|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 31, 2018 14:08:19 GMT -5
To All:
If someone has a copy of the Huddleson Report, can you please post it or a link to it?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 1, 2018 9:42:36 GMT -5
I can understand Anne's account about having left her footprints where same were observed, because the walkway was relatively narrow, and would have represented a challenge to negotiate and remain on, even during daylight hours. There is also the scenario around her tossing pebbles at one of the windows, an even which was corroborated by Betty Gow, and this would seem to provide a clue as to her ultimate confusion over which window she actually threw the pebbles at. The presence of footprints between the walkway and east wall of the house, is suggestive of some difficulty on her part to have remained on the walkway without stepping off here and there. This physical evidence also suggests as I've previously pointed out, her intention to proceed to the rear of the house so she could toss pebbles at the French window, instead of the south-east corner window, a less desirable option as it would have necessitated her walking further out into the yard, where conditions would likely have been worse. All in all, the possibility of these having been Anne's footprints between the walkway and the east wall of the house strikes me as reasonable. It makes sense. Do I believe she only would have been "following Lindbergh's instructions" here by saying they were hers, when she knew they were not? No.
Now a question for you Michael, and I hope you can indulge in the spirit of thought experimentation here. And for a moment, putting aside any debate regarding whether or not the kidnappers should have left behind more physical clues of their presence in the same general area where Anne was. For what reason do you feel the kidnappers would have felt compelled to remain tightly on the walkway within their approach from the north-east corner of the house to the area under the south-east corner window, and then again when they were positioning the ladder against the house and ostensibly, holding it in place while one of them entered and exited the nursery window?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 1, 2018 22:35:27 GMT -5
I can understand Anne's account about having left her footprints where same were observed, because the walkway was relatively narrow, and would have represented a challenge to negotiate and remain on, even during daylight hours. I suggest that we do the math. If it's hard for Anne to remain on that board during the daylight then its a worse situation for those walking at night. Yet the Cops were able to. Next a single kidnapper, as the Lone-Wolf people suggest, had to have been carrying that ladder as well other items without the assistance of a light. So in order to avoid the obvious we could either accept what's in front of us, or we could suggest a far-fetched scenario which includes everywhere Anne stepped was muddy but everywhere these person(s) stepped was not. What are the odds like 1% or 1.5%? There is also the scenario around her tossing pebbles at one of the windows, an even which was corroborated by Betty Gow, and this would seem to provide a clue as to her ultimate confusion over which window she actually threw the pebbles at. It does? How? So if Betty backed Anne up about pebble throwing at one window (supposedly to get the attention of the child) that supports the idea Anne couldn't remember which window? The presence of footprints between the walkway and east wall of the house, is suggestive of some difficulty on her part to have remained on the walkway without stepping off here and there. This physical evidence also suggests as I've previously pointed out, her intention to proceed to the rear of the house so she could toss pebbles at the French window, instead of the south-east corner window, a less desirable option as it would have necessitated her walking further out into the yard, where conditions would likely have been worse. All in all, the possibility of these having been Anne's footprints between the walkway and the east wall of the house strikes me as reasonable. It makes sense. Do I believe she only would have been "following Lindbergh's instructions" here by saying they were hers, when she knew they were not? No. Joe, you are giving Anne an "alibi" she never gave herself - and she was there. It is not reasonable. She has a story that during the trial she couldn't keep straight. It could be because she could not remember or it could be she was trying to support something that was not true. If she can't remember then what good is the testimony? I can see why you think she wouldn't be following Lindy's directions. But if he gave them to her we both know she would have. So what that means is you do not believe he gave her any. Now a question for you Michael, and I hope you can indulge in the spirit of thought experimentation here. And for a moment, putting aside any debate regarding whether or not the kidnappers should have left behind more physical clues of their presence in the same general area where Anne was. For what reason do you feel the kidnappers would have felt compelled to remain tightly on the walkway within their approach from the north-east corner of the house to the area under the south-east corner window, and then again when they were positioning the ladder against the house and ostensibly, holding it in place while one of them entered and exited the nursery window? The scene was staged. Those involved did everything possible not to leave behind anything other than what they desired to. Stepping into the mud could not be undone. It was exactly as Ho-age suggested, and there was left behind a trail to follow. As the NOVA show proved, even three guys attempting to raise that ladder did a rain dance in the yard while making the attempt - in the daylight and without any wind. There should have been footprints all over the place pointing is every direction but that's not what they wanted the police to find.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 2, 2018 11:34:27 GMT -5
I think its on ronneles board
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 2, 2018 11:36:04 GMT -5
yes mike I was there before falzini
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 3, 2018 11:23:32 GMT -5
Assume you are referring to the Huddleson report. Yes, it is on "The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax" site, but only the first 6 pages, and there are obviously more pages that aren't there. Thanks for what is available, but does anyone know where pages 7 + are?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 5, 2018 8:51:31 GMT -5
let me look I have a copy at home
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 5, 2018 10:03:00 GMT -5
Assume you are referring to the Huddleson report. Yes, it is on "The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax" site, but only the first 6 pages, and there are obviously more pages that aren't there. Thanks for what is available, but does anyone know where pages 7 + are? The entire report is 25 pages long. Your best bet is to give Mark Falzini a call if you want the complete report. I still have a flatbed scanner and the file would be massive.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 6, 2018 8:39:09 GMT -5
I found the 25 page report I don't scan so see if mike will do it or I could copy it for you and send it
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 6, 2018 18:32:50 GMT -5
You’re telling me it would have been very difficult for the kidnappers to negotiate that narrow walkway on a cold and windy night, given all of the activity that would have taken place in that area setting up and taking down the ladder and holding it while one of them entered and exited the nursery! Same basic level of activity would also apply to a lone wolf, with the exception of holding the ladder of course. So you would have them then taking great pains to remain on the walkway, when minutes later, they go tromping off to the east, leaving a telltale trail of footprints to follow in the ground there. Protecting your card in the vicinity of the house for some still unexplained reason, and then having no qualms about exposing it away from the house makes little sense, and that’s not what happened here.
