|
Post by kate1 on Aug 4, 2017 19:29:15 GMT -5
Kate, I think I read it in the trial transcript. If not, then it is mentioned on this board somewhere. I will check to make sure and get back to you. Thanks Amy, you are such a help. I know Hauptmann's defense team was never allowed into that house to investigate themselves so I've always been skeptical of any wood evidence.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 4, 2017 18:49:34 GMT -5
amy but the problem is a piece of that ladder came from hauptmanns attic and I don't think Lindbergh knew Bruno before the crime. to me it don't matter what ladder looked like what I agree that a piece of the wood did come from the attic. Some of that attic wood ended up in Rauch's basement. Hauptmann, being the thrifty guy he was, picked up some of that wood from the basement. Lindbergh didn't need to know Hauptmann in order for Hauptmann to build a ladder that looks like the ones I mentioned in a previous post. Amy, where did the info about the ladder wood being in Hauptmann's basement come from?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 4, 2017 13:16:40 GMT -5
Still wonder why Lloyd Fisher believed in Hauptmann's innocence. There is no proof that that piece of wood was ever in that attic. Old wood is old wood. Why would a master carpenter use something that wasn't good quality to perform the crime of the century? And nails can't be traced!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 4, 2017 7:06:47 GMT -5
Michael did you discuss the attic board in your book?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 3, 2017 18:58:38 GMT -5
There is very significant evidence that BRH wrote all of the ransom notes. You should read "Ghosts of Hopewell" by Fisher. Also there's more to know about the ladder, nails, etc. which is covered, and lots of other information. If tried today Hauptmann would easily be found guilty - as Michael says, the ladder puts him in the nursery. Hi jack! Yep I've read Fisher and will re-read that volume as suggested There's always something to be gleaned from research even though I disagree with Fisher's hypothesis From what I've read from all the authors I could find on the subject there's nothing to connect H with the ladder. The BI couldn't do it from their separate investigation of the ladder and I just don't believe Keogh's evaluation of the "wood evidence" I'm no scientist but I cannot believe Keogh's connecting an individual piece of wood to an individual floor. And the sad fact still remains that the ladder in question was contaminated by handling or mishandling taken apart and put back together again. Hopefully there will come a time when new tests will be performed to prove what can be found on that particular ladder. Sans wood matching nonsense I agree! It's so ridiculous to think a carpenter would throw together a ladder like this and use lumber from his attic. He would have had to plane the board to make it fit. Then adding to that it wasn't built to hold him with the additional weight of a child. The design worked but it also served to lead investigators away from the house. Why not just leave it at the side of the house? Why not leave the note in the crib instead of carrying it back to the window ledge with a heavy baby? The defense was never allowed into that apartment at anytime.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 1, 2017 15:31:56 GMT -5
Not to change the subject but I believe the family was at Hopewell for a reason other than the baby's cold. I think the reason was something so overwhelming that the mundane was simply forgotten ( the dinner). The ladder found leading away from the house was flimsy as built for a one time use and it looks a lot like the one in the picture of the old Lindbergh homestead back in Minnesota to me
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 1, 2017 6:09:11 GMT -5
And if it was widely reported he was going to be attending, does it not stand to reason the kidnappers would have picked this night to strike knowing he would not be home before late? No it makes no sense. If Kidnappers are planning this based upon a near trivial point of one less person being home then they sure as hell knew the family schedule. They would know BOTH dogs should be there as well. This means they should not have expected the family to even be in Hopewell. What I see you doing is (and properly so) is concluding there was advanced planning. Seeing Lindbergh won't be home means one less person in the house. But is that the extent of it? No, not even close. Yet they don't know the family routine? A routine that only Lindbergh himself downplayed during his testimony in Flemington. I've outlined where he did this in other places in his testimony as well. Why is he contradicting his household? I know you don't agree with my belief this was a real kidnapping, but from how you view things, have you asked yourself why Lindbergh, given the perfect opportunity to have been "unfortunately" away from home while "tragedy struck" would then voluntarily and very conspicuously, thrust himself into the apex of the crime? It certainly doesn't sound much like logical Lindy, does it? Whatever happened involved outsiders. But it involved insider(s) as well. The dinner he blew off could be looked at in many ways. If it's something all by itself that's a big difference, but there's so much more that occurred. Let's say when he accepted the invite it was sincere. But then the situation arose after the fact requiring he must not go. Or it could be this was a "by design" alibi. But Lindbergh needed no alibi as we can all plainly see. Even still, as we all know, Lindbergh was a "hands-on" guy. If something like this was going to happen I don't see how he could resist staying away and not controlling certain events. An alternate view could exist as well.... But the "old" Lindbergh is great, young, is under pressure, or under stress, or has no clue doesn't work for me. CAL was a control freak. It served him well in his flight acrossed the Atlantic. He continued controlling his family/families. It pretty much worked with law enforcement too. This is who this guy was!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 31, 2017 15:01:42 GMT -5
