Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,654
|
Post by Joe on Aug 19, 2007 11:45:44 GMT -5
Here's my own current read on the timeline for the kidnapping of CALjr. I've recognized the existence of only one kidnapper here, although I believe it more likely an accomplice was present. The times I've suggested are approximate. I hope this is able to provide some food for thought and as always, look forward to any comments and questions that might help to determine what really took place..
5:30 pm Kidnapper's car is seen by Mrs. Henry Wendling as it proceeds from Zion towards Hopewell. Essential description matches that of Ben Lupica's.
5:50 pm Ben Lupica observes the kidnapper in a dark coloured Dodge sedan containing ladder, driving south on Hopewell-Amwell Road (then called Hopewell-Wertsville Road) a few hundred yards north of Lindbergh estate driveway.
6:10 pm The kidnapper, having driven past the east entrance of Featherbed Lane, proceeds south on Hopewell-Amwell Road and into Hopewell, west along East Broad Street, north on Hopewell-Wertsville Road (as it is called today) and enters the west entrance of Featherbed Lane.
6:30 pm The Conover family, having just come home, notice the lights of a vehicle coming along Featherbed Lane, just west of their property. The driver turns out his lights upon seeing a lamp lighted within the Conover house. Henry Conover, sharpening a pencil by the window after dinner, sees the lights of the vehicle again as it appears to be struggling along the lane.
8:10 pm The kidnapper, having waited for the past hour and a half near the east entrance of Featherbed Lane, drives north on Hopewell-Amwell Road and enters the Lindbergh's private cinder drive. He slowly drives the 6/10 mile distance to the house with lights out and parks just off the drive. He then unloads the kidnap ladder and other equipment required for the kidnapping, placing them at a point east of the house. Anne Lindbergh actually hears the the sound of his tires' approach on the cinder drive, but dismisses the noise as insignificant.
8:15 pm Kidnapper exits the Lindberghs' private drive and heads south on Hopewell-Amwell Road.
8:25 pm Lindbergh arrives home from NYC. Sheer luck has allowed the kidnapper to exit the property before he otherwise would have been boxed in and confronted in the private drive by Lindbergh. At the same time, the kidnapper has no idea Lindbergh has just arrived home.
8:40 pm The kidnapper, driving along his previous route through Hopewell and north along Hopewell-Wertsville Road, again enters the west entrance of Featherbed Lane. He drives along until he is familiar with his positioning, turns out his lights and parks his vehicle south of the Lindbergh house. (The observation by Oscar Bush that two cars were present in the lane may be supportive to this theory, in that it was actually the kidnapper's car being there twice)
9:00 pm The kidnapper has walked the 6/10 of a mile distance between Featherbed Lane and his staging point for the abduction and is ready to strike. He observes the upper level of the house for any sign of light or activity, especially the location of the corner nursery for at least 5 minutes.
9:05 pm Satisfied that it is safe to proceed, the kidnapper begins his assault from the staging area, the point at which he had previously placed the ladder and equipment.
9:15 pm The kidnapper has entered the nursery and exited with the child, who is now dead, leaving behind the nursery ransom note. He has removed the ladder to a point approximately 75 feet south-east of the corner nursery, where he abandons it. At the same time, he inadvertantly drops the chisel at the same location.
9:20 pm The kidnapper, with the dead child in tow, has completed part of his journey back to Featherbed Lane, when he is interrupted by two dogs who have picked up his scent. They run towards the source and there is a brief confrontation of man and beast. The kidnapper stands his ground and the dogs retreat.
9:40 pm The kidnapper has now arrived back at his vehicle. He exits Featherbed Lane with a minimum of engine noise and with lights out. The Conovers have gone to bed and do not hear the vehicle driving out of the lane.
10:20 pm The child has now been buried a few miles south of Franklin Park, NJ, at a point just north of Interstate 1.
11:30 pm Kidnapper arrives at his home in the Bronx, quickly changes clothes and washes up.
12:00 pm Kidnapper arrives at Frederickson's Bakery to pick up his wife from work.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 19, 2007 18:37:25 GMT -5
Many interesting things in your time-line Joe....
