Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 0:49:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 14, 2016 10:37:00 GMT -5
I can believe it. What's the source for this? I mean, who saw her and what exactly happened? Don't believe it. Listen, I am still in "research mode" while making these posts and I suppose I have to stop that - at least up to the point in the crime that I have already written in my book. The actual truth and sources for her demeanor are in Chapter 15. I am hoping to send it off to the Publisher tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 14, 2016 12:43:21 GMT -5
When I say I believe it, I just mean that it makes sense she would be a wreck--much more so than a lot of books portray--and it also makes sense (to me, at least) that her true reaction was covered up or portrayed differently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 13:08:46 GMT -5
I am thinking the same thing. I think Anne had to portray a brave front for the public because it was required of her. Lindbergh demanded it and Anne's mother was never one to publicly display her feelings. I think Anne had to do the same. She had to tow the line.
Privately, out of sight of everyone around her, I think she grieved the loss of Charlie. Lindbergh knew she cried privately and that is why he admonished her sharply about crying. He saw it as pointless and weak.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Feb 14, 2016 23:53:43 GMT -5
Thanks once again, amy35, for those fantastic links to the newspapers of 1932.
Your link to the Milwaukee Sentinel of May 14, 1932 (two days after the body was found in the woods) reveals a lot more than Mrs. Lindbergh's mental state after learning that her son was (presumably) dead.
Check out the banner headline "Ransom Hoax Revealed" and the two stories underneath it , both by the AP, both datelined New York. I have to confess that I didn't know about this aspect of the case, but one day after the body was found, Jafsie Condon revealed the details of his ransom negotiations and his ransom payment, including some of the actual ransom notes he had received, to his favorite newspaper, The Bronx Home News, which ran a detailed blockbuster narrative of the history of Condon's ransom negotiations, complete with copies of the ransom notes written by the purported kidnapper. Condon's details presented to The Bronx Home News seem to have formed the framework for just about all accounts of the ransom part of the case by future historians, albeit his story changed from time to time in subsequent weeks and years. One has to wonder why Condon was so eager to tell his story to the media so quickly. Even more intriguing with respect to that Bronx Home News story about Condon's personal account is that Condon coyly dodged a question put to him by his interviewer: Did he know the man to whom he gave the ransom payment? Instead of just saying "No," he wasn't saying one way or the other, commenting that he didn't want to harm the police investigation. Does this mean that he really knew who "Cemetery John" was?
Now, at the very same time that Condon was doing his thing with the Bronx Home News, John Hughes Curtis was telling his story to the New York Daily News. The Curtis account to the Daily News was treated by the Milwaukee Sentinel as parallel to Condon's story. Curtis was saying, for the whole world to hear, that he was in ransom negotiations with the same gang of kidnappers as Condon had been. And he was getting as lengthy attention at this point in the Sentinel as as Condon was. Of course, Curtis later confessed that his story about being in contact with kidnappers was a hoax that he himself was perpetrating, and was eventually convicted for a crime in trying to shake down Lindbergh. The point is that prominent media outlets at this instant in time were being suckered in by Curtis, so much that his fairy tales were given equal weight to Condon's stories. Whatever you may think of Jafsie' s degree of credibility, at least it was several notches above that of Curtis's fictional musings.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Feb 20, 2016 18:34:11 GMT -5
I can believe it. What's the source for this? I mean, who saw her and what exactly happened? Don't believe it. Listen, I am still in "research mode" while making these posts and I suppose I have to stop that - at least up to the point in the crime that I have already written in my book. The actual truth and sources for her demeanor are in Chapter 15. I am hoping to send it off to the Publisher tomorrow. This has been on my mind since you posted it, Michael. I hope your transcript is on its' way. I can hardly wait to read what you have published, in any way. Way back in the day, I read 'Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead' and was disappointed in Anne's report of the activities surrounding the dates of the 'kidnapping' and discovery of the body of her first born. It's one of the reasons I considered her reaction to be cold. Now, I'm pretty sure that the diary, itself, was edited. That's okay. I believe that there was much more going on in the Lindbergh house at that time. Do you have any reference to Lindbergh's statement that he "was not going to go through this again" as a response to Anne's feelings? B
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 21, 2016 13:21:28 GMT -5
Do you have any reference to Lindbergh's statement that he "was not going to go through this again" as a response to Anne's feelings? Best just to ignore that post altogether. I was playing Devil's Advocate and I am going to try not to do that anymore. Now to your quote... Where is that from?
