Print

[Don Dollinger]

what might Gallagher have known about Earhart’s flight, and the subsequent searches?  I don’t recall reading any analysis of British news coverage of the day. 

I lived in the Bedfordshire district of England for 4 years in the late 70's and I would estimate that a good 70% of the news in the 3 British papers I had access to was international news with a good half of those stories out of the US, especially celebrity news, and Amelia was a celebrity.
With that said, back then I knew of the Amelia Earhart story but was not that interested in it other then a gee whiz type of thing.  I explored alot of England and among other places visited, one that sticks in mind is Woburn Abbey which is the home to the Duke of Bedford.  There is a room in there that is devoted to Dame Mary Russell (aka "The Flying Duchess"), the wife of the 11th Duke of Bedford who was quite the aviatrix herself.  She was actually lost in '37 as well when she crashed in the North Sea on a solo flight and this was when she was 73 years old.  She was a huge fan of Amelia's and in that exhibit was a scrapbook full of news clips and photos of just about everything Amelia ever did.  It does go to show that she was getting press and they at least knew it was taking place.
Why I remember this particular exhibit is because of a single photo.  It was reported to have been taken by Amelia herself.  It was a long exposure shot.  She pointed the camera at a chair and then opened the shutter and after some time had passed she sat in the chair for a short period and then got up and closed the shutter.  The developed photo was a ghost image of Amelia sitting in the chair.  Supposedly it was taken shortly before the flight and it asked the question, did she have a premonition of her impending doom? (as "The Twilight Zone" music plays in background -  )

[John Ousterhout]

Chris - did the papers you read speculate that the aircraft might be on land, or even mention the radio messages?  Or, did they give the impression that the aircraft must have gone into the ocean?  In other words, did the news stores that Gallagher might have read give one impression or the other, so that they might have formed some preconception of Amelia's fate before he arrived at the island?
For example, if he read that the plane had crashed into the ocean, but then found bones on the beach, he might assume they got there by life raft, so he wouldn't think to look for aircraft wreckage.  If he'd read that the plane might be on land, before he heard of the bones on the beach, then he might look around for an aircraft.  Reading the news stories of the day might help fill in some context that makes sense of what we know now.

[Matt Revington]

John
Try this search using the google news archive, some newspaper require fees but many are still  free, reading the original papers is a great way to get a feel for what people knew

https://www.google.com/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=ca&hl=en&tbm=nws&gl=ca&as_q=earhart&as_occt=any&as_drrb=b&as_mindate=7%2F01%2F1937&as_maxdate=7%2F20%2F1937&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A7%2F01%2F1937%2Ccd_max%3A7%2F20%2F1937&authuser=0

Its supposed to filter for the dates from July 1-20 1937 but a few current articles seem to also be cited

[Chris Austin]

A quick search of the British Newspaper Archive via the British Library using search words "Amelia Earhart" "1937 World Flight" & "missing" turned up 26 webpages of stories from UK National, regional and local papers covering the flight.
Looks like it was a popular story.

http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results?basicsearch=%2bamelia%20%2bearhart%20%22amelia%20earhart%22%201937%20world%20flight%20missing&freesearch=amelia%20earhart&phrasesearch=amelia%20earhart&somesearch=1937%20world%20flight%20missing&sortorder=score

[Ric Gillespie]

Looks like it was a popular story.

That's what I would expect given AE's strong career tie-ins with the UK - the 1928 landing in Wales and the 1932 landing in Northern Ireland.

[John A Fisher]

From a very long read about this issue of the shoe sole I can see that it is important as possible link to Earhart and quite obviously to the TIGHAR case. Now as I read it and I could be wrong the Captain of the Norwich City asked once the rescue ships had arrived that besides the necessary comestibles etc. could be provided that the ships could send ashore shoes because as he indicates in his report -   

"Most of the survivors in their efforts to reach safety had discarded as much of their clothing as possible, some were without boots, some without clothes and most of them were cut about the body by the sharp coral and rocks. All were in a very dejected state but thankful to have reached safety."

But what puzzles me is that generally the type of tramp steamers involved were not exactly shoe emporiums and rustling up spare footwear might be very difficult. I can imagine that the average matelot of the period might not possess excess pairs of shoes. Now this might sound daft but does anyone know what was cargo being carried by the two ships involved in the rescue, did one have on board a consignment of shoes or cobblers' supplies that could have provided the requested footwear or in fact was any footwear provided at all? If they'd had to scrounge around maybe a pair of small size shoes was found and they were sent ashore with a promise to reclaim them later. Just a thought because there is a real lot of doubt being expressed about the relevance of this particular shoe sole from what I have read.   

[Ric Gillespie]

But what puzzles me is that generally the type of tramp steamers involved were not exactly shoe emporiums and rustling up spare footwear might be very difficult. I can imagine that the average matelot of the period might not possess excess pairs of shoes.

