|
Chisel
Oct 12, 2023 13:04:32 GMT -5
Post by thestonesunturned on Oct 12, 2023 13:04:32 GMT -5
Sorry. I forgot to make my point. My point is, IF this baloney really happened, then, why leave the ladder behind, at all? Let alone the chisel? Why? In case anyone doubted that you did it? "Follow mich up to mein attic, zhentlemen, and prepare to be amazed..."
He (according to Wolf) starts to walk away. He has the brat (either dead, or alive) in one hand, the ladder in the other, the chisel in the other. He makes it 75ish feet. That's 25ish paces. In stocking feet. "Ach! Ich habe ein gut 1/2 mile to go! Maybe if I dismantle dis ladder into 3 separate pieces..." Then, after he pulls out the dowel and REMOVES the top section of the ladder, he realizes, that the pieces still add up to 30ish pounds. "Screwen sie this! I mean, dis! Yyyyyyyyyyyyaaaaarrrggghhhh!" And he hurls either the heavy 2/3, or the lighter 1/3, of the ladder into the pitch darkness. I'm betting the heavy part first, so he'll know, without being able to see, where it landed, so he knows where, in the pitch dark, to hurl the other 1/3 so that it lands next to, but doesn't "Bang!" into, the first 2/3. That didn't make a whacking noised when IT landed. "Und you can habst this chisel, too! I mean, dis chisel!"
Or, maybe it was his "accomplice" who decided they were sick, after 28 paces or so, of carrying that ladder 1/2 mile over rutted, muddy ground in the pitch dark, and here Herr Hauptmann is, too selfish to swap the baby for the ladder, and so, the accomplice stops and begins dismantling and then eventually "Yyyyyyyyaaaarrrggghhhs!" the parts into the pitch darkness. Twice. "We don't need it anymore, anyway, right? What about dis chisel? I mean, this chisel?"
And I won't quibble over lugging that ladder 1/2 mile over muddy, rutted ground in stocking feet in the pitch dark before you even get to the house.
Now, if you want to claim that Corporal Wolf's "report" is, like the rest of the "evidence" in this "case," a tissue of incompetent Keystone Cops buffoonery, go right ahead. I won't stop you. But, that's the whoooooole MURDER case against Hauptmann. The ladder. Whether he, or anyone else, actually climbed (snicker) it, or not. ONE piece of the ladder. A piece he climbed over a garage full of leftover boards to idiotically cut out of his own attic floor. And then hurled, futilely, if silently, into the abyss. The ladder. That's it. And according to every available photo of the ladder ever taken, AND the one and only police report that was actually typed that day by an actual police officer who actually looked at the actual evidence he's actually typing about, that actual evidence actually proves that that actual ladder was NOT actually used in actual commission of the actual, or not actual, "crime."
That's my point.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,713
|
Chisel
Oct 14, 2023 8:13:13 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Oct 14, 2023 8:13:13 GMT -5
Did the kidnapper out of necessity, really have to wrestle with the child in a bag or otherwise, while going back out the window? Why are all re-enactments, either practical or even theoretical, based on this scenario? Could not a lone kidnapper have just lowered the bag and neutralized child to the ground by using a rope tied to the bag, before exiting the nursery? And if he had have had assistance from another person, surely that person would have been awaiting the handoff of child from a position just outside the window, while standing on a rung near the top of the ladder. I can't entertain a rope now being introduced. Again, the most important variable is time. Were the "kidnappers" concerned about it or not? Bringing a rope to then be somehow tied to a bag to then be slowly lowered sounds a little silly to me. Something like this, if real, should have been a "get in and out" as rapidly as possible. It's why none of this makes any sense, so sure, bring a rope, a trained monkey, and a trampoline too. Why not? Intend to break glass with a chisel while you're at it. But no. Warped shutter, window unlocked, child asleep, unattended, doesn't cry out as he always did, and dog left behind instead of sleeping under the crib. Anyway, I was addressing the Lone-Wolf scenario, and I've always believed multiple people were involved, so yes, multiple people better explain the sitatuation. The problem with your response is that you appear to be projecting your own limitations into the kidnapper, instead of thinking like him and understanding through an an appreciation of his individual abilities and capabilities. The idea of a rope is not new and has been brought up a number of times over the past twenty years in discussion; I do know you've never before responded to this consideration. I'm also trying to demonstrate here that the idea of a lone kidnapper is not an impossibility here by any stretch. At the same time, I don't conclude this crime was committed by a 'lone wolf,' but I don't believe we can 'seal' ourselves off from this possibility and just churn on in other directions.
The most important variable here was not 'time,' but successfully getting the child out of the nursery and effecting a clean getaway, and through the degree of planning achieved, by whatever means was most practical. This kidnapper knew the crime he was pulling off was so outrageous as to be almost universally inconceivable; the degree of risk, danger and the sheer unknown it carried, were off the charts. He knew that over the course of the abduction, it would not have mattered if it took him even 30 more seconds to tie off the bag with neutralized child inside and safely lower it to the ground with a rope, and he might now even gain time with a now-unhampered retreat from the nursery. And he also knew regardless of the time it took him, he could have been discovered at any point within the abduction by one of the house occupants. He would have had no way of knowing for example, that the child's nursemaid was not sitting with Charlie in the dark helping to keep him settled. That was only one of the great risks he took alongside many others.
