|
Post by john on Jun 5, 2017 14:43:22 GMT -5
Upon rereading this thread: is it me or does there seem to be a huge disconnect between the events that occurred the night of the kidnapping and the content, which is to say the words, the phrasing, of the ransom note found in the nursery?
In other words, the crime seems the product of careful, sophisticated planning, hair trigger timing (so to speak) as to who is likely to be at home or in which room when, as without detailed knowledge the perp, assuming that he came through the nursery window, would have been at great risk every step of the way.
It's good to remember that the time of Lindbergh's arrival home that night could not have been known by a stranger unless that stranger knew when he was going to be there, give or take a few minutes. Also worth pondering is the clumsy nature of the entry into the house itself, which couldn't have been easy, as the perp wasn't Spiderman.
To return to the note, and to contrast it to the way the crime was committed,--to use Wilentz's scenario as canonical for the sake of argument--there's something just plain wrong, and this is just my perception, about the clumsy, awkward, non-professional way the note was written and the comparative ease, even confidence. with which the child was removed from his crib, then spirited away.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 5, 2017 14:57:44 GMT -5
And what conclusion do you draw from this disconnect?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 5, 2017 18:10:07 GMT -5
And yet the Lindberghs didn't normally lock their upper story windows. It seems they were not concerned about drafts and noise. Just why is that? According to Lindbergh's testimony. But we know he was prone to "Lindbergh-isms" right? I mean he actually testified he did not expect Wahgoosh to bark that night if he heard something. So why did Wahgoosh bark unless Lindbergh was around? The windows only sealed against the weather when they were locked. That's an absolute fact. If they were unlocked, and the wind was blowing, they would make noise. That's another fact. Do with these facts what you want. If you think they're trivial then so be it. Who, including the light-sleeping child, had complained about "banging shutters" prior to this night? Who did not? See how that works? What we know is that Betty told cops, in her official statement: " one of them was flapping in the wind; that's the only reason we close the shutters." Maybe you think she was lying? I don't know. But what I do know is that one has to see or hear shutters flapping in the wind to know they are doing so. Also, her comment implies it has happened before. Since common sense demands that shutters flapping in the wind would strike the house then of course they made noise while flapping. There were probably a whole host of other issues to be resolved, and Lindbergh probably had a good list. Shutters and doors are the ones you are focused on. Lindbergh calls to have the sticky door fixed and it doesn't get fixed in time. Damn.. oh well full torpedoes ahead! So apparently the sticky door wasn't really a problem towards a hired kidnapping. Interesting comment. It was a brand new house. What were the other hosts of problems? I know of only 2: the shutter, and the door. They were talking about getting those shutters fixed months earlier. Perhaps Lindbergh felt the house was "too new" and was waiting for a year to pass before calling? But that excuse isn't invoked to explain why he didn't call about the door's weather stripping. Why? Because it wasn't "too new" for that issue. And if you are calling about one problem who doesn't call about both? No, there's too much of this going on. Way too much. As far as the dog Skean goes, wasn't he actually in Princeton at the veterinarian during the fateful weekend before the kidnapping? I believe he had not been returned to Englewood in time for the Lindberghs departure time for Highfields. Mrs. Jung worked at Englewood and she said Skean was out for a walk in the park and Lindbergh left him behind (see page 58 TDC). It's hard to dispute her or claim she's not a good source for this information.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jun 5, 2017 19:32:26 GMT -5
It's good to remember that the time of Lindbergh's arrival home that night could not have been known by a stranger unless that stranger knew when he was going to be there, give or take a few minutes. Also worth pondering is the clumsy nature of the entry into the house itself, which couldn't have been easy, as the perp wasn't Spiderman. To return to the note, and to contrast it to the way the crime was committed,--to use Wilentz's scenario as canonical for the sake of argument--there's something just plain wrong, and this is just my perception, about the clumsy, awkward, non-professional way the note was written and the comparative ease, even confidence. with which the child was removed from his crib, then spirited away. We are led to believe that the abduction was the result of luck and/or timing in order to accommodate the various milestones in the timeline that is most