I had something in my original message that got lost in the shuffle of editing. As I previously posited, Anne may have been confused about which window she threw the pebbles at, because it would have been her first intention to throw them at the south-east corner window as she approached the house after her walk. To do that though, she would have had to have walked further out into the yard on the east side of the house. Somewhere along the way she realized she could see the baby at the French window from the flagstone patio at the back of the house and this would have been the window she threw the pebbles at, an overall less muddy choice. I included the fact that Betty corroborated Anne's testimony about having thrown the pebbles, thereby establishing her as a witness to the act. In any case, Anne's lack of recollection about which window it was, also indicates clearly she was not coached about what to say. It appears Wilentz was more intent on establishing that the female footprints alongside the house were hers and hers alone.
I'm not giving Anne an alibi at all. I'm trying to make sense of her testimony, as I am with the entire scope of the footprint evidence. You’re essentially writing off her testimony here.. throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. Simply dismissing Anne’s apparent lack of recollection doesn’t help matters, unless you've already concluded it doesn't fit your theory. What I’m positing here is that the gist of her testimony as guided by Wilentz, was to impress in the minds of the jurors that the female footprints alongside the house leading to the back patio were Anne Lindbergh’s, and not which window was targeted for the pebble toss.
And why would they not have wanted police to find their footprints near the house? For some yet to be explained reason, you seem to envision fake kidnappers wearing soft foot coverings, tiptoeing around on a narrow walkway so they don’t leave footprints. What on earth are they trying to hide here and for what reason, when minutes later they seem to have no qualms about leaving the trail of footprints further in more impressionable mud east of the house? Given what you're suggesting they did on that walkway, what could possibly suggest staging more clearly? Why not just leave a calling card stating “This is a fake kidnapping?” Hoage was wrong and riding on some tangent, the likes of which you can find within his silly and almost-impossible-to-read hatchet job on Condon. (The Story of John F. Condon – “Egoist Extraordinary"). Nothing was staged here Michael, and it's all fully explainable within the conclusions of the official investigation. This issue relative to footprints boils down to what the kidnappers were wearing on their feet and the condition of the ground near the house compared to the condition of the ground further east of the house. It's nothing more than Occam’s Razor but you may not be willing to accept it at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 6, 2018 19:19:43 GMT -5
You’re telling me it would have been very difficult for the kidnappers to negotiate that narrow walkway on a cold and windy night, given all of the activity that would have taken place in that area setting up and taking down the ladder and holding it while one of them entered and exited the nursery! Same basic level of activity would also apply to a lone wolf, with the exception of holding the ladder of course. So you would have them then taking great pains to remain on the walkway, when minutes later, they go tromping off to the east, leaving a telltale trail of footprints to follow in the ground there. Protecting your card in the vicinity of the house for some still unexplained reason, and then having no qualms about exposing it away from the house makes little sense, and that’s not what happened here. I'd say either scenario is problematic if one thinks it wasn't an inside job. But it's not the same basic activity. Considering one person presents its own set of difficult circumstances than more. But with more the percentages go up that someone steps into the mud. 2 feet vs. 4 feet vs. 6 feet. If considering the wind, the darkness, and the fact that they weren't familiar with the house or scene the odds skyrocket. Then navigating this board without the aid of a flashlight? They tromping off makes no sense if you think about it. They were willing to perfectly navigate the board on approach but walked in the muddy yard to leave. Why? To leave those prints to prove they were there. Why leave the chisel that wasn't even used? Why leave the ladder behind when it could have been taken away? It was staged, and all meant to point away from one or more people in that house who assisted. I had something in my original message that got lost in the shuffle of editing. As I previously posited, Anne may have been confused about which window she threw the pebbles at, because it would have been her first intention to throw them at the south-east corner window as she approached the house after her walk. To do that though, she would have had to have walked further out into the yard on the east side of the house. Somewhere along the way she realized she could see the baby at the French window from the flagstone patio at the back of the house and this would have been the window she threw the pebbles at, an overall less