mairi
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by mairi on May 18, 2006 17:36:04 GMT -5
P.S., Mouse~ Yours of {Nope, I've told you my theory before.....}. I agree with you. Hard as I've tried to consider ruling out Fisch (in the name of keeping an open mind), I can't shake loose of my belief that he was involved and was probably CJ. Also, I still try to examine BRH, but what (I think) I glean of his pre-arrest day to day life and things he said and wrote post-arrest, I can't see him involved in either the kidnap or extortion, not to mention his witnesses saying where he was on critical dates. As to his saying JFC "holds the keys to my cell" I think he's telling JFC that he's lying and can still come forth and retract his false ID.
|
|
|
Post by Mouse on May 18, 2006 22:33:41 GMT -5
Another great explanation!
That mag certainly lives up to it's name! I'd forgotten about that article (we're in NJ and my daughter has been a long time reader!). I stumbled across it the other day and then lost it again! Have you ever seen the magazine??? Very bizarre stuff. And they have a Weird US book out, too!
Well, I'm pretty sure he and Anne were in England for part of that time. I can't remember exactly when they sailed (I put all my books back on the shelf when I went into lurker mode a couple of weeks ago).
|
|
|
Post by Mouse for Mairi on May 18, 2006 22:43:12 GMT -5
I knew I'd found a kindred spirit when I saw your first couple of posts!! Love the Celtic (Irish or Scottish???) name, too!!! Yes!!!!! ;D Anna's unwavering faith and insistance in his innocence is the most compelling testimony for me! Being in Trenton, it hit the papers whenever she was in town and I read every one. Unfortunately, I don't remember a lot of the things I've read and I didn't have the presence of mind to cut out the articles (or the room to store them all!!) Yes, again!!!! So, are you familiar with the tune "Mairi's Wedding" ? LOL (Something else you said the other day made me think you might be interested in things Celtic.)
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on May 18, 2006 23:54:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mairi to Mouse on May 19, 2006 0:12:20 GMT -5
Thanx for the message exchange. During my first posts I happened to have a copy of a family tartan next to the mousepad and I believe it triggered my celtic DNA! Yes I do celebrate Scottish heritage- used to do the rounds of Sco''ish Highland Games. I love Mairi's Wedding!! The band, North Sea Gas sang it especially for me at one of the Games. Lest I get over far from the LKC---- What about the idea that Condon may have, in some way, been cleverly prompted, at the Chief Yellow Feather group to write the letter offering up his services to the Lindbergs? Maybe because someone there thought he would be a workable candidate as a go-between? It probably is a s-t-r-e-t-c-h, but I find his and other players hanging out there spooky.
|
|
|
Post by Mouse on May 19, 2006 7:59:25 GMT -5
Get out!!!! Me, too (still do!!!)!!! Would love to talk to you more about that! : ( I've heard them a few times! Are you on the East coast? I know nothing about this Chief Yellow Feather Group, exccept for what I've read here. Your theory sounds plausible, though! I do believe that Condon was a self-important braggart that would be easily used by someone. Was Fisch a fellow "tribal member" <snicker>
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 19, 2006 8:16:07 GMT -5
Memenem: Its one thing to imagine that the proposed "insider help" could evade detection i) on the nite of the kidnap and ii) up until the 12 of March when Charlie is discovered/uncovered.
BUT--how does this person continue to fly below the radar screen for the next 2 and 1/2 years? After all there are very few names to throw into the hat.
1. CAL 2. Anne and Elizabeth 3. Ollie 4. Elsie. 5. Betty Gow.
Most authors, due to deference of Anne, and Bettys love of Charlie zero in on Ollie who dies mysteriously in 1933. (when Elsie is on vacation) BUT Cal covers for them all and his word is gospel? How does this person go undetected? In the Crime of the Century?
|
|
|
Post by Mouse on May 19, 2006 9:13:41 GMT -5
BUT--how does this person continue to fly below the radar screen for the next 2 and 1/2 years? After all there are very few names to throw into the hat. 1. CAL 2. Anne and Elizabeth 3. Ollie 4. Elsie. 5. Betty Gow. Most authors, due to deference of Anne, and Bettys love of Charlie zero in on Ollie who dies mysteriously in 1933. (when Elsie is on vacation) BUT Cal covers for them all and his word is gospel? How does this person go undetected? In the Crime of the Century? Not sure who this was directed to (Memenem? ?), but... When I think "inside", I'm also thinking farther North - Next Day Hill. I still think Violet's suicide (amd I really do believe it was just that - it would take a lot to make me believe that CAL was a murderer!) was very suspicious. I think that either she was involved or knew too much and couldn't stand the pressure. In Hopewell, I think Ollie was the culprit. How they "flew under the radar"? They had the blessings of CAL, the hero! I sometimes wonder if he backed them so passionately because to have them involved with the crime would have meant that he'd hired someone that he shouldn't have; he messed up, his decisions were flawed. That just wouldn't do for someone like CAL, would it? I know you won't agree with any of what I wrote, Rick, but you asked! Of course, if I could really answer all of these questions, we wouldn't be here! (Mairi - to make a smiley, move your cursor where you want it to appear and then just click on the smiley you want to appear there! Voila!)