often proposed. However, these events (Anne hears vehicle, CAL arrives home, "orange crate sound" etc.) are all unsubstantiated except by the stories told by those present in the household that night. If one suspects insider involvement, especially if one accepts CAL as the mastermind, then the constraints requiring split-second timing and planning fall away and can allow for a much more leisurely scene preparation, with these events offered as red-herrings to support a fabricated cover story intended to bolster the kidnapping misdirect. We do know Lindbergh missed the NYU banquet... other than that, we have NO verified accounting for his whereabouts that day. He can invoke servant participation based on his persona, their loyalty and the promise that he can (and does) control any potential interrogation. The thorough wipe down of the nursery took time, as did the sewing of the flannel undershirt. Staging the ladder at dusk would prevent being observed by neighbors, yet allow enough light for the "stagers" to navigate the boardwalks to minimize footprints. We have Gardner's commentary of how Anne took a lengthy walk during the afternoon, despite suffering from a cold, the poor weather and having to summon Betty from Englewood to assist with the baby. Might this assistance have been to prepare the baby and see it off for departure, something she couldn't bring herself to do? Ellis Parker felt the "crime" was comprised of two distinct parts - the "abduction" and the extortion. Setting the latter aside, the evidence at the scene can be more easily interpreted if one allows for the events occurring throughout the afternoon of March 1st, being orchestrated in person by CAL, and with the knowledge and participation of all members of the household... For whatever reason, the early-for-a-kidnapping hour of 10:00pm was designated as "go time" and from that point on the participants assumed their roles - as Hopewell Assistant Chief Williamson noted Lindbergh was "collected", Anne was "nervous and restless", Ollie "depressed and nervous", his wife crying and Betty Gow the coolest of the lot - despite the coaching and preparation, it seems that each of their personalities shone through as the drama into which they were cast began to unfold...
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 6, 2017 3:27:42 GMT -5
Something about the disconnect of that night; how many rainy, windy nights was the baby at this house? Not too many I would imagine since he hadn't been there all that much altogether. I'm not sure anyone but Whatley's would know about the flapping shutters and their room was at the other end of the house. Betty seems to come the least of any of them; aren't we talking about just a handful of nights she would have spent there? And why did Elsie think the baby had died?? She seems the least suspect to me unless it's Anne. As far as sophistication of the kidnappers, why didn't they use the little homemade shirt in negotiations? Totally unique rather than the sleepers. For that matter why bury a body in "a shallow grave" unless the plan is that it's to be found quickly. Someone as daring and bold as these people could have returned to at least bury it deeper. Lots of excuses to be prowling around in the early days. Why was a kidnapper from New York headed toward the south? Mostly, nobody but CAL had any idea when he would arrive home that night and I think he liked it that way.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2017 8:56:11 GMT -5
We are led to believe that the abduction was the result of luck and/or timing in order to accommodate the various milestones in the timeline that is most often proposed. However, these events (Anne hears vehicle, CAL arrives home, "orange crate sound" etc.) are all unsubstantiated except by the stories told by those present in the household that night. If one suspects insider involvement, especially if one accepts CAL as the mastermind, then the constraints requiring split-second timing and planning fall away and can allow for a much more leisurely scene preparation, with these events offered as red-herrings to support a fabricated cover story intended to bolster the kidnapping misdirect. Good observation, and as backed up by the lack of evidence suggesting haste. If it's Hauptmann acting alone he's showing skill beyond anything I've ever seen or even imagined. Is he a professional kidnapper? No. How does he know the house like he does? Looking at the house from the woods? He can see the boardwalk then remember it to the point he's carrying everything without stepping off - erecting that ladder without stepping off except only one print facing the house (representing the only "accidental" print anywhere) - without a light to give his approach away? No "accidental" prints whatsoever until he decides to walk dead center in that muddy yard. No slip, no fall, just right. However, we're supposed to believe he FELL off the ladder? Where the hell did he land? I know the theory is on the boardwalk. As a reminder, here is the photo of that boardwalk section at the point where the ladder was erected: Sorry, I call BS. BS