition between different investigative agencies (the NYPD, NJPD and FBI); following every lead, no matter how groundless (listening to Condon while going on Curtis' wild goose chase), etc. What all this creates is confusion, but the best kind of confusion if you want to cover something up, because each of these actions can be easily explained as and be made to look like honest attempts to get to the truth: "Well, by having the NJPD, NYPD, and FBI all involved and competitive with one another, I'm encouraging them to do their best work, which will result in the safe return of my son by at least one of them. Since Condon and Curtis can't both be right because much of their respective stories are incompatible with each other, I'm following both their leads to determine which of them is honest. By not allowing police at the ransom drop or allowing them to put trackers on the mail, I'm trying to deal squarely and show I'm not out to get anybody, just to get my son back." But the thing is, what you have here--just with these examples alone--is someone casting the widest net possible in some cases, while simultaneously limiting the investigative focus as much as possible in others. This is contradictory and self-defeating, and therefore makes no sense if the truth is what you're really after--so I don't think that is what Lindbergh was really after. It looks to me like he was intentionally creating a chaotic and confused investigation because he didn't want the truth to come out. Then, of course, the big question is why. Now, I know there's been some very spirited debate here about this, but my own feeling is that there was something physically wrong with CAL Jr.: The doctor's report in which an oversized head, unclosed fontanel, inability to stand up straight, overlapping digits, and rickets were noted; the fact that there are no pictures of CAL Jr. in the months leading up to the kidnapping; the fact that the bones were so soft after death that the skull came apart like an orange peel during the autopsy; and, most of all, the fact that Anne Lindbergh went high-altitude flying while pregnant with CAL Jr., which we know now is about the worst thing you can do to a fetus, usually resulting in developmental problems. There were also the rumors all along that something wasn't "quite right" with the Lindbergh Baby. And then we have Lindbergh himself: A very odd, calculating cold fish whose moral compass didn't point in quite the same direction as other people's, but who was always given a free pass because of his celebrity status; someone who was capable of maintaining large conspiratorial family secrets for years (his later German families); someone who was a eugenicist and hyper-perfectionist, and was working closely with (and was heavily influenced by) an even stauncher eugenicist just prior to the kidnapping. On top of all this, there are also the general statistics of parental involvement when a child is missing or killed. So all of this put together, coupled with the litany of Lindbergh's aforementioned actions during the investigation... I dunno, others may blow it off, but when all these factors are looked at side by side, I think the possibility that Lindbergh masterminded this whole thing, which subsequently spun out of his control, bears very serious consideration. As to easier alternatives to orchestrating a fake kidnapping in order to make a special needs child disappear, I've thought about this. I've considered a simpler scenario--like CAL Jr. "accidentally" falling down the stairs or drowning in the tub or something--but the the image-conscious perfectionist Lindbergh would never allow himself to be seen as a negligent parent. Besides, there's always some sort of examination of the body in such cases, which would reveal CAL Jr.'s condition(s) and defeat the whole purpose. So instead, CAL Jr. would've had to disappear altogether--and most importantly, in such a way that was apparently beyond Lindbergh's control. What does this add up to but a kidnapping? And Amy, it would seem that Anne and Elsie were inaccurate in their recollections about the blue thread and nightshirt, but since I don't really see them as being knowing participants in a conspiracy, could it be that they genuinely misremembered or were subsequently told for some reason to give an alternative version of what actually happened?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 15:43:17 GMT -5