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Feb 22, 2016 21:21:38 GMT -5
Do you have any reference to Lindbergh's statement that he "was not going to go through this again" as a response to Anne's feelings? Best just to ignore that post altogether. I was playing Devil's Advocate and I am going to try not to do that anymore. Now to your quote... Where is that from? Oh, dear. You would ask me that. I remember reading that particular quote in one of the books I ordered from the library last Spring. I can't remember which one. I am re-reading Gardner's book right now, so if I find it there, I will let you know. ( I remember one that was fiction, based on this case, and the names were changed to protect the guilty. I wish I'd left that one unread.) But, it may have been in "Scapegoat"; I can't be sure. I remember thinking "what a jerk." (Lindbergh was.)
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Feb 23, 2016 2:43:40 GMT -5
Don't believe it. Listen, I am still in "research mode" while making these posts and I suppose I have to stop that - at least up to the point in the crime that I have already written in my book. The actual truth and sources for her demeanor are in Chapter 15. I am hoping to send it off to the Publisher tomorrow. rebekah, I hope you don't mind me jumping off the part of your post I bolded just to say "hello" to all here as a new poster AND to say how much I echo your feelings about Michael's impending book! I can hardly wait. I've been holding off on posting any -- trying to learn the ropes here, and the personalities, and to read enough of the forum so that I won't constantly be repetitious or seem inane in what I ask questions about or post -- but I do want to get "officially in" before the upcoming anniversary on March 1 and also before Michael's book comes out. I want to be a part of things here to celebrate the latter! I'm continuing to try to read through the threads --wow, there is SO much here. Which is great! And I definitely have found answers/discussion on some of the topics I wanted to bring up after joining a few weeks ago, so I'm glad I did "hold off" for a bit. I've certainly not read everything, though, so I ask you all to excuse me if I DO bring up things that have already been covered endlessly. (Just direct me, please.) The threads, ahem, don't always stay on topic (really not complaining--they DO stay interesting, nonetheless) so sometimes what I am looking for is not always where I think it might be! I have had a strong interest in this case for many years, if somewhat on-again-off-again and haphazard at times. Finding and really digging into this board has really helped me so much. For one thing, I've always been a bit bewildered with all the different "slants" on the case...WHO to believe?? This board has helped me understand that mine is not an uncommon quandary, with this case. I like that almost any theory is open to discussion here. Not that everybody will LIKE it...but that discussion is allowed. I have a small collection of case-related books, many of which I have only read parts of. Right now, I am trying to read Gardner cover-to-cover. That book is a fairly new acquisition for me...somehow, I had missed it. It is, in my opinion, a great book on the case. Unfortunately, my Gardner is not the later edition with the maybe-it-was-CAL-Sr. slant added in. I will try to get hold of the newer version soon, but, in the meantime, I guess I've come to understand fairly well from reading here and elsewhere what the main difference is. I also am relieved, after reading here, to stop feeling so guilty for not having read Fisher yet! I was in a position where I "knew I should" -- but honestly, from what I knew of his take, I procrastinated about having to dig in and swallow down "nothing else to see here, folks. It was over a long time ago." I do still plan to read Fisher...one day...maybe. I just feel lighter for being among some who seem to think it is not absolutely mandatory. Michael, to you, I want to say thanks for this board. Also to say that I admire and, I'll admit, also envy you a bit for your years of research. The envy part is mild and not malicious...it's just that, if I were where you are geographically, I would like to have done what you have done. But I'm not (I'm in Georgia), so I can't -- therefore, I wish you the very best with your book. I am so looking forward to it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 23, 2016 6:27:08 GMT -5
