|
Post by stella7 on Mar 8, 2017 10:36:14 GMT -5
Since Anne claimed responsibility for the female footprints early in the investigation by saying that she was tossing pebbles up to the window to get Charlie's/Betty's attention after her afternoon walk, was she not aware that the female footprints led away from the house to the ladder and beyond or was she trying to cover for the kidnappers. Does anyone think those footprints could have belonged to Anne or some other female in the household?
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Mar 8, 2017 12:33:06 GMT -5
It was my understanding that Anne's designated prints were a third set. That the smallish print leading to the "impassible" signed road was that most probable of a smaller man with the "crooked right toe." If I mistakenly understood this please correct me.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Mar 8, 2017 17:43:13 GMT -5
Sorry, I find the footprint observations the hardest to follow. I see that Anne claims the footprint next to the ladder indentations facing the house is hers and another on the other side. But there's also Oscar Bush's observation of female prints leading to the ladder sections.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 8, 2017 17:48:08 GMT -5
Since Anne claimed responsibility for the female footprints early in the investigation by saying that she was tossing pebbles up to the window to get Charlie's/Betty's attention after her afternoon walk, was she not aware that the female footprints led away from the house to the ladder and beyond or was she trying to cover for the kidnappers. Does anyone think those footprints could have belonged to Anne or some other female in the household? Here's what we know: There were (3) sets of footprints. One set walked parallel from the window area to the veranda. Anne claimed she made these prints. Exactly how is up for debate and if it had been anyone else on the stand they would have been grilled about it. Unfortunately it was Anne so we know much less because of that. There was two other sets lead from the window to the ladder. The two sets then led from the ladder onto the access road. Since I listed every source I could find about these prints, we see mixed reviews. Some say one set was a woman's but other sources don't say that. It was my understanding that Anne's designated prints were a third set. That the smallish print leading to the "impassible" signed road was that most probable of a smaller man with the "crooked right toe." If I mistakenly understood this please correct me. That "crooked toe" is attributed to one of Bush's accounts. It's the only place it comes from. After reading the book and everything I've revealed, I leave it up to everyone to draw their own conclusions. Certainly all thoughts are welcome, but for me to say conclusively they were both men's or one a woman's would be wrong.
|
|
ron
Trooper
Posts: 29
|
Post by ron on Oct 14, 2017 20:24:28 GMT -5
The first I saw Anne tell the story about throwing pebbles at the nursery window was her trial testimony. Did anyone find an earlier telling?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Oct 14, 2017 21:47:31 GMT -5
What I find interesting is that neither of AML's written statements, the first taken March 11th and the other on March 13th, has any mention of the pebble throwing incident. Never mind the fact that 10 days elapsed before the statement of the victim's mother is officially recorded (thanks CAL!)
The first statement is three pages and the second is 4 1/3 and the afternoon walk references are superficial in both:
March 11 - "When Betty was alone with the baby I went out for a walk, for a long walk down the road, then I came back, went up to the baby's room" Note the use of the term "road" versus "driveway" as used below; also the apparent need to emphasize that it was a long walk.
March 13 - "I left them and went for a walk down the driveway. When I came back, about 5:00, I went up into the baby's room where I found Betty, Elsie and the baby." I think it was Gardner that pointed out the odd choice of the term "found." If she had recently thrown pebbles at the baby's room window, why the use of the term "found" as though it was an effort or surprise to locate them there?
Contrarians will argue that the pebble throwing wasn't mentioned in either statement because the significance of the act wasn't known at the time the statements were taken. Arguably, a typical walk doesn't include stopping below your son's nursery window and lobbing stones at it in an effort to get the attention of the anticipated occupants in the room - so why wouldn't you mention it, especially considering some of the other minutiae that was recounted in the statements?
The type of heeled shoes that left the footprints are not the style of footwear a wealthy woman would normally choose to wear in anticipation of taking a long walk on an unpaved driveway and muddy roads shortly after several rainy days have just occurred. It is consistent with the type of shoes a woman who did not know she would be standing at the bottom of a ladder to receive the hand-off of a baby in broad daylight as part of a staged kidnapping would find herself wearing by chance...
