|
Post by sweetwater on Feb 26, 2016 2:54:23 GMT -5
While gathering my thoughts in preparation to post on another topic, it dawned on me that this year, 2016, the calendar corresponds to the 1932 calendar; both are leap years, with February 29 falling in both years on a Monday and then, of course, the anniversary of Charlie's disappearance falling on Tuesday, March 1. That means that the weekend we are about to head into corresponds, by the calendar, to that last weekend at Hopewell before the headlines about a kidnapping of the century burst upon the world.
Somehow, realizing this made me feel, for a poignant moment, a step closer to those events around this time in 1932. And it started me on some fanciful thinking...which culminates in this question I want to pose to any of you who would like to answer:
If, in your effort to understand the truth of the LKC, you could travel back in time... but for five minutes only...to a location connected with the case, which five minutes would they be, and where would you spend them?
Ground rules: You can go to any one location connected with the case, from any time, say, from one month before the kidnapping until one month following Hauptmann's execution. You can stay only five minutes. Other than time traveling, you don't get any super powers! (You do get to come back, and tell us all about it.)
If we knew when Charlie really disappeared, I bet a lot of folks would park themselves near the nursery window or maybe peeking out from the nursery closet at that time. But since we DON'T know...it's not such an easy choice, seems to me.
I'm still pondering my own answer...
Modification: OK, I've changed my mind: Since your stay time is so short ...and because I really don't want anyone getting shot or arrested...you do have the option to have one unusual ability -- you can be invisible, if you like.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Feb 26, 2016 10:19:03 GMT -5
Much thanks for your thought experiment, sweetwater, and welcome to the board.
I may have to reconsider this, but my first choice would be at the scene where Jafsie Condon delivers the ransom box to Cemetery John at St. Raymond's Cemetery. Would have liked to see what Cemetery John looked like and perhaps be able to ID him later. Probably would take your option of disappearing for the sake of safety.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2016 15:04:45 GMT -5
Hi sweetwater,
No doubt this is something many of us have thought about. Since I would only have 5 minutes, I would want to chose something I could be basically certain about the time it occurred. As much as I would like to see who takes Charlie from his crib, it is not certain at what time that occurs so I would not choose that.
I think I would want to be on Wertsville Road at approximately 6 p.m. March 1, 1932 where Ben Lupica sees the car with the ladder in it. I want to see who is driving that car because I think this person was involved with the kidnapping. As a second choice, I would pick the same as Hurtelable, St. Raymond's cemetery and Condon making that exchange of money for the Boad Nelly note!
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Feb 26, 2016 20:10:31 GMT -5
Can I have half and hour? No? Okay. Since putting ourselves anywhere for only 5 minutes, we could not be certain that we'd find the the exact place of the ransom payoff at St. Raymond's. Might miss it all. So, I'd place myself in the front hall at Highfields. In those 5 minutes, I'd beat feet all over that house to see where the four other people who were suppose to be there were located. Then I'd race up the steps and into the nursery to see if Charlie was in his crib, and if there was any indication that the story we've all heard is true. Is he pinned under those bedclothes, or is the crib empty? If it's empty, is the note there, on the windowsill, or not in evidence? If he's there, I'd wake him up and get him screaming.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Feb 27, 2016 1:57:46 GMT -5
Thanks to all of you who responded! Some interesting choices. Five minutes isn't very long, I know -- sorry about that! But if it was five minutes or nothing...I think I'd go for it! Imagine, being able to really do that. Even just to get a glimpse of the places and people, as they really were in 1932.
What I posed can't compare, I know, to serious research, but when I wandered out on that tangent last night, thinking about the two years' calendars corresponding and all, I found that trying to pick the time/place to "pop in" to the scene made me consider and rethink some things from angles I hadn't quite done before. So I thought it might be helpful (as well as maybe entertaining) to others.
One thing I realized is that, even if you happened to luck up and pick "just the right" five minutes...to hang out by the nursery window, say ... and just happened to see someone (maybe BRH, for example) put the ladder up to the window and, maybe, someone hand out the baby: Well, you would have SOME answers. But what struck me is that, even with an important-action five minutes like that, there would STILL remain so many questions. So many mysteries in this case, the way I see it.
rebekah, I think your plan is closest to what I finally came up with. But let me ask you -- at what time would you choose to pop in for that five-minute whirlwind tour? Also: I'm assuming you might choose to be invisible for yours, but as I "pictured" your mad dash around the premises, I found myself wondering -- is Wahgoosh going to bark?? (I think probably so! Especially if you end up getting the baby awake, if needed, and hollering. Good idea.)