about having navigated it in the dark carrying everything. BS erecting the ladder in the dark during a wind storm by 1-person without stepping off numerous times. BS about falling off a ladder and landing on this thin strip. BS. We do know Lindbergh missed the NYU banquet... other than that, we have NO verified accounting for his whereabouts that day. Excepting Whited's eyewitness account (p.15 TDC), which causes a huge catch-22 for those who accept his testimony in Flemington. We also know that Lindbergh called to say he would be late at a very specific time (p.21) and lied about it under oath (p.20). Anne was listening for him at 7:30PM. Maybe it's me, but I see all of these puzzle pieces snapping into place. They are all there for anyone who wants to solve it. For that matter why bury a body in "a shallow grave" unless the plan is that it's to be found quickly. Someone as daring and bold as these people could have returned to at least bury it deeper. Lots of excuses to be prowling around in the early days. Why was a kidnapper from New York headed toward the south? Mostly, nobody but CAL had any idea when he would arrive home that night and I think he liked it that way. I don't believe anyone buried the corpse. I am convinced the child was "elsewhere" then eventually moved by being thrown out of a car onto the side of the road in the same bag he was originally in. Most likely at night. This was done so he'd be found and end the extortion attempts. Animals then came out of the woods, went into the bag, then dragged his body into the woods and partially consumed parts. It was an animal that partially covered him where he was found. I know we've debated this before but this is where I am at.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 6, 2017 9:01:06 GMT -5
I disagree the replica ladder at the very scene showed its very doable for one person to do this crime
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2017 9:09:33 GMT -5
I disagree the replica ladder at the very scene showed its very doable for one person to do this crime I saw 3 people on the NOVA clip - 3 people - attempting to raise a duplicate ladder, in the day-time and on a nice day, while trying to stand in the same spot but could not do it. They were circling all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 6, 2017 10:49:26 GMT -5
I agree about the body. Where do you think it was being kept until it was dumped by the roadside?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 6, 2017 11:46:00 GMT -5
I disagree the replica ladder at the very scene showed its very doable for one person to do this crime Doesn't explain the sounds that were almost certainly made entering the house by having to launch yourself three feet past the window sill and chest/suitcase? Nor does it explain what criminal carrying a baby out a window in haste would choose to go over the toys, chest and suitcase instead of just moving the chest to the side.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 6, 2017 11:51:31 GMT -5
There's something about the specific condition in which the body was found that doesn't seem to be explicable on the sole basis of wild animals feeding on it. Why would the heart and liver remain, while all other thoracic and abdominal organs be eaten? Why would the face remain relatively intact, with those abdominal and thoracic organs eaten? Why would the two arms and ONE leg be torn off by the wild animals, while a good part of the the right leg and foot remained? It would seem like wild animals feasting on the corpse would have no reason to be selective. Could human cannibalism have been in part responsible for this pattern?
Furthermore, there is still much doubt that the corpse was that of Charlie. I have pointed out several times on these threads the discrepancy between the overlapping right lateral toes in Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow and the overlapping right medial toes in the autopsy report. And as we all know, Dr. Van Ingen could not make a definitive identification of the body.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jun 6, 2017 13:02:58 GMT -5
There may be a very good reason why the ground just beneath the nursery window didn't yield more than the footprints it might have under entirely different circumstances. And that picture of the ladder rail holes in front of the narrow walkway is a very good indicator as to why. That is not "soft mucky mud" that easily supports footprints, not by a long shot. The roof overhang for example would have shielded the ground directly beneath it from much of the rain that had fallen during the previous afternoon, and if it had been blowing mainly from the west, as is the norm, this would only made that area of ground less moist, compared to the area away from the house which would have been exposed to the rain, and where retreating footprints were also found. It would also explain that while there was evidence of mud on the nursery floor, it was not the amount one might expect had the kidnappers approached the house directly from the west and through the clearly wetter mud in that area.
