Bruno Hauptmann - gulty or innocent?

[Vincennes]

Weren't other drugs available then besides chloroform? Perhaps ether or Laudanum. Seems the cracking sound came fairly close to Betty in the room. If not betty, perhaps Violet, but i am liking the thought someone was handing the baby thru the window. I think they are lucky the child did not start crying. Did they do fingerprints on the note left in the nursery? Could they lift prints from paper back then? Wonder if they still could? Or from the crib? I would think if the kidnapper actually came in the window, should be prints somewhere, like the window sill...if not, sounds like someone in the house did it. I have to think someone in that house was communicating somehow with the kidnapper. It could be someone nobody has thought about. Gonna have to do some reading.

The did do a lot of fingerprinting I wasn't even aware they could do. I know Douglas said there were NONE found in the room, crib or on the windowsill. I think he even said nothing on the notes but I'm not positive of that.

Laudanum was absolutely available but that would have taken time to be absorbed into the system......Makes me think though, Betty might just have had the time to do administer that. If they did not in fact snap that baby's neck before even taking him out of the crib, there has to have been some type of silencing. What I don't think they could have done was find drug traces such as laudanum. I think the body was far too decomposed to get that kind of reading.

[Risktaker]

That is a really interesting link. Have you found any other copies of the actual statements out there ?

Here is a link to Cpl. Wolf's initial report of crime scene for March 1, 1932.

http://www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/wolf.pdf

Here is the only statement for Betty Gow that I have been able to find so far:

http://www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/gowstatement.html

These reports are coming from a website that supports the innocence of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. For me this website is a great resource for information. I happen to think that Hauptmann played a role in the crime. I don't think he kidnapped and murdered Charlie, however.

This next link is to a timeline of the evening of March 1, 1932. It is what everyone was doing and what time their statements say they were doing it the night of March 1, 1932. This excellent resource was put together by Mark Falzini who is the Archivist for the New Jersey State Police museum. He used all the statements by all the people who are part of this case and put this together. Check out his other articles on his blog about this case. They are just terrific!

http://njspmuseum.blogspot.com/2008/02/march-1-1932-timeline.html

The more you can learn about this case, the more you will come to understand that this was not a simple kidnapping. There is a lot more to this case than what was used at the trial.

I think the timing of betty coming down and with limited ability to communicate back then, pretty much gives her the best opportunity to put the plan in motion.

Betty's presence there the night of March 1 is important. The established bedtime routine was that once Charlie was put to bed he was not to be disturbed from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. This is how Charles Lindbergh wanted it. This routine was followed to the letter by Betty. Her presence there on Tuesday evening would mean the normal routine would be followed and Charlie would be accessible to the kidnappers between 8 and 10 p.m. With inside knowledge of this they would know when the best time would be to get Charlie out of the nursery. This is one of the reasons I believe the kidnappers had the help of an insider.

What I have a problem with here is that the baby was pulled out of the crib by his head. I can't see anyone doing that and risking the fact that would make the baby cry.

This is a very important point. Charlie was not accustomed to strangers and would cry when someone he did not know would approach him. There is no way they could have removed Charlie from that crib, as described, without waking him. So that means Charlie is either lifted out by someone he knows, is drugged, or is dead. I really don't see any other options here. I am certainly open to other ideas, however. When Betty Gow was being driven to Hopewell the afternoon of March 1 she stopped along the way at a drugstore. She supposedly was buying candy. She went in alone and the Morrow chauffeur stayed in the car and waited for her. Perhaps she did buy candy but did she get something else also?

I would think if the kidnapper actually came in the window, should be prints somewhere, like the window sill...if not, sounds like someone in the house did it. I have to think someone in that house was communicating somehow with the kidnapper. It could be someone nobody has thought about. Gonna have to do some reading.

There should have been fingerprints from someone found on the windows at least. Anne and Betty both closed the shutters and locked windows. In fact, when Betty went into the nursery at 10 p.m. she closed the French window that she had left slightly open at the time she put Charlie to bed. Yet no fingerprints were found on any of the windows in the nursery. The kidnappers could have worn gloves so that would account for not finding their prints but Betty and Anne's should have been found somewhere yet they weren't.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Risktaker

[Vincennes]

Here is a link to Cpl. Wolf's initial report of crime scene for March 1, 1932.

:tu: :tu:

The more you can learn about this case, the more you will come to understand that this was not a simple kidnapping. There is a lot more to this case than what was used at the trial.

I haven't read through your links yet, I was just anxious to thank you for sharing such a great amount of research I did want to just respond to your statement that it is so interesting that even back then there were things that didn't make it into the trial. I just finished reading Vincent Bugliosi's "Outrage," regarding O J Simpson's trial. It's a good book but there were so many things, even though I followed the trial, that didn't make it into court and that included a lot of hard evidence. As I have said, I started out before this thread of just being lulled into the innocent man thing. I certainly didn't remain on that theory much longer than the first couple of chapters in the Douglas book.

