jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 20, 2017 4:05:29 GMT -5
I checked up on one of Waller's statements and found he used NY Times as his source. Judging from my second floor window a person would have to be five feet out into the yard to have any conversation with an individual at the window.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 20, 2017 6:18:50 GMT -5
Hi Jack, Thanks for checking my math! You are correct about the 5 foot distance, I was wrong about it being 10 feet. As Michael brought up in his book – Anne testified she was on the plank boardwalk and then between the boardwalk & the house tossing pebbles and waving to Charlie. Looking at the plank boardwalk, I think we can all agree it’s no more than 3 feet from the house, maybe even closer to two feet. Just for a reference point, the distance from the ground to the top of the 1st floor window sill is 4' 5". Attachment DeletedJack, since you were not able to see into a second floor window closer than 5 feet from the house, what do you make of Anne’s statement (assuming that Betty Gow was not pulling a Michael Jackson and holding poor Charlie outside the window)?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 20, 2017 6:41:38 GMT -5
It appears that Anne was lying. I'm still kind of in shock about that. Looks like she was justifying the female footprints. One thing I've always thought is that girls with her upbringing don't walk in the mud.
Very good job you guys. After so many years it's unbelievable that the crime could have been stood like you've done.
That Waller source Michael may remember was about BRH's landlady being paid in gold notes.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 20, 2017 6:44:15 GMT -5
Read "stood on it's head."
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 20, 2017 6:45:30 GMT -5
Did that cute little Michael Jackson do that?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 20, 2017 6:50:59 GMT -5
Sid Ceaser, before he took the cure, held his manager out a thirty story window of a hotel room because he said he wanted to go out and Sid didn't want to. "So you wanna go out huh!"
|
|
|
Post by daoud on Mar 18, 2018 7:06:06 GMT -5
I have a question for those who have visited Highfields - are there any/many pebbles to be found in the grounds?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,636
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 18, 2018 9:55:10 GMT -5
It appears that Anne was lying. I'm still kind of in shock about that. Looks like she was justifying the female footprints. One thing I've always thought is that girls with her upbringing don't walk in the mud. Very good job you guys. After so many years it's unbelievable that the crime could have been stood like you've done. That Waller source Michael may remember was about BRH's landlady being paid in gold notes. Anne testified that she couldn't recall which window she threw the pebbles at. Perhaps, she first considered the south-east corner window only upon her approach to the house along the walkway, as it was the window she would have been looking at as she approached the house coming up the driveway. When she got there, she would have realized that by doing so, she would only have to walk further east out into the yard to have a clear view of that window, where by all accounts, conditions were much muckier than they were closest to the house? (sudden appearance of a retreating trail of kidnappers' footprints away from the house) As she came to the end of the board walkway, I believe she probably realized at this point, she could do the same thing while standing on the patio at the rear of the house and throw pebbles at the French window. From her statements and testimony, I don't see anything within Anne's words that attempts to deceive, and I see her struggling to recall which window she threw the pebbles at, which could have been based upon her previous plan to use the south-east corner window and the subsequent confusion over which window it actually was. Otherwise, it seems clear to me she simply would have stated it was the French window or the south-east corner window. The lack of a woman's footprints at the east side of the house at a point which would have required for her to actually see Charlie at the south-east corner window, would also seem to support this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 18, 2018 18:07:41 GMT -5
I have a question for those who have visited Highfields - are there any/many pebbles to be found in the grounds? It's hard to compare now with then because that yard still hadn't been graded at the time of the kidnapping. However, there certainly were pebbles there when I made my soil sample digs about 15 years ago. Ronelle has Liz Pagel's soil report uploaded on her site and it may be of some interest to you: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/lizpagel.pdf
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 19, 2018 20:15:27 GMT -5
I am somewhat confused as to why it's been accepted without question that the terrain surrounding Highfields was mucky and conducive to footprint formation on the evening of March 1, 1932. I recall amy35 posting weather forecasts and daily weather reports from the Trenton Times and a Newark newspaper, with no mention of precipitation. I'm wondering if anyone can come up definitively with the latest previous date that it did rain or snow in the area, and how much precipitation was measured on that occasion. Of course, because we're talking about early March, there remains the possibility that the ground remained muddy from melted snow that fell quite a number of days prior to March 1.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,636