My plan, I think, would be to drag out the books and compare and try to come up with the best estimate, from Anne's and Betty's accounts, of when to slip (invisibly) into the nursery to see something of the baby's evening activities before being put to bed. The timing might not be exact, but whether I saw him eat his supper or saw the flannel shirt being made or him being tucked in ... I think any of that would do. If possible, I'd be trying, first of all, to see that he really was there, alive and being tended to normally (not vanished or seriously injured at an earlier time) that evening and that the schedule was somewhat as Anne and Betty reported. Then I'd hope to get a good look at him ...is something "wrong" (beyond what was admitted), judging from his appearance, demeanor and actions? And maybe, if I'm lucky, I get to see Anne and Betty interact and try to detect if anything seems amiss, or if any kind of plan seems to be afoot. My five minutes is not going to solve the case, I know. But I really want to get a look at CAL Jr. and see if he and his environment and activities right before he went missing are basically as it was reported.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 27, 2016 6:14:40 GMT -5
If, as stated above, and many times before, the "inside job" included passing Charley out the window by someone from inside the house, why would the kidnapper take off his shoes while setting up the ladder?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Feb 27, 2016 7:01:48 GMT -5
I would spend 5 minutes with Charlie the day before the kidnapping, to see if he's normal, happy, can walk, talk, hear. Is he autistic, have rickets, short hair or long. Are Charles and Anne there with him, playing with him, feeding him, being loving parents or ignorring him. Or, is he already dead.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 27, 2016 8:19:54 GMT -5
If, in your effort to understand the truth of the LKC, you could travel back in time... but for five minutes only...to a location connected with the case, which five minutes would they be, and where would you spend them? It's a great question that I am sure everyone has previously asked themselves at one time or another. I know I have and the first time came when I was standing under that window myself. So that's where I'd be (if we're still allowed to be invisible). Now the timing would be exactly when the child was removed. I hate to refer to my book again, but I strongly believe I demonstrate when it actually occurred - so that's when I'd be there. I am also certain I know what I see too but I'll leave that to everyone to make up their own minds after "digesting" what's written. My plan, I think, would be to drag out the books and compare and try to come up with the best estimate, from Anne's and Betty's accounts, of when to slip (invisibly) into the nursery to see something of the baby's evening activities before being put to bed. I like this strategy, and I think it's a good way to attempt to solve most things that happened. My only caution is that many books repeat things that aren't even true, so when you find agreement among them it still doesn't make the account correct. That's not to say it isn't, but it must be something that is considered as well. I know I bring up this story often but I was told by someone once that what I said was at "variance with the facts" when discussing the case among a group. What I said was actually at variance with the "fiction" and so many who embrace that version don't like to hear they are incorrect. I guess what I am saying is don't paint yourself into a corner and always leave yourself an open window of escape if the time comes when or where you might need it. If, as stated above, and many times before, the "inside job" included passing Charley out the window by someone from inside the house, why would the kidnapper take off his shoes while setting up the ladder? Can I ask if you are certain someone took off their shoes? I ask this because there are accounts of socks or burlap bags being tied over the shoe - is this something you reject? Also, if they did remove their shoes, was it before or after the ladder was staged against the house? If someone were to stage a scene to "absolve" an Insider - how do you think they'd go about doing it? I am not trying to neutralize your point, rather, I just want to see where you are at on these questions.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 27, 2016 10:20:38 GMT -5
I understand where you're coming from.
You say the ladder "was staged against the house" as if that's a known. Who knows it!?
One of the foot impressions shows toes. That would seem either barefoot or not very heavy socks. Burlap around feet probably wouldn't show toes, more just a clump. Making that a ruse to cover for inside help, wouldn't it be lots more time consuming - off & on with shoes, and incapacitating in case the perp had to make a run for it in stocking or bare feet? Necessary if going into room, but really unnecessary if not.
To cover for an insider of course you'd leave the note in the crib. Do you know more than I do about where the note was actually left. It seems to me that I read at some time that Condon had said the note was left in the crib, implying of course that he got that from CJ, but I'm sure I could never find that quote.
As it stands now, the note was left on the windowsill which could of course mean in or out, but not good cover for an insider.
There is evidence that someone climbed the ladder and it broke. They left the ladder behind either for convenience, or that one of the short dowels which held it together had swollen, couldn't be taken out, and so the ladder no longer fit into the vehicle which brought it. I tend towards convenience on this point. So if the ladder was some kind of unused prop, it was still climbed.
There was mud on the floor of the nursery. Would a kidnapper think of that as a cover for an insider?