This is a very important point. Charlie was not accustomed to strangers and would cry when someone he did not know would approach him. There is no way they could have removed Charlie from that crib, as described, without waking him. So that means Charlie is either lifted out by someone he knows, is drugged, or is dead. I really don't see any other options here. I am certainly open to other ideas, however. When Betty Gow was being driven to Hopewell the afternoon of March 1 she stopped along the way at a drugstore. She supposedly was buying candy. She went in alone and the Morrow chauffeur stayed in the car and waited for her. Perhaps she did buy candy but did she get something else also?

I think I have a problem thinking that a nanny whose job it was caring for a baby could turn in a flash and be pulling that baby around by his head. Yet that is what had to have happened by whoever took him out of the crib. IMO this probably would have been an easier act to accomplish with a greater chance of the child living though it with a newborn. If you did do it carefully, the child wouldn't have much weight to work against. At Charlie's age, there is some poundage there. My dog is about 14 lbs. and if he were on the couch sleeping and I went to yank him up and off as dead, sleeping weight, it would take me quite a pull and I know it would be a dangerous one. His own weight would swing on his neck. I think if I gave it even a little try, I could kill him that way quickly.

='5249846']

There should have been fingerprints from someone found on the windows at least. Anne and Betty both closed the shutters and locked windows. In fact, when Betty went into the nursery at 10 p.m. she closed the French window that she had left slightly open at the time she put Charlie to bed. Yet no fingerprints were found on any of the windows in the nursery. The kidnappers could have worn gloves so that would account for not finding their prints but Betty and Anne's should have been found somewhere yet they weren't.

The lack of any fingerprints seems to then make it a case of everything being thoroughly wiped down and being able to do a pretty good job of it. That would take time. How much time could you afford to take with three other adults milling about the area ? Douglas varies just a little about the windows. He says Anne first closed the windows and even tried to close the shutters; however, one of the shutters was warped and wouldn't close. Then they go about doing whatever, Betty at some later point went back in an opened one of the windows partially for "air circulation." I wondered about this because it was winter and you have a baby with a cold although I notice there are hot water heat registers in the room. That type of heat tended to get overly hot especially in the upstairs rooms. Anyway, according to Douglas, when Betty finally closed up the room for the night she then closed that window ?

Now that I've said all that I get to read your links. Thanks again bringing this information to our discussion !

Edited July 22, 2014 by Vincennes

[Vincennes]

I've just finished reading through the links for Gow's statement and the timeline. So many things occurred to me just reading through, in order to make any type of real comparison that's necessary, I had to print them out.

The only thing that did hit me that I don't think reading through will change or impact is in Gow's statement. She never referred to Charles, Jr. as anything other than "the baby." That seems awfully depersonalizing for a baby that you have cared for at least a couple of months. She didn't have any type of nickname for him or even a, "little Charlie"? I have read before and encountered some statements by those thought to be the murderers and they don't like to put a name to their victim. Their statements tend to be, "I found the body." Even when they are actually related to the person who lived in that body, they do not use a name.

I was also surprised if that is her picture on that statement site, she is prettier than I would have thought. In view of the fact she's also a fairly young and a pretty new immigrant and working in a position of household staff, she looks a lot more self-assured than I expected. (I don't mean that demeaning toward household staff at all.) I just didn't expect a movie star look, wrapped in fur for a nanny! ) In the timeline, this staff really came across as nice people and there seemed to be a lot of camaraderie. I was also impressed by Mr. and Mrs. W's statements. Their actions and reactions seemed to be pretty normal and their statements pretty consistent.

[mbrn30000]

I've just finished reading through the links for Gow's statement and the timeline. So many things occurred to me just reading through, in order to make any type of real comparison that's necessary, I had to print them out.

The only thing that did hit me that I don't think reading through will change or impact is in Gow's statement. She never referred to Charles, Jr. as anything other than "the baby." That seems awfully depersonalizing for a baby that you have cared for at least a couple of months. She didn't have any type of nickname for him or even a, "little Charlie"? I have read before and encountered some statements by those thought to be the murderers and they don't like to put a name to their victim. Their statements tend to be, "I found the body." Even when they are actually related to the person who lived in that body, they do not use a name.

I was also surprised if that is her picture on that statement site, she is prettier than I would have thought. In view of the fact she's also a fairly young and a pretty new immigrant and working in a position of household staff, she looks a lot more self-assured than I expected. (I don't mean that demeaning toward household staff at all.) I just didn't expect a movie star look, wrapped in fur for a nanny! ) In the timeline, this staff really came across as nice people and there seemed to be a lot of camaraderie. I was also impressed by Mr. and Mrs. W's statements. Their actions and reactions seemed to be pretty normal and their statements pretty consistent.

