|
Post by Michael on Apr 12, 2014 22:09:42 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? My opinion would be that no one could carry the baby around in full view of anyone else without arousing suspicion. The most likely suspect to have the means to move the child in this way would be Gow because the child never cried out when she picked him up. Still though, if someone saw her carrying him around - at say 9PM - there's no way she gets away with it. Now if the child was sedated - or was dead already - then anyone in the house could have done so...but again, only if they weren't seen moving him.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 13, 2014 0:11:13 GMT -5
Isn't it possible to close off the staircase, entrance hall and front door from the rest of the house by closing certain doors? I mean, if the front door was used, is this how it was done?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 13, 2014 7:40:01 GMT -5
Isn't it possible to close off the staircase, entrance hall and front door from the rest of the house by closing certain doors? I mean, if the front door was used, is this how it was done? Curtis's pitch was there was an "insider" and that the pantry door had been locked to prevent detection. Since Lindbergh bought into this then didn't he believe this was possible? After all, he did take off on the Cachalot excursion based upon this information. So we either accept Lindbergh's perspective or deem it as worthless - otherwise the only other option is to consider him a Suspect. Right? If he never believed this, then it means he knew Curtis was giving them bad intel. Therefore, if he knew Curtis's information wasn't possible then he was putting on an act. And exactly why would he do that?
|
|
|
Post by jackmiddlewest on Apr 13, 2014 15:50:50 GMT -5
Michael, let's pick up on your point at 9 PM. Betty Gow is walking down the upstairs corridor at 9 PM and she's discovered by Lindbergh himself. What happens? He asks her what she's doing? She says that the baby was fussy and because he'd been feeling so bad with the cold the past few days she picked him up to walk him. Lindbergh reprimands her for disobeying him about not disturbing the child between 6 pm and 10 pm and even threatens to fire her. She apologizes profusely and he sends back to the baby's room with the baby. She isn't caught in a crime, though she might be involved, she doesn't see prison, she may get the boot but that's it at the worst. She's one person in the house at low risk for this type of act.
Now let's pick up on Lightningjew's point. From diagrams of the house in Waller, it doesn't seem that doors can be closed along the path from the child's room to the front door in a manner that would hide someone from view. If someone has a better diagram or more knowledge of the house please offer assistance.
Another route through the house does intrigue me. As I said above Betty could walk down the upstairs corridor to the stairs leading to the first floor. The stairs open on a small hall near the garage. From a picture of the house in Waller (just before page 183), it seems that there is a glassed-in or screened-in patio or porch outside the servants sitting room. Again from the diagrams of the house it appears that the sitting room and the short hallway open to this patio or porch. The patio or porch enclosure seems to have a door to the outside (pictured near page 183 just to the right of the 3rd garage door going from left to right). Gow, if she makes it that far, might be able to hand the child off to a confederate. If not the confederate knows that at 9:45 pm let's say, if Gow doesn't show, he/she bails on the attempt for that night.
Plausible? Who knows?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2014 18:47:34 GMT -5
I have also considered a possible back way out exit for Charlie. When you look at the layout of the first floor, if you close the pantry door you essentially cut off access to the front foyer. You would need to go through the dining room and the living room to get to the front foyer. With the pantry door closed it may be possible to use the front stairs to access Charlie and then leave with him. With no shoes on and someone who keeps Wahgoosh (the dog) distracted from hearing or smelling an intruder it might work. Of course the front door would have to be unlocked.
The use of the back stairway was something I considered at first also. Again, Wahgoosh was located in that area and would have presented a problem trying to use the patio and garage for a handout. Those back stairs also will take you to the basement. I thought about this as a possibility also. Giving Charlie to an accomplice waiting at the basement window seemed like a possible idea to me. Betty said that she took Charlie's handwashed soiled clothes to the basement to hang them up just before she came back up the the first floor to eat her dinner with the servants. Maybe she handed Charlie out the basement window and then hung up the clothes.