Knowing how challenging this crime would be, simply meant doing whatever he could to operate as safely as possible within established confines and whatever unknowns would have then required his ability to spontaneously adapt and deal with.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,713
|
Chisel
Oct 14, 2023 8:32:07 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Oct 14, 2023 8:32:07 GMT -5
Just a couple of comments on the ladder entry/exit if I may. I know that many on this forum have seen this, but another ladder reenactment was also done by Don Wildman in 2018 as part of his TV series Mysteries at the Museum, season 19/episode 14, on the Travel Channel (Michael along with Falzini, Gardner and others were on a panel discussion towards the end of this episode). Although Wildman was 57 years old at the time and certainly not in great physical shape, he did succeed (although quite clumsily) in getting into and out of the nursery via a replica LKC ladder (and without a safety line or carrying the bag with his teeth!). If a 57 year old like Wildman could get in the nursery and then exit with a 30 pound bag, it certainly shows that it not only can be done but that it would not even be that difficult for a very fit and athletic 32 year old such as Hauptmann. Even Lindbergh commented on Hauptmann's excellent physique. NOVA tried to get the height right, knowing the ground is higher today than it was in 1932 as just one example. I cannot say whether or not this was done for any other recreation. One cannot construct a ladder to the same specifications then place it up against the house and expect it represents a true situation today. Additionally, there were some scenes that I believe did not make it in the NOVA documentary. One that I saw that I don't believe made it was when Kevin Klein, John Douglas, and Mark Falzini, all three together, doing a "war dance" as they attempted to raise the ladder before placing against the wall. Mind you, this was on a nice clear day without any cold or wind howling. None of what I mention is to undermine Lurp's position of course, I just wanted to offer a little clarity from my perspective. As to more than one person, yes, there is no doubt in my mind there were as I've repeatedly stated. Interesting that Don Wildman was too far to the right of the nursery window, but still seemed to manage..
Your description of the 'war dance' which in effect implies, "Hey, if three guys couldn't do it on a nice day, how could one kidnapper do it on a crappy night?" is a lame duck argument for a couple of reasons.
Firstly and clearly, this re-enactment is a great example of too many cooks, some very inexperienced, spoiling the broth!
I've also personally witnessed Kelvin Keraga, a skilled tradesman, assembling and placing his accurate reproduction of the kidnap ladder against a wall in less than two minutes by himself.
And assembly of the ladder would not have occurred at the base of the nursery window, but prior to the approach to it.
|
|
|
Chisel
Oct 14, 2023 10:05:23 GMT -5
Post by xjd on Oct 14, 2023 10:05:23 GMT -5
He has the brat (either dead, or alive) in one hand, the ladder in the other,
what is wrong with you? how old are you in fact? it would be easier to take your points seriously if you were not disrespectful to an innocent child victim.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 14, 2023 20:52:58 GMT -5
The problem with your response is that you appear to be projecting your own limitations into the kidnapper, instead of thinking like him and understanding through an an appreciation of his individual abilities and capabilities. The idea of a rope is not new and has been brought up a number of times over the past twenty years in discussion; I do know you've never before responded to this consideration. I'm also trying to demonstrate here that the idea of a lone kidnapper is not an impossibility here by any stretch. At the same time, I don't conclude this crime was committed by a 'lone wolf,' but I don't believe we can 'seal' ourselves off from this possibility and just churn on in other directions.
The most important variable here was not 'time,' but successfully getting the child out of the nursery and effecting a clean getaway, and through the degree of planning achieved, by whatever means was most practical. This kidnapper knew the crime he was pulling off was so outrageous as to be almost universally inconceivable; the degree of risk, danger and the sheer unknown it carried, were off the charts. He knew that over the course of the abduction, it would not have mattered if it took him even 30 more seconds to tie off the bag with neutralized child inside and safely lower it to the ground with a rope, and he might now even gain time with a now-unhampered retreat from the nursery. And he also knew regardless of the time it took him, he could have been discovered at any point within the abduction by one of the house occupants. He would have had no way of knowing for example, that the child's nursemaid was not sitting with Charlie in the dark helping to keep him settled. That was only one of the great risks he took alongside many others.
Knowing how challenging this crime would be, simply meant doing whatever he could to operate as safely as possible within established confines and whatever unknowns would have then required his ability to spontaneously adapt and deal with. I know it's been brought up and I flatly reject the idea now, then, and in the future when it's brought up again. It doesn't make any sense to me. Considering my interactions, research, and personal experiences I have to go with what I know. I disagree. Time was the most important factor. One must get in and out without getting caught. The idea you present is equivalent to the criminals having time to solve a theorem or something. No, they went straight for the window that was unlocked and the only set of shutters that couldn't be locked either. They went at the time the child was in his crib and not to be disturbed. They went on a night where the dog that was normally in the nursery was left behind. There was no rope used to lower the child. As far as a "clean" getaway, considering the scene, there was nothing clean about it. Instead of retracing their path along the boardwalk, they decided to walk directly through the muddy yard leaving footprints and risking a fall. What does this suggest? Well, if it was real, that they were in a HURRY. They dropped the ladder and the chisel and left them behind. If this was real, what does that suggest? I won't answer this time ... I lied, yes I will: they were in a HURRY perhaps? They weren't running, but there's only one reason they take this path and decide to leave these items behind. And if it's fake the reasons are obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 14, 2023 21:05:10 GMT -5
Interesting that Don Wildman was too far to the right of the nursery window, but still seemed to manage..