Both Anne and Betty Gow were very clear when they gave their statements in March several times. Anne said she secured the thread for Betty. Betty backed that up and said that Anne was the one who went to get the thread. Elsie's March statement says absolutely nothing about being asked for or giving anyone thread or scissors. Her statement is several pages and she seems to recall other events fine. It is only when they are preparing for trial that who actually got the thread changes. Why does it become necessary to say that Betty got the thread from Elsie even though this is in direct conflict with the statements given by these women during March. Anne and Betty are clear about it being Anne who gave Betty the thread. They both made two statements each. If someone was having a memory problem they had time to get it right then. Elsie too. Elsie is clear in her statement that she never saw Betty after she took Charlie upstairs for dinner until 8 p.m. when she came downstairs. For trial this all changes. So I ask you why is it necessary that something as simple as a spool of thread should become a reason for 3 fine women to lie under oath about it??? Its just like Violet Sharp and Ernie Miller. Why would Violet Sharp rather die than give up Ernie Miller's name? What is going on with all these women? Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 27, 2014 16:59:19 GMT -5
Well, it certainly looks like they're covering something up here, I agree. But as to why they would need to lie about that specifically--I mean, what possible significance there could be in who fetched what spool of thread and when--as to that, honestly, I'm at a loss too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 18:13:18 GMT -5
Let me ask you this LJ. Using your theory that Lindbergh wants Charlie out of the picture permanently because of his health issues, who do you think he would seek out in that house to be the insider who helps to make it possible for Charlie to be kidnapped?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 27, 2014 19:25:17 GMT -5
Using this theory as a working hypothesis (and let me be clear, I do regard this as just a theory right now), I think Lindbergh himself would've been the only person in the house who knew what was really going on, so, from that standpoint, Lindbergh himself would be the insider. Even so, in terms of him seeking someone out, I think he would've had to--an outsider with inside information, if you will. Who could this person have been? No idea. Perhaps, given Lindbergh's own high profile status coupled with his father having been a congressman and his father-in-law an ambassador--out of all this, I think it's safe to assume that Lindbergh knew people in high places in government. So maybe there was someone at Treasury or Justice, someone who knew how to... take care of things that needed taking care of. This would also be in keeping with Condon's claim that CJ said a high level government VIP was part of the kidnap gang. (Admittedly, I treat everything Condon says with a massive degree of skepticism, but liars tend to mix some truth in with their fabrications.) Anyway, whoever this Mr. X may've been, I think it could've been this person's job to insulate Lindbergh and recruit/hire the guys to actually go to Hopewell that night. But anyway, as I've said, I haven't a clue who this potential contact of Lindbergh's could be. I initially thought Breckinridge fit the bill, but now I don't think so; not really in keeping with his character, in my view. Anyway, it may not have just been one person that served this function. There could've been several middlemen, several degrees of separation. I would tend to think it was just one person though, since, as I've said elsewhere, I think conspiracies tend to get unwieldy and unravel the more people are involved. Also, a single contact is more in line with Lindbergh's solitary trust-virtually-no-one nature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2014 9:58:21 GMT -5
I have certainly advocated for a while the position of a Mr.X, man behind the curtain, organizer for this crime. I still feel this way. I think it was planned out with inside information being regularly available which is why it was known to them about the extended stay at Hopewell resulting in the decision to do the snatch of Charlie on Tuesday March 1 instead of on a weekend.
I am with you on Condon. It is absolutely necessary to read between the lines anything he says and then qualify it with known facts when possible. I am currently wrestling with Condon relating that CJ said a big government official sat at the top of this crime. Here is my dilemma when considering this part of the theory. If a powerful person sits on top of this crime, which, when applying the theory of assistance to Lindbergh, he would let it get so spun out of control. The men in Hopewell who took Charlie would have been paid up front for their participation. Their job is to create the illusion that Charlie has been kidnapped by leaving the ransom note, the ladder, the chisel and the footprints. If the $50,000 was never supposed to be collected to begin with, why didn't Mr.X have the renegade element of this group put into cement shoes and dumped in the Hudson River? Isn't that what government operatives do best when they need to control a situation? If Mr.X came into this to assist Lindbergh with his problem, why did he allow this protracted extortion of CAL to continue? Did Mr. X change his mind and decide he wanted Lindbergh's $50,000?
