|
Post by rick62 TrooperIII on May 12, 2006 6:51:37 GMT -5
Ahlgren and Monier go much further than just CALs foibles in Crime of the Century. By simple analysis of CALs movements and behaviors on 1 March 32 they connect him to Charlies dissappearance:
1. Why does CAL call either Monday pm or Tuesday am and "order" Anne to keep Charlie at Highfields? Charlies colde was improving or gone. CAL spends Monday nite at Next Day Hill. Why?
2. Where is CAL all day Tuesday March 1st? Harry Walsh claims CAL comes to Highfields in the afternnon and leaves to come back at 0830? Noone else makes this charge. CAL leaves Charlies scotty dog Skean behind.
3. CAL blows off the fancy dinner at NYU in spite of Breckenridge attending. BRK had opportunity to remind him to go and then covers for him later. CAL should not have come home until very late--or not at all.
4. Footprints around the base of the ladder, some large and some small could actually be Anne and CAl staging the snatch. Noone ever checks that.
5. After the ransom note mysteriously appears on the window ledge, window now closed, CAL does not open it for over 2 hours.
6. In spite of CAL ordering Ollie to call the police at first, after reading the instructions in the Nursery Note...CAl does just the opposite and involves every State, Federal and Local police agency in the largest childhunt in the Country. This alone threatens Charlies safety beyond imagination. Charlie is never seen alive after March 1st 1932.
7. CAL goes phishing for some extortionists and finds Condon, Curtis and Means.
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on May 12, 2006 23:15:05 GMT -5
The events of the kidnap day are not normal and in several instances go against normal psychology in the ransom letter, and even against normal evidence gathering with no footprint casts or household comparison fingerprints. It seems phony as if the police cooperated with the family's unbelievable kidnap story by fabricating evidence that doesn't fit while ignoring standards of evidence gathering.
|
|
anne50
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by anne50 on May 13, 2006 10:09:46 GMT -5
Hauptmann was designed to be the fall guy on this one. The police and others who knew better were determined to see Hauptmann fry, one way or the other. Lindbergh seemed to have things his way, and no matter what he said or did, he was going to win. The partiality toward him was evident throughout the trial. anne50
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 13, 2006 12:45:14 GMT -5
Rita/Anne: I can only imagine that there must be some rationale for all the bizarre goings on...some effort to protect the Truth at any cost. All the cops arent that dumb--either individually or collectively. There had to be some active effort involved in covering up every lead that was not desired?
Early on or along the way, some cop must have said to him/herself: well that just doenst make one bit of sense? It couldnt have happened that way.
But as soon as they begin to follow up on thier instincts....someone above them steps in and says...abandon that line of inquiry. Who would they all be protecting and for what reason.
It would appear that something untoward happened on tuesday March 1st to precipitate this crime...but the Family wasnt supposed to be at Highfields?
Oh, but CAL calls Anne on Monday to "order" her to stay over Tuesday nite even thought Charlies colde is improving. Why give that order? Everything else is predicated by staying over the second nite? What is this unigue event?
|
|
kathy
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by kathy on May 14, 2006 11:40:51 GMT -5
what in CAL's busy schedule was so important on mon he couldn't come home to help anne with a sick baby? Had Anne ever been left alone with the baby without a nurse before? Who else was at Englewood/ new york on that Mon. night? Why come all the way back to hopewell on tues night?
|
|
|
Post by Mouse on May 14, 2006 14:15:18 GMT -5
what in CAL's busy schedule was so important on mon he couldn't come home to help anne with a sick baby? Had Anne ever been left alone with the baby without a nurse before? Well, Kathy - you raise two good points there - sort of. LOL Was the baby really sick enough to warrant CAL to be there (and if he had been, would he really have been that much help? <snort>)? We seem to keep going back and forth between Charlie just getting over a cold to not really being sick at all anymore. It shouldn't really have been anything any mother wouldn't be able to handle. Of course, calling Betty down could have been more because Anne herself was getting the cold on top of being pregnant. It may have been that she was worn out and needed help. I think I remember reading somewhere that Miss Root was there before Betty came down. Not sure how much Anne was accustomed to being alone with the baby, though I was under the impression that that was one of the things she liked about being in Hopewell - she had more "hands-on" time with her son.
