|
Post by lurp173 on Mar 8, 2024 15:49:50 GMT -5
Michael,
This post is in response to the questions you asked me in your post of 3/5/24. You are definitely correct about people changing their minds over time concerning many aspects of the LKC. I've always thought of this as a good thing. For me, the key to to solving any criminal case has always been flexibility in examining new information and evidence. Although, having said this, I still believe that this crime was an actual kidnapping/extortion with the motive being financial gain. My answers to your questions will be predicated on this case theory. I'll try to keep this brief; perhaps future posts can expand on things.
Your question about how many subjects were involved in this crime from start to finish is probably one of the most critical and debated aspects of the LKC (undoubtedly at least one of the most controversal among those who have researched the case). Everyone certainly has an opinion on this question, and I personally believe that the available evidence on this 92 year old crime does not produce an absolute definitive answer that would ever satisfy everyone.
This controversy over the number of accomplices in the LKC certainly shows the critical importance of the initial crime scene search and documentation. There is only one shot at it and I'm not impressed with how the NJSP handled it. For me, your research shows the high probability that either two or three perpetrators were at the Lindbergh house on the night of March 1st. If one is satisfied that the two sets of footprints from the house to the ladder sections (and then to Amwell Road via the old abandoned road parallel to the Lindbergh driveway) as documented in one of DeGaetano's reports are not those of Lindbergh, Whateley, Police Officers or the Press, then certainly two individuals were involved in the crime that night. In addition, Schwartzkopf's alleged statements to DeLong in June of 1932 add an additional set of footprints at a location further back from the house that was presumed to be a lookout for the two perps with the ladder. For me, it is totally reasonable that three individuals could have easiy pulled off this kidnapping at Highfields that night. On a personal note, my great Uncle Hopewell Police Chief Harry Wolfe always believed in the guilt of Hauptmann, but that he (Hauptmann) was not a lone perpetrator at Highfields. Knowing the "woodsmanship" and common sense that my great Uncle possessed, this convinces me that he observed multiple sets of footprints at the crime scene (excluding those claimed by Anne) that he believed belonged to the kidnappers.
Assuming that the ransom negotiations and payoff were a normal continuation of the kidnapping, this part of the crime could obviously been conducted by these same two or three individuals. Since I do not see any evidence that more than C.J, and a "possible" lookout were involved at the two cemetery meetings, I would conclude that no more than three perpetrators were involved in this crime from the snatch of the child at Highfields through the ransom exchange and any further money laundering activities.
Having said all of the above, I have to add that I've always been impressed with the unique research conducted by Dave Holwerda in regards to this case. His many years spent interviewing and actually speaking with so many of the cast of characters in the LKC was an amazing accomplishment. The information and "gut feelings" he would have gained from this activity should be important to anyone who is attempting to analyse this case. I can't imagine conducting a successful criminal investigation without face to face interviews/interrogations of all the players involved. Police reports and statements just can't provide the same "gut feelings" and accurate conclusions. I stand to be corrected, but it's my understanding that Dave started his LKC research journey believing that Hauptmann was completely innocent of the crime, and he subsequently concluded that Hauptmann was not only the sole pertpetrator but that he (Hauptmann) was fully capable of murdering the child. For me, Dave's conclusions can not be ignored.
There are definitely exceptions to everything, but from my 30 years of experience the vast, vast majority of crimes (even conspiracy cases with multiple defendents) are simple and direct in nature. As the old time criminal investigator's saying goes "find the motive, solve the crime". Although this very old LKC is unique in many ways (and everyone here has their own definition of "simple and direct"), I try to use this concept when examining a question like the number of accomplices in this crime. For me, the motive of the kidnapping was financial gain, and in over the past 92 years only one person has ever been found in possession of any sizeable amount of the ransom money,
Sorry for such a long response to your first question Michael, but this question could be discussed and debated for days by LKC enthusiasts. Just trying to articulate some of my thinking behind my answer.
I'll submit a separate response to your other question in another post.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Mar 5, 2024 19:07:19 GMT -5
Interesting New York Times article on the LKC from 3/5/24. I'm not certain how to place a direct link to this article but it can be reached by the following: www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/nyregion/charles-lindbergh-baby.htmlI have to agree with Del Quentin Wilber, the Washington Investigations Editor for the AP when he states the following in regards to Hauptmann: "They railroaded a guilty man."
