|
Post by scathma on May 2, 2017 15:59:44 GMT -5
I cannot recall any mention from any source of rainwater in the nursery...
It seems by most accounts that the night of the "kidnapping" was a windy and rainy March night, following similar conditions that had occurred over the previous several days. Yet there is never any mention of the presence of water in the nursery, either by wind-driven rain through a window open a crack or by the "kidnapper(s)" tracking some in during the child's removal.
I don't believe water evaporates that quickly in the time between the child being put to bed and the discovery he was missing, with the abduction occurring sometime therein, especially given the generally damp atmospheric conditions associated with rain. It should take a longer not shorter period of time to evaporate any pooled droplets on what I assume were bare wood floors.
There never seems to be any mention by CAL or Gow of the presence of rainwater in the room. If the perpetrators were traipsing about lugging the ladder through a muddy yard in the rain (some token mud smudges were acknowledged in the nursery), wouldn't it be expected that a noticeable amount of water would also be tracked in? Why no mention of any accompanying water drops or pools?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 2, 2017 19:17:29 GMT -5
I agree! And the baby had a cold yet the window was left open ands he room was so cold the nurse warmed her hands on a space heater?
|
|
|
Post by john on May 14, 2017 1:18:19 GMT -5
Excellent point regard the rainwater (or lack thereof) in the nursery, especially as, on a somewhat personal note, due to heavy rain and cooler than usual weather around where I live this year, I'm thinking of the number of times I've come home with with wet and sometimes muddy feet and an umbrella, failed to adequately clean my shoes or shake off the water,--in a condo/apartment complex--only to realize afterwards just how much wet stuff I traipsed in. Usually moderately wet weather doesn't require that much effort for me (or probably anybody) to dry out, but when there's constant rain, water on the ground nearby one's place of residence, on the sidewalks, on the street, with puddles, even shallow ones, everywhere, coming home every day becomes a whole new ball game, as it were, as making sure that the wet icky stuff doesn't get indoors takes some major effort.
So yes, your point about rain and the nursery rings some bells with me. It's pouring outside as I write, and cold for May in my necks of the woods. My thoughts turn to the kidnappers, the extremely wet and windy winter weather of south central Jersey on the night of March 1st 1932, and how the hell one man could have done the kidnapping alone. Just climbing that ladder in such inclement weather was dangerous. It wasn't a strong ladder to begin with, but even a good one might have fallen, whether due to a sudden gust of wind or the shifting muddy ground it had been placed in. I can't help but wonder if one man could have done it under such circumstances, as while I know the kidnapping has been "recreated" many times, how many times has this been done in the dead of winter under conditions similar to those of the night of the Lindbergh kidnapping? Better still, by just one person? Even if luck had been on the side of the kidnapper there was still the matter of muddy shoes and wet clothing. Alright, let's say that the kidnapper not only succeeded in wiping the nursery clean, as he approached the window, baby in bag, he'd have had to have left much more than just a few smudges of mud on the floor, furniture, the windowsill.
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on May 15, 2017 2:11:19 GMT -5
Was it raining? Anne said the wind was howling, but as her foot prints from earlier that day were apparently still visible it seems it hadn't rained for quite a few hours - since earlier in the afternoon. Apparently it was muddy, but where is the mention of recent rain?
|
|
|
Post by john on May 15, 2017 4:10:58 GMT -5
Accounts I've read of the night of the kidnapping is that the weather was wet and windy. The actual amount of rainfall? Can't say. As to footprints, don't they remain or vanish depending on location? Just two or three feet, away from rain or snow, and they'd be preserved. Whether the rain had died down or abated since daylight, can't say. Also, I believe there was ice, a good deal of moisture, on the nearby trees, and that, combined with high winds, would have made it a wet night even if the rain had itself been reduced to a drizzle.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 15, 2017 4:49:20 GMT -5
Perfect night for a high risk kidnapping!
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 15, 2017 10:32:30 GMT -5
Most accounts paint March 1st as a cold, rainy and windy day... of course the intensity of this could vary by the hour. It is also mentioned that this type of weather had occurred for several days preceding this date.