His attendance was expected though, but he was not one of the scheduled speakers, is that right Joe? I think his presence there was the reason many people were planning to attend so I imagine it was well publicized.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 30, 2017 20:30:23 GMT -5
Lots of us do too, Cindi!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 27, 2017 18:47:52 GMT -5
Thinking about timelines, reading over a report Carol posted years ago, it just dawned on me that CAL received nine letters from the "kidnappers" before his financial advisors told him he could not control the situation; they have the baby. He agreed to pay the ransom and wanted it done quickly because if he was going to be "double crossed" he wanted to find out where he stood. Doesn't sound to me like a father who was frantic about the well being of his 20 month old baby. His financial advisors had to tell him this! It is just incredible how long the negotiations went on before the ransom got paid. I think part of the problem with moving ahead with the payment was because of the dispute over the recording of the serial numbers of the ransom bills. The Treasury Department did not want the money paid without the recording being done. According to Frank Wilson, one of the Treasury Agents on the case, the idea of recording the serial numbers met with much resistance from Lindbergh, Breckinridge, and CAL's J.P. Morgan friends Frank Bartow and Henry Davison. I think these men put their heads together privately, decided on a plan of action that pleased them and then Lindbergh agreed to the recording of the serial numbers. Lindbergh had promised he would not endanger the kidnappers in any way. I guess he was keeping his promise. It's almost as if he was protecting someone!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 27, 2017 7:15:25 GMT -5
Thinking about timelines, reading over a report Carol posted years ago, it just dawned on me that CAL received nine letters from the "kidnappers" before his financial advisors told him he could not control the situation; they have the baby. He agreed to pay the ransom and wanted it done quickly because if he was going to be "double crossed" he wanted to find out where he stood. Doesn't sound to me like a father who was frantic about the well being of his 20 month old baby. His financial advisors had to tell him this!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 25, 2017 7:34:07 GMT -5
I began this with the question of why not take Charlie back to Englewood. My crude attempt at research has lead me to believe that its questionable that cars were comfortably heated at this time. I can assume Mrs Morrow would have the latest in comfort and I think that Ellerson was driving a Cadillac. Beyond that I was unable to find more specifics. If anyone knows.....?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 24, 2017 18:55:50 GMT -5
Thank you. I'll look into too.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 22, 2017 19:12:30 GMT -5
I know at one time he lived in the same boarding house as Red Johnson and the Junges but I can't remember if there was a connection with Connecticut.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 22, 2017 19:03:40 GMT -5
Amy, was Duane Baker from Connecticut?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 22, 2017 15:40:03 GMT -5
Note to Amy....thank you for all the help you've shown me since I began posting here. You've been very sweet and given me tons of information. It is so appreciated!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 22, 2017 15:37:17 GMT -5
Note to Amy....thank you for all the help you've shown me since I began posting here. You've been very sweet and given me tons of information. It is so appreciated!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 22, 2017 15:33:52 GMT -5