I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 28, 2014 12:33:57 GMT -5
To sum up, what we have here is Lindbergh masterminding the whole thing and contacting some sort of government-level Mr. X to insulate Lindbergh and organize things for him (recruiting the guys to actually execute the kidnapping and stage the scene, etc.). You're right that they would've had to be paid up front, and that the decoy ransom--the $50K--was just that and was never meant to be paid. But I think, in this scenario, that these guys got greedy, double-crossing Lindbergh and extorting that extra amount from him by treating this like an actual kidnapping. Condon was approached by the kidnappers as part of this purpose--to serve as initially unwitting leverage to get that extra money from Lindbergh. Now, as to your question, once it became apparent his guys had gone rogue, why didn't Mr. X simply whack his kidnappers and save Lindbergh the $50K? I don't think he could, at least not until the "ransom" had been paid--to complete the idea for the public, press, and police that this was indeed a kidnapping for ransom. As far as this goes, Lindbergh would've had no choice but to pay and there needed to be somebody on the other end to collect, to perpetuate the idea that the kidnapping was what it appeared to be. Now, why couldn't the rogue kidnappers have been eliminated before the ransom drop, to save the $50K, with Lindbergh showing up at the cemetery with the money, apparently ready to pay, but with no one there to meet him (presumably because the kidnappers got cold feet or something, but actually because they'd been killed)? Because, at that point, the kidnappers were still in possession of CAL Jr.'s body, with its physical abnormalities still apparent. The $50K is to get the body back and maintain that secret, so, again, the kidnappers would need to be left alive to collect the ransom and return the body (which they did once they got the $50K, dumping it off a Hopewell roadside). I suppose, as punishment for their double-cross and to ensure their silence about the whole thing, the kidnappers could've been disappeared later--maybe that's why they were never caught--but, again, not until after the "ransom" was paid, the body returned. After all--albeit taken with the usual ton (as opposed to grain) of salt--didn't Condon mention at one point that CJ had been killed...? Once that happened, and realizing they were marked men, maybe one of the kidnappers tried to get rid of his share of the ransom by leaving it with the most ancillary of the gang members--the relatively harmless, nondescript schmuck with no direct knowledge of the plot, whose only responsibility was to build the ladder...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2014 12:24:27 GMT -5
To be clear, do you mean the men who took Charlie from the nursery are the ones who decided to extort the $50,000 even though they were already paid for their services?
I understand your reasoning here, but if the whole purpose of Charlie being kidnapped is to prevent the public from knowing about his abnormalities then this whole kidnapping truly backfires badly. Charlie's physical issues become known because of the published autopsy results. It would also seem that the man Lindbergh trusted to put this whole kidnapping together didn't do a good job selecting the men who would carry this out. I am surprised that they would have been allowed to live and spend that ransom money once Charlie's body was recovered.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 29, 2014 13:54:58 GMT -5
Yes, in this scenario, the same men who went to Hopewell are the same ones who went rogue and decided to extort an extra $50K, even though they'd already been paid up front. So I agree that, ultimately, Mr. X didn't do such a great job selecting the men to carry this out. As far as all that goes, I think things did backfire and spiral out of control to a large extent. Further, yes, CAL Jr.'s physical issues did become known to a degree once the body turned up. There were some abnormalities noted, but they were subtle and nothing that wasn't already in the doctor's report. The physical problems eked out then and they eked out during the autopsy. But fortunately for the person trying to hide all this, a lot of those abnormalities were obscured by decomposition--and, in any case, the body was immediately cremated, before a more thorough examination could be done. And as to the rogue kidnappers being allowed to live after their double-cross and spend the money: Again, they very well may not have. I think they very conceivably could've been killed later. Condon said something about that, and, if they were subsequently eliminated, it could explain why they were never caught. It's true that ransom money continued to turn up for awhile, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was being spent by the original holders of the money. As I suggested, the kidnappers could've known they were marked men and tried to rid themselves of the cash by leaving it with others who they knew, with either no involvement in the case or much more distant, ancillary involvement (Hauptmann, Fisch, or others).