muddy choice. I included the fact that Betty corroborated Anne's testimony about having thrown the pebbles, thereby establishing her as a witness to the act. In any case, Anne's lack of recollection about which window it was, also indicates clearly she was not coached about what to say. It appears Wilentz was more intent on establishing that the female footprints alongside the house were hers and hers alone. We have footprints between the house and the board which Anne claimed were hers because she tossed pebbles at the window. Just from what you've written above, we know those prints had nothing to do with pebble tossing. Next, people who make things up get snagged like this all the time - coached or not - so I do not agree that its evidence of anything. Like I said, I see two options and neither support the value of her testimony. I'm not giving Anne an alibi at all. I'm trying to make sense of her testimony, as I am with the entire scope of the footprint evidence. You’re essentially writing off her testimony here.. throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. Simply dismissing Anne’s apparent lack of recollection doesn’t help matters, unless you've already concluded it doesn't fit your theory. What I’m positing here is that the gist of her testimony as guided by Wilentz, was to impress in the minds of the jurors that the female footprints alongside the house leading to the back patio were Anne Lindbergh’s, and not which window was targeted for the pebble toss.We can have Anne tossing pebbles at the garage, at Lindbergh's car, at the French window or any window you like but it doesn't support her statement that those prints found between the house and the board were hers. If they were then why? Not to toss pebbles. So she walking on the board, in the daylight and without any wind, but cannot navigate it? That doesn't make sense does it? So why? Oh, the pebble story... But that does not work. To make matters worse, once on the stand, she cannot remember. And why would they not have wanted police to find their footprints near the house? For some yet to be explained reason, you seem to envision fake kidnappers wearing soft foot coverings, tiptoeing around on a narrow walkway so they don’t leave footprints. What on earth are they trying to hide here and for what reason, when minutes later they seem to have no qualms about leaving the trail of footprints further in more impressionable mud east of the house? Given what you're suggesting they did on that walkway, what could possibly suggest staging more clearly? Why not just leave a calling card stating “This is a fake kidnapping?” Hoage was wrong and riding on some tangent, the likes of which you can find within his silly and almost-impossible-to-read hatchet job on Condon. (The Story of John F. Condon – “Egoist Extraordinary"). Nothing was staged here Michael, and it's all fully explainable within the conclusions of the official investigation. This issue relative to footprints boils down to what the kidnappers were wearing on their feet and the condition of the ground near the house compared to the condition of the ground further east of the house. It's nothing more than Occam’s Razor but you may not be willing to accept it at this point. Someone was making the decisions about how things should look. It took a slow and methodical method to create everything the way it was discovered. There are just too many to list and why I wrote V1 to explain and show it all. It's all there. Who wipes down a nursery if they are wearing gloves? Someone who is not a criminal but trying to stage a situation to make it look like one was there. It's all too obvious, and if we were talking about an average family no one would have any issues considering it. And like I wrote in my book - the Police SAW IT TOO.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 6, 2018 19:50:25 GMT -5
Anything else aside, there were no approach footprints, so they probably drove up—and if they drove up, why not drive out too? As you say, the reason was specifically to leave footprints. And the lack of approach prints was to keep the scene as clear as possible, to not mess up the yard with confusing footprints all over the place. And no, it doesn’t make sense for Anne to walk through the mud with a construction catwalk inches to her left. She certainly didn’t stand that close to the southeast wall—between the walk and the house—to throw pebbles at the kidnap window; she’d have been tossing pebbles basically vertically to hit a window she couldn't even see into due to the steep angle. Kind of a goofy picture. And even if she instead threw pebbles at the French window in back, it still doesn’t make sense to walk through the mud to get there, with a boardwalk right next to her. So those footprints weren’t hers. That being the case, we have Elsie, Betty, or a female kidnapper. Take your pick.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 8, 2018 15:16:13 GMT -5
You conclude the trail of footprints was left to prove they were there? Then I can’t understand why you feel they would have taken such pains to not show their footprints near the house. What do you think they were trying to hide there? Again, you seem to have them protecting their hand near the house and then exposing it away from the house. If you can make sense of that, then so be it.