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 15, 2017 10:17:36 GMT -5
Ron & Scathma, Just to follow up, the very first time that Anne’s “pebble and mud” story appears was at the trial. Nowhere between the night of the kidnapping and Anne’s court testimony (almost 2 years later) is there any mention of Anne's tossing pebbles at the nursery window. I’m pretty sure that Mark Falzini was the first to notice this. Lloyd Gardner explored this in his excellent blog “Pebbles and Mud” (which Michael linked back on Dec. 2, 2011). Here it is again – caseneverdies.blogspot.com/2011/12/pebbles-and-mud.html
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Oct 15, 2017 12:40:55 GMT -5
Ron & Scathma, Just to follow up, the very first time that Anne’s “pebble and mud” story appears was at the trial. Nowhere between the night of the kidnapping and Anne’s court testimony (almost 2 years later) is there any mention of Anne's tossing pebbles at the nursery window. I’m pretty sure that Mark Falzini was the first to notice this. Lloyd Gardner explored this in his excellent blog “Pebbles and Mud” (which Michael linked back on Dec. 2, 2011). Here it is again – caseneverdies.blogspot.com/2011/12/pebbles-and-mud.html Thank you for sharing. I had not read that before and I have tremendous respect for Dr. Gardner. I think it's interesting that he discusses the Waller book, the first I read in my high school library re LKC. Just read an article by Waller written a few years after his book was published speculating about a member of the kidnap gang living in Europe! So much for case solved.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 15, 2017 15:42:37 GMT -5
Hi Kate1, 1) To make the woman’s-footprints-underneath-the-nursery issue even more confusing, 7 months after the kidnapping Hunterdon County issued an open indictment against 3 unknown people they thought responsible for the kidnapping. Primarily based on the footprints under the nursery widow, Hunterdon indicted two unknown men (“Richard Doe” and “Peter Doe”) and one unknown woman (“Helen Doe”). Attachment DeletedIf Anne and Betty had explained the “pebbles and mud” story to the police by then (and it seems like they would have), why did Hunterdon County issue this open indictment against an unknown woman? 2) Interesting Waller observation. Waller spent 25 years writing Kidnap. Then 2 years later he wrote an article for True The Men’s Magazine entitled "New Evidence in the Lindbergh Case". In this article he speculated that Hauptmann teamed up with a mysterious Greek named Konstantinos Maratos and together the two men kidnapped Charlie. Without any footnotes or references, I wonder where the guy who spent 25 years researching Kidnap got this info. I’ve contacted both Waller’s wife and Maratos' granddaughter but neither are aware of Waller’s source. Was Waller just trying to sell an article or was he on to something?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 15, 2017 19:52:21 GMT -5
Contrarians will argue that the pebble throwing wasn't mentioned in either statement because the significance of the act wasn't known at the time the statements were taken. Arguably, a typical walk doesn't include stopping below your son's nursery window and lobbing stones at it in an effort to get the attention of the anticipated occupants in the room - so why wouldn't you mention it, especially considering some of the other minutiae that was recounted in the statements? Everything you've posted is suspicious. However, I think the actual evidence on scene calls that whole scenario into serious question. On page 149 in my book I try to highlight this: We're supposed to believe Anne created the female footprints under that window. But the female prints are INSIDE between the boardwalk and the house. They are also parallel to the house. Any pebble tosser would have stepped away from the house, therefore, outside of the boardwalk. Also, doesn't that person need to be facing the house? We're supposed to believe she had a hook shot or something? And she was moving while tossing? Listen, any normal person who steps into the mud will step out of it, yet, she continued to walk through the mud instead of returning to the boardwalk? So the evidence doesn't jibe with her story. Next, she's in daylight but makes at least 3 full prints in the mud. But the Kidnappers, walking in the dead of night, and supposedly unfamiliar or have never walked it before - tote that ladder (and several other items), raise it (!!!) but only make one print up and until they retreat? This has inside job written all over it. I truly believe that one print facing the house was made on purpose so they could have mud on the shoe to indicate there was an intruder. To make the woman’s-footprints-underneath-the-nursery issue even more confusing, 7 months after the kidnapping Hunterdon County issued an open indictment against 3 unknown people they thought responsible for the kidnapping. Primarily based on the footprints under the nursery widow, Hunterdon indicted two unknown men (“Richard Doe” and “Peter Doe”) and one unknown woman (“Helen Doe”). These indictments absolutely prove there were (3) different sets of footprints. It ends ALL speculation that there wasn't. If they believed those under the window were hers, then there was yet another set or female print elsewhere as indicated by both Kutcha and Williamson ( see TDC 250-1). I go into this more in V2.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 15, 2017 21:36:00 GMT -5