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Mar 29, 2014 13:55:12 GMT -5
CAL certainly acted in a manner that was proven to be counterproductive to the investigation. but for a man who craved seclusion, or at least privacy, a staged kidnapping would bring him exactly neither of those. i somehow feel that CALs directing of the investigation is a result of a highly lauded and also egocentric man who found himself in over his head. dealing with criminals, possibly two people or gangs, would be very different to dealing with a highly impressionable public, corporate types, etc. as much as i don't like Lindy, it's kinda heartbreaking to envision him sailing around and around looking for the Boad Nelly, when all the while Charlie is dead not far from the house.
we know Betty went back to UK, what happened to Elsie?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2014 14:57:50 GMT -5
CAL certainly acted in a manner that was proven to be counterproductive to the investigation. but for a man who craved seclusion, or at least privacy, a staged kidnapping would bring him exactly neither of those. i somehow feel that CALs directing of the investigation is a result of a highly lauded and also egocentric man who found himself in over his head. It's important to look at everyone from both the "pros" and "cons" as a suspect. Too often (I think anyway) its usually one or the other. Balance is good - most especially here when looking at this crime. The biggest problem is that most were looked at from the beginning EXCEPT the Lindbergh's. But even that was short lived due to CAL taking the reins. No one wanted to cross him. So when he's saying he could judge someone's honesty based upon their appearance no one took notice or wanted to take any real steps further because they didn't want to, as they put it, "embarrass" him. If it were today how would things have been different? And so perhaps that would solidify he's a completely innocent party, but it stops him from preventing the solution of this crime. My personal thoughts are that CAL should be looked at as an innocent victim but that if actions, facts, and circumstances arise that are suspicious they should never be shrugged off. This is the one thing I could never understand when I see it occur. Your explanation above is not an example of that. It's a well thought out opinion based upon your research/impression of CAL. Everyone needs this perspective - including me. I think it gets harder and harder when more and more and more issues arise where this explanation may not work. As they mount then we're going to need a bigger boat. dealing with criminals, possibly two people or gangs, would be very different to dealing with a highly impressionable public, corporate types, etc. as much as i don't like Lindy, it's kinda heartbreaking to envision him sailing around and around looking for the Boad Nelly, when all the while Charlie is dead not far from the house. This is exactly my point above. That would be incredibly sad IF Lindbergh's search played out like it does in our heads. Know what I mean? Consider that maybe it didn't then see if that matters to your overall position. we know Betty went back to UK, what happened to Elsie? Suffering from cancer, she returned to England after the trial and died on January 8, 1936 (Falzini - Their Fifteen Minutes, p55)
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 29, 2014 16:17:35 GMT -5
Also, if we accept--hypothetically--the idea that Lindbergh wanted CAL Jr. gone: The disappearance of the American Prince of Wales, under any circumstances, is going to be page-one news no matter what. A huge amount of publicity is just a given. And if that disappearance must be seen as an act by uncontrollable outside forces, as opposed to controllable inside ones (that is, some kind of "accident" due to parental negligence)--well, as I said, uncontrollable outside forces making a child disappear... What does that add up to, in an almost literally mathematical way, but a kidnapping? One that, here, based on the heavily telegraphed crime scene, looks pretty staged and phony. And then we have the odd, cold fish parent seemingly doing everything he can to misdirect the investigation--I mean, I have no vested interest in believing this or getting others to; I'm not trying to sensationalize or peddle some Warburg-esque theory, but that being said and given everything I've just described, I still think, as Michael says, we need a bigger boat here...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2014 17:54:37 GMT -5
A bigger boat?? As in more people being involved?? I am having enough trouble balancing Lindbergh, Mr.X, 3 hired kidnappers, Condon, CJ, Fisch, Hauptmann and the 2 womens CJ claims are taking care of Charlie. And then if there is some kind of internal accident that causes Anne, Betty and Elsie to lie under oath then we need to put them on the boat too. And I guess we need to add Ollie because he needs to keep Wahgoosh quiet.