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 14, 2006 16:22:30 GMT -5
Happy Mothers Day Girls! Its your day! (hope you arnt cooking)
I have the feeling that CAL was a gadfly pilot just like my dad. Both would be worthless with a sick kid. But evidence suggests that Charlie is getting better and better. If Ms Alva Root was there over the weekend with her parents the Breckenridges, well she went home with them on Sunday. What bothers me is that CAL does not seem to give Anne any choice or respect her wishes? Even though hes gallavanting around both Monday, Monday nite and Tuesday?
My own take is that CAL, at least by Tuesday, is reacting/responding to something weird and unexpected? Not necessarily Tuesday nite as reported, but maybe something that happens Monday or Monday nite? Im not certain what it is but it causes CAL to miss the NYU dinner and call in the National Guard? I think all of Tuesday nite is staged? Which doesnt necessarily make CAL guilty either.
|
|
kathy
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by kathy on May 14, 2006 17:38:26 GMT -5
mouse, I agree and think Anne wanted to care for charlie as much as she could. she disobeyed CAL on Mon nite and checked frequently on charlie and that is one reason she was exhausted the next day. rick, like rita says, everything about those last few days were strange, especially for so regimented a family. i have never read anywhere what CAL did on Mon and tues except a possible dentist appt.
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on May 15, 2006 1:54:08 GMT -5
Happy Mother's Day to All. I had read that CAL went to the Rockefeller Foundation, an airline office, and attorney. If I find the site again I will post it here.
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on May 15, 2006 19:32:34 GMT -5
To Mouse Glad to see you back as I enjoy reading you posts. Please do join so that you can take advantage of the mail.
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 16, 2006 3:37:45 GMT -5
I am reading Codex Magica to better understand the Order of Illuminati in Bavaria. Just in case we need to connect the dots on Nazis/occultism/masons/CAL? As a free bonus the Davinci Code opens Friday w/Tom Hanks and I think the desciple next to JC IS A Woman for certain! [She likely cooked the Last Supper]
Texe Marrs who is pretty wacky in his own right defines the Illuminati as mockers and tricksters:
1. Psychopathic personalities--an emotionally disordered state characterized by pursuit of personal gratification
2. Megalonmanics--a delusional mental disorder marked by infantile feelings of personal omnipotance and granduer.
CAL and Schwarzy and Hoover and Ford were Masons and would readily recognize a masonic symbol. Did CAL exhibit the appropriate rage when Charlie was snatched? He did run outside with a gun into the dark? However, his waiting for 2 hours to open the ransom note, and sending Ollie to Hopewell for a flashlite are wierd? Is CAL on our list of hiring the snatch? Or hiring the coverup of the snatch? Paid in advance by Violet and Ollie? Just thinking outloud....sorry. I was also thinking that CAL hired Rosner, Spitz, Bitale and Madden to check out the Al Capone/Mafia connection? They came up dead empty. But, we dont know exactly what they told to CAL..maybe that Charlie is dead/ CAL knows more than he is telling.
|
|
|
Post by Mouse on May 16, 2006 8:53:44 GMT -5
...and I think the desciple next to JC IS A Woman for certain! [She likely cooked the Last Supper] ...and sending Ollie to Hopewell for a flashlite are wierd? Is CAL on our list of hiring the snatch? Someday I'll figure out how to separate the quotes so I can respond to two different things, one under the other (God, that didn't make sense but I know what I'm talking about!! LOL) Rick - the only problems with that woman in the painting of The Last Supper is Leonardo wasn't there, so he really had no idea what the disciples, Mary or Jesus looked like - so I wouldn't get too caught up in that. Plus, I was reading something interesting that I'm not sure is true (and I'm not sure how one would go about finding out if it is or not) is that the original painting was done in a way that was not typical for wall paintings of the time and it's flaked off and been touched up so many times that the original technicalities may lost. As for sending Ollie for a flashlight - great point that raises even more questions!!! One - why, living where they were, did they not have flashlights already? Does anyone know if they were common back in the 30s? (I guess this means another history quest for me! <snort>) And (this one's the biggie!) - where the heck did CAL send him? ?? It would be hard enough to find a place open after 10 PM around here now. Can't imagine what stores or shops would have been open that late back then!!!