I wonder what would have happened had the family kept their schedule and returned to NY as planned. Would the kidnapping have occurred? You would have to think Hauptman was the luckiest man in the world to climb that ladder on that night, to that window at the precise moment to be successful for this to be a one man operation. I do know kidnapping for ransom in our country at that time was quite common. I am certain hauptman was involved. He probably made the ladder, and most likely wrote the notes...i would think the others would be even worse at english than he was...except maybe the inside people. If this happened today, we could just take a look at his facebook friends...one of them did it...It clearly was one of the people in the house that day. There are so many other possible outcomes if it were not an inside job. Hauptman would have to be checking every window every weekend for the last 12 months to be so lucky...he hit it first time, first try. Wonder why the police kind of gave up?

Edited July 22, 2014 by mbrn30000

[Vincennes]

I wonder what would have happened had the family kept their schedule and returned to NY as planned. Would the kidnapping have occurred? You would have to think Hauptman was the luckiest man in the world to climb that ladder on that night, to that window at the precise moment to be successful for this to be a one man operation. I do know kidnapping for ransom in our country at that time was quite common. I am certain hauptman was involved. He probably made the ladder, and most likely wrote the notes...i would think the others would be even worse at english than he was...except maybe the inside people. If this happened today, we could just take a look at his facebook friends...one of them did it...It clearly was one of the people in the house that day. There are so many other possible outcomes if it were not an inside job. Hauptman would have to be checking every window every weekend for the last 12 months to be so lucky...he hit it first time, first try. Wonder why the police kind of gave up?

You know what has also occurred to me as I have read through these links Risky furnished . I think all of us agree, knowing what we do now, Col. Lindbergh would not have been our personal hero but this doesn't stop the realization that was a beautiful little baby. Even if he wasn't as beautiful as he was, he was walking, talking, running around kitchen tables, calling people by their names and some fiend yanked him out of his bed and smashed in his little head.

Maybe because this is such an old, historic crime nothing ever brought me a total awareness of the horrific nature of what happened to this child. Somehow the length of time just made it all seem so distant. Reading these statements today has brought my head into the terrible reality of what happened, even if it was in a long ago time back in yesterday.

I hope that doesn't make me sound unfeeling. I have always found crimes against children so horrific, I could never sit on any jury. I'd be afraid I'd fry whoever they even thought had done it. Now that this realization has struck me, I'm a little sorry I opened myself to the discussion but don't think I can't quit now. Not that that means a hill of beans. I've printed out all of these statements which is easier for me to compare what each of them said.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Vincennes

[Vincennes]

MB, I did think of one other thing that was readily available in that time in the 30s and was used routinely. I think back then it was probably part of most every nursery's medicine cabinet. It was Peregoric. It is a liquid Opium derivative. You could purchase it in any pharmacy no prescription needed. Back in the day all you had to do to get it was to sign for it. Now, since pharmacies weren't linked by anything such as today's modern computer systems, how they thought that controlled it, I don't know.

I really hate sitting here right now and remembering that and feeling as old as dirt. I do remember my grandmother telling me the "men in the alley" were probably on Peregoric. Since I never really saw any "men in the alley, it didn't seem like any real threat to me. It came in a little 1 oz size bottles and you mixed it with warm water before giving it to the baby. You only used a drop (of course an unmeasured drop) into the teaspoon with warm water. It became milky white when mixed and you administered it with the teaspoon to the baby.....not a dropper because it took the smallest of amounts. It wasn't used for colds but it was used in cases of colic. Winter babies who were exposed to cold air were more likely to get a "dose." Being opium it would, of course, ease stomach immediately and, no surprise, put the baby to sleep almost as quickly.

I hate to say this but for my first daughter born in the winter of 61, my grandmother still had a bottle of it stashed away. She was always furious they had taken it off the market because it "helped" babies with the pain of colic. I will add and please trust me here, my grandmother raised 6 healthy children, 15 grandchildren and always was still there raising my first daughter, her first grandchild I need to add here my daughter, is all kinds of healthy, holds two degrees and has never suffered because of her early "drug treatment" center. It was something you were expected to have enough common sense not to abuse.

As I started out saying, this very well might have been sitting right there in the baby's medicine closet and back then in colic season, no one would have questioned it being there. It was LEGAL. It would, however, have put a baby to sleep FAST especially if the dosage was generous rather than conservative.

Sorry to post this knowledge....My daughter really is okay. My grandmother would have tolerated nothing but common sense .....

Betty could have given that easily available littler sleeping tablet quickly and no one would have even noticed the bottle left in the cabinet.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Vincennes

[mbrn30000]

MB, I did think of one other thing that was readily available in that time in the 30s and was used routinely. I think back then it was probably part of most every nursery's medicine cabinet. It was Peregoric. It is a liquid Opium derivative. You could purchase it in any pharmacy no prescription needed. Back in the day all you had to do to get it was to sign for it. Now, since pharmacies weren't linked by anything such as today's modern computer systems, how they thought that controlled it, I don't know.