I'm reading Gardner's book and he describes the weather as one of the reasons Mrs. Morrow opted to have the chauffeur take Betty in the car versus a train to Highfields. The weather also extended the length of driving time the trip took as compared to more favorable conditions.
|
|
|
Post by john on May 15, 2017 13:53:44 GMT -5
Yes, thanks, and in those days driving on back roads was somewhat perilous given how many of them were unpaved. I wonder if the bad weather may have actually been a factor that the kidnappers (assuming that's what happened) figured into the equation for March 1st rather than some time later, for while this would have slowed them down it would also have slowed down everyone and everything else as well.
Downside of thinking like this: if the crime was a truly outside job, and, for what it was, as genuine as the nursery note stated, why not cut the telephone lines before driving away? (Okay, if someone was on the phone they'd be cut off immediately, but this in itself shouldn't have caused a panic in such bad weather, as "the phone line is dead, let's run upstairs and make sure that little Charlie hasn't been kidnapped..." ).
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 15, 2017 14:09:39 GMT -5
Modern bank robbers will sometimes time the response of law enforcement and factor that into their maximum allowed time on scene...
Given the remoteness of Highfields, cutting the phone lines might not have been a consideration given the lengthy amount of time LE would take to get there, especially if weather was a factor. If this was an outside job, the plan would be to get in and out and timely discovery was not expected. Even if discovered, the immediate threat would be Lindbergh with a weapon not a quick response from Hopewell PD or NJSP.
Going to the trouble to locate and cut the lines was probably deemed more time than it was worth given the minimal time on scene that was anticipated.
Of course if you are simply handing off your child out the front door to your designated extraction team, you want the lines intact so you can establish some alibi's/timeline between Red's incoming call and Ollie's outgoing call to HPD... plus CAL wanted to be able to call Breckenridge to let him know Phase 1 was successfully completed
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 15, 2017 15:38:39 GMT -5
Weren't the phone lines encased in metal while the house was being built?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 15, 2017 15:45:47 GMT -5
I believe I read that somewhere - at least the lines underground through the yard.
How vulnerable the lines would have been entering the house is unknown - were they encased in conduit or just insulation at the junction with the house?
I don't know what 1930's code required or what a house of that caliber may have called for... how far away was the nearest telephone pole? It would've been easier and less obvious if you could cut their line farther away.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 15, 2017 16:34:09 GMT -5
Was it raining? Anne said the wind was howling, but as her foot prints from earlier that day were apparently still visible it seems it hadn't rained for quite a few hours - since earlier in the afternoon. Apparently it was muddy, but where is the mention of recent rain? From most of the reports, to include Cpl. Wolf's Initial, the wind was blowing and the sky was overcast - so I think if it was raining at the time it would have been mentioned among them. However, I've seen the yard described as both muddy and wet. The biggest "problem" that I see, which I outlined in my book, is they obviously navigated the board walk to get under the window so they wouldn't step in the mud. Anne couldn't seem to manage that during the daylight hours, and here we have people carrying that ladder in the pitch black who seem to manage just fine. Oh, except for the one footstep pointing toward the house. Show of hands for those who think that was done on purpose so they could leave some trace of mud in the Nursery to for proof it was an outside-job?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 15, 2017 16:41:23 GMT -5
I believe I read that somewhere - at least the lines underground through the yard. The lines ran underground until they got near the house where they came out of the ground and ran up the base exposed. They could have been cut and everyone was surprised they weren't - even Lindbergh made sure to mention he was surprised too ( TDC page 137-8). If they could not have been cut no one would have been surprised they weren't right? Whoever did this seemed to know everything about this house so I guess since everyone was asking why they weren't cut we should be too.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 15, 2017 18:58:17 GMT -5
Michael, so many things that are wrong can be listed during that night. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 15, 2017 19:00:24 GMT -5
I believe I read that somewhere - at least the lines underground through the yard.
How vulnerable the lines would have been entering the house is unknown - were they encased in conduit or just insulation at the junction with the house?
I don't know what 1930's code required or what a house of that caliber may have called for... how far away was the nearest telephone pole? It would've been easier and less obvious if you could cut their line farther away. I wonder how much attention CAL would have given to the codes or who would have questioned his orders at the time.
|
|
|
Post by john on May 16, 2017 4:32:17 GMT -5
I wonder if this has been studied: the issue of the impact of the (I think we can all agree) bad weather on the Lindbergh kidnapping as a factor in the kidnapping itself, by which I mean its timing, as well as, while we're at it, as if this needs mentioning, a deterrent.