Your description of the 'war dance' which in effect implies, "Hey, if three guys couldn't do it on a nice day, how could one kidnapper do it on a crappy night?" is a lame duck argument for a couple of reasons.
Firstly and clearly, this re-enactment is a great example of too many cooks, some very inexperienced, spoiling the broth!
I've also personally witnessed Kelvin Keraga, a skilled tradesman, assembling and placing his accurate reproduction of the kidnap ladder against a wall in less than two minutes by himself.
And assembly of the ladder would not have occurred at the base of the nursery window, but prior to the approach to it. Again, the yard was lower back in 1932. Additionally, the yard was muddy and the ladder sunk under the weight of one or more people who must have stepped on the rungs. These variables are important in replicating the scene. Did Wildman's team do that? I don't know. Was the ladder set too far to the right? Perhaps, and if so, there's your answer to what I said I do not know. Next, you are not a good mind reader so stop trying your hand at it. No, I wasn't suggesting one man couldn't do it. In fact, I wasn't suggesting anything other than the fact these three men would have left multiple footprints all over the place beneath the window. You can ignore this fact, as I expect you will, but getting mad about it seems a little silly. As far as Kelvin's abilities I have no counterargument other than to say being cold, in the dark, and raising a ladder while standing on a thin strip of board without stepping off despite the wind howling around would probably give him trouble. Neither he nor anyone else is immune to the laws of nature. As a control, Kevin Klein is a Master Carpenter and must have raised ladders thousands of times himself. Finally, I never said anything about when or where the ladder was assembled.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,713
|
Chisel
Oct 15, 2023 9:19:09 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Oct 15, 2023 9:19:09 GMT -5
The problem with your response is that you appear to be projecting your own limitations into the kidnapper, instead of thinking like him and understanding through an an appreciation of his individual abilities and capabilities. The idea of a rope is not new and has been brought up a number of times over the past twenty years in discussion; I do know you've never before responded to this consideration. I'm also trying to demonstrate here that the idea of a lone kidnapper is not an impossibility here by any stretch. At the same time, I don't conclude this crime was committed by a 'lone wolf,' but I don't believe we can 'seal' ourselves off from this possibility and just churn on in other directions.
The most important variable here was not 'time,' but successfully getting the child out of the nursery and effecting a clean getaway, and through the degree of planning achieved, by whatever means was most practical. This kidnapper knew the crime he was pulling off was so outrageous as to be almost universally inconceivable; the degree of risk, danger and the sheer unknown it carried, were off the charts. He knew that over the course of the abduction, it would not have mattered if it took him even 30 more seconds to tie off the bag with neutralized child inside and safely lower it to the ground with a rope, and he might now even gain time with a now-unhampered retreat from the nursery. And he also knew regardless of the time it took him, he could have been discovered at any point within the abduction by one of the house occupants. He would have had no way of knowing for example, that the child's nursemaid was not sitting with Charlie in the dark helping to keep him settled. That was only one of the great risks he took alongside many others.
Knowing how challenging this crime would be, simply meant doing whatever he could to operate as safely as possible within established confines and whatever unknowns would have then required his ability to spontaneously adapt and deal with. I know it's been brought up and I flatly reject the idea now, then, and in the future when it's brought up again. It doesn't make any sense to me. Considering my interactions, research, and personal experiences I have to go with what I know. There’s an abundance of things in this case that don’t make sense to you and that you flatly reject. And I submit that in large part, the reason for this is that you’ve overwhelmed yourself with so much detail and based your conclusions through an occupational lens, through your past and continuous interaction with criminals. I believe there are many more ways to see this case than you’re giving yourself credit for, if you'd only allow them to be more explored. The rope idea also pokes a pretty sizeable potential hole in the multiple kidnapper theory.
I disagree. Time was the most important factor. One must get in and out without getting caught. The idea you present is equivalent to the criminals having time to solve a theorem or something. You’ve started here by misappropriating my point and attempting to turn it into some caricaturized version of what I said. I'm not even intimating Michael, that the kidnapper(s) had time for prune juice and a suntan in the nursery. Of course, time was an important consideration, but let's face it, if the kidnapping took 5 minutes, or 4 minutes and 49 seconds, or even 5 minutes and 11 seconds is practically, irrelevant. First and foremost, there was an enormous element of risk involved, due to the relatively unknown environment the kidnapper would doubtless find himself within. He would have had no way of knowing if someone had been sitting in the nursery, walked in after 30 seconds, or even just before he retreated after accomplishing the most efficiently executed abduction possible. I believe that the successful abduction of the child through a quasi-military style process and the ability to adapt on the fly, were the most important considerations within a reasonably-projected timeline, defined through whatever degree of advance planning it had been possible to achieve.