Michael, to you, I want to say thanks for this board. Also to say that I admire and, I'll admit, also envy you a bit for your years of research. The envy part is mild and not malicious...it's just that, if I were where you are geographically, I would like to have done what you have done. But I'm not (I'm in Georgia), so I can't -- therefore, I wish you the very best with your book. I am so looking forward to it. Welcome to the Board and thanks for posting. Never worry about bringing up something that's been discussed in the past. As you can see we all do it, and I'd venture to say there was something to gain, and will be, each and every time. Also, sorry about the shifting topics in the threads. Early on I attempted to move everything around and stay on top of topic changes however, like a majority of the Reports do, some topics slide over onto other ones and a blend occurs so often that I simply decided it was almost an impossibility without tampering with the integrity of what someone was trying to express. I appreciate the encouragement about the book. I know some English Teachers are going to hate it. I've seen some of the criticism toward Adam Schrager's book geared toward his using the word "Kidnaping" instead of "Kidnapping." In his defense, about 80%-90% of the material from the 1930s has it spelled "Kidnaping" so there you have it. And if he's a target for doing what I consider correct then I'm in for it! So some Fair Warning to those who will have their red ink pen on the ready. However, I think those who are looking for new information, and answers to questions they've been wrestling with for a while will be happy with what's in it. John Sasser used to tell me all the time that he envied me since I live so close to the NJSP Archives. He joked his wife probably would have divorced him if he did! I think growing up in the area was the main impetus to my interest and research. Then knowing I could figure it out if I really wanted to led to so much of this. The other thing is that I would recommend reading anything you can get your hands on. I can tell you're like one of us and that means whatever you read won't be immediately accepted. That creates a situation where it's thought out or investigated which in turn leads to the truth of the matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 11:22:15 GMT -5
I have a small collection of case-related books, many of which I have only read parts of. Right now, I am trying to read Gardner cover-to-cover. That book is a fairly new acquisition for me...somehow, I had missed it. It is, in my opinion, a great book on the case. Unfortunately, my Gardner is not the later edition with the maybe-it-was-CAL-Sr. slant added in. I will try to get hold of the newer version soon, but, in the meantime, I guess I've come to understand fairly well from reading here and elsewhere what the main difference is. I also am relieved, after reading here, to stop feeling so guilty for not having read Fisher yet! I was in a position where I "knew I should" -- but honestly, from what I knew of his take, I procrastinated about having to dig in and swallow down "nothing else to see here, folks. It was over a long time ago." I do still plan to read Fisher...one day...maybe. I just feel lighter for being among some who seem to think it is not absolutely mandatory. Hi Sweetwater. So glad that you will be posting here. As you already know, this board is a fabulous place to learn about the Lindbergh kidnapping case. It sounds like you are off to a great start. It is certainly a road I am traveling. I continue to expand my understanding of this case thanks to Michael and all the people who post here. I was smiling when I read your comment about not having read the Fisher book. When I came to this board in 2012, I hadn't read it either. I felt like the pink elephant in the room because it seemed everyone else had! I am right now reading the Fisher book for the first time. I am actually glad that I put it off as long as I did. I think having a sound grounding in the facts of the kidnapping crime is the best way to approach reading his book. It is an interesting read. Looking forward to reading your posts in the future!
