|
Post by Rita Witt on Apr 11, 2006 2:49:21 GMT -5
The only sign of kidnap evidence was the ladder that was placed in an awkward access position two and a half feet underneath and more than a foot to the right side of the window. To make the story possible we would find it necessary to invent new methods for this impossible kidnap feat by claiming an accomplice either went into the house or was helped by an employee. This still makes the ladder feat impossible, because the accomplice still would need to overhand the child nearly three feet to the ladder. Thirty pounds of un-controllable weight would take an above average size athlete to accomplish this feat.
No fingerprints or footprints of employees or any one else were found and the necessary cleaning time makes the family story impossible.
The blanket pins were neatly pinned to the mattress of the child's bed, and either had to be done in the clean up process, or the room had not been used that day.
The day of the claimed kidnap was rainy and windy March weather, but the ransom note was claimed left on an open window sill without being blown to the floor.
To top off the unbelievable CAL holds the ransom not unopened for two hours not knowing if his sons life depends on an immediate signal or response.
|
|
|
Post by a visitor on Apr 11, 2006 10:08:06 GMT -5
2 things about your post that bother me, Rita.
1) I don't think the ladder was found placed against the house but several feet away (although your arguments about the feasablility of the ladder being used are sound).
2) I am a mother. Although I didn't use safety pins, I did use plastic clips in the crib to hold my daughter's blanket tight so it didn't bunch and suffocate her. I never unclipped them to take her out of the crib, just slid her out (andf many times she crawled out herself without disturbing them). So I would have to argue your point that the safety pins were put there after the crime or that the room hadn't been used.
These points aren't meant to be argumentative - just informative.
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Apr 11, 2006 15:44:27 GMT -5
To guest They CAL and Anne, Betty, said the child was pinned in tightly, and that makes the difference between their complicity and honesty.
The ladder was found away from the building, but the only ladder marks on the ground and building were at the distance I stated which made it's practical use impossible.
These points have been hashed out to the extent that belivers cannot explain, simply because there never was a kidnap, and all evidence in the house and nursery points to a family problem that occurs in 85-90% of these reported cases.
We can make excuses for each and every point of deception in order to benefit the family, but someone was executed and the child or another was suposedly killed in a field near the house, for which the father does not have a time line alibi. I think these points were hidden by CAL,Schwartzkopf, and Willentz, so that Hauptman was essentialy framed even though he bought or acquired some of the ransom money.
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on Apr 12, 2006 3:52:22 GMT -5
Yes/ it all seems like a tragedy of errors. Something happens to Charlie over the 4 day weekend which triggers the big snowball rolling down the hill out of control that noone can stop. It has to be something that noone has any real control over: an accident or a medical problem. I suppose it is always possible that some kind of kidnapping occured, just not the way it was laid out for the Public. Maybe CAL did not open up the Nursery Note because he already knew the contents. Either by writing it himself or by opening it up before anyone saw it and then resealing it and placing it back onto the window sill where it wouldnt be noticed right aways? what might be his motives for doing that? Maybe Violet overheard the real story?
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on Apr 22, 2006 15:21:48 GMT -5
Algrin and Monier in The Lindbergh Hoax describe the renting of the Farmhouse in Mt Rose on page 9. To be near to the construction of Highfields CAL/Anne rent this Farmhouse in Nov 1930 when Charliekins is just 5 months olde. This is when they first hire Ollie and Elsie Whateley...and Miss Mary Cummings to mind Charlie. Although located in the towne of Mt Rose this farmhouse is "only 4 miles from the Lindbergh tract"!! Now you dont spose that this is the farmhouse where Mary Cerrita "sees Charlie in her seance" or that 4 miles south on Hopewell Mt Rose Hill is where Charlie turns up 72 days later? Now Do You Believe That?
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on Apr 23, 2006 19:44:32 GMT -5
Charlie's body is discovered on May 12th, just 40 days after payment of the ransom to CJ in St. Raymonds on April 2nd. But the day before one of two thumbguards is discovered by Gow and Elsie Whateley in the driveways to Highfields. How many ways could it get there:
1. Fell off on March 1st on the way out the drive? 2. Planted by Gow or Elsie to signal that Charlie is back in towne? 3. Planted by the kidnap gang to signal a token to urge payment of the ransom tomorrow in the Bronx. 4. Planted as an April Fools Joke by CAL? 5. Your own best guess goes here? (none of the above)
|
|
Rick62 Where was Charlie
Guest
|
Post by Rick62 Where was Charlie on Apr 30, 2006 6:55:02 GMT -5
Was the entire Kidnap Hoax designed to begin on 1 March 1932 and end in May? Maybe CAL and the family had had thier fill of wild goose chases by then? By means (-pun) of 4 go-betweens and the largest phishing expedition in history they had come up with at least 3 big Fisch (+pun)to take the bait. Condon, Curtis and Means--but none can prove they hold Charlie "alive and well"? Of these, only Means gets jail time and dies. After that, all leads fade into the sunset including the hunt for the ransom. Years go by and now its officially a "colde case"! there are no further leads and no arrests. John Condon and John Hughes Curtis get off scot free. If the original kidnap was a hoax, how was Charlies discovery insured 72 days later? If bootleggers and rumrunners want Charlie found then how to they accomplish that?
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Apr 30, 2006 23:07:03 GMT -5
In the general board I placed a site that shows the police photo of the body found that has no nose and not much remaining flesh on the face. The coroner said he could could not identify the body or even the sex, and if you have ever looked at a medical library skeleton it makes you wonder how Gow and CAL identified it. If it wasn't CAL Jr. they may have just wanted to stop the extortion attempts. CAL and Ann did investigate leads in later years, which does give credence to the body found not being CAL Jr.
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on May 7, 2006 7:29:57 GMT -5
Yes Rita/ there are clearly two beneficiaries of the body planted on Hopewell-Princeton Road:
1. Bootleggers and runrunners/ roads are jammed with cops and searches 2. The Lindbergh/Morrow family==future extortion demands are curtailed and preempted
Since not one testimony of evidence exists that Charlie was alive after 1 March 32 there is little chance that he will rise from the grave. However, one family lost big time from the finding/ BRH? Why would the genius criminal of the Century permit Charlie to be found?
|
|
mairi
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by mairi on May 14, 2006 18:55:23 GMT -5
Hi, Rita~Could you please give more details of CAL and Anne exploring new leads, later on? I've never known that before. One of the times Anna Haumptman tried to reopen case I do recall something interesting about Anne L."s comment about it. Wish I could remember the wording, but was along the lines that she didn't object.
|
|
kathy
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by kathy on May 14, 2006 19:50:38 GMT -5
mairi, I think Anne L. said she wanted to see justice done.
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on May 15, 2006 2:36:11 GMT -5
I don't know the details as information investigations are usualy discreet , but the Suburb from which the mayor originated displays the Charley poster, and it is interesting it is displayed as a missing child at the end of February not March 1st every year.
|
|