I really hate sitting here right now and remembering that and feeling as old as dirt. I do remember my grandmother telling me the "men in the alley" were probably on Peregoric. Since I never really saw any "men in the alley, it didn't seem like any real threat to me. It came in a little 1 oz size bottles and you mixed it with warm water before giving it to the baby. You only used a drop (of course an unmeasured drop) into the teaspoon with warm water. It became milky white when mixed and you administered it with the teaspoon to the baby.....not a dropper because it took the smallest of amounts. It wasn't used for colds but it was used in cases of colic. Winter babies who were exposed to cold air were more likely to get a "dose." Being opium it would, of course, ease stomach immediately and, no surprise, put the baby to sleep almost as quickly.

I hate to say this but for my first daughter born in the winter of 61, my grandmother still had a bottle of it stashed away. She was always furious they had taken it off the market because it "helped" babies with the pain of colic. I will add and please trust me here, my grandmother raised 6 healthy children, 15 grandchildren and always was still there raising my first daughter, her first grandchild I need to add here my daughter, is all kinds of healthy, holds two degrees and has never suffered because of her early "drug treatment" center. It was something you were expected to have enough common sense not to abuse.

As I started out saying, this very well might have been sitting right there in the baby's medicine closet and back then in colic season, no one would have questioned it being there. It was LEGAL. It would, however, have put a baby to sleep FAST especially if the dosage was generous rather than conservative.

Sorry to post this knowledge....My daughter really is okay. My grandmother would have tolerated nothing but common sense .....

Betty could have given that easily available littler sleeping tablet quickly and no one would have even noticed the bottle left in the cabinet.

LOL. I remember paregoric. Ok i am in my fifties...but I thought my parents gave it to make us throw up when we had a bad stomach...i have not thought of that in years and my parents past away. so I cannot ask them. I just googled that...i wonder if they called it that and had an old bottle or if my parents just called it that because whatever they gave us was like paregoric....hmmm. Now you got me wondering. I guess I have not thought of that since the 60's. I think we got it if we had something like the stomach flu. I really don't remember..I just remember the name...Maybe my parents were trying to kill us...lol. I need to ask my oldest brother..lol.

[Vincennes]

LOL. I remember paregoric. Ok i am in my fifties...but I thought my parents gave it to make us throw up when we had a bad stomach...i have not thought of that in years and my parents past away. so I cannot ask them. I just googled that...i wonder if they called it that and had an old bottle or if my parents just called it that because whatever they gave us was like paregoric....hmmm. Now you got me wondering. I guess I have not thought of that since the 60's. I think we got it if we had something like the stomach flu. I really don't remember..I just remember the name...Maybe my parents were trying to kill us...lol. I need to ask my oldest brother..lol.

Are you sure what they were giving you wasn't Pepto mismal . Even that color of pink will still make me want to throw up. I don't think or can't remember paregoric being used for flu in older children. My grandmother just brought it out for colic. And as a new mother I have to admit I was glad to see it a comin out ! I don't know when it was taken off the market. I assume you're checking that. Sitting here now I'm just pretty amazed my grandmother had hoarded her last bottle. She was just a mom, grandmother and when it came to my daughter, a great grandmother. I don't know at the time if I had a clear understanding of what she was using, I don't think I did but she did not disperse it lightly as I think we can probably go back and prove how long her last bottle lasted.

It just hit me as something that had left my memory. Could that have been Betty's last stop at the pharmacy for "candy." ? I know for certain in the 30s it took no more than a signature and it would have been accepted on the nursery shelves.

I still have to post my afternoon's work in going over these statements but did it hit any of you that kid was lucky to get out of that nursery at all. It was a 12' x 14 ' room for God's sake and all of these accounts noted he asked to go down with his mother at 4:00 pm and his mother "allowed" him to do that. A 12 x 14 ' room for God's sake ! With people paid to dress, feed and entertain him there in that room ??? The detective's description of the articles in the room mentions a "sun lamp." I remember those puppies too. Was that because the high-flying aviator's son didn't get out in the natural sun light enough ? As I read that I had to think the poor average, everyday babies at their mother's side as they worked were better off. No matter how perfect the Colonel's regimens were.

[mbrn30000]

Are you sure what they were giving you wasn't Pepto mismal . Even that color of pink will still make me want to throw up. I don't think or can't remember paregoric being used for flu in older children. My grandmother just brought it out for colic. And as a new mother I have to admit I was glad to see it a comin out ! I don't know when it was taken off the market. I assume you're checking that. Sitting here now I'm just pretty amazed my grandmother had hoarded her last bottle. She was just a mom, grandmother and when it came to my daughter, a great grandmother. I don't know at the time if I had a clear understanding of what she was using, I don't think I did but she did not disperse it lightly as I think we can probably go back and prove how long her last bottle lasted.