I notice you exclude Ellerson's encounter - do you think this car wasn't connected? If it was it shows at least one participant was on scene around 3PM. Not the same car Lupica saw.
This is based upon the FBI Summary and they got it wrong. The car they (Mr. & Mrs.) saw was actually was closer to 4:30PM.
FYI to both you and Kevin.... Ellerson took about 2 full hours to reach Hopewell from Englewood. The 2-1/2 to 3 hr. estimate from the Bronx seems to fit in with this fact.
Are you suggesting the Thornbergs were involved?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,654
|
Post by Joe on Aug 19, 2007 19:02:46 GMT -5
I don't really know what to make of Ellerson's encounter with the green Ford coupe. Initially it piqued my interest because of Brevoort Bollmer's recollection of a similar vehicle with ladder attached to its side which stopped at this filling station in the early morning hours of March 1. Still, I don't see enough hard evidence to suggest any connection between the vehicles or that they were the cars of confederates of the kidnapper.
Thanks, Michael for the correction on the time that the Wendlings saw the dark-coloured Dodge. Do you know if they noticed a ladder in the vehicle? That would have been a lot of daylight for the kidnapper to have been driving around in and even begins to make Hochmuth's account of the vehicle seen "in the forenoon," just a little more believable. Speaking of which, wasn't there another account of a "ladder vehicle" seen in the general vicinity of Hochmuth's residence in the afternoon of the same day, I believe a vehicle which passed another motorist and was observed to contain a ladder? I've read something about that recently on the internet, but wouldn't know where to look right now to find it. It could have been one of Sue's articles.
My timeline has the kidnapper taking a little over two hours to reach the Bronx from Hopewell, which I would attribute to fairly aggressive driving and a desire to leave his deeds behind him as quickly as possible.
I'm not at all familiar with the Thornbergs. My positioning of the burial south of Franklin Park is based on the route I believe the kidnapper would have taken out of Hopewell, along state highway 518 to Franklin Park and south to Interstate 1.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Aug 20, 2007 7:50:13 GMT -5
Joe - so, on your 9:15 timeline, are you saying your theory is Charlie was dead b/4 leaving the nursery? Just wanting to make sure I was interpreting it properly.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 20, 2007 10:09:13 GMT -5
Just my personnel opinion, but I really don't put too much stock in any of the so called eyewitness accounts regarding the vehicle(s) with the exception of Conover. Even in that sighting I am not sure how accurate the time is. Eyewitnesses in these cases are notoriously inaccurate and often heavily prejudiced by what they think they remember after learning of an event. As for muddy cars I think that dirt roads were the rule , not the exception in that area at the time. I doubt the criminal would linger or delay in his actions unless some unforeseen event caused him to do so. I would also mention that the infamous ladder was designed with lightness in favor of strength. Such a decision would indicate to me that Hauptmann anticipated carrying it overland and would not need to drive up to the house to unload it. Had that option been available I think the ladder would be far more robust. Also, and I know I am probably alone in this regard, I do think that there was an element of opportunism in this crime. Many crimes combine both elements of planning and opportunity. The real question is what was planned and what was a result of the proper circumstances. Again, I will take the more unpopular road and say that the issue of this particular night can be looked at from a different prospective in that it was the worst possible night for an insider to be involved. The perfect opportunity for an insider would be one in which no unusual conditions exist. I will go back again to the point I have raised before in questioning this particular method of abduction. That has special significance given the "target" and the laws regarding kidnapping versus murder or death resulting from a crime. The facts are that risks associated by the use of any ladder and especially this one, are acceptable in regard to an illegal entry but they become unacceptable when such a method is employed to safely conduct a child out of the second floor. So with the opportunities available to kidnap this child in rural Hopewell ( especially if you believe inside assistance available) why in earth would one risk the whole endeavor and one's neck by employing a risky second floor abduction? Is this the result of careful planning? Is that half ass ed Nursery note a result of the same careful planning? Is showing up hours before necessary the result of careful planning? Is flying around the rural town of Hopewell attracting attention the result of careful planning? Is stuffing a child in an old burlap sack the result of careful planning? You tell me.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,654
|
Post by Joe on Aug 20, 2007 10:18:23 GMT -5
There was a time when I believed the baby was accidentally killed or mortally wounded during the abduction and that it was the original intent of the kidnapper to negotiate a quick "snatch and return" of the child unharmed. Due to some recent revelations which I have little reason to doubt, I now believe the kidnapper's intent all along was to kill the child and negotiate the ransom payment for a corpse. I still think it was also the kidnapper's original intent to deal with Lindbergh discreetly without police or press involvement, but that he failed to give clear instructions on the outside of the nursery note envelope.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 20, 2007 15:58:47 GMT -5
Joe, are you aware of the Lightfoots? I am thinking they were mentioned in one of the books. If not I have a ton of info on their suspicions and they lived in Franklin Park.