|
|
Mouse on flashlights
Guest
|
Post by Mouse on flashlights on May 16, 2006 9:01:27 GMT -5
OK, this guy's a little scary!!! But very informative! Ever-Ready has a much more concise site but this one was too funny not to pass along! www.geocities.com/~stuarts1031/flashlight.htmlWho'd have thought there was so much to know about flashlights?!?!?!?!?!?
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 16, 2006 9:44:11 GMT -5
Hi Mouse/ yes I think the flashlite guy is in the Order of (are you ready for this.......) "Illuminatii"! ;D
What we should do is try to anal-lize (not idolize) all of CALs actions on the nite of 1 March 32. Do they make any sense or not? Is he playing DAd or Colonel?
Ollie Whately is sent out on a Wild Goose Chase to 7-11? but he is met in the drive by the cops coming in and they have flashlites? Cal maybe sends him "away" for some reason? Sure there are flashlites for sale just not at 10pm?
Its an entire package: CAL comes home either early or late take yur pick; hears a crash; the dog dont bark; the room is wiped; the note mysteriously appears in a blank envelope on the window ledge etc etc.....once we get to one dozen oddities , well , then its a Staged Hoax. I think Gow and Anne and Cal know where Charlie is.........the whole up and down the ladder idea does not work for me?
|
|
|
Post by elyssa on May 16, 2006 11:36:42 GMT -5
In the 10 minutes Ollie was gone, how far could Cal get from the house? OR Could he get back into an unoccupied part of the house to hide a body? Was there any place to hide a babys body that wouldn't be found that night, but could be relocated later without getting caught? What about the trunk of a car? Maybe Ollies car, was he in on disposing of the body or delivering the baby to someone on the road, and the flashlight story just an explanation for his leaving.
|
|
|
Post by Mouse for Rick on May 16, 2006 11:45:42 GMT -5
Hi Mouse/ yes I think the flashlite guy is in the Order of (are you ready for this.......) " Illuminatii"! ;D Ooooooo, that was bad!!!! LOL ;D
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 16, 2006 11:52:57 GMT -5
hi Elyssa/ you are so evil--you should become a member/
Yes, something like that? With one less person to follow CALs movements he has some freedom to ......read the note, or put the note into an envelope, place the note on the window ledge, or wipe or stage the Nursery. Now, Im not saying CAL did that......we are just asking "what possiblitiesexisted". CAL could be a hero if he is covering for someone else? If the ladder and chisel and notes are "props" for the kidnap theater then its up to us to at least keep an open mind. There is only one Truth and its not easy to see exactly what it is.
|
|
Mouse for Elyssa and Rick
Guest
|
Post by Mouse for Elyssa and Rick on May 16, 2006 12:02:04 GMT -5
Do you think that the police would have been able to easily find the house? I could see Ollie being sent down to the end of the drive to lead them back, but the flashlight excuse just doesn't make any sense to me.
Rick, you asked (not rhetorically, I'm hoping), "Do they make any sense or not?"
What would make sense to you or me might not have made sense to CAL, IMHO. I think this man was an enigma, not someone easily understood.
"Do they make any sense or not? Is he playing DAd or Colonel?"