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Dec 22, 2023 20:59:22 GMT -5
My thought is that if we could just get these two guys to line their hats with some tin foil, this forum could get back to discussing the actual facts and evidence involved in the LKC. Someone needs to introduce both of them to the principle of Occam's Razor.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Nov 16, 2023 18:27:48 GMT -5
Thanks Sue. I never knew the story behind this "photo", but it did always look a little odd and questionable. I'll correct my Lindbergh photo album to reflect that this is not a real photo taken in the execution room.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Nov 16, 2023 13:11:07 GMT -5
Sue, I always thought that this was a photo of Hauptmann being strapped in the chair in Trenton.
|
|
|
Chisel
Oct 11, 2023 20:07:16 GMT -5
Joe likes this
Post by lurp173 on Oct 11, 2023 20:07:16 GMT -5
Just a couple of comments on the ladder entry/exit if I may. I know that many on this forum have seen this, but another ladder reenactment was also done by Don Wildman in 2018 as part of his TV series Mysteries at the Museum, season 19/episode 14, on the Travel Channel (Michael along with Falzini, Gardner and others were on a panel discussion towards the end of this episode). Although Wildman was 57 years old at the time and certainly not in great physical shape, he did succeed (although quite clumsily) in getting into and out of the nursery via a replica LKC ladder (and without a safety line or carrying the bag with his teeth!). If a 57 year old like Wildman could get in the nursery and then exit with a 30 pound bag, it certainly shows that it not only can be done but that it would not even be that difficult for a very fit and athletic 32 year old such as Hauptmann. Even Lindbergh commented on Hauptmann's excellent physique.
For me, if anyone doubts that this window entry and exit can be done, even at night and under the conditions of March 1st, it indicates that they have never been a well conditioned and athletic 32 year old man. I have absolutely no doubt that my co-workers and I at the age of 32 could have done this entry very efficiently and very quickly under the following two conditions:
** The child had to be unconscious/deceased when it was ripped out from under the pinned bedsheets of the crib.
** An accomplice on the ground (standing on the boardwalk) was securing the ladder tightly against the house wall in order to ensure that it did not move sideways upon entering and exiting the window.
Since more than one set of footprints were discovered at the outside crime scene (page 90 of DeLong's interview with Schwartzkopf in June 1932), I believe, as many do, that there were multiple perpetrators at Highfields that night. It certainly follows that one of these individuals would have been able to steady the base of the ladder while it was being climbed.
In light of all of the above, I have little trouble in accepting the possibility that the child could have been taken from the nursery that night of March 1st via the ladder. With a window that was not even locked, it was not an impossible task by any means. Just some of my thoughts on this.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 25, 2023 8:25:46 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, much appreciated. My Dark Corners Volumes I and II are still out on loan to a friend. When I get them back I will reread what you wrote on this. Not a great deal in the LKC is straight forward!
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 24, 2023 17:22:36 GMT -5
Michael,
Are these two reports typed notes that were used to prepare what I had thought was the official autopsy report? I'm referring to the Autopsy Report under the letterhead of Walter H. Swayze, Trenton, N.J., dated May 12, 1932 and signed at the bottom by Mitchell. It is a one page, about 50 single spaced lines and the final line gives the cause of death. Thanks, I'm obviously a little confused on this.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 21, 2023 13:47:02 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for your research on this issue; especially since I know that after 23 years of extensive research on the LKC this is a settled issue for you. I would like to just offer a few comments, as I've always felt that it never hurts to examine various perspectives on all investigative case issues. I will attempt to not be too long winded here, but no guarantees!!
The writer of this news article refers to "yesterday" and "today". It appears to me that his reference to "yesterday" is September 20th the day of the search of Hauptmann's garage, and his reference to "today" is September 21st when Mitchell (and I assume Major Schoeffel) both gave public comments as to what was discovered in the garage search. Therefore, the first documented mention of the stick incident by the NJSP was one day after the Hauptmann's garage search that yielded Hauptmann's Liliput pistol that had been secreted with ransom money. This would place Major Schoeffel's stick comments four days prior to the first prosecutorial conference on September 24th, 1934 where Essex county legal law expert Harold Fisher was brought in to discuss the legal strategy to be used against Hauptmann in New Jersey. Extremely close timing (and certainly after Hauptmanns arrest and the recovery of the Liliput pistol), but Schoeffel's stick comment was definitely before using the felony murder charge in the Flemington indictment.
I find Mitchell's alleged comments in this news article very interesting and informing. To me, this article makes it appear that this may be the first time that Mitchell has heard the NJSP's stick theory pertaining to the hole in the skull. Mitchell appears to be acting very forcefully when he "flatly rejects" this stick theory presented by Schoeffel. Why is Mitchell so adamant in rejecting the idea that a stick made this hole? Mitchell and Swayze were the only two individuals who closely examined this hole, and they clearly referred to it in the May 12th, 1932 autopsy report as a "perferated FRACTURE". They were also the only individuals who actually held pieces of the corpse's skull in their hands. There has been a great deal of speculation as to the condition of the child's skull at the time of death. However, who would know better of this condition than those who actually held and examined the skull pieces at the time of the autopsy? Is it feasible that Mitchell was so adamant in dismissing the NJSP stick theory on September 21st because he knew that no stick could have possibly penetrated that skull, and that the hole in question had all the earmarks of a high impact bullet slug penetration and not a stick puncture? Without doubt, Mitchell had some strong reasons to "flatly reject" Schoeffel's public comments on the origins of that hole.