I don't mean to sound sarcastic. I guess I am just getting overwhelmed by how big this kidnapping group is becoming. It is way beyond anything I could ever imagine!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2014 18:14:55 GMT -5
A bigger boat?? As in more people being involved?? I am having enough trouble balancing Lindbergh, Mr.X, 3 hired kidnappers, Condon, CJ, Fisch, Hauptmann and the 2 womens CJ claims are taking care of Charlie. And then if there is some kind of internal accident that causes Anne, Betty and Elsie to lie under oath then we need to put them on the boat too. And I guess we need to add Ollie because he needs to keep Wahgoosh quiet. I don't mean to sound sarcastic. I guess I am just getting overwhelmed by how big this kidnapping group is becoming. It is way beyond anything I could ever imagine! Sorry. It comes from the movie Jaws. I meant it to mean the size (amount) of issues pertaining to Lindbergh was extremely large.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2014 18:45:35 GMT -5
No problem. I didn't make the association with issues. I guess I panicked a bit when I read your post and LJ's using the same boat term. So it comes from the movie Jaws. I am sure I must be one of the few people on the planet that hasn't seen the movie so that association went completely over my head.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 29, 2014 18:54:24 GMT -5
No problem. And I don't think you're being sarcastic. Either way, I don't mean a bigger boat to accomodate more conspirators. Whether there actually were more or not, I don't think others beyond those I've mentioned absolutely had to have been involved. I mean a figuratively bigger boat to generally expand traditional thinking on the case. But anyway, under this theory (and remember, it is just a theory), we have Lindbergh masterminding the whole thing because he wants CAL Jr. gone (that is, dead), due to physical problems which the eugenicist, hyper-perfectionist, publicity-conscious Lindbergh cannot tolerate. As far as he is concerned, it's an act of mercy since CAL Jr. will never be a normal healthy adult. But a simple "accident" befalling CAL Jr. will not do. For one thing, Lindbergh can't be seen as a negligent parent, and, for another, there can't be any body to examine (otherwise the physical problems would come out, the whole purpose defeated). So CAL Jr. must not only die, he must also disappear, never to be seen again--taken by outside, uncontrollable forces: i.e., a kidnapping. So a kidnapping has to be staged to cover what is really a euthanasia. His father having been a congressman, his father-in-law an ambassador--and Lindbergh being the most famous man in the world in his own right--he knows people in high places in government, people who know how to make things like this happen: Mr. X. Lindbergh contacts this person who then looks for the closest, most densely populated area within easy striking distance of the Lindberghs' new, vulnerable Hopewell house: The Bronx--just a couple hours from Hopewell, a place where it's easy for people to disappear and remain anonymous. It is in the Bronx that Mr. X finds three guys (one of whom, in turn, may've known and approached Hauptmann to build a ladder). These three are to actually execute this supposed kidnapping. They are paid up front, carry out CAL Jr.'s euthanasia, stage the scene to make it look like a kidnapping, but then go rogue--trying to extort an extra $50K from Lindbergh by treating the amount mentioned in the nursery note as if it was actual ransom, and holding the body (with it's physical abnormalities still apparent) hostage until they get that extra sum. To pressure Lindbergh to pay, the Bronx-based kidnappers get in touch with a well known local civic figure--Condon. He's perfect for this: A self-aggrandizing prima donna, who will therefore be eager to involve himself in this major world event--and since he never tells the same story in the same way twice, he will also help cover the kidnappers' tracks with the ever-changing layer of BS he applies to everything. So the kidnappers approach Condon, appealing to his mawkish, Victorian sentimentality: "We're the kidnappers of the Lindbergh Baby and are deeply ashamed, in way over our heads. Everyone knows you, the great Dr. Condon, as someone who's devoted his life to helping others. Will you help us...? In exchange, you'll be given $20K and the