I believe this is true but cars traveling on roads were noticed. Alot of these roads were seldom used, and I don't believe there was much auto traffic in the area according to the reports. Locals noticed locals, and Locals noticed cars they didn't recognize even making mental notes of it. Lupica is a perfect example - one of the 1st things he did was to look at the license plate to try to determine where this car was from.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,654
|
Post by Joe on Aug 20, 2007 17:08:00 GMT -5
No, Michael, I haven't heard of the Lightfoots either. In fact, the first reference I've ever seen regarding Franklin Park was a few weeks ago as I studied a 1930's map, trying to figure out the route Hauptmann would have taken from Hopewell to the Bronx. The turnoff from state highway 518 at Franklin Park caught my eye as being the most likely place he would have buried the child before connecting with Interstate 1, which more or less would then take him right into the Bronx along main thoroughfares. Now you've really piqued my interest in the suspicions of people who lived in this area. Care to elaborate?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,654
|
Post by Joe on Aug 21, 2007 8:56:07 GMT -5
By this, Kevin, I believe you're talking about the kidnapper having had in mind something else besides kidnapping at first, but when presented with the opportunity, took advantage. Why then, I'm wondering would he have had such an elaborate symbol on writing paper already in the car along with the devices used to create that symbol, if his original intention was something other than kidnapping, such as a straightforward robbery?
I agree with your point about the ladder's lightness and its portability factor, to an extent. But the kidnapper must have also had other required equipment to pull this off. The chisel and a flashlight come to mind right away. And we're still talking about a 6/10 of a mile trek with a 38 pound ladder. It would be interesting to brainstorm a "minimum inventory" required, given a number of intent and entry scenarios. I think we have also come to see a decided lazy streak in addition to the risk taking and determination factor of this kidnapper and I consider a "dropoff," even at a point so close to the house, a real possibility.
I think it is when you consider the symbol conceived and generated and my own belief that it was just as important if not moreso than the actual nursery note missive, in the mind of the writer. The writer in my estimation got his point across extremely well with a minimum of superfluous writing in this note and I believe he fully expected Lindbergh to do as he instructed by not calling in the police so that the exchange could be made discreetly and within days, not weeks. He's basically saying "I've got your kid, get the money ready, don't call the cops and I'll be in touch soon." What else need he say at this point? I don't know if the lack of detail necessarily means he hasn't thought out the abduction and extortion to a considerable degree. I think it more likely means he's still somewhat non-commital about the logistics of the actual exchange of dead child for ransom payment.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 21, 2007 10:42:46 GMT -5
Is it really so elaborate? I wonder. Why would someone with ample time to design and prepare this "singnature" utilize the ink bottle and cork? That's a kinda messy way to make a circle. Think about this process and what it entails, would someone trained in technical drawing use this method if there was an option? Wouldn't a simple die such as a piece of a dowel be more practical? I don't expect anyone, especially those with so much time and intellectual energy invested in the various kidnap scenarios to buy into what I am proposing. I think it is fair to say that most of those interested in this case, even those who support the official verdict are left with a sense that something is amiss with this crime. What I am doing is re-thinking the most basic of all the premises. What is the nature of this crime? Why does the puzzle seem incomplete? Maybe it's because we are looking at the wrong picture. Remove the concept of a planned kidnapping and what do you see? I admit it's a radical approach and one not likely to be accepted, but when you look at this crime from a completely different perspective many pieces fall into place. Put it another way, how strong is the evidence that it had to be a planned kidnapping? The Nursery note? Once again I ask , is this really the product of careful thought and preparation constructed under favorable conditions?