It just hit me as something that had left my memory. Could that have been Betty's last stop at the pharmacy for "candy." ? I know for certain in the 30s it took no more than a signature and it would have been accepted on the nursery shelves.

I still have to post my afternoon's work in going over these statements but did it hit any of you that kid was lucky to get out of that nursery at all. It was a 12' x 14 ' room for God's sake and all of these accounts noted he asked to go down with his mother at 4:00 pm and his mother "allowed" him to do that. A 12 x 14 ' room for God's sake ! With people paid to dress, feed and entertain him there in that room ??? The detective's description of the articles in the room mentions a "sun lamp." I remember those puppies too. Was that because the high-flying aviator's son didn't get out in the natural sun light enough ? As I read that I had to think the poor average, everyday babies at their mother's side as they worked were better off. No matter how perfect the Colonel's regimens were.

I am sure it was not pepto. My brother said I was wrong. I am thinking of Syrup of ipecac not paregoric. I think he is right, but for some reason I remember that name. Not sure why. He did not. Ipacac makes more sense with my memory...but I swear I have heard of paregoric...just not sure...lol.....

Edited July 23, 2014 by mbrn30000

[mbrn30000]

I am sure it was not pepto. My brother said I was wrong. I am thinking of Syrup of ipecac not paregoric. I think he is right, but for some reason I remember that name. Not sure why. He did not. Ipacac makes more sense with my memory...but I swear I have heard of paregoric...just not sure...lol.....

I guess we did not use paregoric, but how do i remember that name? probably confused it later in life...hmmmm...well an opium product would be perfect to knock out a baby. I did see were paregoric is similar to laudanem so it would knock the kid out. I am not sure where i ever heard the term. I think my brother is lying..lol...if i ever get murdered, he did it..just kidding...please don't repeat that...my sister most likely did it..lol..i have heard of ipecac for poisonings...so I wonder why i got it confused...I must have heard it somewhere...well...its an opiate..so whether it was paregoric or laudanem, it would have done the job.

[Vincennes]

I guess we did not use paregoric, but how do i remember that name? probably confused it later in life...hmmmm...well an opium product would be perfect to knock out a baby. I did see were paregoric is similar to laudanem so it would knock the kid out. I am not sure where i ever heard the term. I think my brother is lying..lol...if i ever get murdered, he did it..just kidding...please don't repeat that...my sister most likely did it..lol..i have heard of ipecac for poisonings...so I wonder why i got it confused...I must have heard it somewhere...well...its an opiate..so whether it was paregoric or laudanem, it would have done the job.

Now, I have been seriously trying to go through Betty's first statement and you have made me laugh twice !!! It wasn't ipecac I don't even know how to spell that but that's used only the event of poisoning. My youngest daughter got poisoned on a can of soup one time and I had to use it...... She did fine and rebounded quickly my ex-husband who had also eaten the soup....Not so good ! No, I didn't try to poison him, it was caused by a can of soup slit open when the box was opened at the grocery store....... It took him days to recover !

Think on the paregoric, you had to have heard that somewhere. They used it almost exclusively for babies with colic. I don't actually remember giving it to my daughter but I remember the color changing in the teaspoon when mixed.

Don't tell her about this memory, like the Smothers Brothers, she will just hop on the bandwagon that I always loved her sister best and that I kept her "drugged" so that I could give extra to her sister..... LOL Yeah, she would say that, those of you in this thread, please don't listen to her. Okay

Edited July 23, 2014 by Vincennes

[mbrn30000]

Now, I have been seriously trying to go through Betty's first statement and you have made me laugh twice !!! It wasn't ipecac I don't even know how to spell that but that's used only the event of poisoning. My youngest daughter got poisoned on a can of soup one time and I had to use it...... She did fine and rebounded quickly my ex-husband who had also eaten the soup....Not so good ! No, I didn't try to poison him, it was caused by a can of soup slit open when the box was opened at the grocery store....... It took him days to recover !

Think on the paregoric, you had to have heard that somewhere. They used it almost exclusively for babies with colic. I don't actually remember giving it to my daughter but I remember the color changing in the teaspoon when mixed.

Don't tell her about this memory, like the Smothers Brothers, she will just hop on the bandwagon that I always loved her sister best and that I kept her "drugged" so that I could give extra to her sister..... LOL Yeah, she would say that, those of you in this thread, please don't listen to her. Okay

If you had poisoned your ex, you might have your own thread on this site. I still like the drugging theory. how would you keep a child quiet all the way down that ladder? And maybe you are right. I was drugged on paregoric until I was out of high school. its all beginning to make sense to me now..lol.

Edited July 23, 2014 by mbrn30000

[Vincennes]

I've never done this and don't know how successful it will be but I am going to try and copy and past by questions / problems with jut Betty Gower's statement link"

Start of the first link to just Betty's statement

First of all and I won't copy this in but her description of her early job history strikes me that she is putting herself first. There are no justifying reasons given for living several positions to quickly other than, "I didn't like that position." The first, well okay, the second, okay, maybe and the third she just left after 6 mos because she had found better. Not so much a struggling immigrant here.