If a kidnapper is dumb enough to kidnap the Lindbergh child is he smart enough to cover his tracks. In this case yes - it was a perfect crime except for the filling station upgoof. Many still think it was a perfect crime and BRH's involvement was limited.
To me the thing that mostly indicates an insider is the difficulty of this crime, but I believe a very determined Hauptmann could have pulled it off. An insider would have just meant one more mouth to hopefully keep quiet.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 27, 2016 10:56:50 GMT -5
One of the foot impressions shows toes. Are you 100% on board with this?
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Feb 27, 2016 11:29:52 GMT -5
Just to chime in ('cause I know you were asking Jack, Michael, and not me): I'm sure not learned enough on the subject to have a firm opinion about whether toe impressions were there and, if so, were left by a kidnapper or kidnappers, but this line of conversation does give me a spot to mention something I've found interesting.
I think by some accounts the tracker, Oscar Bush (I think is his name?), mentioned that moccasins might be the footwear involved. I don't know how common moccasins (I'm assuming "real" moccasins, the softsole kind, since Bush said he was able to tell that one print involved a toe crossing over another) were as footwear in that area at that time. Bush was reportedly part Native American, wasn't he? If so, maybe that could help account for his mentioning moccasins (not meaning to stereotype or anything). I've wondered just how good a tracker he was. (I've thought "pretty dang good", if he was REALLY able to discern that toe-crossing stuff.)
Anyhow, when I was reading Under A Wing, CAL's and Anne's daughter Reeve Lindbergh's recounting of her growing-up-a-Lindbergh experiences, it struck me when she described how her father kept the kids supplied with two pairs of moccasins each -- one pair hard-soled meant for outdoor doings and one softsole pair intended for inside the house. Reeve was born around the mid-1940s, I think, so her memories of that were from a later time, but I couldn't help but wonder whether CAL or some of the family also favored moccasins back in 1932. Very possibly means nothing at all, I know, but I did find it interesting.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Feb 27, 2016 11:53:18 GMT -5
I would spend 5 minutes with Charlie the day before the kidnapping, to see if he's normal, happy, can walk, talk, hear. Is he autistic, have rickets, short hair or long. Are Charles and Anne there with him, playing with him, feeding him, being loving parents or ignorring him. Or, is he already dead. Just as a thought here that if you are interested in Charlie's physical condition, you might be better off spending those 5 precious minutes at Dr. Van Ingen's office on Charlie's last visit. You could have observed Charlie (did his legs look like he had rickets, to what extent was he able to walk and talk compared to normal children of his age?), then perhaps listened in as the doctor explained his condition to his mother or grandmother, or whoever else brought him in. His physical condition at the time of the purported kidnapping would probably not have been much changed from his condition at the doctor's ofice several weeks prior.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 12:18:03 GMT -5
It seems this crime always comes back to footprints!!! I know how capable Jack is to argue his points but I want to chime in on the shoeless footprints. A set of prints that look shoeless were recorded by the media. I am going to link news footage showing this set of prints. They are a right foot and a left foot. Pause the footage at 30 seconds and look closely at them. You can clearly see the outline of the toes; you can see where the arch is on these prints, especially the right foot. When you look at the right foot impression you can see where the mud rises up between the large toe and the first toe. So what do we take from this? I would guess that shoes are not on these feet. The toe impressions seem too defined. Perhaps a very fine woven pair of socks covered these feet. I believe you would get toe impressions from those type of socks. It appears someone was out on that soil without shoes. If its not the kidnapper, then who is it? The person who is staging the outside scene? Maybe they needed to take their shoes off so they didn't get dirty because they would have to wear them when they went back into the house?? www.efootage.com/stock-footage/493/Lindbergh_Baby_Kidnapping/
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 27, 2016 13:09:52 GMT -5
My idea about this is that someone went into the house by way of the front door, leaving their shoes outside--probably by the door--so they wouldn't make any noise. A handoff of the body took place from the nursery window, and then the shoeless kidnapper went out the way he came in, collecting his shoes on the way. But having completed the most crucial part of the crime, adrenaline was probably pumping, so he didn't stop to put his shoes on right away--just heading straight to the ladder and the other kidnapper to move the ladder and plant it in the backyard. They probably stopped at some point after this so he could put his shoes back on, so they could walk down the access road and get to their cars.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 27, 2016 13:20:09 GMT -5
Good job Amy!