No, they went straight for the window that was unlocked and the only set of shutters that couldn't be locked either. They went at the time the child was in his crib and not to be disturbed. They went on a night where the dog that was normally in the nursery was left behind. There was no rope used to lower the child. As far as a "clean" getaway, considering the scene, there was nothing clean about it. Instead of retracing their path along the boardwalk, they decided to walk directly through the muddy yard leaving footprints and risking a fall. What does this suggest? Well, if it was real, that they were in a HURRY. They dropped the ladder and the chisel and left them behind. If this was real, what does that suggest? I won't answer this time ... I lied, yes I will: they were in a HURRY perhaps? They weren't running, but there's only one reason they take this path and decide to leave these items behind. And if it's fake the reasons are obvious. Yes, he/they did all these things, but to even suggest these were previously known conditions to the kidnapper(s), is unproven, tabloid style speculation at best. And given your experience with criminals, I shouldn’t even have to tell you how many of these same forms of coincidence happen in real life and crime, and how appealing they may seem at first blush, especially when presented as a laundry list. And you also know there was no shortage of general information and clues within this case for one to generously handpick whatever he or she pleases. Here’s where its critically important to drill down into each and every one in isolation to arrive at the best solution which also fully addresses an amalgam of means, motive and opportunity. I’ve often invited you to engage in this kind of discussion without the need for strategic sidetracking, or as Lloyd Gardner puts it well when describing Hauptmann, avoiding the issue and just hopping along to the next fencepost. Perhaps some day..
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 15, 2023 10:02:38 GMT -5
A little story.... When I first started in the Bureau, I worked a Unit that had an office for the Psychologist situated between two wings. (We actually dated briefly but that's a story for another time). Anyway, I was present to what I guess was a psychological review of some sort. The Inmate was given this scenario: Psychologist: You are in a room with no windows and only one door. The door opens and in walks a Tiger. What do you do?
Inmate: I take out a gun and I shoot it.
Psychologist: Where did you get the gun?
Inmate: The same place you got the Tiger.
This is exactly where you got the rope too. And its where we can all go to get whatever item we need to explain things away. Some have said that perhaps the ladder broke as a kidnapper was going up. To avoid this problem, since there was a rope, I suppose he could have repelled down instead of using the ladder? And of course, being a boy scout, Hauptmann could have used a slip knot in order to shake it loose to retrieve it. And the closed window? Well, he also brought a special hook as well and used it to close the window simultaneously. Next, yes, there are many things that do not make sense in this case. But what you don't see me do is create things that make even less sense in order to explain them away. I've explored everything and continue to learn regardless. But, unlike you it seems, I will call a spade a spade. Much of what you do is wasted on trying to figure out what I believe and formulating anything and everything to defeat what you think that is. If I say the sun was yellow, you would counter because you may conclude that fact could somehow support my ultimate position. That's not a good faith effort to find a logical conclusion. Of course you are free to do whatever you like, but don't lecture me about something you are clearly doing yourself because its hypocritical. And yes, we agree there can be a "coincidence" and even some luck involved, but not everywhere. Once we consider these explanations must be applied again and again and again then that doesn't work anymore. The law of averages destroys it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,713
|
Chisel
Oct 15, 2023 10:26:09 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Oct 15, 2023 10:26:09 GMT -5
Interesting that Don Wildman was too far to the right of the nursery window, but still seemed to manage..
Your description of the 'war dance' which in effect implies, "Hey, if three guys couldn't do it on a nice day, how could one kidnapper do it on a crappy night?" is a lame duck argument for a couple of reasons.
Firstly and clearly, this re-enactment is a great example of too many cooks, some very inexperienced, spoiling the broth!
I've also personally witnessed Kelvin Keraga, a skilled tradesman, assembling and placing his accurate reproduction of the kidnap ladder against a wall in less than two minutes by himself.
And assembly of the ladder would not have occurred at the base of the nursery window, but prior to the approach to it. Next, you are not a good mind reader so stop trying your hand at it. No, I wasn't suggesting one man couldn't do it. In fact, I wasn't suggesting anything other than the fact these three men would have left multiple footprints all over the place beneath the window. You can ignore this fact, as I expect you will, but getting mad about it seems a little silly. You know, I'd really have to be a mind reader to even guess what you were actually saying below, ie. that there would have been more footprints. You've seemingly engaged here in some variant of the straw man argument, but I can't even think which one it is.. lol. No worry you say, "Onward Lightning.. to the next fencepost!"
Seriously, I'd simply invite anyone else to honestly say that's what you even appeared to mean, when you stated, "NOVA tried to get the height right, knowing the ground is higher today than it was in 1932 as just one example. I cannot say whether or not this was done for any other recreation. One cannot construct a ladder to the same specifications then place it up against the house and expect it represents a true situation today. Additionally, there were some scenes that I believe did not make it in the NOVA documentary. One that I saw that I don't believe made it was when Kevin Klein, John Douglas, and Mark Falzini, all three together, doing a "war dance" as they attempted to raise the ladder before placing against the wall. Mind you, this was on a nice clear day without any cold or wind howling."