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 25, 2018 10:36:29 GMT -5
I am somewhat confused as to why it's been accepted without question that the terrain surrounding Highfields was mucky and conducive to footprint formation on the evening of March 1, 1932. I recall amy35 posting weather forecasts and daily weather reports from the Trenton Times and a Newark newspaper, with no mention of precipitation. I'm wondering if anyone can come up definitively with the latest previous date that it did rain or snow in the area, and how much precipitation was measured on that occasion. Of course, because we're talking about early March, there remains the possibility that the ground remained muddy from melted snow that fell quite a number of days prior to March 1. (Hurtelable) There is no evidence to support that the relevant terrain which spanned the east wall of the house and the point at which the ladder and chisel were found, were equally uniform in terms of being "mucky" enough to support the formation of footprints wherevere someone stepped. Quite the contrary really, as there is a very notable and relative absence of footprints in the immediate vicinity of the east wall, given all of the activity that would have taken place approaching the area under the south-east corner window, not to mention setting up a two or three section ladder. Suddenly though, there is an obvious and telltale trail of footprints, which begins some distance east of the house and proceeds to the point at which the ladders were found and beyond all the way to the road, which would reasonably conclude that the varying soil conditions were generally moister as one ventured away from the house. I believe this also supports the existence of a pronounced leeward effect afforded by the house itself, against winds carrying precipitation which would have mainly come out of the north and north-west. Essentially in this case, all mud is not equal.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 25, 2018 12:07:07 GMT -5
I am somewhat confused as to why it's been accepted without question that the terrain surrounding Highfields was mucky and conducive to footprint formation on the evening of March 1, 1932. I recall amy35 posting weather forecasts and daily weather reports from the Trenton Times and a Newark newspaper, with no mention of precipitation. I'm wondering if anyone can come up definitively with the latest previous date that it did rain or snow in the area, and how much precipitation was measured on that occasion. Of course, because we're talking about early March, there remains the possibility that the ground remained muddy from melted snow that fell quite a number of days prior to March 1. (Hurtelable) There is no evidence to support that the relevant terrain which spanned the east wall of the house and the point at which the ladder and chisel were found, were equally uniform in terms of being "mucky" enough to support the formation of footprints wherevere someone stepped. Quite the contrary really, as there is a very notable and relative absence of footprints in the immediate vicinity of the east wall, given all of the activity that would have taken place approaching the area under the south-east corner window, not to mention setting up a two or three section ladder. Suddenly though, there is an obvious and telltale trail of footprints, which begins some distance east of the house and proceeds to the point at which the ladders were found and beyond all the way to the road, which would reasonably conclude that the varying soil conditions were generally moister as one ventured away from the house. I believe this also supports the existence of a pronounced leeward effect afforded by the house itself, against winds carrying precipitation which would have mainly come out of the north and north-west. Essentially in this case, all mud is not equal. Except there WAS a clear footprint by the window, which negates this theory. If the mud wasn’t equally moist you would expect to see some impressions of varying depths or visibility, not flat undisturbed mud. These people knew where they were going, stayed on the boardwalk and put up the ladder. It was all a clearly staged scene.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,636
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 25, 2018 13:07:53 GMT -5
No, it doesn't negate the theory at all. Within the immediate area of the ladder, we have a footprint impression of a sock covered foot or footwear positioned just left of the ladder and an indistinct impression to the right of that. Both could have been made by a relatively firmer pressure, ie. a sudden step down or something hitting the ground. Impact can carry much more force than the simple act of walking around. Further, you seem to suggest the kidnappers were somehow able to maintain their poise and balance on a piece of 6" walkway, while raising a ladder which had the characteristic of scissoring inwards, to the window. All of this apparently accomplished on that little perch on a dark and windy night, and all we have is one footprint by the ladder which would have had to have been made by a contortionist of sorts, stepping from the walkway to the ladder. Take a good look at the photos. Your theory, ie. one recognizable step to accomplish what the kidnappers did and all of the activity which would have had to have happened all around that board walkway, therefore this is a staged kidnapping, is negated by common sense. If you are somehow aware of the exact soil and moisture conditions of the ground within the relevant area beneath the south-east corner window on that night and its propensity to show or not show footprints of the type found by the ladder, please don't hold back. I believe you're simply making the physical evidence conform to your notion of the above, without a more thorough understanding of all contributing factors.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2018 14:03:14 GMT -5