|
|
|
Post by elyssa on May 20, 2006 11:47:55 GMT -5
You need to remember when reading these diaries, they were edited by the Lindbergh's. Anne or Charles could have deleted or added facts as they wanted. For instance- Anne's diary could have originally stated. I know Charles had something to do with the death of Charlie-- this would have been changed to I know Charles had nothing to do with the death of Charlie. Basically unless you were to read the original diaries you wouldn't get the true story and even then it wouldn't be guaranteed that s he would write everything, she would just leave out what she was afraid of someone finding out, privacy you know.
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 20, 2006 12:23:50 GMT -5
Rita/elyssa...for me it all hinges on CAL missing the NYU dinner and coming home early twice? After that its a done deal.
Dont forget....CAL is not above lying to Anne (duh) about his German sibs so why not his Red White and Blue ones too? When they are all listening on the radio...to BRHs demise...CAL is still lobbying for Richards guilt.
Lets use logic here. If the masons stole charlie they would not advertise their own organization. Therefore, the more likely explanation that something untoward befalls Charlie Jr. Sat-Tues and CAL is asking for help from the Brotherhood of the Vesica. [All these frats were fascinated with womens anatomy] I sure cant peg BRH, Fisch or Paul Wendel as Masons....only Dwight Jr. and his 322 Fraternity at Amherst. Bill Norris book does not indict CAL but the next closest heir--Annes brother. The symbol is not accidental or random...it is purposely meant to "represent" in secret.
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on May 22, 2006 1:36:34 GMT -5
Just got bashed by the VD'RS on Ronelle's and scurried right back our board where we can just have fun. With actual evidence and records disappearing we can just work different theory options and see if they fit. The Norris Book has a great deal of information for the inside theory, and Rick has a good point on CAL recognizing the ransom note symbol. I know Rick tries to examine all the different possibilities, and find it interesting to look at each different situation to weigh it out.
Thanks to Mouse and Anne I was not completely bashed on Ronnelle's and I defend their ideas on Hauptmann's innocence. We need to examine there how CAL was swept into this unbelievable trial that I believe he was forced into supporting by the threat from high office
I'm glad to see mairi here to add her support and research to the case. I think also that Fish was to close to the center of the action to be left out as Wilentz was ordered by someone in high office to do.
I believe a lot of information was left out like Elyssa and of even the court case, and worst of all info that should have cleared Hauptmann. There is even today deletion of information that was available just a year or two ago. This brings to mind who had the power and authority to dictate deletion of evidence and even make CAL unwilling party to the fake trial?
There are limitations on this forum cause I am using it free. I'm not able to post pictures and edit as Michael can on his forum., If you have some ideas on how to make things more interesting drop me a message?
|
|
rick3 saving charlie
Guest
|
Post by rick3 saving charlie on May 22, 2006 3:28:15 GMT -5
Welcome back rita/ this case speaks volumes how the majority will defend fiction unto death...this is why wars are fought. The status quo no matter how unbelievable provides comfort. The 2000+ year olde Church is threatend by a fictional movie. Salmund Rushtie got death threats.
You raise a serious motive. Threats against Charlie "but never revealed". Since noone has nailed down the Theory or Motive for the LKC, exclusive of an oddly paltry ransom. When you weigh the "risk" vs "rewards" for kidnap of charlie jr you always come up short. Its always good to make an example of someone when there are over 300 kidnaps per year. Why would BRH risk life, limb, deportation and family for a mere $50K? The clearest answer is he would NOT, at least not fullwell--he was miles from despirate/ who would?
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on May 22, 2006 18:10:35 GMT -5
If we re-examine from the beginning CAL recognizes the ransom signature, and realizes he can only try and search for Charley because the kidnap was not for ransom but his silence. Anything but the normal kidnap process drags on while CAL uses every means from racketeers to military to locate Charley without ever one genuine exchange offer. Wilentz used ever thing from coercion to threats in order to build a case against an apparently innocent Hauptmann. Most newspapers of the time and investigators had believed the Purple Gang was responsible for the crime, but the motive was not their own but payback from the N.Y.-N.J. political team that was getting rich from the bootleg industry that CAL threatened CAL was seen to be uneasy at the trial of Hauptmann, and can be assumed he was pressured like all witnesses to make statements he did not believe. When Cal received the Threat against his second son Jon, He knew he must leave the country because the payback was coming from the highest office that he would oppose until his death Conflict with Roosevelt, Threat to CAL's Second Son Jon. www.charleslindbergh.com/ny/100.asp
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 30, 2006 14:16:01 GMT -5
Here is a timely quote from MMs Board by William Norris:
(no comment necessary)
|
|