|
|
|
Post by jackmiddlewest on Apr 13, 2014 19:48:11 GMT -5
Amy, interesting point, there appears to be a cellar window on the back of the house just to the right of the dining room window. Hanging the washed clothes would give Betty a reason for going to the basement. Do you think Wahgoosh would have known Betty well enough to let her pass without barking? Do you think the dog would have picked up the scent of the baby?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 13, 2014 20:17:07 GMT -5
Lindbergh reprimands her for disobeying him about not disturbing the child between 6 pm and 10 pm and even threatens to fire her. She apologizes profusely and he sends back to the baby's room with the baby. She isn't caught in a crime, though she might be involved, she doesn't see prison, she may get the boot but that's it at the worst. She's one person in the house at low risk for this type of act. I think every avenue of entry/exit should be considered. However, my point concerning Lindbergh remains. He thought this avenue to the front door was possible. That's hard to overcome unless one believes he pretending to believe it. I think looking at diagrams is good, but listening to those who lived there is even better. The absolute best is to do both then combine the findings to see what you come up with. Next, have you ever found an instance where someone blatantly and completely violated Lindbergh's rules? Coppin disagreed with them which led her to quit as a result. Thanks to Dick, I have an account of Lindy bringing home a dead seagull that had gotten caught in his propeller. He threw it down outside of his bedroom window where it remained untouched for days. Why didn't anyone dare to remove it? It's just one example among those a mile long. Anyway, I don't think Gow would have considered explaining her way around such an act if she got caught red-handed like that (as a means of getting away with it). It's a matter of perspective I suppose. That's not to say she shouldn't be suspected because she absolutely should be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 9:21:25 GMT -5
Gosh, I never thought about how well Wahgoosh knew Betty. Wahgoosh came to the Lindbergh household in March 1931 while they were living in the Princeton farmhouse. I believe Betty Gow started in February 1931 so he would have known her as already a part of the household when he came. However, Anne's diary states that Betty and Charlie were brought from the Princton house to the Morrow house in Englewood (Next Day Hill) in April 1931. If Wahgoosh remained with the Whateleys at the Princeton farmhouse then this would have limited the daily contact between Betty and Wahgoosh. Michael, do you know if Wahgoosh traveled between both homes or if he was kept by the Whateleys in Princeton and then moved on with them to the Hopewell house?
Betty did visit the Hopewell house several times so I hesitate to think that Wahgoosh would have reacted to Betty like she was a stranger. I have two barky dogs myself but they remember people they see even if it isn't frequently. Good point though. Wahgoosh and Charlie did enjoy playing together. If he picked up on Charlie's scent, I don't think he would have barked unless it was combined with the scent of a stranger.
Thats really gross Michael. It is like hitting an animal with your car and then bringing it home to show everyone. I have started reading Autobiograhpy of Values by Charles Lindbergh but haven't found anything like that in there yet. He seems to float along the surface when discussing his childhood and parents. He doesn't go into great detail emotionally about anything so far; it is more matter-of-fact in its approach, except when he talks about flying.
|
|
|
Post by jackmiddlewest on Apr 15, 2014 18:52:40 GMT -5
Michael, the story about the seagull coupled with the stories about Lindbergh's penchant for mean/cruel tricks brings to mind a question. Do you think Lindbergh was deranged? As for Betty, on the night of the kidnapping, I think she is supposed to have questioned Lindbergh along the lines of "Did you take/hide the Baby? Don't fool me!" or something like that. That's sounds like a young woman with self assurance.
Amy, thanks for your thoughts on Wahgoosh. Do you suppose the dog could have been drugged?
Let's, for the purpose of furthering the scenario we've been playing out, ask to whom might Betty have handed the baby if she got as far as the door or the cellar window? After going back to Gardener's book on pp. 20 and 21 where he describes Red Johnson's ride about with Marguerite and Johannes Jung on the night of the child was taken, I'd consider Red, Marguerite and Johannes. The two men place the ladder and chisel and Marguerite takes a sleeping (or drugged?) baby. What do you think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 10:02:16 GMT -5
I think that giving Wahgoosh something would have been necessary if a stranger were going to enter the house. You would not want the dog to react to anything he might pick up on that the people in the house would not.
