|
Post by Michael on Jun 13, 2017 20:01:25 GMT -5
I am trying to understand and work my way through all this footprint stuff. In the segment of your book that I quoted, the number of female prints changes from singular (DeGaetano) to plural (Marshall). That is why I underscored these two descriptions. How many muddy female prints were actually found along side or near the boardwalk that Anne was supposed to have made? Is there just one or are there more than one female prints in the mud? For 100% certain there were (2) separate female prints (see page 170) one near the window and the other near the back porch. I've considered the possibility there were (3) if Wolf and DeGaetano each saw a different print. Both Wolf and DeGaetano testified that the woman's print they saw was between the house and the boardwalk. If true this further harms Joe's position in my opinion because it means it was muddy all the way to the wall. I am attempting to attach a piece from Fisher's 1987 The Lindbergh Case. If this information presented by Fisher is correct and has not been subsequently discredited, it is interesting that at least some evidence existed that Hauptmann sustained an injury to his LEFT foot/leg during the time frame of the kidnapping. There is no evidence of a leg injury in 1932. He was treated for varicose veins in 1933, and it was during that year people saw him limp. Remember that Cemetery John jumped off the fence at Woodlawn and landed so hard that Riehl believed he could have broken his leg. But not even here - because he quickly sprinted away. This alone ruins the theory that Hauptmann was injured by a fall of the ladder on March 1st because that means he is NOT Cemetery John on March 12th. People who want Hauptmann to be a Lone-Wolf apply certain things where they fit, but ignore them completely where they do not.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 14, 2017 10:46:28 GMT -5
What is " what all the evidence shows" and according to whom ? Let's discuss this point by point, before we decide who might be jumping through hoops here to shoehorn fit a pet theory. Joe, although I am sincerely trying, I am having a hard time understanding your position. These prints exist, and you seem to be saying that someone is creating them with a tremendous amount of force? Why? Are you suggesting the two things that prove it was muddy were created by someone jumping or falling? Help me out here. If so, doesn't that ruin Bornmann's position that the nursery showed mud on one foot? Also, I assume you believe Anne's testimony that the smaller prints under the window leading to the back of the house were hers. She was tiny and weighed next to nothing. So we have the board there for a reason along with several items which indicate mud soft enough to show prints. (Michael) Michael, I've tried to be as clear as possible, but perhaps I'm still not being fully understood here. In summary, I do not believe that the ground under and in the immediate vicinity of the nursery window, and a number of feet from the east wall of the house, was of the same consistency and moisture content as the ground further away from the house which more clearly showed retreating footprints. I have good reasons to believe this. I've tried searching for the Hopewell weather report of that day but those US archives all seem to begin in 1945. Given that the temperatures were dropping all day and into the evening of March 1, 1932, from the late-winter norms, indicates a cold front with rain, which would generally have come from the north, more likely the north-west. This means the east wall of the house (the nursery side) would have been relatively protected from the rainfall, (leeward side) therefore the ground under the nursery window would not have been as moisture-laden. And my contention here is that that ground would not readily have demonstrated footprints as would wetter ground. Does that make sense? But before we conclude anything for certain, perhaps someone else might have access to weather records prior to 1945, as this could be very helpful. Anyone? Next we have the observed footprints near the east wall. Overall, there is a surprising lack of footprints in this area, when it's clear there would have had to have been a lot of foot-stepping activity going on right under the window, and relative to raising of the ladder. We have only one kidnapper footprint to the left of the ladder imprints, ostensibly a left footprint. So where is his right footprint in the same area? Why does only the left print show here? My contention here is that i) that print was made with considerable force or impact, ie. a step down from, or step up onto the ladder (Note I did not say "tremendous force"; that was your interpretation of my words) ii) the actual consistency of the ground did not readily demonstrate footprints, or both i) and ii) The other point here being that you cannot compare the impressions left by a male kidnapper wearing flat shoe or foot coverings, and those left by Anne Lindbergh, who was probably wearing at least a bit of a heel, in spite of the fact she would have weighed less. Finally, and unless I've missed something absolutely revelatory along the way, we have one very poor job by investigators in identifying the scope of contributing conditions and factors towards what they concluded from the footprint evidence at the crime scene. Again, to say the entire area was "muddy" and just leave it at that is a bit like saying the sky is cloudy, that town is far away, etc. It's just not accurate enough, especially when you're trying to solve an apparent kidnapping on foot. The lack of footprint evidence beneath the nursery window in a way, parallels the lack of fingerprints within the nursery. Perhaps difficult to fathom at face value, but there is a logical and very understandable answer, as we will see with both, and I believe moisture conditions again come into play for the latter. Let's not forget how over the years, "causes" like the Fisch Story, the ink-blotted entries in Hauptmann's Reliance timesheet, the supposed 1/16" difference in the thicknesses of Rail 16 and S-226, or the fact that 37 investigators during 9 visits to the attic, failed to report the missing length of attic floorboard, have by many, led to "conclusive evidence of police wrongdoing and a setup," before each claim was then summarily discounted. I believe we need to go well beyond what's in reports only to get to the root of these kinds of issues before a sound conclusion that can successfully withstand all logical and coherent attack, can then be made.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 15:48:39 GMT -5