What we have are two impressions where the ladder rails went into the ground and found under the nursery window, indicating someone climbed that ladder. We have one footprint to the left of the ladder, indicating enough force was created at that particular spot to leave the print, as well as a less discernible and larger impression to the right of that footprint. We also have faint but discernible mud marks left in the nursery, a dab of mud on the first floor shutter, a note on the windowsill, and most importantly, one child missing out of his crib. At what point given the above, do the lights come on for anyone who would be investigating this crime to say kidnappers were or weren’t at the scene? Further, what need is there now to purposely leave a “breadcrumb trail” leading away from the house?
I believe the kidnappers never intended to retreat using the path they ultimately did. They originally planned to return to their car using the same route that brought them to the house.. the driveway. And why wouldn’t they keep it simple and trouble-free? So why did they decide to go tromping eastwards through unfamiliar fields leaving a telltale trail? Because they panicked when the ladder rails unexpectedly snapped, the first floor shutter was impacted, (the sound heard by Lindbergh) and one of them stepped down hard in the ground by the ladder. Still, it seems they had enough presence of mind to gather up what they brought, including the child and retreat with all 90 degrees east, but then chose to abandon the ladder 75 feet south-east of the house. The chisel was dropped accidentally in the confusion.
The kidnappers’ foot coverings and the condition of the ground nearest the house, relative to that of the ground further east of the house, did not support the production of readily-discernible footprints. And remember, there were no discernible footprints leading up to the walkway either, were there? Really, all you have to do is look at the closeup of the ground in the crime scene photos. It’s all there in black and white.
A good part of Anne’s testimony had to do with her establishing that the footprints found alongside the house were hers. Where they were found indicates that if she in fact, did toss the pebbles as both her and Betty testified, then they could only have been directed at the French window. Perhaps there are additional statements from Anne or Betty which address the exact window.
Some lengths of the walkway were approximately 12” in width while others were only 6”. There was also a distance which she would have had to have covered walking on the ground, while walking to the back patio. And yes, it probably would have been a challenge even during daylight hours unless she was using the wall of the house as a support at any given point. The kidnappers of course didn’t have this luxury and should have left prints all over the place, had it not been for the foot coverings they were wearing which did not support the production of readily-discernible footprints in the ground near the house. Anne’s footwear with its heel obviously made more of an impression.
I have no explanation for the apparent lack of discernible fingerprints in the nursery, but if anyone was trying to stage a scene, why with all of this apparent methodicalness that you’re suggesting went on, would that reasonably have included the wiping down of the nursery? I think not. Didn’t Lindbergh himself try to guard against anyone touching the envelope on the windowsill and the contents of the nursery, should they unintentionally compromise whatever evidence might have been left there? What does that tell you?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Apr 8, 2018 18:24:44 GMT -5
You conclude the trail of footprints was left to prove they were there? Then I can’t understand why you feel they would have taken such pains to not show their footprints near the house. What do you think they were trying to hide there? Again, you seem to have them protecting their hand near the house and then exposing it away from the house. If you can make sense of that, then so be it. What we have are two impressions where the ladder rails went into the ground and found under the nursery window, indicating someone climbed that ladder. We have one footprint to the left of the ladder, indicating enough force was created at that particular spot to leave the print, as well as a less discernible and larger impression to the right of that footprint. We also have faint but discernible mud marks left in the nursery, a dab of mud on the first floor shutter, a note on the windowsill, and most importantly, one child missing out of his crib. At what point given the above, do the lights come on for anyone who would be investigating this crime to say kidnappers were or weren’t at the scene? Further, what need is there now to purposely leave a “breadcrumb trail” leading away from the house? I believe the kidnappers never intended to retreat using the path they ultimately did. They originally planned to return to their car using the same route that brought them to the house.. the driveway. And why wouldn’t they keep it simple and trouble-free? So why did they decide to go tromping eastwards through unfamiliar fields leaving a telltale trail? Because they panicked when the ladder rails unexpectedly snapped, the first floor shutter was impacted, (the sound heard by Lindbergh) and one of them stepped down hard in the ground by the ladder. Still, it seems they had enough presence of mind to gather up what they brought, including the child and retreat with all 90 degrees east, but then chose to abandon the ladder 75 feet south-east of the house. The chisel was dropped accidentally in the confusion. The kidnappers’ foot coverings and the condition of the ground nearest the house, relative to that of the ground further east of the house, did not support the production of readily-discernible footprints. And remember, there were no discernible footprints leading up to the walkway either, were there? Really, all you have to do is look at the closeup of the ground in the crime scene photos. It’s all there in black and white. A good part of Anne’s testimony had to do with her establishing that the footprints found alongside