The second thing in her statement that struck me was her naming Henry Johnson right up front. She went on to say that she and Henry had been given a tour of the property before she came to live there with the baby. Reading her account it almost seemed to me that she was setting up Henry for a possible suspect.

Then she goes on to mention another name William Coutts, a fellow Scot who she knew from the old country. She comes up with this name which seems to go no father than that but with it she covers a trip she made to Detroit. I'm like wha Where did this guy come from or disappear to ?????? Why the need to mention him ?

Then we go back on old handy Henry and that there was a two week gap between when she had seen him last. She saw him on "Saturday, Sunday and Monday, preceding the kidnapping." On one of these occasions he tells her he was "going to visit his brother in Hartford" and, desiring to see her before leaving, would see her on Tuesday, putting off his departure date. But she did leave that message for him and that message puts her departure at 11:45 rather than the 10:30 that comes up in her later statements.

Now, per her statement Henry is to later cancel another engagement so that he can go see his brother in Hartford. Henry's Hartford mission doesn't seem to ever turn up again because the night of the kidnapping he is with the Junge(s) back in their apt. close to the morrow estate. What happened to his mission to see his brother ?

Then we go to Betty's auto trip chauffeured by Henry to Englewood. During which drive she and Henry, the driver, stopped, didn't stop, bought something, bought nothing, bought candy. bought "something" for the baby's cold. Well there is certainly nothing there in that montage to be suspicious of at all other than there seems to have been a significant reason for Betty to stop before going to the Lindbergh house. Stopping for candy is the lamest excuse I can possibly think of.

I also noticed something that continued throughout all of Betty's statements. She always minimized the amount of time she left the baby; e.g., " I was gone one minute, I ran down and got his cereal. She does this repeatedly through out her statements.

MB, your post interrupted mind but I'm so glad it didn't erase it, I was just taken to pos which I can still edit . That's okay.....

So Here are my suspicions, please forgive misspellings, incorrect English (more than normal) It's really where I am with it...my first look through Betty's own statement. Waiting to hear what you guys think and if you had the same questions.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Vincennes

[Vincennes]

If you had poisoned your ex, you might have your own thread on this site. I still like the drugging theory. how would you keep a child quiet all the way down that ladder? And maybe you are right. I was drugged on paregoric until I was out of high school. its all beginning to make sense to me now..lol.

Actually even my ex would tell you I didn't poison him. We lived just outside Chicago at the time...(my weird history)... and we lived in an area that the kids went home for lunch.

Always check the cans that you buy for the damage that can happen when a market slits open the box ! The box cutters can pierce a can and with something like Chicken Noodle soup, it pretty much just seals itself back up. Only you do not want to eat that can !

I was somehow for some reason out of the room. My ex opened the can of soup that was for lunch and realized that it "sprayed" when he opened it but like a man went right on. I don't really remember when I came back into the room and was somehow made aware of the spray when he opened the can. Of course, reasonable woman that I am, I said, OMG, don't eat that ! He knew that my daughter already had. He always said, and I do believe him on this, he made the instantaneous decision if he had given her something so stupid that would harm her, he couldn't live with having done that and he proceeded to eat as much of it himself before I could even think to stop him or take it away.

Don't know why or how I knew you have to keep ipecac in the house but I did and I had it. My daughter... Within a half an hour, she was good and ready to go. My ex still always got chills when I mentioned ipecac. It layed him out repeatedly for more times than he ever managed to forget about.

Don't feel all that sorry for him, he deserved it for other reasons !

Edited July 23, 2014 by Vincennes

[Antilles]

vincennes, I admire the logic you are using about Betty Gower but I really think the cops would have nailed her if she'd been involved. As much as we are looking, they were looking for the inside mole.

Everything stopped when H was arrested. That's not saying she couldn't have been involved but I don't think so. She's just too obvious.

If we accept that H was the stooge, then the mastermind walked away with a lot of money. Just as I don't accept Lindbergh being involved in the kidnapping, then I think whoever was the ringleader was smarter than involving Gower.

[mbrn30000]

vincennes, I admire the logic you are using about Betty Gower but I really think the cops would have nailed her if she'd been involved. As much as we are looking, they were looking for the inside mole.

Everything stopped when H was arrested. That's not saying she couldn't have been involved but I don't think so. She's just too obvious.

If we accept that H was the stooge, then the mastermind walked away with a lot of money. Just as I don't accept Lindbergh being involved in the kidnapping, then I think whoever was the ringleader was smarter than involving Gower.

Do you think someone was on the inside and if so, who?