But before we conclude anything for certain, perhaps someone else might have access to weather records prior to 1945, as this could be very helpful. Anyone? Don't know if this would be of much help. Here is the weather forecast printed by the Jersey Journal for February 29, 1932 Here is the weather forecast from the Jersey Journal for March 1, 1932 The Jersey Journal was the newspaper for Jersey City NJ so there could be localized activity such as a shower for other locations such as Hopewell. Both reports do say evening temperatures in the 40's plus wind, especially for March 1, 1932. If I locate anything else about the weather, I will post it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 14, 2017 16:52:25 GMT -5
In summary, I do not believe that the ground under and in the immediate vicinity of the nursery window, and a number of feet from the east wall of the house, was of the same consistency and moisture content as the ground further away from the house which more clearly showed retreating footprints. I have good reasons to believe this. Okay got it. I will attempt to map this out one last time because there's no need to beat a dead horse.... I fully agree there should have been more prints in certain places given what we know. We have the 2 indentations made by the bottoms of the ladder rails. We have (1) print facing the house. We have what we assume to be the impression of the burlap bag near that. So far I believe we are both in agreement. Next, there are 2 female prints between the boardwalk and the house. These prints were photographed and marked as " small footprints" not "heel marks" or anything like that. I believe because they were small and because very early on they were attributed to Anne that's how they get labeled "female." If there was ever a place were the mud would not be as wet it would have been between the house and the boardwalk. Next, the mud in the Nursery described as footprints was a head-scratcher until I wrote about this in my book where Bornmann explained it to Gov. Hoffman as the Kidnapper having mud on 1 shoe. And so, if the Kidnapper made the impression of that footprint facing the house before he climbed the ladder we're supposed to believe he jumped there? Or if he made it coming down where in the hell did the mud come from in the nursery and on the top of the bottom shutter? So you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't Joe. So what's the most logical explanation? I say the most obvious. There's more then one person helping with the scene and they must have a light source to watch where they are walking. They are being especially careful not to step into the mud prior to the crime. The one step facing the house is either an accident or it's completely intentional. Footprint facing house, mud on top of shutter, footprints in nursery headed toward crib, letter on window sill, footprints leading away to ladder, ladder and chisel laying next to each other, footprints leading to Wertsville Road near tire tracks. I think LJ coined the phrase as a "bread-crumb trail" and it's hard to dispute it. Ho-age was right.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 15, 2017 7:09:18 GMT -5
Great find, and thanks Amy for those weather reports. It seems quite clear there was a cold weather front generally coming out of the north-west on March 1. The house would then have provided for a relatively strong leeward effect, effectively countering the impact of rain which came with that weather front, upon the ground along the east wall, ie. the nursery window side. At the same time, the wind would have assisted in the evaporation of moisture within the same ground. Given that we have so few observed footprints, against what we might expect for the level of activity that would have been going on in that area, I believe it's safe to say footprint impressions were not readily produced in that ground.
BTW, do you recall on which thread we were discussing the Doc Ashton siting of the large touring car roaring through Hopewell just after 9 pm on the night of the kidnapping? I have some more information to add which I believe reinforces the possibility that this vehicle was involved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 7:54:52 GMT -5
I do not want to belabor this weather issue. My thought when I read about the wind being from the west-northwest was it would have aided in keeping the ground closest to the house on the east side (kidnap window side) more moist, which should have produced more prints in order to erect the ladder, etc., while the larger expanse of open ground away from the house on the east side would have benefited from the drying effect of the wind and yielded less prints. Yet we have just the opposite occurring according to the evidence at the scene. I think it should be considered that the prints or lack thereof is by design and not entirely the result of weather.
We talked about Doc Ashton on page 1 of the Oscar Bush thread in this section of the board. I look forward to what additional information you can share on this sighting.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 15, 2017 8:32:07 GMT -5
Oookay.. the kidnappers are being careful not to make footprints. They're being careful not to step in the mud. You have them apparently perched upon a 6" walkway (if it was even that wide!) the entire time, while attempting to raise a two or three sectioned-ladder against the house, otherwise they would have showed an abundance of prints around the walkway in the supposed "mud."