the house were hers. Where they were found indicates that if she in fact, did toss the pebbles as both her and Betty testified, then they could only have been directed at the French window. Perhaps there are additional statements from Anne or Betty which address the exact window. Some lengths of the walkway were approximately 12” in width while others were only 6”. There was also a distance which she would have had to have covered walking on the ground, while walking to the back patio. And yes, it probably would have been a challenge even during daylight hours unless she was using the wall of the house as a support at any given point. The kidnappers of course didn’t have this luxury and should have left prints all over the place, had it not been for the foot coverings they were wearing which did not support the production of readily-discernible footprints in the ground near the house. Anne’s footwear with its heel obviously made more of an impression. I have no explanation for the apparent lack of discernible fingerprints in the nursery, but if anyone was trying to stage a scene, why with all of this apparent methodicalness that you’re suggesting went on, would that reasonably have included the wiping down of the nursery? I think not. Didn’t Lindbergh himself try to guard against anyone touching the envelope on the windowsill and the contents of the nursery, should they unintentionally compromise whatever evidence might have been left there? What does that tell you? So, instead than returning quickly from whence they came the kidnappers run out into a muddy dirt field they have no familiarity with? Unlikely. Lindbergh, on one hand, is a panicked father who runs outside with his gun wanting his child back immediately. Then, upon discovering the note, is willing to wait patiently for an unknown amount of time for a fingerprint expert to arrive. This does not make any sense. What if the note said "show up at 9pm or he dies"? No father, in the heat of the moment, would be patient waiting extended periods to find out all they could about where there son is - fingerprints or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 8, 2018 19:43:06 GMT -5
Yeah, and the question of why they didn’t leave approach footprints when they did leave exit prints has been addressed as well (multiple times): The simplest trail, just one leading out, is the easiest to see and follow, and gives the clearest picture of what happened. And once again, there's no reason for Anne to be walking on that little strip of land between the boards and the house to get to the French window to throw pebbles, and she couldn't even see into the kidnap window from that vantage point.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Apr 9, 2018 1:33:26 GMT -5
Yeah, and the question of why not leave approach footprints when they did leave exit ones has been addressed as well (multiple times): The simplest trail, just one leading out, is the easiest to see and follow, and gives the clearest picture of what happened. And once again, there's no reason for Anne to be walking on that little strip of land between the boards and the house to get to the French window, and she couldn't even see into the kidnap window from that vantage point. Exactly. Critically nor could the kidnappers on their approach. They had no idea whether the room was empty or filled with the entire family. Curious right?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 9, 2018 7:38:29 GMT -5
You conclude the trail of footprints was left to prove they were there? Then I can’t understand why you feel they would have taken such pains to not show their footprints near the house. What do you think they were trying to hide there? Again, you seem to have them protecting their hand near the house and then exposing it away from the house. If you can make sense of that, then so be it. I can. And what I see you doing is trying to explain away the lack of evidence with very "slim-to-none" possibilities. It takes a lot of thought to do that so why not consider all scenarios instead of eliminating those most probable because you don't like what it implies? What we have are two impressions where the ladder rails went into the ground and found under the nursery window, indicating someone climbed that ladder. We have one footprint to the left of the ladder, indicating enough force was created at that particular spot to leave the print, as well as a less discernible and larger impression to the right of that footprint. We also have faint but discernible mud marks left in the nursery, a dab of mud on the first floor shutter, a note on the windowsill, and most importantly, one child missing out of his crib. At what point given the above, do the lights come on for anyone who would be investigating this crime to say kidnappers were or weren’t at the scene? Further, what need is there now to purposely leave a “breadcrumb trail” leading away from the house? Again, it was to lead investigators away from an inside source. The ONLY way the police could make sense of the evidence was to believe that footprint was made AFTER someone came down that ladder. Yet, if the rest of the evidence is legit: mud smudges in nursery, and mud on top of shutter - that evidence shows it was made before. So their official views kind of mimic what you are doing. But the reality is they all believed it was an inside job after looking and considering the scene. That position would have ended their careers so they made do trying to get around it the best they could. I believe the kidnappers never intended to retreat using the path they ultimately did. They originally planned to return to their car using the same route that brought them to the house.. the driveway. And why wouldn’t they keep it simple and trouble-free? So why did they decide to go tromping eastwards through unfamiliar fields leaving a telltale trail? Because they panicked when the ladder rails unexpectedly snapped, the first floor shutter was impacted, (the sound heard by Lindbergh) and one of them stepped down hard in the ground by the ladder. Still, it seems they had enough presence of mind to gather up what they brought, including the child and retreat with all 90 degrees east, but then chose