If you are somehow aware of the exact soil and moisture conditions of the ground within the relevant area beneath the south-east corner window on that night and its propensity to show or not show footprints of the type found by the ladder, please don't hold back. I believe you're simply making the physical evidence conform to your notion of the above, without a more thorough understanding of all contributing factors. Forgive me for jumping in Joe but you seem to be doing exactly what you accuse USC of. We know there were footprints that were made, and we know, as I have proven, there were more footprints than what some authors "like" us to believe. So people stepped, and prints were made. And so where ever footprints were not made you've invented the argument that the ground was mysteriously dry in those areas. There's nothing to support that position except the lack of prints. You obviously want to believe they stepped there because you don't like the obvious indications from the fact there is no evidence they did. Someone walked inside the board-walk between it and the house. Here is where the least likely place would be for someone to have created prints - and they were still made. In fact, Anne herself testified that it was " quite muddy" from the driveway along side of the house all the way to the flagstone (TDC p149). Her own testimony contradicts your point because she herself claimed someone walking there would leave footprints. It's exactly WHY that boardwalk was there in the first place. The print by the ladder could only be explained by the Police as having been made BEFORE the climb. In fact, it was so muddy that Schwarzkopf said the NJSP position was that mud fell off the shoe on the way "out" of the window! (TDC 204). That would mean they stepped in the mud, climbed the ladder, walked to crib, walk from crib, and still had a sizable amount of mud on their shoe leftover upon leaving. Why? As I wrote in TDC it was to explain the mud in the Nursery and the chunk on top of the shutter. If that print was made after its yet another indicator of an inside job which is why they avoided it. Just from the paragraph I've written above we have both Anne & Schwarzkopf at odds with your excuse for missing footpints. We don't even need what they said because we can simply read Wolf's initial report: "The front of the Lindbergh residence faces south. For a distance of about 90 feet on the east and south the grounds have been levelled off with fresh dirt which was wet at the time of the crime and showed footprints etc." Of course there are more I can cite to support this as well but I've got a feeling it won't change your mind.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,636
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 25, 2018 17:03:46 GMT -5
No problem Michael, and I'm just as determined to get to the bottom of the inconsistencies within the footprint evidence as everyone else here. Now when you talk about other footprints having been found between the board walkway and the wall of the house, does this not contradict your earlier position? When we went through 'round one' of the footprints evidence some months ago, wasn't your position one where you believed the kidnappers must have stayed on the boards, while approaching and raising the ladder, otherwise they would have left their footprints alongside the boards? My point was that they were wearing some kind of softening covers on their feet or footwear, hence their footprints were not detected. I may have misunderstood your point, so please clarify. Were these prints you mentioned possibly Anne's as she walked along the east wall to the back of the house while trying unsuccessfully to stay on the boards? Also, if anyone might be able to lend their artistic or software skills towards a detailed overhead diagram (which could be added to) of the relevant area between house and point where the ladder was found, the evidence might be better understood.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2018 17:48:31 GMT -5