A simple pry bar would suffice. Throw in a screwdriver for good measure. Oh, how about something to carry the loot. Perhaps a bag or a burlap sack?
And did this "elaborate" symbol constructed with great thought and the text of the note work? No, it failed miserably. Would any potential kidnapper with ample time to think about the all important first communication neglect to emphasize the threat of not obeying the instructions to the letter? Kidnapping is all about control and power, it's what causes certain types to gravitate toward this particular crime.What do we have in the Nursery note? Where is the bravado and threat? Why place it in an envelope? when you read this note do you actually have the feeling that it is the result of someone sitting down prior to the crime and composing the grand announcement? This is the Lindbergh child we are talking about, can you imagine the mindset of someone planning to do this? And the result of such an audacious plan is the paltry Nursery note? Gimmme 50k We warn you not to contact the police or make anything public ( how can you do one with out the other, anyway?) The child is in good care.
Leave it in an envelope to show proper kidnapping etiquette and you have one helluva ransom note. Oh yeah, sign it with that elaborate signature with the holes ( the ones that no one ever bothers to check) for good measure.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 21, 2007 19:01:53 GMT -5
Has anyone else ever heard of them or am I just under the impression its a well known fact?
Joe its uncanny that you came to this conclusion. We've been doing this for a long time now and for that reason I think your hunch, in my opinion, needs to be examined. The Lightfoot matter was given a considerable amount of time by the NJSP and later by Gov. Hoffman. In a nut-shell she believed her employees may have been involved having taken her car and returned it with the right amount of miles for a Hopewell run. Later it was supposed to have been proven that it contained mud of the same make-up found in Hopewell....etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 22, 2007 9:11:01 GMT -5
Kevin--I am working my way thru your theory and I think it deserves merit. There are lots of reasons for some person to be visiting Highfields over the weekend--a relative, or stranger above board and below board. eg any seemingly normal person might turn crazy or criminal in a split second and injure or snatch Charlie. But we part ways on the singnature/symbol: - Is it elaborate....YES....when you take into account the paper torn in half and the holes punched w/ Mersman table and the TWO ink bottles. Thats alot of equipment to assemble on the fly.
- So although the accidental snatch itself could be spontaneous, the ransom symbol and its construction would take some time and forethought.
- In addition, the pattern chosen just happens to be one that is NOT random but associated with Sacred Geometry, the occult and religion. And dont forget the Hebraic squiggles.
- Its almost TOO elaborate using Parker's theory of criminal overthinking?
- maybe the backup note writer created the Nursery Note?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 22, 2007 12:40:37 GMT -5
Well thanks Rick for at least considering it. I know I am treading on sacred ground here so I really don't expect much consideration from the various sects. You feel the symbol and holes are more than a unique and difficult to copy identifier, I personally don't share that view. As for the Mersman brace, all I can say is anyone who feels it has relevance should invest a few bucks on EBay and prove it. Interestingly though, remember only the brace is needed for this rather odd endeavor so it actually is quite easily transported. I would still stick to my guns on the issue of the note construction. The construction of those notes and symbols has been largely ignored in favor of the handwriting issue in much the same way that the ladder construction has been overshadowed by the wood identification investigations. I still would ask if anyone can honestly say with absolute conviction whether that Nursery note seems to be a product of someone with ample time on their hands. Why improvise the construction of those circles? Why not use a standard hole punch? Why the ink runs? And once again, why does the one note which should be the most important and have the most impact lack the basic components of a kidnapping note? Try and think about the state of mind one would be in prior to the crime and then tell me if it is reflected in this all important note. Do the unthinkable and think about this crime without that first note. What do you see?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2007 16:14:58 GMT -5
I personally view anything you have to say as important to consider. I have always said a number of things which we may be agreeing upon despite any other differences we may have concerning the nature or intent of the crime.
I never believed the crime was planned for March 1st. I have said numerous times that I felt the planning called for a weekend snatch. I felt the prolonged stay was relayed to the Parties in question causing a rush to pull the heist early. Now piggy-backing off of your position would you be opposed to the possibility this trip was meant for a little recon and/or intel only to discover he was there?