In this article, Mitchell is certainly giving credence to the idea that Hauptmann's Liliput small caliber pistol could have made this entry hole into the skull, and subsequently produced the fatal skull fractures on the opposite side. It's interesting that he includes the autopsy fact that there was no external depression nor "curving in" of the skull plate at the point of the fractures. One would think that a severe enough external blow to the head of a 20 month old child that produced these skull fractures would show evidence of such a fatal blow (especially if the child's skull was below normal standards as frequently alleged).
When I add all of the above to Walsh's dismal cross examination at the Flemington trial in January of 1935, I still have doubts as to this stick incident. Fisher was a very good defense attorney and he definitely applied pressure on Walsh during his cross examination (a good defense attorney like Fisher earns his living by effectively cross examining government witnesses). However why did a 20 year law enforcement officer like Walsh start to back off and succumb to this pressure by saying such things as "it slightly penetrated the skull, I dont know that it went through", and "it may have just been flesh, I don't know"? My goodness, if he doesn't know who the heck does know. The hole that he is attempting to describe certainly doesn't sound like the autopsy's description of "perferated fracture of the skull" hole. Additionally (and just as important to me) is why did Mitchell, just 4 months after his September public statements to the press, testify at the Hauptmann trial that this mysterious skull hole was THREE times the size that he had stated in his autopsy reports of May 12 and 13, 1932, and then further elaborate in his testimony that "any bullet that made that size of a hole would have blasted the otherside of the head right out". By increasing the size of this hole Mitchell certainly eliminated any idea that Hauptmann's small caliber Liliput pistol made it. Very convenient!
For me, at the current time, there are just too many suspicious things occurring here to eliminate Hauptmann's Liliput pistol as the means of murder in the LKC. Which of course questions the NJSP's stick theory.
My apologies--I was long winded....
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 19, 2023 12:41:07 GMT -5
Thanks Joe. I had not previously seen Walsh's testimony under cross examination by Fisher. Walsh certainly testified under Fisher's cross that he utilized a stick that made a hole in the corpse's skull, but I woud agree that at least under this cross examination his testimony was definitely not strong with the details. I was surprised that Walsh stated the stick "slightly penetrated the skull" (when the autopsy called it a perforated fracture), and that Walsh said he didn't even know "that it went through". His reference to "it may have just been flesh" is completely out in left field to me. I don't even know what he is referring to. When you read Mitchell's autopsy statement on this hole "perforated fracture about a half inch in diameter on the right side of the skull posterior to the right ear", it doesn't even sound like the same hole. It is also interesting that by the time of Mitchell's trial testimony in 1935, Mitchell now describes this hole as being "an inch and a half in diameter", and he further states that "if a bullet went into that hole it would never be found somewhere in the head, for a bullet that size of that hole would just blast the otherside of the head right out". (I believe it has been reported that indeed during the autopsy both Swaze and Mitchell were going through the brain matter in seach of a firearm slug). To me, this testimony by Mitchell has the earmarks of a little bit of trial prep by Wilentz to ensure the jury wasn't considering that a firearm may have been used in this homicide. It is another amazing LKC fact that no autopsy photos were taken--just amazing. Walsh definitely testifys that he informed Schwarzkopf on May 12th of this stick incident. It would certainly be nice to to know if Schwarzkopf ever confirmed this in any report or testimony. As I previously mentioned, author Cahill's footnotes on page 356 in his book refers to "written reports by Walsh and Schwarzfopf, dated May 12, 1932". However at the present time, no one has apparently seen these reports. I haven't yet seen any reference to a stick making that hole until the time of the trial. There is no doubt that Wilentz needed to negate any reference to the use of a firearm in this murder due to the important issues of venue and felony murder. Due to what we know of Wilentz's actions pertaining to evidence of additional suspects, one has to be at least a little suspicious on this issue. If the attached diagram has any accuracy as to what Mitchell was describing in the autopsy report, I can certainly see that IF a stick did not make this hole then a small caliber firearm (let's just guess the world's smallest pistol, a .167 caliber Liliput) that was fired up close by the right ear could have made it. That small of a caliber slug would have sufficient energy to break through the skull of a 20 month old child, traverse to the opposite side and create skull fractures and a blood clot without having sufficient energy to exit the skull. That small of a slug could have easily been lost and never found considering the state of decomposition of the corpse, and all the moving around of the body at the crime scene that occurred which Michael has just noted in his post. As usual in the LKC each individual has to look at the available existing evidence on this issue and make their own judgement.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 18, 2023 8:36:46 GMT -5
Thank you Michael and Guest for the information and the reports. I know that many of the police reports generated during the course of the LKC are lacking in details and specificity, but it does appear very strange that Walsh would not immediately negate any theory that a firearm had made the hole in the child's skull. By 1932 I believe that Walsh had been an Officer/Detective/Inspector with the Jersey City Police Department for 20 years. He certainly knew that the manner in which a homicide occurred was extremely important in any homicide investigation. Hopefully there is some documented evidence in one of the numerous LKC files that Walsh did reveal his "stick incident" during the course of the investigation in 1932, long before the trial of Hauptmann. If not, I would be very suspicious of his trial testimony pertaining to the hole in the corpse's skull.