As far as Kelvin's abilities I have no counterargument other than to say being cold, in the dark, and raising a ladder while standing on a thin strip of board without stepping off despite the wind howling around would probably give him trouble. Neither he nor anyone else is immune to the laws of nature. As a control, Kevin Klein is a Master Carpenter and must have raised ladders thousands of times himself. Raising the ladder had to be done to get in the nursery, period, and it was done successfully on the night of March 1, 1932, by someone who was capable of doing just that. Your conclusion that this happened while the kidnapper elected so stupidly to severely restrict his capabilities under the very difficult conditions of that night, by perching himself on one width of 6 inch tongue-and-groove flooring for no apparently good reason while he raised the ladder, does not even begin to take into consideration, the true nature of the ground and the fabric coverings he/they wore on his feet to muffle and disguise their footprints. Anyway, for what it's worth, your 'perching' position has roundly been considered "outlandish," "crazy" and "WTF for?" by at least a half dozen professional tradesmen I interact with at work and whose use of extension ladders is second nature to them under conditions you and I would probably consider much more challenging.
Finally, I never said anything about when or where the ladder was assembled. I know you didn't. My intention here was to underscore the fact there would have been no reason for the ladder to have been assembled at or even close to the base of the nursery window.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,713
|
Chisel
Oct 15, 2023 11:14:43 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Oct 15, 2023 11:14:43 GMT -5
A little story.... When I first started in the Bureau, I worked a Unit that had an office for the Psychologist situated between two wings. (We actually dated briefly but that's a story for another time). Anyway, I was present to what I guess was a psychological review of some sort. The Inmate was given this scenario: Psychologist: You are in a room with no windows and only one door. The door opens and in walks a Tiger. What do you do?
Inmate: I take out a gun and I shoot it.
Psychologist: Where did you get the gun?
Inmate: The same place you got the Tiger.
This is exactly where you got the rope too. And its where we can all go to get whatever item we need to explain things away. Some have said that perhaps the ladder broke as a kidnapper was going up. To avoid this problem, since there was a rope, I suppose he could have repelled down instead of using the ladder? And of course, being a boy scout, Hauptmann could have used a slip knot in order to shake it loose to retrieve it. And the closed window? Well, he also brought a special hook as well and used it to close the window simultaneously. Aahh.. thanks for the nice fireside and pipe story, and yes, you should elaborate on the dating scene sometime. I’ve dated a few women in psychology-related fields, and I believe here that both parties probably need to be in similar professions for things to work out on a full time basis.Next, yes, there are many things that do not make sense in this case. But what you don't see me do is create things that make even less sense in order to explain them away. I've explored everything and continue to learn regardless. But, unlike you it seems, I will call a spade a spade. Much of what you do is wasted on trying to figure out what I believe and formulating anything and everything to defeat what you think that is. If I say the sun was yellow, you would counter because you may conclude that fact could somehow support my ultimate position. That's not a good faith effort to find a logical conclusion. Of course you are free to do whatever you like, but don't lecture me about something you are clearly doing yourself because its hypocritical. In response to your statement that you “don’t create things that make even less sense in order to explain them away,” well sorry to tell you this, but you do it. Not everywhere, but often. And yes, we all continue to learn in this case. I can only hope that we all remain open to the possibilities that make logical sense, before shutting them down out of ignorance and fear that personal and long cherished beliefs will be undermined or even supplanted.
And yes, we agree there can be a "coincidence" and even some luck involved, but not everywhere. Once we consider these explanations must be applied again and again and again then that doesn't work anymore. The law of averages destroys it. Finally, your point about the kinds of coincidences occurred “everywhere.” They didn’t of course and this is nothing more than impassioned rhetoric on your part. As I’ve said many times before the house of cards that you continually prop up with the same kind of examples, means little until each and every one of them is brought to ground for its impartially-true value. Cases in point, Skean’s absence from the nursery, or the Lindberghs staying over on a Tuesday night.