I don't believe the child was ever meant to be kept alive. I have stated he may have been dead before they even got there. Whoever pulled CJr. from under those covers w/o un-pinning him proves he was handled roughly and with little regard for his care. The thumb-guard, regardless how it got where it was, also proves the suit was removed while the guard was still tied to the arm. Again, this is indicative of rough treatment towards the toddler.
I proposed this act was motivated by payment from an outside source and that possibly the note was meant as a blind originally. I can't see someone taking the time, ex post facto, to write the note as a reaction to a non-planned event. I do believe the symbol, while simple in appearance, was the product of serious thought. The design, the colors, the lines, and the holes. Them 3 holes which the Police were NEVER able to find the origin of when they were all looking for the template they believed was used to create them.
I just don't see this as accidental or based upon a whim.
But of course that's just my personal position and I welcome disagreement because I'll be the first to acknowledge I've been wrong about things in the past....but I've also been right.
Regardless of which night it appears they expected both the shutter and window to be open. It's hard for me to accept it was the nursery if not for any other reason then to take CJr dead or alive - although most likely dead.
Don't give up on this - let's continue to kick our points around to find some common ground here.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Aug 22, 2007 22:59:26 GMT -5
Hi Rick, Kevkon, Michael I think you have got the right track with these last posts, as none of the events, or happenings family and employees described for their supposed kidnap were real, and it even appears Mrs. Morrow didn't believe what appears to be a series of tall tales not a kidnap. It seems like this points to Charley being already dead or being sent off to some sanitarium, perhaps the one Dr. Carrell returned to France for experimental treatment.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,654
|
Post by Joe on Aug 23, 2007 8:58:54 GMT -5
I've been asking myself this for years, particularly why this puzzle seems incomplete and and recognizing that there is this kind of pregnant bubble hovering just out of sight. I guess for me it's the evolving belief this was not a larger group conspiracy, which was whittled away by the accidental death of the baby, but the single and demented vision of a mentally ill and murderous individual. If I momentarily remove the concept of a well planned kidnapping, I don't see anything happening here at all. I see Richard picking up his wife from Frederickson's Bakerty on time on the night of March 1, 1932 and life carrying on for the Hauptmanns as it had for the previous seven years, albeit with Richard Hauptmann's illness bubbling just below the surface. I think this caper represented an all or nothing ultimate life event for him to satisfy his own internal desire to pull off something so challenging and unimagineable to the "common man," while guaranteeing him a lifetime of wealth, with what he believed was his knack for the stock market. And I believe he planned it out accordingly, making mistakes along the way, but nevertheless giving it his full attention for some time.
I think it was all there in the nursery note, with the exception of his one big mistake, not instructing Lindbergh on the outside of the envelope. This is a man who made singular big mistakes, while at the same time believing he was covering all of his bases. The placement of the dowel holes is a classic Hauptmann mistake, within an otherwise well planned and innovative ladder design. Spending ransom money in plain sight, while remaining undetected for two and a half years is another one. Sitting with Condon for over an hour on a bench at Woodlawn Cemetery and letting down his guard is yet another major mistake during lengthy and cautious negotiations, as is the proliferation of ransom notes written in his own hand and using Rail 16 in the ladder.
I though that perhaps someone around Franklin Park had seen or heard something relating to disturbed ground in the area. I'm not sure what to think of Lightfoot's assertion here that some of her employees were involved, but would this not have been investigated to completion with their ultimate exoneration?