Right now, my position is that no stranger entered the Highfields house. My opinion is that Charlie was handed out the nursery window by someone in the house to the person who climbed up the ladder. I have in the past considered the use of the basement window but currently see the point of activity staying on the southeast side of Highfields. I could be wrong entirely though.
That two hour ride around town by the Junges and Red Johnson sounds suspicious. If they were part of any kidnap scenario at Highfields, I would put one of the men on the ladder. To be honest, I have never really given this Junge/Johnson/Gow theory much thought. How do you see this playing out? How could they possibly have held Charlie (and even killed him) and then carried on a 14 note ransom negotiation from the Bronx while under suspicion by LE? I have real trouble with this when looking at the big picture.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 16, 2014 14:05:43 GMT -5
I know I've said this before, but since Wahgoosh, being a random barker, could've just as easily barked at the insider or non-stranger entering the house, I don't know that his behavior that night can tell us anything, one way or another, about who was actually in the house, up in the nursery. I think his not barking can tell us one of two things: A) someone entered the house and just got lucky that the dog didn't notice or care, or B) someone entered the house with the foreknowledge that there was an erratic dog that tended to bark at any noise (or sometimes not), but also knew that, given this, no one would go investigate if the dog barked (which it just so happened he didn't that night), so it wasn't a concern either way. I think this implies foreknowledge on someone's part--and, by extension, inside help--but I don't see how the dog's lack of reaction to anything can tell us who the person upstairs was.
|
|
|
Post by jackmiddlewest on Apr 18, 2014 8:09:54 GMT -5
Amy, I'm trying to look at the taking of the baby in terms of how those involved might have kept the risk to themselves low. I'm not sure a person would have wanted to be on a ladder outside the house of a person who owned a gun and would have likely used it (I'm assuming the insider would have advised other participants of the presence of weapons along with other information). On a ladder, a person's freedom of movement in the event an escape became necessary would have been very limited. A person could only have jumped or climbed down and then run. If I were trying to approach the house, I'd have wanted maximum coverage until I could get to a window or door to receive the baby. I would not have wanted to spend too much time making the exchange. I'd have wanted to get back under whatever cover was available as soon as possible after getting the child. Admittedly there doesn't appear to have been much cover in the near vicinity of the house at the time of the taking but I'd have tried to use what was available to best advantage.
Regarding the Jungs and Johnson, I don't think they were involved in the extortion that followed the taking of the baby. I don't think kidnapping in the sense of abduction followed by ransom exchange was the intent of Gow, the Jungs, or Johnson in this scenario.
In response to LJ's observations about Wahgoosh, I agree Wahgoosh's behavior on the night of the taking shouldn't be used as a filter of some sort for the selection of a suspect insider. Again, in terms of how to keep risk low, my question as to whether the dog might have been drugged was to examine a tactic that could have kept the house calm and so enhanced the chance of success of the attempt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 8:35:48 GMT -5
So Jack, do you see the kidnapping as a separate crime from the extortion? Do you think that the ladder is just a prop and was not actually used in the taking of Charlie?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 18, 2014 16:02:21 GMT -5
In terms of getting close to the house, getting away and under cover quickly, not wanting to limit one's freedom of movement on a ladder--I agree with your observations here. If it was me, I wouldn't want to climb a rickety ladder and would make sure my escape route was as quick and out of sight as possible. Neither would I want to go into a house of a gunowner who had an erratic dog. And if I knew the ground was muddy, I also would've driven away down the driveway, as opposed to leaving incriminating footprints or any kind of trail that could be followed. Even if I didn't think the ground was muddy enough to leave footprints, I would still drive away simply because it's faster. So why did they walk out and leave footprints? Come to that, all things being equal, why would anyone do any of the things I just described and which you also pointed out? All this is part of what tells me that things were not equal here--that the kidnappers were supposed to leave footprints because a simple, clear route had to be communicated for investigators, and knew because they were told ahead of time that getting close to the house and going up a ladder, the dog, the gun, etc. weren't concerns. Now, who in the household would've had not only the foreknowledge but also the power and control to make sure of all that...?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 18, 2014 16:31:34 GMT -5