So are we then leaning in the direction of a female kidnapper, as one of the three who actually carried CAL Jr.'s body off? Betty? Unlikely, in my view, since she would've tracked mud all over the house. So who then? Condon's Tuckahoe Woman...?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 15, 2017 22:06:38 GMT -5
Michael, I completely agree with you and your conclusions about Anne. She does say that she was relatively close to the board in order to toss the pebbles and to see Charlie. Well, please feel free to check my geometry, but I think you will find this interesting. The distance from the ground to the bottom of the nursery window is 14’3” (that’s in the trial testimony, first witness). Charlie was 33”. So, let’s assume that Betty held Charlie’s feet so that they were resting on the window sill. That means Charlie’s head was a total of 204” off the ground (14’3” + 33” = 204”). Anne was approximately 5’1”. Subtract 4” from the top of her head and her eyes were approximately 58” above the ground. When you plug these numbers in (the height of the house + Charlie’s height compared to Anne’s height), the math shows that Anne had to be a little over 10 feet away from the house to see Charlie! Hope this makes sense and please feel free to correct me if my math is off –
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Oct 16, 2017 5:33:02 GMT -5
Michael, I completely agree with you and your conclusions about Anne. She does say that she was relatively close to the board in order to toss the pebbles and to see Charlie. Well, please feel free to check my geometry, but I think you will find this interesting. The distance from the ground to the bottom of the nursery window is 14’3” (that’s in the trial testimony, first witness). Charlie was 33”. So, let’s assume that Betty held Charlie’s feet so that they were resting on the window sill. That means Charlie’s head was a total of 204” off the ground (14’3” + 33” = 204”). Anne was approximately 5’1”. Subtract 4” from the top of her head and her eyes were approximately 58” above the ground. When you plug these numbers in (the height of the house + Charlie’s height compared to Anne’s height), the math shows that Anne had to be a little over 10 feet away from the house to see Charlie! Y Hope this makes sense and please feel free to correct me if my math is off – I does to me! In addition it was muddy and cold...strange thing to do at the end of a walk. If someone inside was to hand off the baby she would only need to walk down the front stairs rather than hand him out the window. Anne was just recovering from a cold herself and was pregnant. Doesn't seem prudent to me.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Oct 16, 2017 11:27:42 GMT -5
Hi Wayne,
Great work! This a really interesting point! But I am afraid I am missing something as I don’t understand how you calculated the distance from the wall.
It seems to me it all depends on what angle Anne is looking up at. By your measurements she seems to be looking up at at an angle of 49.4 degrees. But why do we assume that?
Turning my mind to the problem I would think that the ledge would have to be taken into account. The fbi report says the walls were 18” thick approximately and the sills were 15” thick ( no idea how that works). I see from pictures that there is a small lip outside and that the windows are recessed a fair amount.
Assuming the baby was about 18” back from the lip of the window sill (I know this is quite an assumption), the closest Anne could be and still see the top of the baby’s head would be 61.6” from the wall looking up at an angle of 61.4 degrees.
This would be very awkward for everyone involved and makes a number of assumptions. Your scenario is far more logical.
I think your numbers are mostly right but if Anne’s eyes are 4” lower than the top of her head I think that number should be 57 not 58.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Oct 16, 2017 13:40:03 GMT -5
Here's what we know: There were (3) sets of footprints. One set walked parallel from the window area to the veranda. Anne claimed she made these prints. Exactly how is up for debate and if it had been anyone else on the stand they would have been grilled about it. Unfortunately it was Anne so we know much less because of that. There was two other sets lead from the window to the ladder. The two sets then led from the ladder onto the access road. Since I listed every source I could find about these prints, we see mixed reviews. Some say one set was a woman's but other sources don't say that.