My thoughts around Franklin Park relate primarily to its proximity in a straight line from Hopewell to Interstate 1, which then runs north-east towards NYC. It just seems a likely spot for Hauptmann to have buried the child without having to go out of his way, along a state highway (518) which would have made a lot of sense to choose and before he hit the mainthoroughfares that would ultimately take him into the Bronx.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 23, 2007 10:54:54 GMT -5
Even though we are tacking into the wind, with each pass we are getting a little closer to the Truth:
Isn't it just as likely that the weekend of the snatch was the previous one just as likely as the next one? Lets say for instance that Charlie disappears Feb 27,28,29 but that there necessitates a "hurry up" plan to cover for Charlie's absence until proper arrangements can be made to get him back safely? The "measly" $50K ransom request has always been held under suspicion as a blind for the true reason for Charlie's disappearance. This might account for the sloppy job on the ransom note, maybe over the phone, and also might account for some of the odd anomalies of the kidnap scene never explained--like the rickety ladder and lack of fingerprints? CAL would not want these secondary efforts discovered. There are lots of reasons why the family might want to stage and alter the time frame of the actual event. It still comes off as an inside job. Those who argue you can ever "negotiate" for a corpse are delusional.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 23, 2007 12:46:38 GMT -5
A well planned kidnapping? Then it follows that; * Hauptmann likely had inside knowledge or help. * Hauptmann had an accomplice as he could never care for and hold the child by his lonesome. * The well planned kidnap incorporated a plan for a lengthy ransom negotiation with extensive communications. * An efficient and safe way to launder the money was planned.
That's a helluva an oversight. What if the note had been out in the open? Does this note really impart a sense of dire threat. Did Lindbergh, upon learning the contents, immediately put together the 50K? This should be the mother of all ransom notes. Instead it's rather generic and totally lacking the heavy handed threats so common to these communications. Just think about your mindset and position prior to this event. You are in a weak position since the crime has not yet been successfully committed. You are asking for 50k from the most famous man in the world. At this stage you are bluffing. Does the Nursery note reflect this position? It's not even close.
Joe, like you I have very little belief in a larger conspiracy. I am not closed to the idea, but basically I don't think it's possible to contain such an octopus with so many dedicated detectives and researchers looking for it. By this point something tangible in that regard would have appeared. It has not. So I am left with Hauptmann, who no matter how hard some try, cannot be removed from the crime. Now maybe he had an accomplice or two, but that is another avenue which keeps coming up empty. So at the end of the day, when it is all said and done, there is Richard Hauptmann inexorably tied to this crime. But what crime? I can believe Hauptmann was possible of many things, but was he really a premeditated child killer? Because there simply was no way for him to carry out this crime in the manner done without harming that child and there was absolutely no way he could care for and hold that child. Does one plan a crime in which the actions required for completion are not available to the criminal? Did Hauptmann emerge from his crime hiatus to plan the most spectacular crime imaginable with the full knowledge that it would be impossible for him to fully enact it? Or did he do so with the knowledge that he would have to kill a child to make it possible? Neither option works for me.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,654
|
Post by Joe on Aug 23, 2007 13:30:38 GMT -5
Kevin, I'm hoping this debate isn't becoming too polar in it's definitions of what "well planned" means. In my own mind, Hauptmann wasn't flying by the seat of his pants when he drove to Hopewell on March 1. He knew what he wanted to do and he believed he had prepared accordingly, probably even obsessing over some of the detail, notably the ransom note symbol. Maybe it's not the way you or I would have done things, but when you're basically operating by yourself, you don't really have the luxury of bouncing ideas around with others, when it comes to stealing Charles Lindbergh's son.
Excuse my terminology here. I meant "well planned kidnapping" to the extent of how he was going to carry it out and get the child in his possession. I believe he may have had some inside help but also that the planning required for this doesn't necessarily demand it; reconnaisance and trial runs may very well have been a part of the game plan. I don't think the month long negotiations were part of the kidnapper's original plan, believing it was intended by the kidnapper for payment to be made within days, not weeks. We don't have the benefit of knowing now how much of the ransom was successfully laundered, as the accounting practices used against Hauptmann have been demonstrated to be somewhat suspect, but I tend to believe the kidnapper's greed before the fact, overrode any specifically designed methods as to how he was going to spend it "safely."