And let's not forget as well, that whoever it was that walked along that walkway during the dark of night, how would THEY have raised a two or three piece ladder without making footprints of their own? I believe we should all take a big step back here and try to determine the actual conditions of the entirety of the crime scene ground, before summarily concluding what took place within a couple of feet of the house's west outer wall only.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 6, 2017 14:27:17 GMT -5
The body could not have been moved because the skin on the face would have greatly deteriorated in just a few minutes. It was partially buried on 3/1/32 (face down) and stayed that way until it was found.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 6, 2017 14:34:37 GMT -5
I'm raising questions more than trying to reach a conclusion, LJ. It strikes me that the note reads like something written by either an amateur or a third rate criminal (I admit I'm not sure what a first rate criminal's note would look like), and yet the crime itself feels like it was done with inside knowledge, or does to many of us here. If so, why the clumsy seeming (faux naif?) note? Is this a "code" of some kind? Maybe something Lindbergh himself would have understood all too well but nobody else.
No, I'm not going off on a whole lot of tangents here but attempting to put together the pieces of a puzzle of what strikes me as in many respect "an enigmatic event". But then maybe kidnaps were routinely pulled off this way. If someone on this board knows what an "average kidnapping" looked like back then, how the notes were written, how the return of the abducted individual was handled, as well as the ransom money, that would be terrific information to have. Also, such matters as whether kidnaps were done by criminals experienced at such things or were done randomly; and whether there were familiar patterns to such events would be enormously helpful.
Such issues as whether the Lindbergh kidnapping was an atypical crime in its execution or appeared to experts as the handiwork (as it were) of people who knew what they were doing is something I'd like to know. I've read a good deal about the LKC but know little about what law enforcement professionals at the time thought about it. With all the kidnappings going on back then one might think there would have to be a go-to guy for such a crime, someone to help pull it all together, but then maybe not. Just askin'...
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 6, 2017 15:00:47 GMT -5
Good questions John, would be very useful background information. Also, were extortion attempts typical for this type of crime?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2017 16:11:09 GMT -5
I agree about the body. Where do you think it was being kept until it was dumped by the roadside? There was a hole on Schippel's land that he pointed out saying the child had been buried there previously. That's the only possibility located in the files. After that it's anyone's guess. There may be a very good reason why the ground just beneath the nursery window didn't yield more than the footprints it might have under entirely different circumstances. And that picture of the ladder rail holes in front of the narrow walkway is a very good indicator as to why. That is not "soft mucky mud" that easily supports footprints, not by a long shot. The roof overhang for example would have shielded the ground directly beneath it from much of the rain that had fallen during the previous afternoon, and if it had been blowing mainly from the west, as is the norm, this would only made that area of ground less moist, compared to the area away from the house which would have been exposed to the rain, and where retreating footprints were also found. It would also explain that while there was evidence of mud on the nursery floor, it was not the amount one might expect had the kidnappers approached the house directly from the west and through the clearly wetter mud in that area. We had the holes made by the ladder rails. We have a footprint to the right of those holes, and a burlap bag impression next to that. This clearly shows if someone fell off of that ladder an impression would have been made, as well as if someone stepped off the boardwalk a footprint would be made too. I saw the chunk of mud at the NJSP Archives (they have saved in a box) that was found on the top of the lower shutter on March 2nd. It clearly shows how muddy the situation was. And let's not forget as well, that whoever it was that walked along that walkway during the dark of night, how would THEY have raised a two or three piece ladder without making footprints of their own? I believe we should all take a big step back here and try to determine the actual conditions of the entirety of the crime scene ground, before summarily concluding what took place within a couple of feet of the house's west outer wall only. It's clear to me because they had time, light, and help. Otherwise they would have stepped off in multiple places. So while considering the mud wasn't muddy enough also consider the obvious as well. Doesn't it make more sense when considering the real situation? The body could not have been moved because the skin on the face would have greatly deteriorated in just a few minutes. It was partially buried on 3/1/32 (face down) and stayed that way until it was found. The bag was found on the side of the road and the body was found partially buried under some leaves and a little bit of dirt. Animals would drag a body into the woods, but would not drag a bag out of it to the road. Inside the bag was a bone belonging to that corpse. To quote Rab "bones don't fall off of fresh corpses." The irresistible conclusion is that an animal(s) discovered the decomposing body in the bag on the side of the road. They went into the bag, pulled out the body, then drug it into the woods. That is supported by the animal hair found inside the bag as well. But then maybe kidnaps were routinely pulled off this way. If someone on this board knows what an "average kidnapping" looked like back then, how the notes were written, how the return of the abducted individual was handled, as well as the ransom money, that would be terrific information to have. Also, such matters as whether kidnaps were done by criminals experienced at such things or were done randomly; and whether there were familiar patterns to such events would be enormously helpful. The cases I've look at: Constance Morrow Extortion
Blakely Coughlin
Bobby Franks
Edward Cudahy Jr.