I know I've said this before, but since Wahgoosh, being a random barker, could've just as easily barked at the insider or non-stranger entering the house, I don't know that his behavior that night can tell us anything, one way or another, about who was actually in the house, up in the nursery. When you say "random barker" where did you get that from and what does it mean exactly? Michael, the story about the seagull coupled with the stories about Lindbergh's penchant for mean/cruel tricks brings to mind a question. Do you think Lindbergh was deranged? That wouldn't be the word I'd use. He certainly felt he was of superior stock, that most were not of his caliber, and he wanted most of all to be perceived this way. What he did, or did not do, wouldn't be completely understood by those who were inferior. These actions should be appreciated but never questioned. He was also someone who had a need to feel in control of things. As for Betty, on the night of the kidnapping, I think she is supposed to have questioned Lindbergh along the lines of "Did you take/hide the Baby? Don't fool me!" or something like that. That's sounds like a young woman with self assurance. On the night in question, it was pointed out that Gow was the coolest one of the lot. That exemplifies self assurance doesn't it? But why? Why her so much more then the rest? Now Gow's first statement to Police about her initial contact with Lindbergh was this: I ran downstairs, asked him if he knew where the baby was and he said no, of course not, isn't he in his crib, he said. I said, no, and he ran past me upstairs into the baby's room, felt all over the bed, looked around there and then into his own room. At the first instance where she wasn't treated with kid-gloves, when Lindbergh wasn't there to protect her, she blurted out: " I was promised I wouldn't be touched!" Not so self assured then, or during the trial when they initially skipped over her testimony because she was such a wreck, and then after she finally did testify winds up collapsing. What a difference Lindbergh's protection makes! Amy, I'm trying to look at the taking of the baby in terms of how those involved might have kept the risk to themselves low. I'm not sure a person would have wanted to be on a ladder outside the house of a person who owned a gun and would have likely used it (I'm assuming the insider would have advised other participants of the presence of weapons along with other information). On a ladder, a person's freedom of movement in the event an escape became necessary would have been very limited. While I think this should definitely be done, how does it account for the fact the ladder was there, had been erected onto the side of the house, and then carried away? So if it wasn't used, it still shows they were willing to chew up precious time to stage the whole situation. And of course, if the ladder was used it takes even more time to utilize, yet, neither situation shows evidence of haste in my opinion. The whole Hoffman re-investigation looked at this, and one of the questions he repeatedly asked was why the phone lines hadn't been cut.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 18, 2014 21:52:21 GMT -5
What I mean by random barker is a dog that barks for no apparent reason--or sometimes not. Like my dog: He knows when I get home, knows it's me, and sometimes he'll bark when I arrive. Other times he won't. Sometimes he'll bark when strangers are around, other times he won't. This is what I mean. I read that Wagoosh was this type of dog in several books on the case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 19, 2014 8:51:39 GMT -5
What I mean by random barker is a dog that barks for no apparent reason--or sometimes not. Like my dog: He knows when I get home, knows it's me, and sometimes he'll bark when I arrive. Other times he won't. Sometimes he'll bark when strangers are around, other times he won't. This is what I mean. I read that Wahgoosh was this type of dog in several books on the case. Okay, the reason I was asking was because I don't recall Wahgoosh being referred to as a random barker in this way. If you could remember which book I'd appreciate it. I've looked at this very closely. For example, even Betty testified that Wahgoosh barked at strangers but did not bark that night. Another example was Anne, in Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead, noted the oddity of the dog's not having barked that night but that "he has been barking ever since" (due to all of the strangers being around). Then we have Ollie's version: "No alarm was sounded by the house dog, a fox terrier, according to the Lindbergh houseman, Ollie Whatley. He suggested to reporters Tuesday night that the kidnapping was an "inside job", committed by someone acquainted with the plan of the house and who was known to the dog. By yesterday morning, Whatley had become secretive about the case as were the principals. Every effort to reach the parents failed." (Hunterdon Country Democrat 3-3-32) Here's a guy announcing to the Press it was an "inside job" in consideration of the dog having not barked. Then we have the coup de grâce in Elsie's testimony ( page 242): [Wilentz]: An English Terrier. Was he a barking dog or a quiet dog?