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Feb 25, 2016 16:48:46 GMT -5
rebekah, I hope you don't mind me jumping off the part of your post I bolded just to say "hello" to all here as a new poster AND to say how much I echo your feelings about Michael's impending book! I can hardly wait. I've been holding off on posting any -- trying to learn the ropes here, and the personalities, and to read enough of the forum so that I won't constantly be repetitious or seem inane in what I ask questions about or post -- but I do want to get "officially in" before the upcoming anniversary on March 1 and also before Michael's book comes out. I want to be a part of things here to celebrate the latter! I'm continuing to try to read through the threads --wow, there is SO much here. Which is great! And I definitely have found answers/discussion on some of the topics I wanted to bring up after joining a few weeks ago, so I'm glad I did "hold off" for a bit. I've certainly not read everything, though, so I ask you all to excuse me if I DO bring up things that have already been covered endlessly. (Just direct me, please.) The threads, ahem, don't always stay on topic (really not complaining--they DO stay interesting, nonetheless) so sometimes what I am looking for is not always where I think it might be! I have had a strong interest in this case for many years, if somewhat on-again-off-again and haphazard at times. Finding and really digging into this board has really helped me so much. For one thing, I've always been a bit bewildered with all the different "slants" on the case...WHO to believe?? This board has helped me understand that mine is not an uncommon quandary, with this case. I like that almost any theory is open to discussion here. Not that everybody will LIKE it...but that discussion is allowed. I have a small collection of case-related books, many of which I have only read parts of. Right now, I am trying to read Gardner cover-to-cover. That book is a fairly new acquisition for me...somehow, I had missed it. It is, in my opinion, a great book on the case. Unfortunately, my Gardner is not the later edition with the maybe-it-was-CAL-Sr. slant added in. I will try to get hold of the newer version soon, but, in the meantime, I guess I've come to understand fairly well from reading here and elsewhere what the main difference is. I also am relieved, after reading here, to stop feeling so guilty for not having read Fisher yet! I was in a position where I "knew I should" -- but honestly, from what I knew of his take, I procrastinated about having to dig in and swallow down "nothing else to see here, folks. It was over a long time ago." I do still plan to read Fisher...one day...maybe. I just feel lighter for being among some who seem to think it is not absolutely mandatory. Michael, to you, I want to say thanks for this board. Also to say that I admire and, I'll admit, also envy you a bit for your years of research. The envy part is mild and not malicious...it's just that, if I were where you are geographically, I would like to have done what you have done. But I'm not (I'm in Georgia), so I can't -- therefore, I wish you the very best with your book. I am so looking forward to it. Hello, sweetwater! Like you, I am pretty new to this board. I won't tell my age, but I've been interested in this case since I was 12 years old, and I'm not a spring chicken anymore. There is so much information to be found and so many excellent researchers here. (I also believe there are several members of LE here, retired or not, so how could we go wrong?) Welcome.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Mar 1, 2016 18:02:59 GMT -5
Hard to believe it's been 84 years to the day, and this is still a mystery to a lot of people. I guess the only good thing is that Charlie's memory is still alive! R.I.P. Charlie!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 22:51:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Mar 7, 2016 2:40:50 GMT -5
Interesting to watch these interview videos. Thanks for posting, Amy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2016 8:47:48 GMT -5
I really enjoy listening to these interviews also. They give a perspective on this case and the people involved that can only come from someone who was there. I am always searching sources for these types of videos.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2016 8:58:52 GMT -5
I was doing some research rather recently on Anna Hauptmann. I came across this picture of Anna Hauptmann from 1981. Ever faithful Anna was once again publically seeking the exoneration of her Richard of the murder of the Lindbergh baby. The reason I am posting this on the Charlie thread comes at the bottom of the paragraph under Anna's picture. Tom Zito, who took the picture of Anna, also had the opportunity to speak with Anne Morrow Lindbergh. For those who have lingering doubts about the corpse that was found in the Mount Rose woods, I think you will find Anne Lindbergh's comments very interesting!! Check it out! www.zito.com/back-17.html
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 7, 2016 12:55:19 GMT -5
Dear amy35:
Having trouble here getting those Hugo Stockberger videos to run. Do you have to buy them from that web site in order to do that?