On the plus side, which is to say "go for it" are many things, among them the fact that while the roads leading to Hopewell were mostly unpaved, this would also hamper a chase by police cars of the vehicle carrying the baby driven by people who know what they're doing and where they're headed (for the sake of argument let's say NYC, all boroughs, and the immediate vicinity).
The Lindbergh house itself would be difficult to find even for LE, as most of them had never been there before; while the kidnapper (I'm using singular for convenience sake) would benefit somewhat from poor visibility, as whether coming or going he would have the advantage of knowing his direction, where to hide, if necessary; while LE would be clueless. The dark and stormy night so many of us have talked about as a negative factor in the case for the perps could arguably have been exactly what they wanted, what they had been waiting for.
A bright sunny day up at the Morrow estate, or out in the country, even in the Adirondacks, while on the surface might seem far more ideal locales for a criminal to kidnap from (sic), in fact these were likely well guarded places, with the child in plain sight, even if the nearest adult was twenty or more yards away: if the child suddenly vanished this would be noticed quickly, the local and state police would swing into action ASAP, with roadblocks all around, bloodhounds hot on the trail. A disaster for the perp, as even if he had built an underground lair, a special place, he'd likely be caught sooner rather than later.
Could it be then that that the dark, windy, wet weather conditions were in fact favorable for the kind of snatch the Lindbergh kidnapping was,--assuming that is what it was--and that it was indeed a factor in the careful planning referenced in the first ransom note? If the author was the perp or in league with him he would know dang well that a big factor in the planning had been all along that the snatch would take place in Hopewell, that it would be a night-time affair but not a too late night one, and that the weather conditions would be so on the surface unfavorable as to make it appear amateurish, a near bungle, what with the pieces of the ladder on the ground the event cried out "amateur", "clumsy", "ill-timed", which was precisely the intention of whoever the mastermind (assuming there was one) was.
There are surely downsides to the above scenario, as the kidnap car was more likely to break down in poor weather, trees more likely to fall, blocking the road, huge pools of water that could cause a small vehicle to flood and become inoperative. It was a huge risk, the Lindbergh kidnapping, but if there had been "rehearsals" prior to the main event, if a list had been made of the things most likely to go wrong on a wet winter night, the climatic and overall environmental impediments could be overcome; and for the same reasons, all these things turned upside down, would severely hamper all law enforcement officers on the night of the Big Snatch.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 16, 2017 5:41:17 GMT -5
This is a good example of trying to look at it from all angles and "thinking outside the box." However, I don't see any benefit to pulling off a crime which requires that ladder to be employed on this night. There's too many things that can go wrong regardless, and with that wind it adds to it exponentially. I tried to stress the road situation in as many places as I could throughout the book. It was like running a maze to get there and one wrong turn and you're driving towards Trenton, Lambertville, or Frenchtown - or worse - in circles. I've got several letters from people saying they got lost themselves. Breckenridge, who was just there, had to stop and get directions. The Police were complaining in MAY that their cars were all being ruined from driving on those roads.
This was a situation where whoever did this, knew where they were going, knew these roads, and knew that house - or at least one of them did. There's no way around that. If we accept one of them used the road in front of Moores's house they are using the road few ever did excepting Lindbergh. So they MUST have believed he was at that dinner or did not care they'd possibly run into him or at least pass by him. And even if one believes there were trial runs, as especially the Thompson account seems to suggest, that would be something I think anyone thinking about pulling this off would do under any circumstances. This idea that has been suggested, that Hauptmann did all of this on a whim is so fantastic that it defies all logic. This is what my whole 1st chapter was about. To show these sightings, decide which were legit, then evaluate what could have happened and when. Using the wind while climbing a ladder, or using muddy conditions on Featherbed Lane to turn around on are more and bigger pitfalls to negotiate.
|
|
|
Post by john on May 16, 2017 14:21:46 GMT -5
Thanks for the quick response, Michael. Your post reminds me and I think all of us,--and this needs major stressing in the digital age--just how isolated from civilization the Lindbergh estate was in 1932, as the actual distance in miles from various major cities wasn't that great when one takes into account road conditions even in good weather it was far greater as to the timing of the event than we can imagine. There's probably no way to factor all the pitfalls into getting to Hopewell at night under wet and windy conditions but I suspect that nowadays even flying from one coastal city to another, Boston to Baltimore, say, or L.A. to San Francisco, would be far easier even in bad weather allowing for several hundred more actual miles. One needs a different mind set altogether when looking at maps and thinking of cars driving over bumpy roads in far more rustic and rugged terrains eighty-five years ago.