Over on Ronelle's site, the Sue Campbell page has an oral history from Edmund DeLong, the first reporter to arrive at the Highfields estate the night of the kidnapping. In part 3, his notes from a meeting with Schwarzkopf on June 6, 1932 included some very detailed information on the footprints, corroborating the notion of three sets but not identifying a set as that of a woman. Here's an excerpt:
Footprints.pdf (39.32 KB)
I thought there was a lot of interesting information in that series - here's a link if you want to check it out: lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/sue.html
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 16, 2017 16:56:14 GMT -5
So are we then leaning in the direction of a female kidnapper, as one of the three who actually carried CAL Jr.'s body off? Betty? Unlikely, in my view, since she would've tracked mud all over the house. So who then? Condon's Tuckahoe Woman...? I don't know if I necessarily agree with this. Shoes can be cleaned or taken off. For example, after Anne's walk did she track mud all over the house? After all, she said she stepped in the mud too. Also, that ladder being set once with only one male print facing the house doesn't sit well with me at all. That could only have been done with the proper lighting, at least 2 people, and careful placement. Hi Wayne, Great work! This a really interesting point! But I am afraid I am missing something as I don’t understand how you calculated the distance from the wall. It seems to me it all depends on what angle Anne is looking up at. By your measurements she seems to be looking up at at an angle of 49.4 degrees. But why do we assume that? This is great work from both of you. However for me, the actual distance is irrelevant. The female prints which exist are between the board and the house. From that vantage point one would look straight up and see what? If they had a pebble where do they toss it? The prints are all facing toward the back veranda and not the side of the house. There is only (1) male print facing the house which was at the base of the ladder and it was a man's print. See my point? Finding the exact location needed doesn't matter because no print in existence supports it ever occurred. If we had one there's an argument to be had about distance or am I missing something? Over on Ronelle's site, the Sue Campbell page has an oral history from Edmund DeLong, the first reporter to arrive at the Highfields estate the night of the kidnapping. In part 3, his notes from a meeting with Schwarzkopf on June 6, 1932 included some very detailed information on the footprints, corroborating the notion of three sets but not identifying a set as that of a woman. Here's an excerpt: I already have a copy of that oral interview and I do think it's important for the reasons you post above. Thanks for posting the link so anyone who hasn't seen it can take a look.... You'll see that there will always be certain people, no matter how many sources prove something, that will never accept anything other then (1) set. They'll ignore the mountain of proof, or claim all the sources are somehow wrong. On a side note it absolutely proves he was NOT the first Reporter there although both history and DeLong himself has made that claim over the years. Unfortunately I did not have this source before I wrote V1. You'll see he stopped at the diner on the way and saw the coffee run made from the Lindbergh Estate. That's definitely "that," because Blackman was already there by that time. And we know Lindbergh and the Troopers were already gone following those footprints. So it proves there was no one to make them other than the "Kidnappers."
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 16, 2017 17:13:57 GMT -5
That's true; Anne didn't track mud all over the house after her walk. So you think Betty walked along the side of the house and left the footprints? In your view, why would she (or anyone) do this? Giving the kidnappers the body? If so, why not just hand CAL Jr. off at the front door rather than walk around the house to do it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 16, 2017 17:21:24 GMT -5
That's true; Anne didn't track mud all over the house after her walk. So you think Betty walked along the side of the house and left the footprints? In your view, why would she (or anyone) do this? Giving the kidnappers the body? If so, why not just hand CAL Jr. off at the front door rather than walk around the house to do it? Well, to your previous point, one could say Anne's story wasn't true so she wouldn't have tracked mud, but my point is that shoes can be cleaned or removed. It's pretty clear to me that Whateley knew something right? The source material involving him all points to Betty being involved from his perspective but that doesn't mean those prints were definitely hers. The question becomes did Whateley "suspect" or did Whateley "know?"
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 17, 2017 8:58:33 GMT -5
I don't think blackman was the first reporter at the scene he might have been the first reporter to write about the kidnapping. the new York sun came out in the afternoon. I think delong was there first but some of these reporters who made claims many years after were most of the time not true. seth mosley who claimed he interviewed Lindbergh then, I could not find it in my newspaper collection at all
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,618
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Oct 17, 2017 11:44:47 GMT -5
I think there are a whole lot of half-baked suppositions being presented here, with the notion that they somehow all reinforce each other. Think it about..