I have absolutely no disagreement about Hauptmann being front and centre in this crime. Do you have a working scenario then, for what did take place and his original intentions? I think you've alluded to a robbery gone sideways, but I'm not clear as to why he would go to this degree of difficulty for an unspecified material gain from a target so far removed from the mainstream of opportunity.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 23, 2007 15:24:28 GMT -5
Joe, it's not my intention to put you against the ropes on the issue of planning. Suffice to say that there are many degrees of planning, but if we are talking about kidnapping the son of Charles Lindbergh then we have one spectacular crime here. What degree of planning would be sufficient for such an endeavor? Yes, I mentioned the possibility of a robbery gone wrong. It may seem incredible, but is it really more so than some of the other scenarios proposed? I mean some of the theories I have heard would require the inclusion of hundreds, especially considering that each person has personal links to many more. I brought up the idea of a robbery because I think that in many ways this crime resembles one. Of course that is before the encounter in the Nursery. I have never been able to shake what for me is the single biggest impediment to Hauptmann the kidnapper. The guy simply didn't have any way to care for and contain that kid. Now maybe he has more ice in his veins then I already think he does. Maybe he was fully committed to killing the child from the outset. One thing is certain though, you don't wing a kidnapping. Especially one with this target. When I look at this from a different perspective, that is a crime originally planned as something other, many of the oddities which exist seem to be understandable. It makes sense that the night in question was picked, the Lindberghs were not expected to be there. The use of a lightweight ladder to gain entry to the second floor without the concern over the safe removal of a child makes sense. The odd Nursery note with it's emphasis on the money and little regard to the crime itself and the consequences of failing to follow orders , makes sense. The almost careless disposal of the body, makes sense. The protracted and odd ransom negotiations close to home with Condon even seems more understandable when the weight of the kidnapping grand plan is removed. Just my thoughts on this issue, I doubt we will ever know one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 23, 2007 20:17:42 GMT -5
Kevin - with this possible theory in motion what might have been the original target(s)? This being the weekend house what items of value would the Perps risk their lives for? Let's think about this for a minute. They weren't even supposed to be there, so we'd have to assume it was something left behind. See my point? While I do agree that a burlap bag was more suited for, say, sterling silver ware, what evidence do we have that something like this was on the 2nd floor? There when the Lindbergh's weren't? Ever existed at Highfields at all?
Regardless of what anyone thinks they were there for it just couldn't have been a "scavenger hunt" type crime - could it?
Exonerated is a strong word that I don't think I'd use. Schwarzkopf announced on 3-17-32 @ 1000 hrs. that because Mr. Lightfoot "found" the missing chisel that the Thornburgs were no longer suspects. However, on the same date @ 1500 hrs. he announced they were still being investigated. Mrs. Lightfoot continued to believe they were involved at last contact in 1936 by one of Hoffman's people.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 24, 2007 7:58:35 GMT -5
Of course you have a good point, especially when we are looking at the possibility of a break in in the context of the crime that occurred. I doubt anyone would be surprised if Highfields was broken into at some other time. The home of Charles Lindbergh and Anne Morrow Lindbergh would certainly be a target for any thief, regardless of what it actually may or may not have contained. It's the depression and Lindbergh is the "golden boy". Is it hard to believe that his castle contains treasure? Thieves broke into his private locker at Newark Airport for far less. Bottom line, thieves are often wrong about the potential size of a haul. Does it make more sense that all that this crime entails was done with 50k in mind from a far more risky kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 15, 2007 10:32:22 GMT -5
Just a little information to consider about the Police perspective of the "secret symbol."
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Mar 25, 2008 18:08:55 GMT -5
Does anyone happen to know if the runaway servants of the Mr & Mrs C. Leandro Lightfoots (Highland park NJ), the "Thornberg's" were REALLY investigated that closely? They were supposed to have been German immigrants yet I can find no evidence of a Mr & Mrs Paul Thornberg entering the US, so I wonder if "Thornberg" was even their real name. According to Mrs Lightfoot their stories and history employment had changed several times.
I know that the Lightfoot story was supposed to have been checked out & eventually discredited. However, I think tips in this case were too often "thoroughly investigated" & eventually "discredited". If the original investigators hadnt been in such a hurry to just interview people & come away convinced they were innocent & or not involved or had no knowledge, this case might not be our hobby today. It seems that more than once in this case I have read where the police seemed to think they could tell whether or not someone was involved merely by questioning them for a long period of time.
As if law enforcement seemed to labor under the mistaken belief that no one ever lied to them.
|
|