[Whateley]: Well, I always thought he was sharp, if he heard a noise, he would bark, as a rule, but the wind was so bad you couldn't hear anything. This response is a double-edged sword. It solves the mystery concerning why Wahgoosh did not bark, but ruins Lindbergh's assertion that he heard a noise. Certainly, he did not have better hearing then a "sharp dog" who "as a rule" barked when he heard a noise. Either the wind did drown out the noise or it did not - it's one or the other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 10:16:25 GMT -5
I think this is such an important point. High strung dogs who are, by breed, prone to barking will usually stay true to form unless they can't for some reason. If it had been so steadily windy that night causing Wahgoosh not to hear anything, then how is it possible that Anne could have heard the car on the gravel sound she spoke of. How could Lindbergh have heard the orange crate wood sound he claimed was coming from the kitchen. Like Michael says it is either one or the other.
Michael, I wanted to ask you why Anne didn't bring Skean down with her to Hopewell. Did Skean always come along on the weekends that the Lindberghs brought Charlie to Highfields?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 19, 2014 11:58:00 GMT -5
Michael, I wanted to ask you why Anne didn't bring Skean down with her to Hopewell. Did Skean always come along on the weekends that the Lindberghs brought Charlie to Highfields? According to my notes he wasn't right there when they were departing so it was at Lindbergh's direction they leave him behind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 12:41:56 GMT -5
Really? I was not aware that Lindbergh was there when Anne left for Hopewell. I thought Lindbergh was in New York that Saturday. He brought Henry and Aida Breckinridge with him from New York arriving at Hopewell sometime after Anne did. So it was Charles' idea that Skean be left behind. I shall make a note of this for sure. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 19, 2014 14:44:25 GMT -5
I think I should be double checked since its just something I wrote in my notes without any source referenced. However, I am usually right. I am remembering something about when they were ready to leave the dog wasn't right there at the time so Lindbergh told them to go on without him. I will feel better once I locate the source - or better yet - if someone beats me to it.
|
|
|
Post by jackmiddlewest on Apr 19, 2014 16:00:00 GMT -5
Amy, I do think the extortion was a separate endeavor from the taking of the child. In keeping with an observation made by xjd in the first post on this thread that the 5 adults in the house that night apparently did not see or hear anything, I am trying to sort out how the baby could have been taken without these five people being alerted in some way. I think xjd is correct that one of the adults had to be in on the abduction. xjd's observation bounds the event. Five adults in the house that night do not hear anything, it's hard to fathom. So under that constraint, I have to think there was an insider. Betty Gow seems to me to be the most likely candidate. I don't think she is a risk taker. I don't think Johnson or the Jungs are either. They would only have played if the plan was simple and low risk. I think they would also have wanted money in advance and some assurance of protection (We can go to Michael's observation that Gow said she'd been promised she would not be touched). As part of the ruse employed that night (I agree in part with LJ's observations here.), Gow could have placed the first note. As for subsequent notes, I think it very likely that Spitale and/or Bitz (sp?) would have been quite willing to sell a copy of the note to a group who might have pursued the extortion. Forgery is an art and I would guess there were some truly great artists in the NY area at the time. I don't see any obstacle to a group reverse engineering the holes or other aspects of the signature. Getting similar paper doesn't seem to me a big obstacle either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 8:05:27 GMT -5
Yes. You are right about Skean not being there when Anne was ready to leave. I wasn't able to find this mentioned in any book. I went through my Charlie file(which is quite large) and that is where I found a printout of an old post made on Lindytruth. In that post it says that "Skean had just gone for a stroll in the park and Colonel Lindbergh could not wait for him to return, therefore the family had to drive off without the dog." The name of the researcher who shared this information was not given but allowed its use in the post. In this same post there are other things mentioned from Marguerite Junge's diary so I am not sure if the info about Skean is also a part of that diary. I just know that the researcher who shared the information about Junge's diary is probably the one who shared the Skean story also. I don't know if this might help you in identifying who the researcher might be.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2014 8:09:03 GMT -5