to abandon the ladder 75 feet south-east of the house. The chisel was dropped accidentally in the confusion. So many problems here... First is their ability to navigate these boards without a light source. Impossible. Odds go through the roof if they are carrying a weighted object with the wind blowing and swirling like it was. Next, as you say, its all unfamiliar. So now we must all play the lottery because they were "lucky?" No, they knew an awful lot don't they? And where is there any evidence of "panic?" Of course we all put ourselves in that situation and we're running like hell through the woods. Not here. A slow clock-like precision approach. Cat-like entry and exit. And slow deliberate walk through this yard, which by the way, was the worst place anywhere near this house to walk. Then, all of the sudden, they start abandoning things or accidentally dropping items - all within the view of the house? If they were going to purposely abandon that ladder it would have been left by the house. Carrying to where it was found makes no sense unless the idea is to lead police away. The kidnappers’ foot coverings and the condition of the ground nearest the house, relative to that of the ground further east of the house, did not support the production of readily-discernible footprints. And remember, there were no discernible footprints leading up to the walkway either, were there? Really, all you have to do is look at the closeup of the ground in the crime scene photos. It’s all there in black and white. You are making stuff up. Where ever it was muddy there would prints. What evidence we do have proves it. If you believe Anne left prints then how don't you consider the woman was light as a feather? She didn't weigh 180lbs - not even close. And she wasn't carrying a heavy object or raising a ladder, at night, in a wind storm. Foot coverings could disguise the shoe, disguise the size of the foot, and deaden footsteps. A sock over a shoe isn't going to make someone levitate on a muddy surface. A good part of Anne’s testimony had to do with her establishing that the footprints found alongside the house were hers. Where they were found indicates that if she in fact, did toss the pebbles as both her and Betty testified, then they could only have been directed at the French window. Perhaps there are additional statements from Anne or Betty which address the exact window. My point is that she did not remember on the stand. If she cannot remember then her testimony is worthless, and it calls into question her earlier statements. If she's telling the truth then it destroys you position that about where it was muddy and where it wasn't. Some lengths of the walkway were approximately 12” in width while others were only 6”. There was also a distance which she would have had to have covered walking on the ground, while walking to the back patio. And yes, it probably would have been a challenge even during daylight hours unless she was using the wall of the house as a support at any given point. The kidnappers of course didn’t have this luxury and should have left prints all over the place, had it not been for the foot coverings they were wearing which did not support the production of readily-discernible footprints in the ground near the house. Anne’s footwear with its heel obviously made more of an impression. Again, you have invented something that did not exist in 1932, and dare I say does not exist in 2018? A sock over a shoe does not grant someone the ability to levitate. Try it sometime. The most it would do is distort the print. Furthermore, not all of the prints were made by a shoe with a cover. Next, Anne wasn't the only person who wore "female" shoes. I have no explanation for the apparent lack of discernible fingerprints in the nursery, but if anyone was trying to stage a scene, why with all of this apparent methodicalness that you’re suggesting went on, would that reasonably have included the wiping down of the nursery? I think not. Didn’t Lindbergh himself try to guard against anyone touching the envelope on the windowsill and the contents of the nursery, should they unintentionally compromise whatever evidence might have been left there? What does that tell you? The reason was that whoever wiped it down did so to either eliminate prints OR make it look like what they believed Kidnappers would do. What Lindbergh did was outrages. No concerned Father waits to open a letter that he believes would lead him to his son. He could have easily opened it with his own pair of gloves if that was his concern. But what did Keaten say? He he wanted the police around to be witnesses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2018 13:27:41 GMT -5
So I have a few comments and questions about the female footprints found along the east side of the house.
Michael,
In TDC, Volume One, Chapter 12 you talk about the female footprints. On page 148 the discussion is about the night of March 1, 1932. You mention Marshal Wolf (no "e" on Wolf but I am assuming this is Harry H. Wolfe, Marshal of Hopewell Borough) is telling Trooper DeGaetano the feminine prints had already been identified as belonging to Mrs. Lindbergh.
Did Marshal Wolfe and/or Assistant Chief of Hopewell Police, Charles Williamson mention in their statements about the night of March 1, 1932, that they saw the female footprints when they did their initial investigation of the grounds with Lindbergh? Do either of these officers mention how they came to know that the female prints were identified as Anne's? Someone must have told Wolfe this since he then tells it to DeGaetano after his arrival at the scene. Did Anne make a statement to any authorities that night that she made those prints? Otherwise, how else could they have been attributed to her that very night? Like you mentioned in an earlier post, Anne wasn't the only female in the house that night.
Concerning the pebble tossing, I think it should be noted that Betty Gow does not mention any such incident occurring on March 1 in either of her March statements to authorities. It should also be noted that Anne Lindbergh never mentions tossing pebbles at a nursery window in her March 1932 statements. Anne claims she took a walk that afternoon. That is all.