Nell Donnelly (anyone else see the word "Nelly" in this name?)
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jun 6, 2017 17:59:16 GMT -5
But then maybe kidnaps were routinely pulled off this way. If someone on this board knows what an "average kidnapping" looked like back then, how the notes were written, how the return of the abducted individual was handled, as well as the ransom money, that would be terrific information to have. Also, such matters as whether kidnaps were done by criminals experienced at such things or were done randomly; and whether there were familiar patterns to such events would be enormously helpful. The cases I've look at: Constance Morrow Extortion
Blakely Coughlin
Bobby Franks
Edward Cudahy Jr.
Nell Donnelly (anyone else see the word "Nelly" in this name?)
How many of these (or any other 1930's kidnappings) were infants or children under two years of age as the victim, successfully taken from their home while their parents, other occupants, and a dog were present and without witnesses or fingerprints left at the scene?
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 6, 2017 18:37:40 GMT -5
Thanks for the responses, all.
Good question, Stella, re extortion attempts and kidnappings, as distinct from ransoms, especially in cases where the victim was not returned or found dead. There must be statistics on this somewhere. I mean, from roughly the first third of the 20th century. It would interesting indeed to compare those extortions cases with how the LKC went down, to see if there are similarities,--well, there would have to be--as to things like faking handwriting, phrasing and the like.
Thanks for the list, Michael. The Bobby Franks case was huge, got almost as much attention as the Lindbergh case once the trial got underway.
I've heard of the Nell Donnelly case, don't know much about it. Is Cudahy the California mining family?
The Constance Morrow extortion is fascinating for having some parallels with the LKC, suggestive possibly the same perp, though I imagine the case was much in the news, so maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 6, 2017 22:17:58 GMT -5
Some questions about the hole and possible burial site on Schippel's property: Was Schippel's property searched? How would he have known CAL Jr. was buried there, and, with that knowledge, why didn't he go to the police? And where was Schippel's place in relation to Highfields?
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 7, 2017 1:28:50 GMT -5
Great questions, Scathma. I don't know the answers, though it certainly strikes me that such a high profile individual as Charles Lindbergh would not be, were I a professional kidnapper, a good person to hit as it would draw way too much attention to the case.
Add to this the tender age of his son, the problems that could arise tending to the health and nutritional needs of such a child would take too many other people,--assuming the snatch was legit and strictly for the money, not some personal grudge--which would pose further problems.
All this raises some interesting issues, dealt with many times on this board and on Ronelle's, one of the major ones being the matter of why such a small sum for such a valuable child. This in turn, if one factors in the amateurish and not very confident seeming ransom note, in turn raises further questions.
To sum it up: case against Hauptmann does contain a certain logic inasmuch as the crime wasn't handled in such a manner as to suggest professionalism on the perp's part; and yet it succeeded all the same. This brings us back to, as always, yes, Bruno Richard Hauptmann. There is something almost mad about the crime, assuming, again, the gospel according to Wilentz as the truest one.
50K seems way too small a sum to ask from such a rich and famous individual as Charles Lindbergh. It's near madness, even from a criminal perspective, to take such a huge risk for such a small sum; even adjusted for inflation it's not a million dollars in today's money. Hauptmann makes sense as a small man with criminal tendencies who wants to get back at a hero, something he most certainly isn't, in a crude and petty fashion, by kidnapping and then killing his only son.
It seems to me that there almost have to be personal agenda at work in the LKC for it to make sense. If one buys into the Hauptmann As Line Kidnapper theory, thus label Hauptmann as a man with all kinds of demons and resentments one can engage in endless armchair psychoanalysis of the sort of untermensch with a chip on his shoulder he was made out to be by the prosecution during his trial.