The longer time factor is especially important to stress if one is of the Hauptmann did it alone (or with maybe one partner in crime) persuasion. He'd have had to have made some test runs, and at night as well as daytime due to all the the unpaved roads he'd encounter and the obstacles he'd face at a time when streetlights weren't so common as they would be twenty or thirty years later. Imagine trying to navigate rural New Jersey in 1932, with essentially only farmhouses and the occasional small town as "markers". As you mentioned, even many of the police got lost back then. I'm surprised, as I think about it, that this wasn't a factor in Hauptmann's defense at his trial (or was it?). The kidnap logistically, if one uses NYC as home base, would be an unlikely prospect as a one man job at that time. Hauptmann was a far from wealthy man. Not dirt poor but still, that's a lot of gas, a lot of wood, nails and planning for such a small time guy.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 16, 2017 14:45:32 GMT -5
Interesting perspective of the Hopewell grounds on March 2, 1932:
www.gettyimages.com/license/515180722
Sunny day judging by the shadows...
"Every available means have been rushed into service by police of 4 states in their efforts to trace the kidnappers of Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jr., son of the famous 'Lone Eagle'. Passing the baby through the window of the Lindbergh estate at Hopewell NJ, the kidnappers fled to a waitng (sic) auto and sped away. Photo shows a state trooper on guard at the Lindburgh (sic) home in Hopewell, on 3/2., while detectives examined the back porch."
I wonder - is the trooper standing where the ladder was found?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 16, 2017 18:11:16 GMT -5
I've always thought it interesting that the upper story windows had a different type of shutters than the lower windows. Maybe the slats were to let in air when the windows were open and the shutters closed.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 16, 2017 18:23:58 GMT -5
I've always thought it interesting that the upper story windows had a different type of shutters than the lower windows. Maybe the slats were to let in air when the windows were open and the shutters closed. Probably... I don't think residential a/c was around in 1932. Seems like shutters are used that way in southern houses. I've seen fairly recent pictures of Highfields with window a/c units so it still hasn't been put in.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 22, 2017 18:16:00 GMT -5
I've always thought it interesting that the upper story windows had a different type of shutters than the lower windows. Maybe the slats were to let in air when the windows were open and the shutters closed. Probably... I don't think residential a/c was around in 1932. Seems like shutters are used that way in southern houses. I've seen fairly recent pictures of Highfields with window a/c units so it still hasn't been put in. According to Behn, the house had air conditioning. Just came across that while re-reading his biography.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 22, 2017 18:23:02 GMT -5
Interesting... They obviously had radiator heat, so I wonder how the air was cooled absent ductwork? Here's a recent reference to window units in place at Highfields www.johnreisinger.com/searchch3.html
|
|
|
Post by janeaz100 on Jun 2, 2018 19:49:07 GMT -5
My question, also, has been : Why would you have an open window on a cold wet night in the nursery of a baby who was not even allowed to travel that day due to his cold that he was still suffering ? Also, I recently saw a documentary which stated that Charles Lindbergh's study was just below the nursery and that he was in the study the night the baby was kidnapped. If you look at the pictures of the ladder, you will note that the ladder is place just to the outside of the shutters of the study and the nursery, as if the kidnapper had prepared to not be seen climbing the ladder directly in front of the windows, yet, the placement of that ladder Must have made some noise, as well as making noise when the kidnapper brought down an extra 30 pounds, which was the weight of the baby.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 2, 2018 23:27:04 GMT -5
My question, also, has been : Why would you have an open window on a cold wet night in the nursery of a baby who was not even allowed to travel that day due to his cold that he was still suffering ? Also, I recently saw a documentary which stated that Charles Lindbergh's study was just below the nursery and that he was in the study the night the baby was kidnapped. If you look at the pictures of the ladder, you will note that the ladder is place just to the outside of the shutters of the study and the nursery, as if the kidnapper had prepared to not be seen climbing the ladder directly in front of the windows, yet, the placement of that ladder Must have made some noise, as well as making noise when the kidnapper brought down an extra 30 pounds, which was the weight of the baby. You raise one of the many issues with believing this was a lone wolf crime. Assuming