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Mar 7, 2016 20:47:43 GMT -5
hurtelable, I didn't have to purchase them but...they took a VERY long time to buffer (on my less-than-state-of-the-art computer). I just went on with something else while they did and finally they would start playing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 8, 2016 7:20:10 GMT -5
hurtelable, I didn't have to purchase them but...they took a VERY long time to buffer (on my less-than-state-of-the-art computer). I just went on with something else while they did and finally they would start playing. Also, these files run with Adobe Flash Player: www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 8, 2016 18:19:10 GMT -5
Tp Michael, sweetwater, and amy35:
Thanks to you all for your friendly suggestions. But even though I have the latest version of Adobe Flash Player, I still had to endure those extremely long buffering times, 9+ minutes for the first two longer videos and 5+ minutes for the last two shorter ones.
Was it worth it? No, I don't think so unless you're interested in some minute details about Stockberger's personal NJSP assignments relevant to the case. As you might expect, he has nothing but praise for the police and prosecutors and had no doubt that Hauptmann was guilty as charged and received fair treatment from Wilentz. They probably gave Stockberger a good deal of the police work in close contact with Hauptmann because both were native German language speakers and could understand each other well.
BTW, IIRC, Stockberger was one of the named defendants in Anna Hauptmann's civil liberties lawsuit - on behalf of her late husband - against various New Jersey state officials. That case was filed in the 1980s, and the defendants prevailed as the case was dismissed.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Mar 8, 2016 22:26:24 GMT -5
Tp Michael, sweetwater, and amy35: Thanks to you all for your friendly suggestions. But even though I have the latest version of Adobe Flash Player, I still had to endure those extremely long buffering times, 9+ minutes for the first two longer videos and 5+ minutes for the last two shorter ones. Was it worth it? No, I don't think so unless you're interested in some minute details about Stockberger's personal NJSP assignments relevant to the case. As you might expect, he has nothing but praise for the police and prosecutors and had no doubt that Hauptmann was guilty as charged and received fair treatment from Wilentz. They probably gave Stockberger a good deal of the police work in close contact with Hauptmann because both were native German language speakers and could understand each other well. BTW, IIRC, Stockberger was one of the named defendants in Anna Hauptmann's civil liberties lawsuit - on behalf of her late husband - against various New Jersey state officials. That case was filed in the 1980s, and the defendants prevailed as the case was dismissed. my bolding in your post above: I do understand where you're coming from on this. He didn't say anything really unexpected, did he? I still like to hear/see interviews like this though; for me, it just takes me what feels like a step closer to the time and place and is so interesting to see/hear someone who was there. I think, too, his attitude was much a predominant one ... I don't know about among those closely associated with the case (although I feel sure that, yes, many of them), but I do think, nationwide, a whole lot of people just took for granted whatever the newspapers served up. My grandmother died in 2002, just three days short of her 102nd birthday...very lucid until the last few weeks of her life. I remember, vaguely, talking to her a little about the LKC; it was just a little detour, though, from a conversation about a regionally (here) sensational crime that we often talked about, so it was not a main focus of our conversation. I wish I had asked her more about her memories of the LKC. Not that she would have known anything beyond what she read in the papers or heard on the radio, many, many miles away from the hub of this case -- I just wish I'd gotten a little clearer idea of how she remembered it all. I loved hearing her talk about all the things she lived through and remembered. I loved HER! One thing I often wonder is whether there is still living today anyone who has really important information about the case that isn't in the different archives, etc. Wouldn't necessarily have to be someone who "lived it" -- could be someone who heard something important from someone who did, etc. Something true and crucial, of course, I'm meaning -- I'm sure there are still many "tales" out there, passed down or whatever. I imagine maybe Michael is picking up some stuff along this route, along with archival study. I hope so! I think what he appears to be doing, in the archives and elsewhere, is so important... it's so important that it be done NOW.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 9, 2016 4:06:14 GMT -5
One thing I often wonder is whether there is still living today anyone who has really important information about the case that isn't in the different archives, etc. Wouldn't necessarily have to be someone who "lived it" -- could be someone who heard something important from someone who did, etc. Something true and crucial, of course, I'm meaning -- I'm sure there are still many "tales" out there, passed down or whatever. I imagine maybe Michael is picking up some stuff along this route, along with archival study. I hope so! I think what he appears to be doing, in the archives and elsewhere, is so important... it's so important that it be done NOW. I'd very curious to know what the living Lindberghs know. There's a reason they wanted all the evidence back from the NJSP in a hurry and I don't think it was the reason publicly shared.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 9, 2016 14:18:06 GMT -5
Yes, the Lindbergh family got that evidence back from the NJSP sometime in the early 1990s. The NJ state attorney general ordered the police to transfer the evidence to them.