Looks like toes in the mud to me.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 27, 2016 14:14:36 GMT -5
BTW:
The first time I heard about the visible toes was from Amy.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Feb 27, 2016 14:22:46 GMT -5
Yes, those look like barefeet to me too. Hurtleable you are right, being present at Dr. Van Ingen's visit with Charlie would provide a much more definitive account of his health but I was looking for several things beside that with my meager 5 minutes. First, I wanted to know if he was still alive the day before, that he hadn't been killed by either Dwight Jr. or Elizabeth, or died after falling out of his crib, or suffocated after being locked in the closet all day by his dad, or even dying of natural causes because he was ill. I wanted to see if his parents were loving parents or the strange, cold, unforgiving people they so often appear to be. I also wanted to see if I could detect with my untrained eye any abnormalities in him that might be such an embarrassment to his own father that he would have him kidnapped and murdered. I admit that I have a hard-time accepting the eugenics-based motive but if that's where the evidence leads, I'll follow. Oh and Sweetwater could we please have 15 minutes, 5 is just too short!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 15:47:22 GMT -5
My idea about this is that someone went into the house by way of the front door, leaving their shoes outside--probably by the door--so they wouldn't make any noise. A handoff of the body took place from the nursery window, and then the shoeless kidnapper went out the way he came in, collecting his shoes on the way. But having completed the most crucial part of the crime, adrenaline was probably pumping, so he didn't stop to put his shoes on right away--just heading straight to the ladder and the other kidnapper to move the ladder and plant it in the backyard. They probably stopped at some point after this so he could put his shoes back on, so they could walk down the access road and get to their cars. So, LJ, do you think the person using the front door of the house removed his shoes based on fore-knowledge that the steps were not carpeted and didn't want to be heard entering and exiting the house?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 15:56:18 GMT -5
I think by some accounts the tracker, Oscar Bush (I think is his name?), mentioned that moccasins might be the footwear involved. I don't know how common moccasins (I'm assuming "real" moccasins, the softsole kind, since Bush said he was able to tell that one print involved a toe crossing over another) were as footwear in that area at that time. Bush was reportedly part Native American, wasn't he? If so, maybe that could help account for his mentioning moccasins (not meaning to stereotype or anything). I've wondered just how good a tracker he was. (I've thought "pretty dang good", if he was REALLY able to discern that toe-crossing stuff.) I seem to recall reading this same thing. I shall have to go check on this. Oscar Bush was supposed to be the best tracker in the area. You bring up an interesting point, sweetwater!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 17:11:36 GMT -5
BTW: The first time I heard about the visible toes was from Amy. I first learned about these shoeless prints from another poster on this board not long after I started posting here. I think it was kjones. It was quite a find!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 27, 2016 17:12:42 GMT -5
Good job Amy! Looks like toes in the mud to me. Yes it certainly does. This is Press footage is it not? The Official Police photographs of those prints look much different. A photograph was admitted at trial (S-31 & S-37) and entered into evidence on January 7th after Wolf identified this print. The actual picture can be located in Binder I of the Lindbergh Photographs at the NJSP Archives:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 17:43:53 GMT -5
Yes it certainly does. This is Press footage is it not? The Official Police photographs of those prints look much different. A photograph was admitted at trial (S-31 & S-37) and entered into evidence on January 7th after Wolf identified this print. The actual picture can be located in Binder I of the Lindbergh Photographs at the NJSP Archives: Wow, Michael. Your photograph and that newsreel footage don't look anything alike. I am having trouble reconciling both sources (newreel & photo) as being the same print. I think that photograph print looks more like a boot shoe. Is that photo footprint the one that they made a cast of? Is that print the one that faces in towards the ladder?
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Feb 27, 2016 19:47:43 GMT -5
I'm confused about where the pictured footprints were found.
In Amy's newsreel footage, right before the close-up of the prints is shown (and maybe right after, too, not sure), there's a shot of two guys who appear to be looking at the ground as if they are examining something. The implication from the footage is they are examining these footprints...but, of course, the film could have been shot and edited any which way, so who knows. Anyhow, the two guys look to be out in a field or whatever, not next to the house where the ladder prints were.
So...did these prints come from near the ladder prints? Or near where the ladder was found? Or what?
Michael, is the photo you posted identified as to the location? (thinking it would be) And are you SURE this photo is of the same prints that appear in the newsreel? The two images look really different to me.
Also, in the photo Michael posted, does anyone else see what looks to maybe be a dog print inside the more-amorphous print, sort of in the center of it but toward the edge that is on our right? (Definitely could just be me imagining things.)