I don't think there was a differentiation between the two. Sounds like a sit-com "Colonol Dad!" I have a feeeling he never dropped the analytical, scientific persona, ever - even in bed. Must have been a joy for poor Anne!!!! <snicker>
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic2 on May 16, 2006 15:50:51 GMT -5
Mouse/ heres all I could find on the Last Supper in a Review of The Real Davinci Code (2006) on Amazon.com:
The one ray of hope for Grail conspiracy theorists is the Magdalene cult woven through the pages of the Gnostic gospels, written by early Christians, and Robinson's split decision over whether that's Mary or St. John at Christ's right in Leonardo's The Last Supper. Even if one doesn't care about the subject, the flashes of wit (a bobblehead Jesus on Robinson's dashboard, comic-book images of Christ's supposed romance with Magdalene) are a hoot. --Tom Keogh
Aside: Do you think that CAL and and Anne named Charlies little brother after St. John the Baptist like good little masons?
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on May 16, 2006 17:18:43 GMT -5
I just happened to recall a comment from the original Pig Lady site, where she had hollered at Dr. Ellenbogen her roomate for answering the door on that nite to loan the flashlight.
|
|
|
Post by Mouse for Rick on May 16, 2006 22:40:05 GMT -5
Aside: Do you think that CAL and and Anne named Charlies little brother after St. John the Baptist like good little masons? No - I'm not sure where it came from. Knowing that the man in the cemetery called himself "John", though? I think I would have avoided the even modified "Jon" if I were them. But I think I remember that it took them a long time to come up with a name for him (or at least release it to the public) and when they did they wanted something short. It's been a long time since I've seen either of their family trees - could it have been a relatives name that they used? As for the Last Supper - what did you think of the hand with the knife? ? = That just freaked me out! I found a really cool site that lets you zoom in & out and from side to side on the original mural! Very cool!!!!
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 17, 2006 2:23:01 GMT -5
Hey Rita/ you had better be kidding with this post? As I recall Katzen-Ellenbogen left Skillman Village for Buchenwald Condos in 1925 so maybe your sources are out-dated?
For the next 30 months we search for a kidnap "gang" and insider help? Both at Englewood and Highfields. But not one single person is discovered, uncovered or found out? 100% get away cleanly in spite of the largest manhunt in history? How can this be? Are all leads meant to be dead-ends? Was Charlie killed immediately to make some sort of statement to CAL and his political views? And then its not a kidnap but a revenge killing to send a message?
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on May 17, 2006 3:38:49 GMT -5
Just kidding, She had a doc roomate but not Ellenbogen. It should be obvious there was a government cover on this case for some unknown reason, and all original details have been lost or modified to lead nowhere. Only when you are president can you call on agencies to change history for national security. If you looked at some of the links I posted you can see that high ranking political figures involved with Lindbergh Like Forrestal later were rubbed out and papers confiscated.
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 17, 2006 17:10:04 GMT -5
Mouse/ i looked in my Davinci Code plus Figures and found the Hand from the Adams Family with the knife. VERy Cool......maybe involved in Charlies disappearance too? John the Baptist is very cute
|
|
|
Post by Mouse on May 17, 2006 17:33:37 GMT -5
Mouse/ i looked in my Davinci Code plus Figures and found the Hand from the Adams Family with the knife. VERy Cool......maybe involved in Charlies disappearance too? John the Baptist is very cute Thanks for the chuckle, Rick! I REALLY needed it!!!! I was watching a show on the "code" and they came up with some very imaginative ideas of whose hand it could have been. Twisted themselves into some very interesting (and often amusing!) positions to prove their points!!!! LOL Yes, I agree - the hand must have been involved - I think it may have made that d**n ladder!!! As for the "cute" John the Baptist (who wasn't there, silly, he wasn't a disciple!), well - we won't even go there!! LOL
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 18, 2006 3:04:42 GMT -5
Hi Mouse/ maybe Jon is just short for John? Its certainly an oddity? I always mix up John the Baptist and St.john the disciple--however, I seldom mix up a pretty face!
Oh yes, isnt is odd that when Charlie was borne his name doesnot appear on his birth cert? its on Ronelles site somewheres/ Anyhoo--that would add some credance to a stillbirth or that Elizabeth is his Mom? Well, at least a touch...you should know the instant you see that it is a boy that its your first borne "charlie jr" huh? Just a thought/
|
|
|
Post by Mouse on May 18, 2006 9:24:38 GMT -5
Nah - it's not really an oddity (Jon Stewart comes to mind immediately - I don't know why!). I think it may be Scandanavian, ja??? LOL Here's a "what if" for you - what if they had the name "John" picked out before the CJ incident and modified it later? (Although I'm still sticking with my first theory. Sad, we'll never really know!)