privilege of placing the baby back in Anne Lindbergh's arms when the time comes." Condon natually agrees and he and the kidnappers agree on a plan to "establish" communication with each other, through The Bronx Home News, a publication whose columns are always open to Condon. Meanwhile, the kidnappers send another note to Lindbergh, with Condon's $20K fee disguised as jacked-up ransom. Condon places his open letter in the Home News and receives an immediate, pre-arranged response from the kidnappers, with the same symbol seen in the nursery note. Based on this, Condon must clearly be in touch with the right parties, so on what basis could Lindbergh not accept him as a go-between and not give Condon the $50K to pass along to the kidnappers? No, Lindbergh will have to pay. But Condon then gets it out of a very nervous, jittery CJ at Woodlawn that CAL Jr. is actually dead. Condon now realizes he is in way over his head. So at the next cemetery meeting, in order to extricate himself and wash his hands as much as possible, he forfeits his $20K fee by removing it from the ransom packet (and insulating the kidnappers, since the $20K contains the largest and most traceable bills). He returns the $20K to Lindbergh, claiming that through a heroic combination of ingenuity and altruism (insert eyeroll here), he managed to talk CJ down to the original $50K. At any rate, once the kidnappers have the $50K, they return the body--dumping it off a Hopewell roadside. But it's dragged into the woods and scavenged by animals, so it's not found for another month-and-a-half. Fortunately for Lindbergh, the body is in such a miserable state of decomposition by then that CAL Jr.'s physical problems, while somewhat noticable, are not glaring. In any case, he has the body immediately destroyed. Okay, so, in this, we have a total of six people: Lindbergh, Mr. X, Condon, and three kidnappers. I don't think it's too unwieldy or overwhelming. That being said, I think, naturally, there were also other ancillary players, with no real core involvement--only after-the-fact, several-degrees-of-separation type guys--who only, say, handled ransom money or built a ladder for someone without even knowing what it was for. But again, these guys weren't participants in the original plot, so those first six are really all you'd need to pull it off and keep it quiet. And I realize Anne, Betty, and Elsie's stories changed with regards to the thread, but a lot of testimonies changed during the investigation with regards to these sorts of details (the times that things happened over the course of March 1, for example). While Anne, Elsie, or Betty may've had their suspicions that things were not all they appeared to be, I don't think changing testimony necessarily means they were out-and-out lying or were willing, knowing participants in a conspiracy or coverup. And Wagoosh: He was a barker--sometimes at something, sometimes at nothing and sometimes not at all, so I don't know if his barking (or lack thereof) can tell us anything, one way or the other. Going in, the kidnappers may've been told, "There's a dog. If he hears you, he'll bark, but don't let it scare you off. Since he barks randomly, no one'll pay it any mind or go to investigate, so you're in the clear as far as the dog is concerned." Now, as it happened, Wagoosh didn't bark--but, the point is, even if he did, I don't think it would've have mattered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2014 20:01:39 GMT -5
A hired mercy killing? I have thought about this but I have a problem with it because of the injury that resulted in Charlie's death. Wouldn't a mercy killer shoot his victim? It is a very quick death. Charlie's skull revealed a large fracture which produced a good sized blood clot. He was stuck in the head forcefully with an object. This seems like a cruel act to me not a merciful one.
When I consider an accidental death possibility I don't mean accidently on purpose death. A true accident like falling down the stairs or climbing over the railing and dropping down onto the floor beneath resulting in a fractured skull which might be perceived as negligence if no one was tending to Charlie. Don't you think that Lindbergh might consider covering this up with a kidnapping? No hospital trip, no coroner, no examination of the body, no humiliation for a family member, no public exposure of anything. A kidnapping makes it all go away.