No problem Michael, and I'm just as determined to get to the bottom of the inconsistencies within the footprint evidence as everyone else here. Now when you talk about other footprints having been found between the board walkway and the wall of the house, does this not contradict your earlier position? When we went through 'round one' of the footprints evidence some months ago, wasn't your position one where you believed the kidnappers must have stayed on the boards, while approaching and raising the ladder, otherwise they would have left their footprints alongside the boards? I don't think I've contradicted what I've said earlier. Let me restate some things... Forgetting about the DeLong notes about his meeting with Schwarzkopf which is now in the public domain over on Ronelle's site... I say that because the idea that there may have been (4) sets of different footprints blows my mind and will disrupt my train of thought. And so it is provable that there were at least (3) different sets of prints (1) of which were the small prints under between the house and the boardwalk which Anne claimed were hers. Now as it pertains to specific people we all must go out on a limb when considering someone to be "honest" about whatever they said. I don't think I understate it when I say I believe you to be one who trusts what she said. After all - she lived there and claimed to have made those prints herself. I do believe whoever raised that ladder - that would be the two sets of "male" prints leading away from the window to the ladder - did in fact remain on that boardwalk or there would have been more of their prints in that area. I personally don't necessarily believe Anne made those prints she claimed, most especially because in her testimony she cannot keep her story straight. So she could be telling the truth about making them but also could be following Lindbergh's instructions (as she always did) if he gave them to say they were hers. Regardless, this proves it was muddy there, and stepping in that area would create footprints. My point was that they were wearing some kind of softening covers on their feet or footwear, hence their footprints were not detected. I may have misunderstood your point, so please clarify. Were these prints you mentioned possibly Anne's as she walked along the east wall to the back of the house while trying unsuccessfully to stay on the boards? Also, if anyone might be able to lend their artistic or software skills towards a detailed overhead diagram (which could be added to) of the relevant area between house and point where the ladder was found, the evidence might be better understood. It's the weight that would create a print in the mud. I submit that if one is heavy enough, and Anne didn't weigh much at all, you would leave a print as evidenced by the existing prints, and what everyone else was saying about the conditions there... And I do mean everyone to include the Reporters who were there. So one could wear snow shoes and it is pretty clear an impression of some kind would have been made. There's no way around it.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Mar 25, 2018 18:04:58 GMT -5
When visiting the NJSP archives last fall, I was quickly overwhelmed by all of the resources there; my intentions to be methodical and organized quickly fell by the wayside and I spent most of my limited time onsite reading and copying the official statements by the witnesses present and other police reports from the night of the kidnapping. I also spent time reviewing binders of photographs. One of those photographs is posted above. I neglected to check the back of the photo for a description. It appears to be a photo of a footprint that I would assume was taken at the crime scene. The heel is distinctly separate from the sole. Lacking a reference point,it's hard to tell how large the footprint is or whether it is a man's or woman's shoe. Does anyone have the backstory on this particular photograph?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2018 7:10:43 GMT -5
When visiting the NJSP archives last fall, I was quickly overwhelmed by all of the resources there; my intentions to be methodical and organized quickly fell by the wayside and I spent most of my limited time onsite reading and copying the official statements by the witnesses present and other police reports from the night of the kidnapping. I also spent time reviewing binders of photographs. Again, I am so glad you made a trip there. It is eye-opening right? Now put it in the context of people on the internet (not here) claiming to be Experts who have only visited a couple of times, or once, or never? It's those same people who might tell you not to go. Any wonder why? I was just there this month again and found something new. What "Expert" would want to keep people from finding new information? Like they used to say back then another " Chiseler." One of those photographs is posted above. I neglected to check the back of the photo for a description. It appears to be a photo of a footprint that I would assume was taken at the crime scene. The heel is distinctly separate from the sole. Lacking a reference point,it's hard to tell how large the footprint is or whether it is a man's or woman's shoe. Does anyone have the backstory on this particular photograph? It does look like Hopewell but I don't feel comfortable saying it is. While I've been through those binders myself on several occasions, I wouldn't want to say without looking at the notation. The only photos that exist there are of the St. Raymond's and Hopewell prints so it could be either while it could not be anything else. By the way, there are TONS of negatives elsewhere that I do not believe have been developed, or may have been at one time, but I don't think the photos currently exist.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Mar 26, 2018 8:40:48 GMT -5
I think it was Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Outliers" who posited that it takes something like 10,000 hours of practice in a chosen field to be successful or considered an expert in that field... and even that has to be quality time.