As we all know, law enforcement was a different game prior to the 1970's---very rough and tumble if you will. When I first entered law enforcement in 1973 I worked with some old timers who still tried to operate like this. When it came to convicting a defendant in court that they knew was guilty of the crime, they would never let a little "trial testimony" get in the way of that conviction. It had been an excepted practice.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 17, 2023 18:41:07 GMT -5
I would like to ask a question in regards to the interesting discussion on Walsh and the "stick incident". Did Walsh immediately document this incident in his written report on May 12,1932? It appears that neither Swayze nor Mitchell were aware of this stick incident while performing the autopsy as they were considering that a bullet may have created this hole. I believe that during the autopsy, they were searching the brain matter for a small caliber slug (I assume they were considering that a small caliber slug could have traveled through the skull to the opposite side and created the multiple fractures from the inside).
Upon seeing the autopsy report, did Walsh immediately put an end to this firearm theory by saying "no, that small hole was inadvertently made by me as I tried to raise the corpse"? It would certainly give much more credibility to Walsh's trial testimony in 1935 if he had been saying this right from day one on May12, 1932.
In his book "Hauptmann's Ladder" Cahill stated that Zapolsky first "turned the corpse over" to examine the remainder of the face. Cahill stated that when Walsh returned to the Mt Rose site with Schwartzkopf in tow, Schwartzkopf told Walsh to "remove the clothing from the body". Cahill stated that Walsh used a stick to carefully lift the body but unfortunately the stick "slipped" and penetrated the soft and decaying skull leaving a small pencil-sized hole. Cahill's footnotes for all of this is "written reports of Walsh and Schwartzkopf, dated May 12, 1932.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Aug 6, 2023 9:38:15 GMT -5
Sherlock, I may be misunderstanding your question, but the bottom morticed recesses on the two sections are for connecting them to the rungs on the other sections as the ladder is assembled. The holes for the pegs are also there. See attached drawing of the ladder sections.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Aug 2, 2023 19:37:00 GMT -5
In regards to Michael's response to a marker being at the Mt. Rose Hill site, I thought that i might add the following: I first visited that site in the 1950's when I was probably 10 or 12 years old. At a young age I knew that my Great Uncle Harry Wolfe had been involved in the Lindbergh case, and that the site where the child's remains had been found was only one mile (on a straight line "as the crow flys") from our house on the southern edge of Hopewell. I had apparently pestered my mother about seeing this site to the point where she took me there to see it. My mother had been shown this exact site by Harry Wolfe (her Uncle) back in the 1930's, so I know the site she showed me was the correct one where he viewed the child's remains. I have no recollection of ever seeing any type of marker either on the road frontage or at the wooded site. As a youngster in the 1950's I played in all of the fields and woods around that site, and as a teenager in the early 1960's I hunted on all of the farms surrounding that area. I never saw a marker of any kind. In addition, the school bus that transported the Hopewell teenagers to the Princeton High School would pass by that site on Mt. Rose Hill twice a day, and again I never remember seeing any type of marker. It seems to me that the State of New Jersey would not have placed any type of official marker at this site out of respect for the Lindberghs. This site does represent a very tragic and morbid event. Perhaps at some point after 1932 an individual placed some sort of homemade marker near the site that survived for a few years. I definitely don't recall seeing anything there. I'm attempting to attach a family photo of my Great Uncle Harry Wolfe to this post. It was taken in the time frame of the early 1930's when he was Hopewell's Police Chief. I thought that some out here may like to put a face on him.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Apr 26, 2023 12:03:00 GMT -5
Joe,
What is your take on De Long's interview with Schwartzkopf (and Major Schoeffell) on 6/6/32 as he (De Long) relates what the NJSP knew at the time regarding suspects' footprints at Highfields (pages 90 and 91 of the interview)? I believe that De Long had assured Schwartzkopf that this was a confidential interview that would not be made public while the investigation was in progress. For me, the crime scene footprint evidence seems to be at best murky in its documentation, but De Long is clearly stating that on 6/6/32 the NJSP believed that "three men worked this job".