Just my curiosity here.. Do you believe that if Charles Lindbergh had had the moral bankruptcy to have his own child kidnapped and killed, his clear and alert mind would have introduced such patently-obvious insinuation possibilities as the above, or would he more likely have cleverly designed things around common practices and household routines wherever possible, in order to raise a minimum of suspicion on the part of investigators?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 16, 2023 10:52:54 GMT -5
Raising the ladder had to be done to get in the nursery, period, and it was done successfully on the night of March 1, 1932, by someone who was capable of doing just that. Your conclusion that this happened while the kidnapper elected so stupidly to severely restrict his capabilities under the very difficult conditions of that night, by perching himself on one width of 6 inch tongue-and-groove flooring for no apparently good reason while he raised the ladder, does not even begin to take into consideration, the true nature of the ground and the fabric coverings he/they wore on his feet to muffle and disguise their footprints. Anyway, for what it's worth, your 'perching' position has roundly been considered "outlandish," "crazy" and "WTF for?" by at least a half dozen professional tradesmen I interact with at work and whose use of extension ladders is second nature to them under conditions you and I would probably consider much more challenging. Responding to your first paragraph, it seems fairly clear but I'm not surprised you don't get that yourself. You are too blinded by trying to deconstruct the facts as they exist, or should have existed, so that you can prop up a false narrative. That narrative, by the way, used to specifically target what you "believe" to be my ultimate position. Doesn't matter what you have to ignore or find behind that Tiger door to get there. Respondng to the above, the ladder was placed on the side of the house that night. Whoever was responsible did not step in the mud but in one place. They had to be standing on the boardwalk in order to do that, save for that one step, the entire time. FULL STOP. The only other alternative would have been to drop the ladder down through the window to someone standing on the boardwalk. You MAGIC BOOT theory, FLYING CARPET SHOES, or MUD THAT WASN'T MUD silliness, has been debunked and disproven. If Hauptmann, or any other human being, raised that ladder and stepped onto any area of MUD which surrounded that boardwalk beneath the window, there would be footprint evidence of it. Just like there was of the female footprints that traversed the exact area you claim would not yield prints. Time to move on from these grasping at straws type shenanigans.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 16, 2023 11:01:27 GMT -5
Just my curiosity here.. Do you believe that if Charles Lindbergh had had the moral bankruptcy to have his own child kidnapped and killed, his clear and alert mind would have introduced such patently-obvious insinuation possibilities as the above, or would he more likely have cleverly designed things around common practices and household routines wherever possible, in order to raise a minimum of suspicion on the part of investigators I'm jumping ahead because the earlier stuff you wrote is nonsensical.... Thank you for the part above though because it reproves what I've been saying all along. Nowhere in this conversation did I specifically mention it but this is what has been driving you the entire time. Your single goal is to defeat this position, and you will preemptively deny and ignore anything that you believe could stand in your way. Again, thanks are necessary in case someone reading my earlier comments doubted what I was saying was true.
|
|
|
Chisel
Oct 19, 2023 9:35:02 GMT -5
Post by thestonesunturned on Oct 19, 2023 9:35:02 GMT -5
He has the brat (either dead, or alive) in one hand, the ladder in the other, what is wrong with you? how old are you in fact? it would be easier to take your points seriously if you were not disrespectful to an innocent child victim. You've never babysat a 20-month-old, obviously.
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Oct 19, 2023 10:03:52 GMT -5
The funny thing is, Betty Gow told Newark police that she left the FRENCH window open. You know. The window above the concrete patio that would have been much, MUCH easier for an adult to climb in and out of. If s/he/it were standing on a "ladder." The other funny thing is, a ladder WAS ALREADY LYING ON THE PATIO underneath that window. You can see it in crime-scene photos. Maybe Betty and her non-boyfriend Red Johnson WERE planning an inside job, but Hauptmann miraculously beat them to it by a few hours. I mean, there MUST have been a BUNCH of people "planning" to snatch the Lindbergh brat. Not just Hauptmann. Maybe it's like JFK. The CIA had a sniper stationed on the Grassy Knoll, but Oswald appeared out of nowhere and beat him to the punch by mere seconds.
And talk about bad luck. Hauptmann committed the PERFECT crime. Yet, as bad luck would have it, an out-of-state "forensic lumber expert" juuuuuuuust happened to be on the case from Day 1. I mean, if it hadn't been for that guy...
Speaking of money laundering services, just how much money DID The Colonel lose in the Crash? Remember, he had made a couple of MILLION dollars BEFORE the crash. What happened to it? JP Morgan, where his father-in-law was a senior partner, working literally the next office over from Thomas Lamont, the guy who owned the yacht that Red Johnson worked on (and by "work," I mean, climbing all over rickety wooden scaffolding and wet ropes with one arm and bare feet in pitch darkness on cold, windy, rainy nights. You know. The kind of guy you could PLAN on doing something like this, on any given night, in any given weather. Not a money-laundering carpenter) secretly reimbursed a LOT of their VIP clients for losses sustained in the Crash. Was Ambassador Morrow's son-in-law one of them? I ask, because, the kind of stock purchases Hauptmann was making--and they totaled a lot more than $30,000--look exxxxxxxxxxactly like that kind thing. I ask, because, The Colonel himself was nailed for a massive tax-dodging stock scheme involving Transworld Air Transport. I ask, because, The Colonel did NOT want the Feds writing down the numbers on those bills. I ask, because, when Evelyn Walsh McLean handed over $106,000 to Bullock Gaston Means, NONE of those serial numbers were written down. Where did THAT money go? Did Means take it to a shady German immigrant money-launderer to launder? I ask, because, IF you were planning to frame somebody--anybody--for snatching the Lindbergh brat, then you'd call Gaston Means. The guy who had just tried to frame EWM's BFF Florence Harding for murdering her own husband. The PUBLISHED version of that book has been debunked.* But, WHY would EWM "trust" Gaston Means with over 100 grand (that was actual money, in those days) of HER money? Know what I mean? I know, I know, she told the Feds that Means told her it was ransom money for the Lindbergh brat. Why she would give two cents for him...
Somebody, anybody, point to ONE thing, ANY thing, about this "case" that is even 1% believable. Not "theoretically possible." Believable. Just. One. Thing.