An author can bypass the archives if their intent is merely to rehash the previous publications of others and come to the same conclusions that those original authors did; the new author can then cite those previous works as validation for their current body of work, when in reality it is nothing more than a rehash of old ideas in a new format. It reminds me of papers I had to write in high school where one of the goals was simply to teach the student how to cite and footnote without adding anything new.
The more I look at that photograph, to me that footprint would appear to be that of a woman's shoe. Note the gap between the heel impression and the sole impression where the soil is undisturbed. If it were a man's shoe, then the sole impression would be continuous right up to the heel. The gap would seem to indicate that the arch area was raised a bit, like a woman's high-heeled shoe as opposed to the relatively minimal height difference of a man's heel/sole shoe.
Since no women were sighted at St. Raymond's, this would seem to imply that this photograph is a print at Highfields.
Were any of the reporters initially on scene at Highfields women?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 26, 2018 10:08:11 GMT -5
but mike not everything people found was in the archives, delong interview, huddleson report and many others ive read. just because people didn't go to the archives a lot are not experts, some of them are.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Mar 26, 2018 18:39:09 GMT -5
It looks more like a woman's footprint because the heel is narrower.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 27, 2018 11:38:16 GMT -5
The more I look at that photograph, to me that footprint would appear to be that of a woman's shoe. Note the gap between the heel impression and the sole impression where the soil is undisturbed. If it were a man's shoe, then the sole impression would be continuous right up to the heel. The gap would seem to indicate that the arch area was raised a bit, like a woman's high-heeled shoe as opposed to the relatively minimal height difference of a man's heel/sole shoe. Since no women were sighted at St. Raymond's, this would seem to imply that this photograph is a print at Highfields. Were any of the reporters initially on scene at Highfields women? I think there is a lot to learn by anyone who hasn't had that chance to go to the NJSP Archives - just look at our discussions we have here. My only issue are those who do not, dissuade others from going, then pretend to be "EXPERTS." Hard to believe people do that but they do. Hard to believe certain people will tell you what's in a report they've never read but they do that too. Anyway enough about that - just glad you could see first hand for yourself how ridiculous that is. It would be impossible for me to say exactly all who were there and who were not. I think its a safe bet that female reporters were there before everyone was asked to leave. However, the pictures of the footprints in those binders were NJSP evidence photos and would have been taken (in yard at Hopewell) before any Reporter could have created them. That print would be one that is listed on the chain of custody photo sheet which I cited in my book.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 27, 2018 11:52:00 GMT -5
but mike not everything people found was in the archives, delong interview, huddleson report and many others ive read. just because people didn't go to the archives a lot are not experts, some of them are. The Huddleson Report is there, I know, because I've found two separate copies in two different places. We're lucky to have it because most of the Fawcett material is not there.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 27, 2018 15:01:30 GMT -5
I don't think so.