The two ships that responded to NC's SOS were SS Trongate and MV Lincoln Ellsworth. Both were in port in Apia, Samoa when the SOS came in and embarked from there on the rescue mission to Gardner.  No mention in the Inquiry whether either had cargo aboard.  All of the interaction between ship and shore at Gardner seems to have been by Trongate. 

Just a thought because there is a real lot of doubt being expressed about the relevance of this particular shoe sole from what I have read.

Don't mistake doubt for resistance.  A woman's shoe sole that may match shoes known to have been worn by Amelia is powerful circumstantial evidence.  When people attack its relevance by speculating that Gallagher and Steenson were mistaken, rather than coming up with an alternative explanation for a woman's shoe being there, it's a sign of desperation.

[John A Fisher]

When people attack its relevance by speculating that Gallagher and Steenson were mistaken, rather than coming up with an alternative explanation for a woman's shoe being there, it's a sign of desperation.

Well just throwing out a hypothetical here and feel free to laugh it down but what if the request for footwear prompted some sailor to donate a pair of size 9s that he had intended for one his girls in every port, but then decided that the guys on the island might have a better claim to his generosity - or else he had an old spare pair of size 9s. Stranger things have happened at sea,  and that shoe sole is from that random act of kindness.

It is just that this is one of the clear instances I know of where a sea rescue party was asked to donate shoes and by chance that also happens to be on an island where a missing pilot who had similar shoes is suggested to have landed. It is sort of strange you must admit     

[Ric Gillespie]

For me, the need for such fanciful constructions of ways to get a woman's shoe (other than the Earhart shoe which appears to fit all of the necessary criteria) to the Seven Site demonstrates the strength of the hypothesis that the shoe parts Gallagher found were indeed from shoes belonging to Earhart and Noonan.

[Gloria Walker Burger]

Gallagher wrote:

There are indications that person was alive when cast ashore – fire, birds killed, etc.

From the words 'cast ashore', it sounds like he wasn't thinking the bones belonged to a person who came down on the island in a plane. That this person came from the ocean.

[Ric Gillespie]

Gallagher wrote:

There are indications that person was alive when cast ashore – fire, birds killed, etc.

From the words 'cast ashore', it sounds like he wasn't thinking the bones belonged to a person who came down on the island in a plane. That this person came from the ocean.

Good point.

[Ric Gillespie]

How about Marooned?

Technically, someone who is "marooned" is intentionally put ashore and abandoned. Ben Gunn in Treasure Island was marooned by Capt. Flint.
Alexander Selkirk, upon whom Defoe's Robin Crusoe is based, was marooned.  To our knowledge, no one has ever marooned anyone on Gardner (although I'll admit I have been tempted).

[Ric Gillespie]

See what middle English professionals make of it.

I didn't know anyone still spoke Middle English.

[Ric Gillespie]

My bad was meaning 'middle English' i.e. middle class as opposed to 'middle English' which would be Chaucer to Tudor English which includes lots of words that are 'Ye Olde Worlde' 

Trivia time: Did you know that the "Y" in Ye Olde etc. is just an archaic abbreviation for "th"?  There's nothing new about spelling shortcuts.  (Texting was very popular in Chaucer's time but fell into disuse until recently.)

[Greg Daspit]

Discussed before by others but I think it was a good point:
Since Gallagher knew of Earhart’s disappearance, he probably knew the theory she was lost at sea so may have believed the person was "cast ashore” from a plane wreck at sea. Still from the sea, but possibly from a  plane first.

Sept 23, 1940 In Gallagher's telegram to authorities, he says bones are “possibly that of Amelia Earhardt. [sic]” and “ very slight chance that this may be remains of Amelia Earhardt”

He then receives telegram 66 from Holland on Oct 1, 1940 asking
“b) How far from shore,
(c) In your opinion does burial appear deliberate or could it be accounted for by encroachments of sand, etc.,
(d) Is site of an exposed one (i.e. if the body of Mrs. Putnam had lain there is it likely that it would have been spotted by aerial searchers)?
(e) In what state of preservation is shoe,
(f) If well preserved does it appears to be of modern style or old fashioned,
(g) Is there any indication as to contents of bottle. Do you know anything of wreck of "Norwich City" — e.g. when did it takes place, were any lives lost and how long were survivors marooned at Gardner Island? Resident”

Oct. 6, 1940 -Gallagher  replies to a telegram where Earhart is still a possible source. He uses the phrase “cast ashore” in response to (g) where Holland  implied asked about “marooned” crew from the Norwich City. So if Gallagher thought they were questioning if the person was marooned or abandoned, he may have been trying to clarify his analysis by using the “cast shore” phrase in his response.

“g) "Benedictine" bottle but no indication of contents, There are indications that person was alive when cast ashore – fire, birds killed, etc., "Norwich City" wrecked and caught fire 1930 or 1932. Number of crew sailed to Fiji in lifeboat, remainder picked up later at Gardner by "Ralum". Think Board of Enquiry held Suva - loss of life not known. This information derived from gossip only”

From d)” Mrs. Putnam” is still a consideration by authorities at the time Gallagher uses the phrase "cast ashore"