You would still keep your theory of how it played out just the way it is but without a murder being committed.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 29, 2014 20:18:33 GMT -5
Sure, to any decent person it is a very cruel act. I think it goes without saying the whole thing is incredibly cruel and callous, no matter how it was carried out. But to someone whose moral compass doesn't point in the same direction as other people's, that might not be much of a consideration. Anyway, especially if the skull bones are softer and more delicate than usual, a blow to the head is a very quick painless thing--especially when the victim is asleep. Either way, I don't think it would've been Lindbergh to actually strike the blow; I think it was whichever kidnapper was in the nursery. At any rate, a gun (as opposed to a blunt object) would make too much noise and mess (if you accept death occured in the nursery, which I think it did). But to address your second point: While Lindbergh might still "go all the way" by disguising a genuine accident as a kidnapping, I still think it was murder--given the evidence regarding CAL Jr.'s physical state and Lindbergh's general views on that sort of thing. I dunno; maybe I'm crazy though...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2014 20:37:55 GMT -5
You are not crazy! You are just trying to piece this whole thing together and doing a great job of it.
I have been thinking about Charlie actually dying in the nursery. If you look at one of the pictures of Charlie taken at the site where his body was found you will see that he died with his eyes open. He wasn't asleep.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 29, 2014 20:59:42 GMT -5
True. Good eye (sorry). I noticed that for the first time in Gardner's book, where that photo is in very high resolution. Rather than what looks like an empty socket in other similar photos, I discovered that there's actually an eye staring straight into the camera. Eerie. But having just spoken to my wife, who is a doctor, apparently the eyelids can and frequently do "relax open" post mortem, much like the pupils dilating and other muscles relaxing after death. So a body being found with its eyes open does not necessarily mean the person's eyes had to have also been open when they died. Given all this, I think CAL Jr. could've been killed with his eyes closed--that is, in his sleep.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Mar 29, 2014 21:00:28 GMT -5
LJ, Do you think it's possible that part of the "kidnapping plan" included removing Charlie's "defective" hand, arm and leg? This will keep the "secret" after the body is found.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 29, 2014 21:30:32 GMT -5
Interesting suggestion. I've never thought of that. But I would think that leaving it up to nature to remove effected body parts (if they are, in fact, somehow effected) would be risky. Instead, I think something like that would be best taken care of purposely--specifically, surgically--and there was no evidence of intentional surgical removal that I know of, only of animals gnawing on the body. But along these lines, I will say (as Michael has pointed out elsewhere) that while some body parts were eaten by animals, others--organs that are sweetmeats for scavengers--were untouched. I think this may've been due to or disease, and could therefore be another indicator of physical issues with CAL Jr.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2014 7:28:42 GMT -5
My thanks to your wife and you for making me aware of this. I really learn so much being part of this board because others share so freely. So you think that Charlie could have been struck that forcefully by the inside kidnapper while sleeping in his bed? Wouldn't a blow to the exterior of the skull cause the scalp to bleed? Perhaps it would depend on what type of object the head is being struck with whether or not there is external bleeding. I have seen scratches and gashes to the scalp cause bleeding.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 30, 2014 15:05:00 GMT -5
The scalp bleeds a lot, sure, but I think it depends on how it's impacted and with what. Case in point, JonBenet: she was bludgeoned in that basement, resulting in a head injury even worse than CAL Jr.'s, and there was no blood found down there--so I think a blow can be inflicted to the head without the skin necessarily being broken or causing the kind of extensive bleeding that would leave a mess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2014 20:25:51 GMT -5
I don't know a lot of details about the JonBenet case but I do remember that they suspected it might have been a family member at first. I do think that Charlie's head injury is important though. He bled out enough to produce a large clot so it must have occured before he died. If he wasn't already dead when he was removed from the nursery then I guess it must have happened there.
|
|
|
Post by jackmiddlewest on Apr 12, 2014 18:13:02 GMT -5
To follow up on the original question of this thread, if the taking of the baby received assistance from inside the house then who might have been able to walk through the house carrying the baby without arousing suspicion and subsequently hand the child off to someone waiting at a door?
|
|