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Apr 1, 2023 20:41:14 GMT -5
Joe, I do have that news article on my grandfather's death, but thanks greatly for taking the time to find and post it. You found that very quickly; you and Sue must have good newspaper research accounts as you both find amazing news articles related to everything about the LKC. I also have a second death notice news article (I believe from the Trenton paper) that states my grandfather was "engaged in building the new home of Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh at Sorrel Mountain north of here". I had never remembered that area of the Sourland Mountains being referred to as "Sorrel Mountain". The word "mountain" is used very loosely when referring to the Sourland Mountains where the house was built---the highest peak in these "mountains" is less than 600 feet above sea level!
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Apr 1, 2023 18:37:06 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for offering to check your research files on this. My grandfather's name was Irvin D. Van Nest (I don't recognize the name Morris Van Nest). His death occurred while working on the house on Friday, May 29, 1931. He was a member of the local Hopewell area carpenters union (still in existence), but I never heard who actually employed him for the Lindbergh house construction. The unions of course were always seeking employment for their members, and I would imagine even union jobs were sparse during the depression years. I never heard my mother say that anyone in the immediate family was ever interviewed by the NJSP in regards to his work performed on the house prior to his death. Of course, as I have mentioned in the past, my grandfather's best friend was Chief Harry Wolfe so he (Harry) could have validated my grandfather's reputation. My grandfather and Harry Wolfe had married sisters in 1910 and lived in the same house (a two family duplex) on Broad Street.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Mar 31, 2023 19:04:00 GMT -5
Guest,
Thanks for that information on the skylights. Installation of those skylights during the roof construction would be a good explanation for why a window/door carpenter was on the roof on May 29th. Those skylights that you refer to in your attached house photo are definitely discreetly camouflaged (I'm not certain I even see the one you refer to on the nursery roof location). It would have taken a very skilled carpenter to install them and to ensure they were leak proof. From all accounts, that seems to fit my grandfather's carpentry skills at the time of his death.
You definitely have a great knowledge of the LKC. I enjoy reading your interesting and informative posts.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Mar 31, 2023 11:26:40 GMT -5
Joe and Sue,
A personal thanks for finding and posting this Lindbergh house construction photo from July 1931. As I have mentioned before, my grandfather was a Hopewell union carpenter who died from a massive heart attack on May 29, 1931 while working on the Lindbergh house. Although his carpentry specialty was doors and windows, my mother was always under the impression that he was working on the roof construction at the time of his fatal heart attack. This is the first house construction photo that I have seen that was close to his May 29th death. It confirms for me that my mother's assumption was correct in that 2 months or so prior to this photo being taken, the carpenters would have been working on the roof construction and certainly not on doors and windows. Just a small detail of my grandfather's death that I always wanted to ascertain. As an aside, according to my grandfathers local Hopewell carpentry reputation as a "door and window man", if he had lived to install the doors and windows on the house they would all have been in proper working order on March 1st, 1932! Thanks again for posting the photo.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Mar 15, 2023 16:56:47 GMT -5
IloveDFW,
I have a copy of this article from page 34 of that edition, but I am unable to attach it here. The forum website appears not to allow attachments for some time now. I used to be able to make attachments very easily. Not sure what is going on. If someone else doesn't respond to you with a copy, I will type out the article in another post. It's not terribly lengthy so I would be glad to do it.
The article appears to be referring to the child's first haircut at First Day Hill in Englewood. It allegedly comes from the owner of the beauty palor Erna Scholtz who went to First Day Hill to do the cut. Mrs. Scholtz states that Anne and Mrs. Morrow were present, and that Anne "didn't want him to have long golden curls". Anne allegedly said that she "did not want him to be a sissy", and she (Anne) wanted the hair cut. (If this was an accurate description of his first haircut, it differs greatly from The Lindbergh Nanny's description of it. Of course Mariah Fredericks was writing a historical novel and has every right to frame things in terms of Betty Gow. I enjoyed reading Fredericks' book and as she says it was not intended to be a work of investigative nonfiction.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 20, 2023 13:07:10 GMT -5
I recently watched a 2005 episode of the "Forensic Files Special" TV show that was part of a 5- part special package created for Court TV. This particular show is referred to as the Lindbergh Kidnapping Forensic Files lost Episode that supposedly has not been available for viewing until The Internet Archive put it online this month. I'm sure that many on this forum have seen this, but for those who haven't it is a worthwhile view.(If this has been recently posted by someone, my apologies, I didn't see it).