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Jun 7, 2017 2:02:25 GMT -5
[How many of these (or any other 1930's kidnappings) were infants or children under two years of age as the victim, successfully taken from their home while their parents, other occupants, and a dog were present and without witnesses or fingerprints left at the scene?] - Scathma
The Blakely Coughlin case is interesting in it's similarities to LKC. A 13 month old blond curly haired boy, taken from his second storey home by a man using a ladder he found at a nearby construction sight. This was at night with the family present. Apparently he decided to kidnap the child after walking past the house one evening and observing the family. He says he smothered the child accidently. The body was never recovered. This happened in Norristown Pennsylvania in 1920, and I sometimes wonder if that was some how and inspiration for the LKC events/staging, despite the time difference.
The perpetrator was eventually caught as a lone wolf, however I think he changed his story several times and I'm unclear if he had assistance.
I'm sure Michael will know a lot more about this case that I do, and will correct any errors above.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 8:40:50 GMT -5
. Hauptmann makes sense as a small man with criminal tendencies who wants to get back at a hero, something he most certainly isn't, in a crude and petty fashion, by kidnapping and then killing his only son. Are you implying some type of revenge as being the motivation for Hauptmann committing the kidnapping? Although I can see such a motivating factor in this crime, I have trouble applying it to Hauptmann. If Hauptmann, as a lone wolf, just wanted to hurt Lindbergh, he could have just taken his son, killed him and disposed of him and then sat back and watched and savored the massive impact this would have caused on Lindbergh. This would have been the payoff for someone who wanted to inflict personal damage to a heroic figure in the worst possible way. Why would he want to engage in a 30 day negotiation process, have face to face meetings and then return the child to be found giving the Lindberghs some closure, if he just wanted to hurt Lindbergh? His goal was accomplished just by stealing and murdering his son. My personal feeling is that Hauptmann would have been motivated to get involved for the money, not to strike out personally at Lindbergh. Am I missing something in my reasoning that I should be seeing??
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 7, 2017 9:48:09 GMT -5
Turns out that the "Bobby Franks case" is much more commonly referred to as the LEOPOLD AND LOEB case, named for the confessed perps, rather than the victim. That famous case took place in Chicago in 1925. Rather atypical kidnap case, because the two young men perpetrating it were well-to-do, and, IIRC, were trying to show off how smart they were, trying to commit a "perfect crime."
Aside from Constance Morrow and Bobby Franks, the other three names do not ring a bell.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 7, 2017 10:21:15 GMT -5
No, Amy: I was putting forth "hypotheticals", scenarios, if you will, regarding the LKC from a conservative, pro-LE at the time perspective rather than advocating for any particular one of them. Indeed, if all Hauptmann wanted to do was to hurt Lindbergh he could have easily hurt or killed his child some other way. On this I wholeheartedly agree. As a "take down a big guy" crime the LKC makes no sense if Hauptmann's the sole perp.
What's more, there's nothing in Hauptmann's personal history to suggest that he was envious or had a chip on his shoulder. He had a criminal background in Germany, none in America. There was an elusiveness about him, how he made his money, yet I know of no evidence to back up Wilentz's claim that Hauptmann was a criminal in Germany, a criminal in America, that he'd always been a criminal.
Yet viewed from a certain perspective, given the mass of circumstantial evidence against him, that many were convinced Hauptmann was the man behind the crime has, on the surface anyway, some logic to it, as in he was Made To Order. His reckless spending of the gold certificates in the summer of 1934 might almost,--stress on almost--suggest that he wanted to get caught, right down to his words with the gas station attendant who wrote down his license plate number.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jun 7, 2017 10:58:39 GMT -5
"Muddy" doesn't go far enough in describing the actual composition of the ground within the entire crime scene area, especially the ground that may have been sheltered from rain near the house. I understand what you're saying Michael, but those holes and how they retained their shape once the ladder rails were pulled out, indicate to me a relatively firm composition, that may not have left obvious footprints, especially when we know the kidnappers wore foot coverings. We can't make the assumption that the ground where the kidnappers walked alongside the house was of the same type, moisture content and consistency as the ground where the retreating footprints were found. That information would be critical to more accurately determining if the kidnappers actually traversed the walkway or were able to step off it in places while raising the ladder and not leave obvious signs of having done so.