Even your buddy Mr. Gardner (did you know it's very incorrect to use an author's first name no matter how well you know them? You do it all the time with your pal Lyle!) admits on page one that there were reporters at the crime scene before the police.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 27, 2018 16:08:38 GMT -5
I don't think so. Even your buddy Mr. Gardner (did you know it's very incorrect to use an author's first name no matter how well you know them? You do it all the time with your pal Lyle!) admits on page one that there were reporters at the crime scene before the police. 1. I don't care. The proper etiquette is what Lloyd thinks I should call him. Think about that for a second. 2. At the time his book was written he believed it (2004). Since then the facts have proven otherwise. Samuel Blackman was the first and he never entered that yard by his own very account. His movements are well documented. Furthermore, he ran into Lindbergh and the search party who had already followed the footprints. According to DeLong, he was at the diner when Breckinridge's driver showed up to pick up coffee for the cops. He did not pick up coffee until after Breckinridge had already gotten there. Lindbergh and the search party had followed those prints at least an hour before he arrived - probably longer. So you are going to have to navigate around the facts to get where you are.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 27, 2018 18:27:22 GMT -5
Wolf's initial report:
"The front of the Lindbergh residence faces south. For a distance of about 90 feet on the east and south the grounds have been levelled off with fresh dirt which was wet at the time of the crime and showed footprints etc."
I don't mean to be picky, Michael, but the front of the Lindbergh house faces north. If it faced south, we'd be talking about a northwest corner window as the nursery window. Anyway, I've read this report of Wolf's before, and it bugged me the first time. Maybe he was thinking that the living room and patio were at the front of the house.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 28, 2018 15:24:03 GMT -5
mike a longtime researcher frank was in the mock trial play in Flemington huddlesons grandson gave him that report. he gave me a copy I gave it to ronnelle and it got to the archives that way. frank also volunteered in the organizing the archives in the eighties.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 28, 2018 16:00:28 GMT -5
I don't mean to be picky, Michael, but the front of the Lindbergh house faces north. If it faced south, we'd be talking about a northwest corner window as the nursery window. Anyway, I've read this report of Wolf's before, and it bugged me the first time. Maybe he was thinking that the living room and patio were at the front of the house. No apologies necessary! If you see something - say something We do know he got the location of the yard right! mike a longtime researcher frank was in the mock trial play in Flemington huddlesons grandson gave him that report. he gave me a copy I gave it to ronnelle and it got to the archives that way. frank also volunteered in the organizing the archives in the eighties. I have no doubt what you are saying is correct and we all benefit from donations to the Archives. Sam, for example, must have donated everything and I've been browsing through his stuff ever since! But I've also got to say that I found (2) separate copies of that report so I do not believe they came from the same source. My opinion because it doesn't make sense there'd be two in completely different places. You also have to remember that I've been through material in places that no one else has been, or at least since Mark has been there. Before that who knows? But some of this stuff had rusty staples holding it together and string, when untied, disintegrated - so its anybodies guess the last time they were looked at.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 30, 2018 8:54:27 GMT -5
ive been to the archives a lot of times in the 90s. theres also a lot of stuff that's unimportant or has been repeated a lot of times. I liked the archives before it was changed. I also was there before mark came aboard. delores showed me around at that time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2018 9:45:33 GMT -5
ive been to the archives a lot of times in the 90s. theres also a lot of stuff that's unimportant or has been repeated a lot of times. I liked the archives before it was changed. I also was there before mark came aboard. delores showed me around at that time. That's one of the issues isn't it? What is important and what is not important is in the eye of the beholder AND at the time they are looking at it. There were things I read the first time around that didn't seem important, but by my next go around I had learned so much since the last time that it turned out some I had deemed irrelevant actually were important. That's part of the reason I don't like telling people what to think. Of course there is a lot of crazy correspondence and reports that reveal some really crazy people but I think its important to conclude that yourself by doing the research in the first place. You'll see in V2 that something which was deemed unfounded, if given more attention, could have yielded part of the solution. You'll also see that something which wasn't pursued like it should have absolutely would have brought the whole thing down. Delores is great and extremely knowledgeable. I didn't know her then but I am good friends with her now. There exists (3) sections of time as it involves the Archives: The 80s, 90s, and 00 to present. Each has/had its own benefits, but I didn't start going until 2000. I think you have time in all three right?
|
|