If you could remember which book I'd appreciate it. Nevermind LJ. It came to me last night in my sleep to check either Waller or Whipple and there it was. Personally, I think Elsie's testimony trumps this source but certainly all information should be gathered on a particular subject in order for someone to draw their own individual conclusions. Really? I was not aware that Lindbergh was there when Anne left for Hopewell. I thought Lindbergh was in New York that Saturday. He brought Henry and Aida Breckinridge with him from New York arriving at Hopewell sometime after Anne did. So it was Charles' idea that Skean be left behind. I shall make a note of this for sure. Thanks! According to Anne's Statements she was driven down by Ellerson, and Lindbergh showed up later with the Breckenridge's around 7:30PM. I've been trying to find an exact source that puts Lindbergh somewhere when she left but so far I haven't been able to locate one (despite thinking I've read one before). If anyone knows where it is I'd like to know so I can compare it to everything else. If you read the FBI Summary it says they all left together, and Lindbergh said as much to Agent Larimer which might be the basis for why this Report says this. Anyway Amy, I did find the source this morning after it came to me in my sleep last night. It's a solid source that I truly believe. Questions obviously remain though: Was it Ellerson who was supposed to bring Skean down along with Anne and CJr.? Or was Lindbergh supposed to bring him? In any event, it was Lindbergh's decision to leave him behind.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2014 8:25:44 GMT -5
In this same post there are other things mentioned from Marguerite Junge's diary so I am not sure if the info about Skean is also a part of that diary. I just know that the researcher who shared the information about Junge's diary is probably the one who shared the Skean story also. I don't know if this might help you in identifying who the researcher might be. Jung's Diary is the source. It was sent to me by a Member of this Board who I will always be indebted to for his kindness. I believe he's shared it with others too, but I am not sure who makes up that list although I just went over to babyinthecrib.websitetoolbox.com/?forum=296440 and it looks like this Diary along with the photo album has been uploaded.
|
|
|
Post by poppie66 on Apr 20, 2014 10:27:48 GMT -5
Michael, I'm the person who has the diary and the photo album. Marguerite was my late wife's aunt. We discovered these items in Marguerite's Manhatten apt after she died. WE new nothing of her connection to the Morrow family. I've passed on copies of this stuff to many CAL researchers over the years, including Reeve, but I've yet to learn the identities of the people in the photos. I also met with Mark in Trenton, so, he has copies as well. I'll try to answer any questions you may have.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2014 11:05:37 GMT -5
Michael, I'm the person who has the diary and the photo album. Marguerite was my late wife's aunt. We discovered these items in Marguerite's Manhatten apt after she died. WE new nothing of her connection to the Morrow family. I've passed on copies of this stuff to many CAL researchers over the years, including Reeve, but I've yet to learn the identities of the people in the photos. I also met with Mark in Trenton, so, he has copies as well. I'll try to answer any questions you may have. We spoke on the phone probably 9 or 10 years ago - after which you were kind enough to send me a copy of the diary. And I saw the copies of the photos you were nice enough to share with the NJSP Archives. I think if there are still some people who aren't known we're in trouble since Mark is probably the best person to identify them. It's not only a great find but made by someone kind enough to make available to everyone!
|
|
|
Post by poppie66 on Apr 20, 2014 11:23:33 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael. You're too kind. How do I contact you privately? You may have my personal email when I signed on to this board???
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 12:33:23 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for the link to Marguerite's diary and photo album. It was fascinating to read it. You get to see all the Morrows, CAL and Charlie through Marguerite's eyes. I found it very touching in many places. Sometimes when we spend so much time going over facts and speculation in this case we loose track of the people themselves as everyday people. Marguerite brings you back to that real people place with her diary. The photo album is very interesting too. I recognized The Lindberghs, of course, and the photo of Mrs. Morrow. I thought some of the pictures had Betty Gow in them or someone who looked alot like her. Really great stuff.
Poppie66 We all owe you much thanks for your generousity. By making your family's personal items available to other researchers, you bring the Morrows and Lindberghs to us in a way that very few people can. Thank you so very much!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2014 18:47:15 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael. You're too kind. How do I contact you privately? You may have my personal email when I signed on to this board??? I just sent you a PM. You get to those by clicking on your "Messages" link which is below and just to the left of Hauptmann's Mugshot above.
|
|