I am not so sure the police would have nailed her. I see too many flaws in their thinking. I see too many cases where the police get it partly or entirely wrong. I do think H was guilty but I cannot believe he just happened to get lucky in so many ways that night. There are really only a few possibilities for an inside accomplice. It could still be someone nobody has ever thought about. I just think Betty is the suddenly unpredicted variable that night. If all had gone as planned, the baby would either be back in NY or at the Morrows...and Betty would still be in NY. So H would be entering an empy room with a ransom note for not. Only a few people knew where that baby was and even fewer knew where everyone else in the house was at the moment of the kidnapping. This plan by H should have never worked, but it did. I think whoever was in that room last was the co-conspirator and I think based on tesitmony and statements...that was betty.

Edited July 23, 2014 by mbrn30000

[Risktaker]

The detective's description of the articles in the room mentions a "sun lamp." I remember those puppies too. Was that because the high-flying aviator's son didn't get out in the natural sun light enough ?

The sunlamp was used because Charlie had rickets. He was also receiving Viosterol everyday. This is a vitamin supplement used to treat rickets. It was part of Charlie's diet. You can read about that here:

http://www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/viosterol.html

I am not so sure the police would have nailed her. I see too many flaws in their thinking.

Good point. The New Jersey State Police did investigate all the servants at the Lindbergh and Morrow homes. They did not find any past crime history for any of them. Does that mean none of them would have been involved in some way with this crime? I don't think so. We need to keep in mind the power of Charles Lindbergh over this investigation. He made it very clear to authorities that none of the servants from the Lindbergh home or the Morrow home would have betrayed him this way and that he and Mrs. Dwight Morrow had complete faith in the loyalty of their employees. It was made clear that the investigation should look elsewhere. So they did even though quite a few of them believed there was an insider attached to this crime.

I have read in the posts here about the Morrow servant Violet Sharp. This is a very interesting angle in this case. Violet and her sister Edna(Emily) are worth learning about. I will post a link here to a page about Violet Sharp. It has pictures of Violet and Edna. They almost look like twins! If you use the menu on the right hand side of this site you will find a link to various documents to read.

http://violetsharp.wordpress.com/violet-sharp-pictures/

[Vincennes]

vincennes, I admire the logic you are using about Betty Gower but I really think the cops would have nailed her if she'd been involved. As much as we are looking, they were looking for the inside mole.

Everything stopped when H was arrested. That's not saying she couldn't have been involved but I don't think so. She's just too obvious.

If we accept that H was the stooge, then the mastermind walked away with a lot of money. Just as I don't accept Lindbergh being involved in the kidnapping, then I think whoever was the ringleader was smarter than involving Gower.

Initially I thought the same thing. However, when I started reading her statement I was really taken back. Something just had to be going on there.

I am wondering is Lindbergh's ego was too big to admit he might have actually hired someone on to his staff who was such a criminal. Douglas points out that Lindbergh controlled the investigation in many ways and that control was an over ride to the what the police would have done. So did the investigation just stop or was it extremely influenced upon L's declaration ? I have to think maybe that's a possibility.

[Vincennes]

I didn't finish my yakety re. Betty's statement.

The other thing that she said, changed, and kept going back to so that she could dance around it was the fact that she opened one of the French doors after Ann left the room after Anne had made a point of closing things up.

That struck me as so odd when I first read it, then the way she phrased her way around it in her statement makes it another thing makes me definitely suspicious of her motive. After she talks about opening and later closing the window she mentions the fact that she turned on an electric heater in the room. I had to wonder if she turned on that heater to cover up how very cold the room was when she "discovered" the baby missing ? At first I thought perhaps that old hot water heating system had overheated the upstairs but that doesn't seem to have been the case because for some reason extra heat was needed. I have to give this window opening another "whaaat ~~." because of the fact in the 1930s they really had a poor concept of germs; e.g., you didn't always catch your cold by contact with germs, you often "caught" it from things like, going outside with your hair still damp from washing; you could "give" a baby a cold by changing the weight of his sleep ware from what is a winter weight to a summer weight. They didn't quite get the connection of these things lowering your resistance to cold germs. Things like this were themselves the cause.

So the open window with the electric heater cranked up to me is right on into weird.

To me another red flag waving in her statement was her wording of what happened at the end of her time looking over Mrs. W's new dresses. "Suddenly, I looked at my watch and said....blah, blah, blah" Okay, maybe I'm just being overly suspicious but it seems to be as if there is just something in that phrasing that comes out as if she is describing how she wanted her actions to be viewed. I hear it like the description of a character in a plays actions.

What was L's purpose in his ultimatum that no one was to enter the baby's room between 8 and 10:00 pm ?

The baby had rickets !!!! That brought back my mother's constant warning when I was little, "Eat your vegetables or you will get rickets!" I had to look up what causes that. Sounds like mom got that one wrong. She should have used it instead to make me drink my milk. For that they get him a sun lamp ? I'm wondering if a sun lamp can give you Vitamin D ? I guess it fit the program better than taking him outside of that 12 x 14 room and getting him a little actual sun shine. I can see that logic (not) What you should do is just better control the environment inside the room. Here I'm just laughing at some of their thought processes back then. Slapping the Vicks all over his back and chest. It ranks right up there with Betty giving him a laxative because of his cold. I guess it was good they had at least moved a little further down the road and weren't bleeding him.