As an example, firstly in the imagined "Lindbergh Did It" scenario, you have Lindbergh arriving home at 7 pm, because Millard Whited, the individual whose credibility has been questioned so severely on every other account, claims this happened. Suddenly, this has become a kind of linch pin that identifies this kidnapping as Lindbergh-inspired, ie. the control freak arriving home early to exert his command on proceedings. At the same time though, you have Anne and everyone else in the house testifying that Lindbergh arrived home at about 8:25 pm. Conclusion: They're all lying of course, and therefore, they must all in on this sordid business. Then you have Whateley's so called "deathbed confession" that supposedly points the finger at Betty only, and so turns the "collaborative effort" on it's ear. Finally, you have a child, who based on his doctor's last appointment was called "unusually well-developed" and by all accounts from family and friends, was very well cared for and much loved. This isn't just hard to swallow, it's totally unpalateable.
Something's really out of whack here, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. And it takes the total unreality of the reclusive Lindbergh doing something so asinine and out-of-character as to knowingly invite the whole world to his front doorstep, via a staged kidnapping, to a whole new sub-level. Aren't there easier ways to interpret the evidence towards a logical and coherent conclusion, which begins and ends with someone who rarely seems to get mentioned much anymore, and we know for certain, was involved up to his neck? Namely, one Bruno Richard Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 17, 2017 15:16:11 GMT -5
I think there are a whole lot of half-baked suppositions being presented here, with the notion that they somehow all reinforce each other. Think it about..
As an example, firstly in the imagined "Lindbergh Did It" scenario, you have Lindbergh arriving home at 7 pm, because Millard Whited, the individual whose credibility has been questioned so severely on every other account, claims this happened. Suddenly, this has become a kind of linch pin that identifies this kidnapping as Lindbergh-inspired, ie. the control freak arriving home early to exert his command on proceedings. A couple of thoughts concerning your post Joe... First is that you are approaching this from a defensive position. That is anything you see as supportive of a "Lindbergh did it" scenario you will attack it. Try looking at it for what it as outside of your bias against this theory. First thing is that Millard Whited's eyewitness account should be scrutinized. And if it is then I believe there's reason to believe it. But what you are looking to do is use anything negative to attack it without considering it may be true. First question to ask is: what is his motive for making it up? Was he offered reward money? Or was he told to keep quiet? Next is your mis-characterization that it is somehow a "linch-pin" for any theory. It's something that occurred much to the chagrin of many who thought they knew about the case. It's in the reports and more than anything else disproves his testimony and proves he committed perjury. Why? Well, because we all now know who he really saw. So by your own argument you are pointing out he lied under oath, because this proves it, yet the very thing that does is also a lie because of it. Divide by zero much? So that's why I started from the beginning to see what really happened. Whited is not the "best" witness. But he's better when he had nothing to gain by what he saw - in fact it was a dangerous account if you ask me. At the same time though, you have Anne and everyone else in the house testifying that Lindbergh arrived home at about 8:25 pm. Conclusion: They're all lying of course, and therefore, they must all in on this sordid business. Then you have Whateley's so called "deathbed confession" that supposedly points the finger at Betty only, and so turns the "collaborative effort" on it's ear. Finally, you have a child, who based on his doctor's last appointment was called "unusually well-developed" and by all accounts from family and friends, was very well cared for and much loved. This isn't just hard to swallow, it's totally unpalateable. It all depends doesn't it? We know when he called and we know when Anne was waiting for him. You seem to be ignoring these two important details. Why? Because these also support Whited's account in my opinion. Next, it could be he did not announce his arrival until the household testified he did. Or it could be like the missed dinner where they all seem to forget that detail. So there's more to consider then just your black or white option you've afforded us. Same with what Whateley said... I don't have him saying Betty's name, and its merely a conclusion I draw based on the other documentation. There's a lot in life that's "unpalatable" but it doesn't make it untrue. Lindbergh was a Eugenicist. That is unpalatable to me. In fact, if you want we could play a game of it by naming all of the unpalatable things he was or did. Shall we? Something's really out of whack here, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. And it takes the total unreality of the reclusive Lindbergh doing something so asinine and out-of-character as to knowingly invite the whole world to his front doorstep, via a staged kidnapping, to a whole new sub-level. Aren't there easier ways to interpret the evidence towards a logical and coherent conclusion, which begins and ends with someone who rarely seems to get mentioned much anymore, and we know for certain, was involved up to his neck? Namely, one Bruno Richard Hauptmann. I am absolutely positive I know how to interpret evidence. They are pieces to a puzzle, and can look different to people depending upon their personal experiences and knowledge. This idea that only a certain "type" of person is smart enough to see what's in of them front is absurd. I see the Board as a group of adults capable of drawing their own conclusions. I both agree and disagree often. But I certainly don't think I should ever tell anyone how or what to think. That certainly and absolutely includes you Joe so any ideas you have I'm open to. I know you don't like the idea that Lindbergh was in any way involved so by all means offer your perspective.