The first half of the show is a general review of the LKC, but it then examines the forensics behind the ransom notes and the kidnapping ladder. Three Forensic Document Examiners give their opinions and provide some of their comparison details. All three find that one person wrote all of the ransom notes and give strong conclusions that Hauptmann was the writer. The show also interviews and shows the work of Kelvin Keraga and 2 other Forensic Examiners in regards to the ladder. They show the strong forensic evidence that Rail 16 was not planted by the police, and that beyond all reasonable doubt (if not all doubt) that rail 16 came out of Hauptmann's attic.
I am not able to place a direct link to this video (perhaps some else can) but you can reach it by going to: forensicfilesnow.com, and then clicking on the file entitled "The Lindbergh Kidnapping Forensic Files Lost Episode, February 2023".
Again, if this has already been posted by someone, my apologies.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jan 30, 2023 10:53:13 GMT -5
This is just an additional comment on Junge's manuscript statement pertaining to what occurred on February 27th in regards to Skean. I believe that Skean's absence from the nursery on March 1st needs to be closely examined to determine if it was a planned event or if it just occurred innocently (we don't even have any record as to whether Skean in fact had been left behind on prior weekend visits to Highfields; just a general conclusion that he always went). I would assume that most of those who have examined the LKC would agree that if the dog had been in the nursery that night, a kidnapping by strangers would most likely not have occurred.
Junge appears to be the only individual who provides any information on this important issue. I would submit that the briefness and confusion of her one sentence statement could be due to heresay. I believe that it is possible that her diary notes reflect what another Morrow employee may have told her, not what she (Junge) actually witnessed that day (I know from experience that an investigator always has to be cognizant of heresay when interviewing a witness). Junge clearly uses heresay in this manuscript, as on page 10 when she relates information about Highfields that she received from Betty Gow and the Whateleys. If (yes another if here) Junge wasn't actually present at Next Day Hill that Saturday, a fellow Morrow employee could have related the incident to her at a later time and gave it to her in very general terms---the dog was running in the park, Mr. Lindbergh decided he couldn't wait for its return, and therefore the family left that day without Skean. This could reasonably explain why Junge's diary description of what happened is very brief and somewhat confusing. If Junge was not physically present, she would not have known that on that Saturday the family had left Next Day Hill at different times and in separate vehicles. She would not have know the exact sequence of events that day, and she would have assumed the family left in their normal manner as a family unit (technically "the family" consisting of Charles, Anne and the child did all leave that day without Skean, just at different times and in different vehicles). Heresay information has its value and can be accurate, so I'm not suggesting this senario to devalue her statement, just to explain its briefness and confusion on how and when the family departed. I see no reason to believe that Junge is lying when she wrote this explanation to expain Skean's absence at Highfields. It provides a reasonable and innocent reason why Skean was left behind, and for me it provides no evidence that Lindbergh pre-orchrastated this in furtherance of a crimal conspiracy.
Of course one could speculate that if Lindbergh had a plan in place to have his child snatched and murdered, then he could have used this unexpected absence of Skean from the Hopewell house to reach out and have the plan executed that weekend. Likewise, if real kidnappers had generated an inside source of information in the Morrow staff, this source could have contacted the kidnappers and in addition to telling them that the child was at Highfields, they could have advised them not to be concerned about the child's dog as he was still in Englewood at the Morrow's estate. As stated before there are far too many ifs and possibilities here, but for me Junge gives a reasonable explanation as to Skeans absence from the nursery.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jan 26, 2023 20:08:09 GMT -5
Once again I stand to be corrected if I am in error here, but the only statement I have seen from anyone involved with the case back in 1932 as to why Skean was not taken to Highfields in Hopewell on February 27th is the following one given by Junge's unpublished manuscript:
"Unfortunately that last weekend before the kidnaping Scium had just gone for a stroll in the park, and Colonel Lindbergh could not wait for him to return, therefor [sic] they [sic] family had to drive off without the dog."
Junge appears to be saying in her manuscript that she wrote this account from the notes in her diary that she started on March 2, 1932 (as Michael has previously noted). As Joe has previously indicated, we know that the latter part of her above sentence is incorrect as Charles did not leave with his family on that Saturday. If we nevertheless accept the first part of her above sentence as being accurate, then Charles left Skean behind either that morning when he was leaving for NYC or sometime after 4 PM when he may have returned to Next Day Hill with the Breckinridges in an attempt to get Skean at that time. I don't see whereJunge gives a time as to when Charles left without the dog. So whatever time this allegedly occurred, Junge is saying that the dog was not available for Charles to take with him. For me, Junge's wording about Skean going for that "stroll" could be interpreted to mean that Skean got loose and was on his own exploring the woods and park surrounding Next Day Hill, and not just out being walked by a Morrow staff member. For all we know Skean may have had a habit of doing this on occassions (as many dogs, especially intact males do), and Charles knew from its past escapades that the dog could be gone for hours. Regardless, Junge gives us a brief but reasonable explanation as to who left the dog and why he was left that Saturday. For me, Charles's decision to not wait for Skean to return was reasonable and certainly not something he could have pre-arranged to ensure that Skean would not be at Highfields that weekend. Since the family was scheduled to return to Next Day Hill on Monday morning it is easy to see why no attempt was made on Sunday to have Skean brought from Next Day Hill to Highfields for such a very short period of time (not to mention that knowing Charles's personality he was probably highly p/o at the dog for running off).