*Funny thing is, Means's degenerate pedophile partner in crime, defrocked attorney Norman J Whitaker Esq, was staying in the hotel across the street from the one where Harding died. He was playing in an international chess tournament. True story. He once swept Aleister Crowley 4-0 in an exhibition match. True story. Gaston Means had been one of the WJB "detectives" who frantically and relentlessly, if hilariously, tried to frame the janitor for the murder of Mary Phagan. True story. Wouldn't it be hilarious if HE framed Hauptmann? By he, of course, I mean, Means. The "Master Forger." By "frame," of course, I mean, forge Hauptmann's handwriting on the ransom notes. Of course, that can't be true, because, it wouldn't be a "coincidence." Would it? And it would mean that Means knew Hauptmann from before March 1, 1932. How would a forger, blackmailer, and con artist know a money-launderer...how would a semiliterate German carpenter learn how to launder money...speaking of Anna Hauptmann, did you know she did NOT emigrate to America from Germany? She emigrated from Zurich, Switzerland. Where they launder all those delicious chocolate dollars. Speaking of The Colonel's grandfather, did you know he was a Swedish bank embezzler who fled to America with his mistress and illegitimate son? They changed their names, natch. (The Colonel's real name is Charles Mansson, Jr. True story.) I ask, because, before WWII especially, "neutral" Sweden was the other Switzerland, when it came to anonymous bank accounts and massive money laundering. You know, of course, that in those days especially, having been born out of wedlock, The Colonel's father, as a Congressman, would be exTREMEly vulnerable to blackmail by someone as unscrupulous, if ingeniously creative, as one Gaston Bullock Means. You know that. Right? And as a prominent white supremacist, isolationist, anti-Fed (you know he filed articles of impeachment against the Fed chairman, right?) Congressman, The Colonel's father was on intimate political terms with the Hardings, Coolidges, and Hoovers. The people EWM rolled with. I mean, of all the unbelievable things about this case, the thing I don't believe the most is that Means never had any prior contact with the "Lindberghs."
|
|
|
Chisel
Oct 21, 2023 18:25:29 GMT -5
Post by thestonesunturned on Oct 21, 2023 18:25:29 GMT -5
Oaky. I'm convinced. I bought Michael's books.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,713
|
Chisel
Oct 22, 2023 7:21:05 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Oct 22, 2023 7:21:05 GMT -5
Raising the ladder had to be done to get in the nursery, period, and it was done successfully on the night of March 1, 1932, by someone who was capable of doing just that. Your conclusion that this happened while the kidnapper elected so stupidly to severely restrict his capabilities under the very difficult conditions of that night, by perching himself on one width of 6 inch tongue-and-groove flooring for no apparently good reason while he raised the ladder, does not even begin to take into consideration, the true nature of the ground and the fabric coverings he/they wore on his feet to muffle and disguise their footprints. Anyway, for what it's worth, your 'perching' position has roundly been considered "outlandish," "crazy" and "WTF for?" by at least a half dozen professional tradesmen I interact with at work and whose use of extension ladders is second nature to them under conditions you and I would probably consider much more challenging. Responding to your first paragraph, it seems fairly clear but I'm not surprised you don't get that yourself. You are too blinded by trying to deconstruct the facts as they exist, or should have existed, so that you can prop up a false narrative. That narrative, by the way, used to specifically target what you "believe" to be my ultimate position. Doesn't matter what you have to ignore or find behind that Tiger door to get there. Respondng to the above, the ladder was placed on the side of the house that night. Whoever was responsible did not step in the mud but in one place. They had to be standing on the boardwalk in order to do that, save for that one step, the entire time. FULL STOP. The only other alternative would have been to drop the ladder down through the window to someone standing on the boardwalk. You MAGIC BOOT theory, FLYING CARPET SHOES, or MUD THAT WASN'T MUD silliness, has been debunked and disproven. If Hauptmann, or any other human being, raised that ladder and stepped onto any area of MUD which surrounded that boardwalk beneath the window, there would be footprint evidence of it. Just like there was of the female footprints that traversed the exact area you claim would not yield prints. Time to move on from these grasping at straws type shenanigans. Please explain to me how YOUR KIDNAPPERS managed to raise the kidnap ladder against the east wall of the house while poised on a single piece of tongue-and-groove flooring, never stepping off once until one of them was somehow able to step off this same walkway and end up planting one of his feet only at the base of the ladder, now facing the house! And furthermore, why would they have found these acrobatics even remotely necessary during the commission of a kidnapping? And I say YOUR KIDNAPPER(S) because the kidnapper(s) that YOU see here along with the process YOU envision they used, have become fixed in your OWN mind, without further consideration. Surely, if you're willing to go to the wall insisting on this position, you can at least provide a coherent explanation for the layman. You seem to have no problems doing this throughout your four books, in other places. What I'm hearing you state here, is that that's what the evidence shows us, so like it or not, 'full stop,' why don't we just 'call it a day?' Well, I can promise you that you're not considering all the evidence and the true scope of factors that were in play outside and inside the nursery that night.