That whole pebble tossing story doesn't come into play until the Hauptmann Trial in 1935. So it seems to me the reason Anne can't remember which window she tossed pebbles at is because she never did such a thing to begin with. She just took a walk like she claimed in her statements.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 10, 2018 1:21:28 GMT -5
Good thinking, Amy.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 10, 2018 10:49:23 GMT -5
Did Marshal Wolfe and/or Assistant Chief of Hopewell Police, Charles Williamson mention in their statements about the night of March 1, 1932, that they saw the female footprints when they did their initial investigation of the grounds with Lindbergh? Do either of these officers mention how they came to know that the female prints were identified as Anne's? Someone must have told Wolfe this since he then tells it to DeGaetano after his arrival at the scene. Did Anne make a statement to any authorities that night that she made those prints? Otherwise, how else could they have been attributed to her that very night? Like you mentioned in an earlier post, Anne wasn't the only female in the house that night. I haven't found anything to explain this. That report was the only place I've ever found it aside from Anne's testimony. From everything I do have it appears that Wolfe, Williamson, and Lindbergh went outside to examine the grounds. I can only assume this was when they saw them and where the explanation came from. Anne did speak with these men so its possible she was the source but it would make little sense if she'd hadn't been outside to see which prints they were referring to.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 10, 2018 11:32:46 GMT -5
Betty also testified at the trial that she and Elsie were in the nursery when Anne was tossing the pebbles at the window, so that theoretically puts another person at the scene. The question remains, are there are any contemporaneous accounts of the incident from Anne, Betty or Elsie, was it forgotten about at the time based on the relative importance of other events, or did it actually happen?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2018 11:21:01 GMT -5
I haven't found anything to explain this. That report was the only place I've ever found it aside from Anne's testimony. From everything I do have it appears that Wolfe, Williamson, and Lindbergh went outside to examine the grounds. I can only assume this was when they saw them and where the explanation came from. Anne did speak with these men so its possible she was the source but it would make little sense if she'd hadn't been outside to see which prints they were referring to. Thanks for checking on this, Michael. You also mention in TDC Chapter 12, page 170 that these two female prints were photographed by the authorities and then ask why they did this. I have wondered why also. If the authorities were on board with the prints actually belonging to Anne, why would they make evidence photos of them? Maybe not everyone agreed on this issue. There seemed to always be speculation that a woman was involved, even at the time of Hauptmann's arrest this was being said by officials. Perhaps the pebble story was invented for the trial to discourage the defense from claiming the female prints at the scene show accomplice involvement. Anne claiming she made them tossing a pebble at a nursery window kills the possibility of them being used in any way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2018 11:36:04 GMT -5
Betty also testified at the trial that she and Elsie were in the nursery when Anne was tossing the pebbles at the window, so that theoretically puts another person at the scene. The question remains, are there are any contemporaneous accounts of the incident from Anne, Betty or Elsie, was it forgotten about at the time based on the relative importance of other events, or did it actually happen? I see what you are saying, Joe. However, Betty did deviate from her March 1932 statements when she claims that Elsie was present when Anne tossed pebbles at the nursery window. Elsie did go up to the nursery later in the afternoon but never mentions the pebble tossing by Anne and Betty taking Charlie over to the window. The pebble tossing is just not in Anne's, Betty's or Elsie's March statements. It seems extremely odd that all three women would forget the same incident took place when they were being questioned in March of 1932. If there are any contemporaneous accounts existing outside of the official statements, I am not aware of them. If anyone reading this board knows of any, I hope they will share them with us! I would certainly be willing to give them consideration.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Apr 11, 2018 14:58:56 GMT -5
Betty also testified at the trial that she and Elsie were in the nursery when Anne was tossing the pebbles at the window, so that theoretically puts another person at the scene. The question remains, are there are any contemporaneous accounts of the incident from Anne, Betty or Elsie, was it forgotten about at the time based on the relative importance of other events, or did it actually happen? To recap, AML's statement on 3/13/32 makes no mention of the pebble throwing incident: "I went in the baby's room with Betty when the baby awoke from his nap sometime between 2:30 and 3:00. Betty attended to him and dressed him. His cold seemed so much better. I left them and went for a walk down the driveway. (emphasis mine) When I came back about 5:00, I went up into the baby's room where I found Betty, Elsie and the baby." * Why make it a point to specify that the walk was down the driveway if she also was walking through the yard too? Was that specificity intended at that time to preclude her from being the source of the known female footprint so early in the investigation when a gang theory was still viable, only to later require a convoluted story be concocted to make her the source of that footprint when only "evidence" of a male lone wolf was desired? * This particular statement is five pages long, so while it was a summary of the events leading up to the removal of the baby, it was not so brief as to require that such key activity (if it occurred), like time spent throwing rocks at the second story of your home, be omitted for the sake of brevity. * I believe this has been mentioned before, but the phrasing "I went up into the baby's room where I found Betty, Elsie and the baby" seems odd; "found" seems to imply that the presence of those people in that room was unexpected. Yet if AML had just spent time throwing rocks at the windows of the room where those same people were found upon her return, it should've been expected that they be there, not an act of discovery. Betty's 3/10/32 statement is even more brief concerning the alleged pebble-throwing time period: "After lunch, about 2:30 I went to the nursery. I took him out of bed and undressed him. I remained in the nursery while the baby was playing around until about 4:30 when Mrs. Lindbergh and Mrs. Whateley came into the nursery" * Note that Betty doesn't mention AML was even in the room while CALjr was dressed after his nap. Is this because she was the only one actually there at the time? * Betty has AML returning from her walk "about 4:30" compared to AML's claim of 5:00. * Betty states AML and Elsie came into the nursery together around 4:30; AML states Elsie was already in the room with Betty when she arrives. Elsie's 3/10/32 statement also confirms Betty's account that she and AML entered the room together, but moves up the conclusion of AML's alleged walk to 4:00: Following lunch, Betty bathed and fed the baby. "After this Betty remained in the nursery while the baby was playing around until about four o'clock when Mrs. Lindbergh and myself went up to the nursery and the three of us watched the baby playing." * If AML and Elsie had to climb one of the staircases together to see the baby, one would think AML would be able to recall that Elsie could not have already been in the room, as AML alleges in her statement, taken only 12 days later. * Elsie makes no reference to the return of AML from a walk as the triggering event for their visit to the nursery between 4:00-5:00 pm. * Elsie's statement for the events of that afternoon is almost entirely about what Betty's actions where; Elsie mentions she made beds until about 10:00 am and does not describe her own actions again until the 4:00 pm visit to the nursery with AML. Was Elsie coached to bolster Betty's account as much as possible in her own statement to investigators, which resulted in the near complete omission of an accounting of her own activity and whereabouts that afternoon? Since all of these statements were obtained as soon as CAL was willing to allow detectives to take them and that this was quite early in the investigation, I can't imagine that the pebble-throwing incident was "forgotten" by all alleged participants "based on the relative importance of other events"
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 11, 2018 15:24:23 GMT -5
Bottom line is they can’t keep their story(s) straight, the pebble-throwing business being a case in point: It was made up to explain the female footprints. The question now is, if they weren’t Anne’s, whose were they and what were they doing there?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Apr 11, 2018 19:12:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 11, 2018 20:56:00 GMT -5
Just reread this a few days ago. Yup. But the question still remains: Assuming these prints weren’t Anne’s, whose were they? And why? I have my own thoughts, but I’d like to hear others’.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Apr 11, 2018 21:53:31 GMT -5
I haven't found anything to explain this. That report was the only place I've ever found it aside from Anne's testimony. From everything I do have it appears that Wolfe, Williamson, and Lindbergh went outside to examine the grounds. I can only assume this was when they saw them and where the explanation came from. Anne did speak with these men so its possible she was the source but it would make little sense if she'd hadn't been outside to see which prints they were referring to. Thanks for checking on this, Michael. You also mention in TDC Chapter 12, page 170 that these two female prints were photographed by the authorities and then ask why they did this. Hi Michael (and everyone else), Do you happen to have copies of these two female prints? As been mentioned here, Thayer reported that Anne was wearing golf shoes when he met her at Highfields. Just curious if the two female prints show any signs of golf cleats?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2018 13:19:29 GMT -5
Dr. Gardner's article is excellent. Thanks for posting it Wayne.
I am so glad you bring up the golf shoes. I had read that in the past also. I am not aware that Anne played golf. If she even had such shoes, maybe she used them for Crokay??? Betty Morrow, of course, was very much into playing golf. Not doubt she had several pair of those shoes.
I hope those female footprint pictures are available. They were photographed by authorities. Could they have gone missing like the nursery window shutter???
Another interesting thing about the two female footprints is that one of them is found where someone would step up onto the cement patio. Not a likely place for a kidnapper to go unless the female is someone from the Lindbergh household.
I thought Dr. Gardner explained so well how evidence and people were manipulated by the prosecution in order to advance their lone-wolf position to get a conviction. My own position is that when Lindbergh, Wolfe and Williamson went out to investigate the area from the boardwalk, they saw the female prints at that time and Lindbergh told them the prints were Anne's.
I am sure Wilentz and Lindbergh must have discussed those "problem" female prints before the trial started. Thus the story was created that Anne would stroll down there as part of her walk that afternoon so she could toss pebbles and see the baby at one of the windows. Anne would have gone along with this story if Lindbergh told her to. I have no doubt about that. Since it doesn't appear in the pretrial depositions, it bears witness to this story being made up on the fly and that has Lindbergh written all over it.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 12, 2018 14:53:01 GMT -5
That's not something you would expect from the mother of a child who had been "stolen" a day or two before. Who plays golf (or any recreational sport) so soon after suffering such a devastating loss?
This is yet another clue consistent with the conclusion that the "kidnapping" was staged, and that Anne likely had foreknowledge of the crime.
|
|