Hence, unless some other information is developed, I have to believe that, yes, Charles did leave the dog at Next Day Hill but it could not have been something he preplanned as part of any conspiracy to have his child snatched away from Highfields on March 1st. Other actions on the part of Charles during this time period certainly need to be closely examined, but for me unfortunately this event of leaving Skean behind appears to be just some smoke with no fire behind it.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jan 25, 2023 20:34:31 GMT -5
There has been some interesting and excellent observations on this topic by all the contributors. I would just offer a few of my thoughts on it.
The statements of Anne Lindbergh and Aida Breckinridge were given in a relatively short time period after February 27th, 1932 as opposed to Junge's statements made five years later in her unpublished manuscript. We have no real knowledge whether Junge was using information from her diary that she said she started on March 2, 1932 or just using her recollections from five years prior.
Anne states that she arrived at Highfields between 5:30 PM and 6 PM, thus she would have left Next Day Hill sometime around 4 PM that Saturday. Aida Breckinridge states that Charles arrived at her apartment in NYC "right after luncheon" and that they left for Highfields around 4 PM, "a little ahead of schedule". If these statements are accurate, I think that most of us would agree that these statements indicate that Anne left Next Day Hill a number of hours AFTER Charles had departed from the Morrow residence earlier that day and while Charles was still in NYC. If, as Junge related in her manuscript, Charles had left the Morrow residence without Skean because he (Charles) had become impatient with waiting for the dog to return from his "stroll in the park", they why didn't Anne at 4 PM just put the damn dog in the car with her, the child and Alva Root for the straight drive to Highfields? For me the only reasonable explanations to this question would be:
**The dog was still "missing" and not available for Anne to take.
**The dog was having a physical problem and was being taken to a Vet kennel for treatment that weekend as some newspaper(s) had reported.
**Charles had called Anne at some point that midday/afternoon from NYC and told her that he did not have Skean but that he would stop at Next Day Hill on his way to Highfields with the Breckinridges later in the afternoon and pick up the dog.
For me, this last expanation doesn't seem realistic. Even if Charles insisted that he would stop for Skean, he would have no way of knowing whether the dog would be "gone" again or just eagerly sitting there waiting to jump in Lindbergh's vehicle for a trip to Hopewell. If Charles was truly involved in this criminal conspiracy and wanted to leave the dog at Next Day Hill, this return trip to the Morrow's residence would have been a real gamble on his part. Obviously it would have been very easy for Charles to have simply placed something in Skean's treats or food to incapacitate the dog for the weekend and thereby prevent its travel to Highfields.
There is just no excuse as to why the NJSP did not nail down this aspect of the investigation. It is my understanding that all 29 domestic emplyees at Next Day Hill were interviewed by Detectives of the Newark City Police Department, yet it appears that no inquires were made concerning the whereabouts of Skean that weekend. Since it was certainly an investigative concern that someone emplyed at Next Day Hill could have assisted the perpetrators of this crime, one would think that the NJSP would want to determine if any Morrow employee somehow made the dog "unavailable" for transport to Highfields on that weekend of the 27th. As I think someone else here has stated, just another loose end in this investigation that my never be resolved with any satisfaction all due to what I believe to be sloppy investigative work.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 3, 2022 20:13:01 GMT -5
I don't mean to jump in here, but is this the post from BR you are referring to? On page 8 of the Eugenics Motivated Murder thread (2014).
|
|
|
V4
Jun 16, 2022 9:25:25 GMT -5
Wayne likes this
Post by lurp173 on Jun 16, 2022 9:25:25 GMT -5
Michael and Wayne,
Thanks to you both for the information concerning Whited. You've given me information to consider on this. I'm alway frustrated with the lack of specificity in many of the NJSP reports (how can an Officer hear a witness describe a suspected vehicle in the complete darkness of nightime and not ask, and document, where exactly he was to accomplish this--especially if he is the only witness to this vehicle). I am going to attempt a non-bias look at this, but Whited has an uphill battle with me considering his 4/26/32 statement and his testimony in the Bronx in October 1934 (I believe his own brother was used to impeach his testimony in the Bronx). Whited seems to have an M.O. of blaming the Police for why he is late in telling Prosecutors or Governors as to what he has seen.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 15, 2022 18:25:06 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jun 15, 2022 18:25:06 GMT -5
Michael,
I apologize but I have loaned out my copies of your V I and V II, and I can't find in V III or V IV where you discuss Whited and the March 1st "7 PM vehicle". If you get a chance, could you answer two questions on this:
1. I believe that Whited was interviewed a couple of times (night of 3/1 and 4/26/32) and that he testified in the Bronx and in Flemington, but when exactly was the first documentation of his statements pertaining to observing this vehicle and being told by the police to "keep quiet" about it?