|
|
ron
Trooper
Posts: 29
|
Post by ron on Oct 18, 2017 21:39:09 GMT -5
Aren't there easier ways to interpret the evidence towards a logical and coherent conclusion, which begins and ends with someone who rarely seems to get mentioned much anymore, and we know for certain, was involved up to his neck? Namely, one Bruno Richard Hauptmann.
Although the authorities did their best to trim off any facts that did not fit their narrative at the Hauptmann trial, they failed in satisfactorily closing the case. Not only was Ellis Parker and Harold Hoffman aware of this it is robustly reflected in the FBI files commenting on the Hauptmann investigation. Again this did not stop them from getting to place their dagger in Hauptmann. In fact Hoover was furious that the Treasury Dept accountant got to be used at trial instead of the FBI accountant, Genua (IICR). Three general conclusions can be taken away from this string: 1) Anne's trial testimony is highly suspect for being altered to help the state's case. If so, then she was willing to lie to close the case and fry Hauptmann. 2) If Anne was fabricating the pebble story she had no fear of being contradicted by Betty. Though she was a servant it still was a murder trial and "the trial of the century." 3) If Anne lied about the pebble story it is because there was absolutely no other innocent explanation to place female footprints in the fresh mud that day. And this concerned the Lindberghs and authorities less than closing the case after 32 months.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 19, 2017 10:29:02 GMT -5
So should we assume that Wilentz saw that there was a hole in her original statements and encouraged her to lie about it by coming up with this plausable story or did she remember this when he asked for some detail about why she was under that window. The testimony did serve to make Anne appear more motherly and interested in her son.
Anne supposedly needed Betty Gow to drive down to Hopewell because she was tired or ill and yet she went on a "long" walk soon after she arrived. Was Anne really ill or just needing a break from taking care of a toddler, something most mothers need.
There's conflicting testimony surrounding the time and procurement of the blue thread. If you believe Elsie's statement it sounds like Betty got the thread in the afternoon while Anne was on her "long walk" and so making the extra shirt was not a spur of the moment decision because Charlie spit up on his PJ's.
And finally, why did Elsie think that Charlie had died when told the "baby is gone"? Had his conditioned worsened? Did something happen to him that weekend? Did he fall?
