Rita Witt's,"Lindbergh Case"Discussion Forum

Did Anonymouse Do It???

by (Login rwitty)
Forum Owner

Did Anonymouse do it, in 1932 newspapers hit the streets proclaiming a letter from Anonymouse tells of Lindbergh having Whatley dig a hole near a tree on the estate to bury some of the childs things.

It takes more than just words to convince Willentz and Trenchard, especialy if they already had Hauptmann pegged as the fall guy. Mr. Schipple, a close neighbor to Lindbergh admits to having Charley, as he claimed charley wandered onto his property, claiming he was holding the child for his parents, but a wild animal killed the child.

I believe something else happened that perhaps not Schipple but Lindbergh, Anne, or Elizabeth were resposible for, and Schipple tried to help with a lame excuse he had to retract. If you examine all the neighbor stories you will see they were making fancifull stories to cover what they all appently knew really happened. There was even an anonymouse letter claiming the child was burried nezt to a tree, that Lindbergh had Whatly dig a hole for. I don't think it was our anonymouse ,but one might ask him if he did it?

Pig Lady tells of New York Gangster types renting her cabins asking questions about Lindbergh's. Oh yeah all the neighbors report seeing green sedans, and finaly people who come here to this forum 75 year later still make excuses for the Lindbergh's who seem to be the real culprits.

It is quite suspicious why people seventy five years later keep re-interpreting the case with torn sheets of paper information, and denial of affadavits Gov. Hoffmann must have had in order for re-investigating the case. Ellerson and Whatley both sent Gov. Hoffman affadavits that something else happened to Charley,perhaps an accident. Looking back at how the neighbors covered Lindbergh even down to the blind neighbor who saw a green sedan, it makes you wonder what information did all those neighbors really have?

Regarding those selective bits of partial information you guys keep trying to interject here, pasting a part of evidence or fragments of a torn sheet, is the same as re-construeing the original evidence to fit your own theory. Dave's posts just drip with re-construed evidence, hearsay in the court of law, from off the cuff secrets in interviews just given to him by authors and case participants, who if they had that information why didn't they put it in their books. This kind of information is hard to believe, and suggests trying to build up their current weak evidence against Hauptmann. There is even a claim of a photograph of Charley's body where half the face still has flesh to prove their point against Hauptmann, and this is done over the weak evidence that it was the body of Charley.

This message has been edited by rwitty from IP address 99.164.47.64 on Aug 6, 2008 7:31 PM
This message has been edited by rwitty from IP address 99.164.47.64 on Aug 6, 2008 7:31 PM

Posted on Jun 8, 2008, 9:39 AM
from IP address 99.164.39.186

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Find more forums on Law

Create your own forum at Network54

Add Me! - Search Engine Optimization