Now, that I don't find so odd. I think CAL was so determined that the press and public not find out that that's why he did it. He really was obsessed with the privacy thing, if I'm reading things right. I thought that for the longest while they didn't even tell people (except for the family and close friends) that the baby was a boy.
Not to me. Not at all. Too many pics and writings about him, and I don't think Anne would have taken him away from Elisabeth. Elisabeth was her "hero"!
Well, you should know - but that doesn't mean I should know!!! LOL Again, they knew; they just didn't want anyone else to know!!! (Yeah, I'm stuck on that "privacy" thing - but look what I learned to do!!!! ^ Thanks to you and your questions on Mike's board!!!! <beaming with pride because she's a techno-tard!!!>) ;D
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 18, 2006 13:00:02 GMT -5
comon Mouse/ be a little more flexible and open to possiblites....you cant "KNOW" the one and only answer to everything about CAL unless you are CAL or one of his numerous dau8ghters? I take it on the one hand you think CALs in on Charlies disappearance/ and wrote the ransom note.
There is nothing much "public" about naming a new baby? its like have a baby...then name a baby.....especially if you see it coming. Duh....if Anne is seen pregnant for 9 months the Whole World knows a baby is supposed to be coming if not aborted? Whats the big deal about them not putting a name on the Cert? I dont get that? The birth cert also says that Anne was given some drug by the OB-GYN....Ill look that up too.....
heres some addtional info to add into Norris' New Paperback naming Dwight the kidnapper.....
The children of Dwight Whitney MORROW and Elizabeth Reeve Cutter were:
1. Elizabeth Reeve b. 17 Mar 1904 m. Aubrey Niel Morgan 2. Anne Spencer b. 22 Jun 1906 m. Charles A. Lindbergh 3. Dwight Whitney Jr. b. 28 Nov 1908 m. Margot Loines 4. Constance Cutter b. 26 Jun 1914 m. Aubrey Niel Morgan
|
|
|
Post by Mouse on May 18, 2006 13:51:44 GMT -5
Come on, yourself, Rick! I never professed to "KNOW" anything - if you read my posts carefully, I always say I "think" or "the impression I got" or something to that effect. I'm not stupid enough to ever think ANyONE could KNOW what was in their heads. I was just making suppositions from things I'd read and (like Michael) personal feelings. Nope - I've told you my theory before. I think it was an inside job, but I don't think the Lindberghs were in on it. I think it was masterminded by an outsider (Fisch, perhaps?) who had contact with some of the Morrow/Lindbergh staff. Not being in the public eye or hounded by the press, I wouldn't think there's a big deal about putting the name there, and obviously neither would you. But then again, I don't suppose you've ever been hounded by the press or your adoring public, have you? Here you have to take your own advice; just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it didn't make sense to CAL. You don't know what he was thinking any more than I do - I just don't think he was involved But I will agree - the man had some really strange ways!!! IMHO Not sure why this was here - nothing new. I would like to see a little farther back in the family trees, especially on CAL's side. Gee, I'm remembering why I went into lurker mode...
|
|
mairi
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by mairi on May 18, 2006 17:03:02 GMT -5
Hi Mouse~Someone else has probably mentioned this (and I don't know what the birth cert has), Jon is often short for Jonathan. I had an ancestor with a son John and another son named Jonathan. Hi Rick~ That was an interesting "Weird NJ" article. With what we now know about CAL's "go forth and multiply" habits maybe some of these claimants really are his (abeit not CALjr). Hi Anyone~Is there any sort of info on CAL's involvement in the case in the 2-1/2 years between the discovery of the poor baby's remains and the arrest of BRH? Likely he wasn't in as much position to call all the shots, but am just curious about his "case" activities during that time.
|
|