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Oct 19, 2017 13:54:14 GMT -5
So should we assume that Wilentz saw that there was a hole in her original statements and encouraged her to lie about it by coming up with this plausable story or did she remember this when he asked for some detail about why she was under that window. The testimony did serve to make Anne appear more motherly and interested in her son. Anne supposedly needed Betty Gow to drive down to Hopewell because she was tired or ill and yet she went on a "long" walk soon after she arrived. Was Anne really ill or just needing a break from taking care of a toddler, something most mothers need. There's conflicting testimony surrounding the time and procurement of the blue thread. If you believe Elsie's statement it sounds like Betty got the thread in the afternoon while Anne was on her "long walk" and so making the extra shirt was not a spur of the moment decision because Charlie spit up on his PJ's. And finally, why did Elsie think that Charlie had died when told the "baby is gone"? Had his conditioned worsened? Did something happen to him that weekend? Did he fall? I don't believe she lied about the walk or the pebbles story. I think she just didn't think it was important when she made her first two statements. The prints between the house and the walkway are probably hers. I'm wondering if we have the wrong window when we think about the pebbles. Maybe she went down the side of the house to the patio on the south side and threw them at the French window. No standing in the mud, and it would be easier to get a good aim. And the procurement of the blue thread has always confused me. Betty gets it from Elsie that evening. No, it was Anne that went and got it. I lean to believing Elsie because the whole shirt making business doesn't really make any sense. The remainder of the baby gown was kept, even though there couldn't have been much left. Just enough for identification purposes perhaps? Stella, the falling theory is really interesting. If he fell and hit his head as badly as the skull fracture indicates, it could have very well been fatal. Elsie would, most likely, have been aware of a fall. Elsie and Olly were aware of something.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Oct 19, 2017 14:02:30 GMT -5
Wayne said: "2) Interesting Waller observation. Waller spent 25 years writing Kidnap. Then 2 years later he wrote an article for True The Men’s Magazine entitled "New Evidence in the Lindbergh Case". "
Hi, Wayne. Is it possible that Waller began writing Kidnap in 1936? Also, do you know what "new evidence" he published in True Magazine?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Oct 19, 2017 14:15:43 GMT -5
So should we assume that Wilentz saw that there was a hole in her original statements and encouraged her to lie about it by coming up with this plausable story or did she remember this when he asked for some detail about why she was under that window. The testimony did serve to make Anne appear more motherly and interested in her son. It's not AML's statements that needed shoring up but the need to account for the fresh woman's footprint at the crime scene. Wilentz would not need to encourage her to lie; that would fall under CAL's purview.
If a story can be concocted that both explains away the footprint as belonging to the lady of the house, while also humanizing her to the jury, all the better... in spite of the contrived circumstances or bent laws of physics that a jury comprised of simple farm folk need not have concerned themselves with.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Oct 19, 2017 16:35:41 GMT -5
I came across this article today from the Rochester Democrat Chronicle dated 22 September 1934, page 1.
Print Clue Traced to Mrs Lindbergh
Trenton NJ Sept 21(UP)
A woman’s footprints found on the grounds of Col. Charles A Lindbergh’s Hopewell estate after his son was kidnapped, thought to have been made by a woman accomplice of the kidnaper, actually were made by Mrs. Lindbergh, Col. H Norman Schwartzkopf,, Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police, revealed tonight.
Colonel Schwartskopf, who directed the kidnaping investigation in New Jersey, said Mrs. Lindbergh made the prints beneath the window of the nursery from which her son was stolen on the afternoon preceding the kidnaping. She stood in the yard talking to her son.
The police superintendent, who returned from a conference at [illegible] where the latest development in the case was discussed, also revealed that an automobile stolen from Lakeport NJ shortly before the kidnaping and for a time believed to have been used by the abductor apparently did not figure in the crime.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Oct 19, 2017 16:41:42 GMT -5
The illegible word is “Sea Girt”
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Oct 19, 2017 17:04:54 GMT -5
Wayne said: "2) Interesting Waller observation. Waller spent 25 years writing Kidnap. Then 2 years later he wrote an article for True The Men’s Magazine entitled "New Evidence in the Lindbergh Case". " Hi, Wayne. Is it possible that Waller began writing Kidnap in 1936? Also, do you know what "new evidence" he published in True Magazine? The article was supposition. The point being Waller wrote as if there was no question about BRH being a lone kidnapper in his book. 2 years after the book was published he wrote this article. He didn't believe in footnoting either.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Oct 19, 2017 19:32:36 GMT -5
I came across this article today from the Rochester Democrat Chronicle dated 22 September 1934, page 1. Print Clue Traced to Mrs Lindbergh Trenton NJ Sept 21(UP) A woman’s footprints found on the grounds of Col. Charles A Lindbergh’s Hopewell estate after his son was kidnapped, thought to have been made by a woman accomplice of the kidnaper, actually were made by Mrs. Lindbergh, Col. H Norman Schwartzkopf,, Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police, revealed tonight. Timing purely coincidental to BRH's arrest two days prior? time.com/3329413/lindbergh-baby/
|
|