|
|
|
Chisel
Oct 23, 2023 20:28:12 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Oct 23, 2023 20:28:12 GMT -5
Please explain to me how YOUR KIDNAPPERS managed to raise the kidnap ladder against the east wall of the house while poised on a single piece of tongue-and-groove flooring, never stepping off once until one of them was somehow able to step off this same walkway and end up planting one of his feet only at the base of the ladder, now facing the house! And furthermore, why would they have found these acrobatics even remotely necessary during the commission of a kidnapping? And I say YOUR KIDNAPPER(S) because the kidnapper(s) that YOU see here along with the process YOU envision they used, have become fixed in your OWN mind, without further consideration. Surely, if you're willing to go to the wall insisting on this position, you can at least provide a coherent explanation for the layman. You seem to have no problems doing this throughout your four books, in other places. What I'm hearing you state here, is that that's what the evidence shows us, so like it or not, 'full stop,' why don't we just 'call it a day?' Well, I can promise you that you're not considering all the evidence and the true scope of factors that were in play outside and inside the nursery that night. Not MY kidnappers at all. There are facts that we all must deal with in order to come up with a proper conclusion. In the end, there are multiple to choose from. Apparently, you don't like any so you've started to color outside the lines. So while I reject the Tiger Door inventions, I welcome thinking outside the box. However, the facts are the facts. Simply put, there would be no boardwalk if the ground wasn't muddy in a place one could walk, that's why it was placed there - because there wasn't. And those female prints absolutely prove that. So we must consider the footprint evidence. The mud evidence. The boardwalk evidence. The ladder evidence. Then we have other considerations like the wind, the cold, and the darkness of the night. That said, what are the possibilities? Perhaps those female prints weren't Anne's but someone assisting with raising that ladder? The one print facing the house - could that have been one of the people stepping back into the mud while raising it? Could an insider have been assisting from the nursery in some way? We know the ladder was not adjusted. We have the scrapes on the side of the house and the mud on the top of the bottom shutter. Much to think about while using these real things in attempting to draw a conclusion.
|
|
|
Chisel
Oct 24, 2023 9:40:39 GMT -5
Post by thestonesunturned on Oct 24, 2023 9:40:39 GMT -5
Far be it from me to butt in, so here we go:
1. There was no mud on the ladder. 2. The ladder impressions, though a much, MUCH smaller surface area, were much shallower than the footprints. It doesn't matter in the slightest WHOSE footprints--the "kidnappers," or anyone else's. So, NO ONE "climbed" that homemade "ladder." 3. There were no footprints near the disassembled ladder. Corporal Wolf said the ladder had apparently been THROWN some distance. Why? WTF was that supposed to accomplish? Besides making a huge racket? 4. There was NO MUD at all on the rug. At. All. 5. The "kidnapper" climbed in and out of that window with a chisel in his pocket? Or, was it in his teeth? THEN, after he climbs down, he takes the chisel out of his pocket and throws it over by the ladder? Why? To frame himself? 6. The ONLY REASON that "evidence" from Hauptmann's attic was "discovered" at all was because a uniquely qualified "lumber expert" had been on the case all along. Lindbergh didn't want ANY competent investigators involved. 7. The creme de la creme: Koehler told cops to LOOK FOR signs that a piece of wood had been REMOVED from a given suspect's house or outbuilding. You talk about a crystal ball bobbing up in the most uncrackable case of all time. 8. Number 8 on my list of 7: Why did Hauptmann measure once and cut twice? If Hauptmann cut off one piece of expensive attic flooring to finish a ladder that literally supposedly needed only one more piece, and if he did it the hardest possible way, instead of just pulling up a whole board and then cutting off part of it--and you've seen what an expert cut it was, in such an awkward position--then why not cut it to the RIGHT LENGTH? Why did it have to be cut TWICE to make it 6'8"? It's almost like a "carpenter's helper" decided they better cut it extra long so it could be trimmed later...
These New Jersey State Keystone Cops couldn't find Betty's *ss with both hands and a flashlight, but they sure did zero in on that oooooooooonnnnnne piece of irrefutable evidence that Koehler told them to LOOK for.
Oh, I forgot--those identical pieces of tongue and groove flooring found on the estate spread around by the builders. That stuff is expensive. Why would they waste THAT, when they already had...I mean, that's about as stupid as Hauptmann tearing up his own attic floor to get a piece of tongue and groove flooring...and instead of doing what a professional carpenter would do, and tear up the LAST piece of flooring...I mean, if you tear up the FIRST piece, then, all of a sudden, you've created a situation where all the other pieces can start slipping loose from each other. That leads to squeaky floors. Oh, I know, I know, "in an attic..." But, I'm talking about professional HABITS. Not one time brainless ideas by non-carpenters with flat feet. I mean, there was a lumber yard right down the street. Not to mention the stacks of left over boards in Hauptmann's garage.
I mean, there's lucky, and then there's this case. How lucky was the kidnapper? How many times? How lucky were the Keystone Cops? How many times? I mean...there is simply no way this was done without somebody on the inside. Well, if you have somebody on the inside, you don't need to climb in and out of ANY windows. You just have to make it LOOK that way. Know what I mean?
|
|