I'm surprised that so many normally sound researchers appear to be buying into this "holocaust at home" solution. Just looking at the basics, do you realize what these people whose names are just tossed about would be risking? Can you imagine CAL approaching Breckenridge with the notion, "hey Henry I want to get rid of my formerly cute kid, now known as 'toaster head' - I know you're rich and famous, but will you and your also rich and famous wife help me?" Not is not evidence. Just because there were no recent pictures of Charlie doesn't mean he was a puddle in a crib. Friends of the Lindberghs had recently seen him and commented positively. If you looked for pictures of anybody from say fourteen months to eighteen months how conclusively would you come up with anything. Think of yourself and what would you get? Mine would probably be zero. Remember, this kidnapping happened and came out of nowhere, so no publicist was able to set up the situation. So would Henry Breckenridge and his famous wife (did you know she was the first woman to fly a machine solo?) risk their nice and socially beneficial lives to help a buddy with an unusual problem? I'd think Henry would give him some good advice to keep it under your hat and Aida would get outta Dodge and on to her next philanthropy. Perhaps whoever's behind all this should realize that they are too big of an influence an these thinkers(?) and maybe in the interest of new people looking on this site and wanting to present everyone as sane, should temper the crowd a bit. I proved a while back that Lindbergh had nothing to do with the inception and progression of the crime, so let his spirit and his famous friends spirits rest in peace. Maybe Breckenridge wouldn't have but I bet Schwarzkopf would!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 22, 2017 11:28:50 GMT -5
Anne is writing in her diary, not a medical journal, so why would she have to mention his official medical condition in light of the fact that he was carrying on like a normally developing child all around her? Regarding your conclusion that Dr. Van Ingen could not get him to stand up because he had "slinky baby syndrome," I'm curious as to how you arrived at this, based on what Charlie's doctor actually wrote in the statement Wayne posted. It sounds to me, as though Charlie was simply resisting, as a child in the range of the "terrible twos" might typically demonstrate, and based on the fact Van Ingen termed him as "spoiled." And Wayne, thanks for posting the Dr. Van Ingen statement! Having children that's what I would think too, thus the "spoiled child" notation. He was being resistive toward someone who probably gave him " shots". I do think it was odd that Anne published her diaries because this family was almost paranoid about privacy. Just my thoughts about the diaries.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 21, 2017 18:52:17 GMT -5
I'm not sure who typed this list...whether CAL, or Anne, or even Mrs. Morrow, but take a look at the last entry on Page 2. The handwritten one. Does it imply that photos were taken in February 1932 but are missing or not developed? That is fascinating that it mentions February 1932 pictures. Troubling that it says "all blanks". It is also written in pencil. Someone added it but for what reason if the pictures weren't there. I really need to go through my notes. Somewhere I had read (maybe Berg or Hertog??) that Anne wanted a family picture taken of her and CAL with Charlie. Then the kidnapping happened so I don't know if that was ever done. I wonder if that written reference could be about such a picture. There was the picture of Anne with the baby and her mother and grandmother when he was very young
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 21, 2017 18:42:14 GMT -5
Joe, I believe the photos used on that wanted poster are stills from Alice Morrow's filming she did of Charlie during the summer of 1931 while the Lindberghs were on their Orient flight. These stills were also used in news paper articles at the time of the kidnapping. You would think they would have had more current photos of their son to share in helping to find him. Plus they should have told the police and the newspapers that Charlie's hair had been cut short only a week before the kidnapping. Everyone was looking for a child with a head of golden curls. Those curls had been cut off. njspmuseum.blogspot.com/2014/ Lindbergh allowed all sources to believe he looked just like those photos. He obviously did not. All pictures I've ever seen were when the weather was warm. Most were outside when trees were full.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 21, 2017 18:34:35 GMT -5
Col Lindbergh also had the advice of Colonels Donovan, Breckenridge, Robert Thayer and others from the BI like Irey. If he chose to ignore their advice or manipulate the situation to make it difficult for LE to intervene to bring about a good ending than what can be deduced from his behavior? That Lindbergh panicked or was made a dupe in a con game? After being on lookout for "boad Nellie" and the Mary B Moss for several days, it must have occurred to him after some hours that it ain't working Lindbergh testified that he trusted and had complete trust in law enforcement. I think that he also testified that the FBI had access to all material pertaining to the case....all lies.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 20, 2017 15:52:38 GMT -5
I'm sorry but hard earned money? He wanted his privacy when he wanted it. He did ride in parades! I don't think rickets was the issue but what else might have been seriously wrong. Damage to his brain from oxygen deprivation prenatally or a metabolic condition that manifested itself as rickets among other things. If there is no question about what happened that day than Waller or Fisher are sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 20, 2017 0:40:03 GMT -5
She was seven months pregnant with CAL Jr. when she went flying. I'm not talking about Jon, who was born more than two years later. Thanks for the clarification. Like others in the forum, I thought that the frame of reference for the discussion was the day of the "kidnapping."