Are you suggesting the hired kidnappers staged the area prior to dusk? Would this have implicated everyone else in the house within the plan? Do you think Lindbergh was there? I'm not following you with your comment about the mud not being muddy enough.. what is the obvious, and what is the real situation?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 7, 2017 11:27:27 GMT -5
[How many of these (or any other 1930's kidnappings) were infants or children under two years of age as the victim, successfully taken from their home while their parents, other occupants, and a dog were present and without witnesses or fingerprints left at the scene?] - Scathma The Blakely Coughlin case is interesting in it's similarities to LKC. A 13 month old blond curly haired boy, taken from his second storey home by a man using a ladder he found at a nearby construction sight. This was at night with the family present. Apparently he decided to kidnap the child after walking past the house one evening and observing the family. He says he smothered the child accidently. The body was never recovered. This happened in Norristown Pennsylvania in 1920, and I sometimes wonder if that was some how and inspiration for the LKC events/staging, despite the time difference. The perpetrator was eventually caught as a lone wolf, however I think he changed his story several times and I'm unclear if he had assistance. I'm sure Michael will know a lot more about this case that I do, and will correct any errors above. That is interesting. Never heard of this before but it does suggest the crime might have been used as a model. I think the baby was not taken down that ladder (for obvious reasons) but since the Coughlin crime heist worked it could be made plausible in TLC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 12:58:06 GMT -5
No, Amy: I was putting forth "hypotheticals", scenarios, if you will, regarding the LKC from a conservative, pro-LE at the time perspective rather than advocating for any particular one of them. Sorry, I thought you were giving your own thoughts and opinions in your post. Hypothetically then, does the evidence make him the perfect Scapegoat? Would his reckless spending suggest he doesn't know the money he is spending is Lindbergh ransom money, therefore he is unknowingly setting himself up for a fall? Hypothetically, why would Hauptmann want to get caught? I have trouble imagining reasons he might do this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 13:02:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 7, 2017 16:45:21 GMT -5
I'm sure Michael will know a lot more about this case that I do, and will correct any errors above. I believe I have a couple of Police Reports on this. I remember the Police wanted to make sure he was still in prison in order to rule him out. Although there was only 1 arrest, they were positive others were involved. I can look it up if anyone is interested. Another case I did not mention was the attempted abduction of the Anderson child. His father was an artist and the crime occurred about a week after the Lindbergh crime. Here an employee knew the home, knew the routine, and despite being known to the dog - knew he'd bark upon hearing a noise. So he drugged the dog. The only thing that stopped the crime was the father heard a noise then went to investigate. Pretty interesting right? Two points: The dog, and the Father. Interesting if Lindbergh actually did hear that crashing orange crate asking " what was that?" and never bothered to investigate. The guy who isn't afraid of anything and needs to know everything didn't look into it, but an Artist immediately does. Are you suggesting the hired kidnappers staged the area prior to dusk? Would this have implicated everyone else in the house within the plan? Do you think Lindbergh was there? I'm not following you with your comment about the mud not being muddy enough.. what is the obvious, and what is the real situation? I am merely pointing out the fact that the print facing the house disproves your position. *I found the report that had Condon view Bacon/Baker. If you want me to quote it let me know.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 7, 2017 16:56:38 GMT -5
Yes, The "Boad Nelly" in the ransom note could well have derived from the case of Nell Donnelly. Nell Donnelly was a wealthy businesswoman who was abducted in or around Kansas City in December 1931, just three and a half months before the "Boad Nelly" note in the LKC was passed. Because of the timing, anyone familiar with current events c. April 1932 was capable of using her name as an "inspiration" for the fictitious boat name used in the LKC ransom note.
One other interesting factor in the Nell Donnelly case: Her friend, then a sitting US Senator and later her husband, used the services of the head honcho of the Kansas City mob "family" to seek out Ms. Donnelly, and she was rescued within two days. (She lived to be 102!) So this case may have been the reason why the Lindbergh team would call on underworld figures like Rosner, Spitale, and Bitz in the early days immediately following the purported kidnapping of CAL Jr.
|
|