2. Where exactly does Whited say that he was allegedly situated at 7 PM on Wertsville Road when he observed and gave a good description of this vehicle when it turned into the Lindbergh driveway?
Thanks
|
|
|
V4
Jun 14, 2022 19:26:13 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jun 14, 2022 19:26:13 GMT -5
Can we perhaps more accurately call it the alleged sighting by Millard Whited, of a dark sedan entering Lindbergh's driveway at about 7:00 pm? I would agree with you Joe, although to me "alleged" is even giving him too much credit. By all accounts most people in the Hopewell area knew that he was a scoundrel, willing to say most anything if he thought money was involved. Money from the Police or the Press for whatever needed to be stated. For me he is right there near the top of the list for the most unreliable witness in the LKC. We all have opinions on this, and for me, I don't consider anything Whited said.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 14, 2022 19:13:11 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jun 14, 2022 19:13:11 GMT -5
Michael, If the below aerial photo comes through, do you agree with the marked locations? Isn't the caption under the photo of Kutcha incorrect? Wasn't Lindbergh's closest neighbor Hausenbauer at the driveway entrance? Thanks. I'd say generally yes. I think the wagon road was slightly different but you're close. Kind of hard to do it on a picture like this, plus, I might be off myself about where exactly everything was. That's part of the problem ... every time I think I've got it nailed down I find something that gives me pause. For example, take the part of the map I posted showing the wagon road intersecting the main road by the bridge. I've had it for about 20 years and studied it often. And here comes our discussion and I'm seeing another building by the abandoned house that looks an awful lot like its in the shape of a chicken coop. Can't say I "missed" it but I never did stop to consider that. See where I'm going with this? These buildings are definitely on Lindbergh's property but that chicken coop to the north I'm not so sure of. That caption is definitely incorrect. He's close but Hausenbauer was closer. Here's the subject line from Sgt. Moffatt and Cpl. Horn's report: " Information given by one Charlie Hausenbauer, residence Hopewell-Wertsville Road, opposite Lindbergh estate." Michael, I appreciate your response to the two recent photos that I posted. I thought that was Hausenbauer's house across Wertsville Road from the Lindbergh driveway. I always thought that the location of his house would have prevented anyone from parking too close to the Lindbergh driveway that night (especially on Hausenbauer's east side of the road). I missed seeing the map that you posted on my first reading of your prior post. It appears to be a survey map that is detailing property lines. The land parcel that the map shows incorporating the Lindbergh driveway entrance extends from north of the large chicken house (bordering the Kristofeck property) to well south of the old house structure. I would assume that this land parcel would be the Wertsville Road frontage of the Lindbergh estate. Lindbergh had asembled many separate but contiguous parcels of land to obtain the hundreds of acres for his estate. I believe that most of his acreage would have been west of this road frontage parcel (and all of it west of the Wertsville Road). I would imagine that Lindbergh had it all surveyed at the time of purchase as alot of land in those days had no official survey on file. If that road frontage parcel on your map is Lindbergh's, then he owned all of those old structures. I definitely agree that whoever drew this map (surveyors?), drew that one structure in the elongated shape of a chicken house, not a barn. Although for me that chicken house is very far away from Kuchta's house for him to have heard his dogs "sounding like they were about to bite someone". I believe that Lupica stated that the Lindbergh driveway was 300 yards from the house belonging to a Polish family with a name "something similar to Kirstofer" (page156 of "FBI Files on the Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping"). That would make this suspected chicken house located behind the old house at the driveway entrance even farther away from Kuchta. Just a few of my current thoughs on this. I also believe that there could be another "road" that DeGaetano was referring to when he mentioned the tracks "crosed" the road, but I'll stop at this point.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 13, 2022 13:36:39 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jun 13, 2022 13:36:39 GMT -5
Michael, If the below aerial photo comes through, do you agree with the marked locations? Isn't the caption under the photo of Kutcha incorrect? Wasn't Lindbergh's closest neighbor Hausenbauer at the driveway entrance? Thanks. Attachment Deleted
|
|