Edited to add: Amy, I now see that you posted some similar doubt about whether the two photos are of the same prints -- sorry, missed that somehow.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Feb 27, 2016 19:48:28 GMT -5
"rebekah, I think your plan is closest to what I finally came up with. But let me ask you -- at what time would you choose to pop in for that five-minute whirlwind tour? Also: I'm assuming you might choose to be invisible for yours, but as I "pictured" your mad dash around the premises, I found myself wondering -- is Wahgoosh going to bark?? (I think probably so! Especially if you end up getting the baby awake, if needed, and hollering. Good idea.)"--sweetwater I thought I'd posted my choice of those 5 minutes, but I didn't. I chose 7:50 PM. He should be snug in his crib at that time, right? Yes, I would choose to be invisible, and just a breeze as I ran through the house. Wahgoosh might lift his head as I peeked in, but he wouldn't be able to catch me. I know everyone at the house that night seems to have their stories straight, but I question the fact that no statements were taken until March 10. Very odd. I've wondered about the fact that Lindbergh and Betty Gow were in Englewood the night before, and Anne was alone with the baby and the Whateleys at Hopewell. There is also a rumor that Lindbergh was seen at Highfields around 5:30 PM that afternoon. (March 1) I don't put much stock in rumors, but why would something like that even be said, and who said it? My main objective would be to see if Charlie was really there. And, if he was, to get him to raise the roof with his crying. On my way through the house I'd be turning on every light switch I saw, and most especially, in the nursery. Just trying to mess up the big plan, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Feb 27, 2016 19:59:11 GMT -5
Yes, Michael, your photo and the newsreel footage look totally different. My thanks to you and Amy. Also, I think I can see the dog print in your photo, as sweetwater points out. Now, to me, this looks like a right shoe print. My question is, where is the left shoe? It seems that in ground that soft a shoe print from both shoes should have been there, and if there was, why no picture of both?
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Feb 27, 2016 20:03:56 GMT -5
OK, now I am REALLY confused. I was thinking there were TWO footprints in Michael's photos as well. One of them, though, looks kinda like "Bigfoot was here", just sort of a blob. It's within that "print" that I think I might see a dog print. But now I'm thinking -- maybe the one, clear print is the only print in Michael's photo...and the other "thing" IS just a blob...? Laughing at myself, I'm so befuddled now.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Feb 27, 2016 20:06:56 GMT -5
You know what? I think maybe we should ALL use our five-minute time travel to hit the site early and take photographs of footprints!!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 27, 2016 20:37:09 GMT -5
Wow, Michael. Your photograph and that newsreel footage don't look anything alike. I am having trouble reconciling both sources (newreel & photo) as being the same print. I think that photograph print looks more like a boot shoe. Is that photo footprint the one that they made a cast of? Is that print the one that faces in towards the ladder? Without going into too much detail (and stifling the conversation), there is nothing in the official documentation that backs up those prints in the film Amy posted. There is evidence that Reporters made their own prints prior to being allowed in the yard. I will stay out of this debate for now but I at least wanted to add my 2 cents because on this point I think it's important and something that should be considered.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Feb 27, 2016 21:41:28 GMT -5
Leaving aside the footprints for a bit, because my head is spinning...so back for a moment to my original topic and your reply, Michael. From where I stand now, this whole case is such a puzzle, just like 10,000+ puzzle pieces dumped out in front of me, and I am just picking some up randomly and trying to get a FEW to fit together. So...I can't even imagine what it must be like to have some confidence that you could go to that spot within a five-minute span that you've determined and witness something crucial...and even have a strong feeling that you know WHAT you will witness. Wow, Michael. This is gonna be some book, huh? As I and others have said: Can hardly wait! By your picking "under that window", well, hmmm. I wonder if that means you think CAL Jr. was removed by window, of course. But I know better than to assume. You could see a lot of other stuff from that position, I'm sure. I'm not asking...just "hmmm-ing". I will pry a little, though, but of course will take no offense if you prefer not to answer: Has the book gone to the publisher yet? And do you have a title? (Not asking for you to share it, just wondering if you have one yet.)
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 28, 2016 2:22:07 GMT -5
Hi Amy, So, yeah, based on the reports which say that there were two sets of footprints--sock prints and regular shoe prints--it looks to me like someone took their shoes off and someone else kept theirs on. As you say, the shoes were taken off to quiet footsteps in the house and weren't put back on right away in the rush to get away from the house. If, however, those stocking footprints in the film footage had nothing to do with anything, as Michael seems to suggest, then this can be dismissed. I think the main point, in any case, was there were two sets of footprints leading away from the house, indicating more than just Hauptmann was involved.
|
|