It may not be coincidence that those items of evidence were removed from the state's custody at the time they were, when DNA evidence was coming into vogue as a forensic investigatory tool. With the loss of custody of those items by the state, potential new objective investigations into the identity of the body of the child found in the woods may have been forestalled, due to the inavailability of DNA specimens that may have been obtained from this evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 13:12:37 GMT -5
Yesterday, March 1, 2017 was the 85th anniversary of the kidnapping of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. One of the true crime writers I follow put the following article on his blog page about the kidnapping. This is a great article and includes some great photos he took of the inside of the Lindbergh house. Just wanted to share it with this board. jttownsend.com/
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 2, 2017 14:08:59 GMT -5
well mike wait to you debate your book live its a different ballgame. knock fisher all you want he debated anybody and any author in his day ive been to them. that's what they did in the late 80s
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 2, 2017 16:47:32 GMT -5
Yesterday, March 1, 2017 was the 85th anniversary of the kidnapping of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. One of the true crime writers I follow put the following article on his blog page about the kidnapping. This is a great article and includes some great photos he took of the inside of the Lindbergh house. Just wanted to share it with this board. jttownsend.com/Thanks Amy, for posting the article by JT Townsend, which speculates on CAL Sr. being the killer of his son. Yes, agree that some of those photos of the inside of Highfields accompanying the Townsend article are interesting, but they were obviously taken at a much later date, probably after the house was renovated by the state of NJ to create a state-sponsored orphans' home. As for JT Townsend himself, I had never heard of him before, but he is the author of several published true crime books. Perhaps we can invite him to join this board for a different point of view.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 2, 2017 17:19:41 GMT -5
This is just a note of thanks to Michael for your wonderful book. I'm re-reading it today with a mug of hot lemonade. Your hard work is greatly appreciated. Thanks Allison. Pretty cool idea! well mike wait to you debate your book live its a different ballgame. knock fisher all you want he debated anybody and any author in his day ive been to them. that's what they did in the late 80s Go to Fisher's first book then turn to pages 4 and 5. He wrote this book after only making FOUR (!!!) trips to the NJSP Archives and took only THREE (!!!) days to go through Hoffman's material. He admits to creating conversations written within it's pages. And he calls other people "Revisionists?" Assuming 4 full days of research at the Archives, that would probably get him through about one row in the filing cabinets. However, he says he was listening to those tapes while there and that takes up a lot of time so I'm sure he went through less. 3 days of going through Hoffman, the main collection, probably gets him through about 15 boxes. In order to even know the Hoffman Collection I'd say one would have to have gone through it in it's entirety at least twice.
|
|
|
Post by roryg1957 on Mar 2, 2017 17:40:07 GMT -5
Hello everyone - I've been a lurker for years but this is my first post. My introduction to this was as a teenager watching the t.v. miniseries with Anthony Hopkins as BRH back in the 70s. I drifted away from the topic, but for some reason - to take my mind off other things - I found myself back here on Tuesday and realized it was almost the 'anniversary.' When I saw Michael's book was in Kindle (all I get now or the wife will divorce me), I grabbed it and am loving it. I live in NJ and have been to the NJSP Museum and it is truly a wonderful place to go. I was just there as a tourist but seeing the ladder, the box, etc. in person is kind of humbling. Also I've been to Highfields before they put a barrier on the drive - drove up there on a Sunday afternoon and snooped. The Sourlands are one of my favorite places, very remote even today, but some people feel uncomfortable there (again my wife said it felt oppressive).