[jandersen233]

My great-grandmother told me that she waited up listening to the radio in 1936 just to make sure that he "got it". Hauptmann was a very unpopular person when he died in "Old Smokey" here.

He was caught with nearly $15,000 in from the ransom money hidden in his garage, which did look a little bit suspicious. That's how he really got caught, by trying to pass some of these bills at a gas station, and his explanation that he was just holding this for a friend who had gone back to Germany was not very convincing. All of these bills were gold certificates that had been withdrawn from circulation in 1933, although the feds still had the serial numbers.

One unexplained mystery has always been where $30,000 of the ransom money went. Did Hauptmann hide it somewhere else or did he have accomplices? Only about $5,000 had been found before the other stash was discovered in Hauptmann's house so the rest is unaccounted for.

I don't believe he was innocent, but maybe he wasn't acting alone.

http://www.rarenewsp...com/view/550117

Yes he used a gold certificate but I have never read that the gold certificate was actually the one from the ransom money. I don't know why but this case is more than what I think it is. First is that the wife testified against her husband but then later sue the authorities in charge with her late husband's case for injustice because of racial discrimination being a German. furthermore, if dead man tell no lies why would Hauptmann insists that he was absolutely free of guilt until the end. The latter might be of no significance but still, I think there is more than to this than what we think it is.

[Antilles]

The gold certificate was one of the Lindbergh cache.

http://nypress.com/lindbergh-baby-booty-the-missing-ransom-money-may-still-be-up-there/

H had $14,600 pf the ransom money in his house.

vincennes, great work again about the sun lamp being used for L JNR's rickets.

I think the maid who killed herself has to be high on the list for the inside job. It could be someone from around Hopewell, who worked on the house or delivered to it. It could be one of the morrow's servants from their house - they'd know if L and Ann weren't coming back.

As you've said, had to be someone who knew which room was the baby's and that a ladder could be seen outside the loungeroom window.

[jandersen233]

@Antilles: I guess so. But why do I get the feeling that in both Bruno and his wife committed the crime. I don't know why but I can't keep it away from my thinking.

[Antilles]

I personally don't think His wife had anything to do with the kidnapping. Until her death in 84 or 94, I can't remember which, she continued to argue his innocence.

[Vincennes]

I personally don't think His wife had anything to do with the kidnapping. Until her death in 84 or 94, I can't remember which, she continued to argue his innocence.

I don't know exactly why I've just never thought of her as being a part of the actual kidnapping but I don't think she was either. I'm sure she is one that the police would have been all over at the time. The other two that just seemed so very solid to me were Mrs. and Mr. W, the cook and the butler. It just seemed to me everyone of their reactions were believable. There in one other person though that's not really mentioned in the timeline at all after making the phone call's to arrange Betty's transportion. The butler, Septimus, or for that matter, Violet, other than she was out on her pickup date. There is just nothing on Septimus' movements. He held the same Butler position that Mr. W did and they never talk about him being present in the kitchen for lunch, for dinner. He's just not mentioned at all. Whereas Mr. W, was immediately called for, he's right there in the middle of everything up to his hips. Perhaps it was his day off but I'd think there would be a mention of him having dinner and leaving the house.

A couple of things to add, I went back to that timeline and around the 6:00 pm mark one of the neighbors talked about seeing a black sedan with a ladder on the roof. In certain lights color can really show up different. Back then the colors they used were also pretty dark. There was supposedly a ladder on top. We don't know exactly what the neighbor had been told at that time. There is always the chance peoples' minds create memories about facts they learn later but could this guy have actually seen L arriving ? The ladder was 80" long when it was collapsed. That's 7' 6" I think cars were actually bigger than they are now. I've wondered if he could have gotten that ladder inside the car. I'm always putting things from my back window angled toward the front dash and depending how long the thing is, sometimes resting on it. That's the only thing that bothers me about that statement. I think if he possibly could have, he would have kept the ladder inside his car not on it's hood but it is a maybe.

I woke up again thinking of another angle of this case. I hate it when I get so involved in these threads, they keep going around in my head. Anyway, if you look at Betty's statement that Risky gave us the link for, she actually stutters over the fact she opened that window. She talks about it seems to go on and then goes back and repeats herself re. turning on the electric heater etc. It's really not that long of a statement but that's the only place a saw where there was stuttering repetition within the space of three paragraphs.

There is no date on that statement, nothing except that it was taken at the Newark Police Station. Of course, the stop at the pharmacy is also a big question. I'd like to know just how many days after the fact they took this statement. Looking through the timeline, the police really did a good job of getting statements down pretty fast. How many days later didn't she remember what she stopped for ?