Two important points regarding the flying that Mrs. Lindbergh did during her first pregnancy:
(1) You can't really criticize her for being reckless because aviation was still in its early stages at the time and there was no science available to show that pregnant mothers who fly might do harm to their fetuses.
(2) Even at that, you can't be anywhere confident of a direct cause-and effect relationship between Anne's flying and Charlie's rickety condition. We have discussed before on these threads that Charlie might have been suffering from Vitamin D resistant rickets, which is a rare genetic disorder which causes an impairment in the body's capability of metabolizing ingested Vitamin D and enzymatically converting it to its active form. That problem would be extremely unlikely to be the result of an environmental insult to the fetus at seven months gestation.
I certainly wouldn't criticize her for flying while not knowing the effects but she did fly and I don't think oxygen depreivaton caused rickets! I think the effects would be much more profound. I would think that lack of oxygen to a developing brain might have caused some degree of mental developmental disorder from slight to profound. She says how miserable she was during that flight and she had to be carried from the plane afterward.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 20, 2017 0:30:29 GMT -5
I worked for several years in pediatrics and peds special care unit. Saw many infants and kids with genetic disorders that looked beautiful and "normal" that were dying or severally mentally handicapped. Also autistic kids don't always stare into space, there is a spectrum. Would like to ask any medical professional what the risks of halo flying are to a 7 month fetus.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 20, 2017 0:09:27 GMT -5
Notwithstanding all of the hyperbole that gets whipped up about this time, relative to Charles Lindbergh's evil misgivings and what Anne was and wasn't allowed to do, I think it's important to keep a little perspective here and remember Anne was made of firmer stuff. After all, wasn't she the navigator to Charles on two trans-Continental flights in 1931 and 1933, which helped to establish the future of commercial aviation routes over the Atlantic? Perhaps something to consider when concerns get raised about whether or not she needed permission to boil an egg or make the call to stay over in Hopewell an extra day. Anne was what I call a "shadow dweller." Anne grew up in the shadow of her sister Elisabeth, who was the favorite. She envied Elisabeth and saw in her all the perfect and wonderful things she could never be. When Lindbergh came into Anne's life she then moved into his shadow. She took her confidence, identity and courage through him and what he wanted her to be. Anne loved him and wanted to be a good wife to him, even if this meant flying 7 months pregnant and ending up ill and hospitalized and then leaving your first born child behind for months while desperately missing him during the Orient Flight. She would stay the course because Lindbergh expected her to and she would never let him down. She would never ask him for consideration for herself or their children. It was always C. first. She submitted herself to his way of seeing things and then doing things as he wanted. When you read her diaries you see this clearly. Mrs. Morrow questioned why Anne didn't return to Englewood like she always did on a Monday after staying the weekend in Hopewell. I don't think Anne made any choice on her own to stay in Hopewell. She stayed because CAL told her to. Amy that's such an astute description. Also a description of the expectations of women of that time. I wonder at what point she realized what her marriage to him really was. I agree about her diaries and wonder about their publication.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 19, 2017 18:50:18 GMT -5
I think the removal of bone fragments from the archives was important.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 18, 2017 11:19:36 GMT -5
I believe the basic issue here is confusion over multiple accounts and reports. There's a lot of choice there but at the end of the day, the baby was nearly over his cold, Anne had caught it and she was now sufficiently under the weather to stay over at Highfields, with Betty's assistance. This was her call. I think this particular accounting by Walsh is pretty accurate. Thank you. I think she had to make the decision before noon if Betty arrived at 2. But it seems the first thing she did was go for a walk. I would have expected feeling ill and in early months of a pregnancy she would have taken a nap, especially in cold, raw weather. I know it wasn't raining but seems it might at any time....makes me cold just to think about it!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 18, 2017 5:59:41 GMT -5
Does anyone have any ideas why a baby nearly over a cold, no fever, couldn't be bundled up and be driven two hours to his home where his nurse lived and with many more staff to help his mother? Particularly when his father was supposed to be in New York that night. Also when Anne "decided" to stay at Hopewell about 10 to 11 that morning, the kidnappers chose this day to drive around the entire area?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 14, 2017 7:20:25 GMT -5
Michael, do you understand why Doc Aston's reputation was in question here? That's a common theme when considering what people were telling police. If they had a good reputation it was included as a factor in showing it was believable. So in asking his good reputation be restored it's implicit that his account was questioned?
|
|