Anyway, I wanted to throw something out there. After reading the Ahlgren and Monier book I was open to the idea that CAL was involved. But many of the arguments on this page say it's absurd, the amount of planning, etc., CAL not being quite *that* heartless. I'm not sure - he seems to have been a self-involved bastard, which was hard because I have always been an aviation enthusiast and think the Air Mail pilots were some of the bravest, and of course CAL was one (and he also, I believe, held the record for number of 'planes bailed out of). But dislike of this guy can color one's (my) opinion so I'm willing to think he didn't have anything to do with it. But. Someone or some people in the house did. And BRH was involved *again* somehow - he had the money. A lot of it. So I was wondering about this: CAL's two 'kidnapping's' gave someone in the house the idea: why not try it for real? If eyewitness accounts are correct (I don't have the details here, sorry) there were three men in a car with a ladder seen. I don't think BRH could get down and back to the Bronx and pick up his wife in the time needed - even today, it's a huge pain going from the Princeton area to NYC. We have rush hour now - they had unpaved roads. Probably fewer ways into the City. I don't think I've seen anything on how one got from New Jersey across the Hudson River to NYC/Bronx in 1932. Were there any tunnels? Now, it can take me 2 1/2 hours to go from Princeton to Queens, and that's with 2 tunnels, four bridges (or so), and expressways.
What does anyone think? CAL's *pranks* inspire an insider to make some cash, they know of the earlier ransom amount of $50K, and they talk to their boyfriend, who gets a couple of folks they know from the Bronx involved, they're not all in on every detail - the folks in the house know a member of the kidnap team; a member of that team knows someone in the Bronx who can build a ladder and later a box; ransom money is disbursed to different members but the inside members get cheated out (thus no gold certificates in say Betty Gow's possession). Its something I have been pondering - if CAL while not the kidnapper was the inspiration for it. His desire to control, damage control, feeling of betrayal (he suspected someone inside)made him take charge. Its just a suggestion but one I don't think I've seen. CAL as catalyst but not perpetrator.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 15:11:43 GMT -5
What does anyone think? CAL's *pranks* inspire an insider to make some cash, they know of the earlier ransom amount of $50K, and they talk to their boyfriend, who gets a couple of folks they know from the Bronx involved, they're not all in on every detail - the folks in the house know a member of the kidnap team; a member of that team knows someone in the Bronx who can build a ladder and later a box; ransom money is disbursed to different members but the inside members get cheated out (thus no gold certificates in say Betty Gow's possession). Its something I have been pondering - if CAL while not the kidnapper was the inspiration for it. His desire to control, damage control, feeling of betrayal (he suspected someone inside)made him take charge. Its just a suggestion but one I don't think I've seen. CAL as catalyst but not perpetrator. Hi roryg1957 and welcome to the board. So glad you decided to make that post. I think it is the first time I have ever encountered your theory that his kidnap jokes inspired the kidnapping of his own son. I agree that it would take an insider who knew about the Constance Morrow ransom demand (1929), and the hiding of Charlie by Lindbergh, twice, I believe. If I am remembering correctly, it happened once at the rental house in Princeton and once at Englewood where Charlie was hidden in a trash closet. Maybe someone decided to make it a real kidnap from the new house in Hopewell. Your theory would require someone who knew about all the prior incidents. Have you given any thought about who that might be? Did you think that the intention was to return the child alive but something went wrong and Charlie died instead? I find the thought interesting that Lindbergh would have wanted to maintain control of the investigation because he had been betrayed by someone who was part of either the Morrow household or the Lindbergh household, therefore finding it necessary to run interference. He would want to protect the family from scandal, especially if he is not sure who the insider might be. Your post is certainly something to think about!
|
|