the documentary you saw was Mysteries at the Museum. As they mention there, no kidnapper would dare kidnap the most famous baby in the world at dinner time, when the whole family was awake and inside the house. We also have a pretty good knowledge of the footprint evidence. There was a narrow boardwalk which the kidnapper(s) stayed on during their approach, as no footprints were found leading to the house itself, only walking away. Given this, we know that the kidnappers stayed on this very narrow boardwalk when putting the ladder up, which would be near impossible for one person to do. More importantly, given the time of night, it is possible there could have been multiple people in the nursery yet we know the kidnappers didn't step off the boardwalk to go far enough back from the window to scope out who was in the room. They went up "blind," so to speak... in pitch darkness, with gusty winds and no knowledge of what or who may waiting for them in the room.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 3, 2018 8:53:07 GMT -5
My question, also, has been : Why would you have an open window on a cold wet night in the nursery of a baby who was not even allowed to travel that day due to his cold that he was still suffering ? Also, I recently saw a documentary which stated that Charles Lindbergh's study was just below the nursery and that he was in the study the night the baby was kidnapped. If you look at the pictures of the ladder, you will note that the ladder is place just to the outside of the shutters of the study and the nursery, as if the kidnapper had prepared to not be seen climbing the ladder directly in front of the windows, yet, the placement of that ladder Must have made some noise, as well as making noise when the kidnapper brought down an extra 30 pounds, which was the weight of the baby. You raise one of the many issues with believing this was a lone wolf crime. Assuming the documentary you saw was Mysteries at the Museum. As they mention there, no kidnapper would dare kidnap the most famous baby in the world at dinner time, when the whole family was awake and inside the house. We also have a pretty good knowledge of the footprint evidence. There was a narrow boardwalk which the kidnapper(s) stayed on during their approach, as no footprints were found leading to the house itself, only walking away. Given this, we know that the kidnappers stayed on this very narrow boardwalk when putting the ladder up, which would be near impossible for one person to do. More importantly, given the time of night, it is possible there could have been multiple people in the nursery yet we know the kidnappers didn't step off the boardwalk to go far enough back from the window to scope out who was in the room. They went up "blind," so to speak... in pitch darkness, with gusty winds and no knowledge of what or who may waiting for them in the room. What both of you are posting has a very logical solution: The official prosecution narrative as presented at the Hauptmann trial, with the ladder being used to enter and then descend from the nursery, was bunk. The ladder was put where it was found merely as a prop to mislead investigators. The footprints either (1) were made deliberately where they found to mislead investigators or (2) were made by individuals who were not involved in the plot to remove Charlie. BTW, a check of the weather data in local newspapers reveals no mention of wet weather on that date.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Jun 12, 2018 21:20:51 GMT -5
How much did the rain hurt gathering info at the crime scene? And were measurements ever taken of how deep the ladder impression went into the earth?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 13, 2018 5:06:25 GMT -5
This is the kind of crap that's plagued the case from 3/2/32. Doesn't mean a thing buts lots to talk about. Ideal for outlets like this and researchers who don't get their hands dirty and really don't know what went on. Germany is the key. It's obvious from Hauptmann to Hitler. It's right in front of you researchers.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 13, 2018 5:32:16 GMT -5
Overscrutinization.
But in your underscrutinization don't you see that there's a key to Germany? And that Charles turned to that possible culprit link shortly after the crime? Is it too obvious? Are you all brain dead? Probably not, but what's keeping you from that possibility?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 13, 2018 8:20:59 GMT -5
How much did the rain hurt gathering info at the crime scene? And were measurements ever taken of how deep the ladder impression went into the earth? I think its a great question. I don't recall there ever being an actual measurement but of course that doesn't mean there wasn't one - I just never found any reference to it. The weight of the person was determined on the basis of the break after replicas were built and tested. There's problems with that too as I've outlined on page 208 in V1. There are sources that say it couldn't hold more than 125 pounds, then another puts it at 130 pounds, and finally after Hauptmann was arrested it grew into 180 pounds.
|
|