Next you have one of them making a footprint to the left of the ladder facing the house either accidentally or intentionally. If they're being that careful, which one is it here? Most importantly, where is the other footprint of the guy who just made this print? I know it's not on the walkway.
We have Anne Lindbergh who walked along the side of the house and stepped off the walkway in order to try and attract the attention of Betty Gow at the nursery window and then walked back and forth to ground under both the French window and the nursery window. We have only one footprint which was actually attributed to Anne in this area, so what does that tell us about the impressionability of the ground she has just walked all over?
When the kidnappers took down the ladder to begin their trek to where it was found, why is there no abundance of footprints at the base of the ladder to illustrate that they had done this?
In reality, what we do have at the crime scene under the nursery window is a patch of ground that did not easily support the production of footprints, because of the relative consistency / moisture level between it and the ground further east of the house which clearly showed the retreating footprints. You have probably seen the weather reports by now which would have only contributed to this effect. We do have kidnappers wearing some kind of cloth covering which produced a "muting effect" on the production of prints. These flat cloth coverings allowed the kidnappers to move around the area under the nursery window without leaving the deep impressions that regular shoes would have made, but their weaving would still have picked up a thin layer of mud which was then transferred to the suitcase and also to the weaving on the nursery floor rug. The kidnappers were able to remove the ladder, again with a minimum of footprints due to the relatively firm ground, until they reached the wetter and more impressionable ground that did show their footprints. The evidence clearly shows what happened. Bread crumb trail? Make as much out of it as you want and I'm done with my explaining here, but if you look closely enough any criminal will leave one in a situation and under conditions like these.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 15, 2017 8:37:51 GMT -5
I'm not going to belabor the weather / prints issue anymore either Amy, as it's quite clear to me.
Yes, that touring car.. I'll post more later and thanks for the reference to the Oscar Bush thread.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 15, 2017 9:59:24 GMT -5
Riehl wasn't describing someone who looked anything like Hauptmann, so it seems very doubtful Hauptmann leapt from a 14 foot stone column. Hauptmann can still be at Woodlawn, as Condon's description fits him. I believe there were two different guys at Woodlawn, each one seen exclusively by either Riehl or Condon. The salesman from Williamsbridge Motors who sold Hauptmann his 1930 Dodge, did claim to have seen him with his foot bandaged during a service call in 1932. Fred Hahn also testified to investigators that Kloppenburg and friends were talking about Hauptmann having hurt his foot in 1932, but that it was later denied in his restaurant.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 15, 2017 13:29:37 GMT -5
It's always nice to be able to put a face to the name. Here are a few photos of Woodlawn Cemetery Guard Robert Riehl from the Sam Bornstein Collection.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 15, 2017 16:28:38 GMT -5
Oookay.. the kidnappers are being careful not to make footprints. They're being careful not to step in the mud. You have them apparently perched upon a 6" walkway (if it was even that wide!) the entire time, while attempting to raise a two or three sectioned-ladder against the house, otherwise they would have showed an abundance of prints around the walkway in the supposed "mud." It's not "supposed." The mud showed prints. If someone stepped into it they left a footprint behind. That's what we have to work with. Next you have one of them making a footprint to the left of the ladder facing the house either accidentally or intentionally. If they're being that careful, which one is it here? Most importantly, where is the other footprint of the guy who just made this print? I know it's not on the walkway. I have the footprint evidence to work with, the rail holes, and the "bag" formation. The scene is staged, and that explains the situation better then suggesting mud existed where prints did but did not where they don't. That would mean inches apart or between other existing impressions or footprints. We have Anne Lindbergh who walked along the side of the house and stepped off the walkway in order to try and attract the attention of Betty Gow at the nursery window and then walked back and forth to ground under both the French window and the nursery window. We have only one footprint which was actually attributed to Anne in this area, so what does that tell us about the impressionability of the ground she has just walked all over? Read Anne's testimony. She doesn't remember the specifics. What we do know the prints which are "supposed" to be hers are INSIDE the boardwalk. What's she doing walking there? Attract attention by stepping closer to the house? The print there proves the impressionability of the mud because it's in a place that should be less muddy. When the kidnappers took down the ladder to begin their trek to where it was found, why is there no abundance of footprints at the base of the ladder to illustrate that they had done this? Again, it was a staged scene and they were being careful about what prints they were making. The double set of prints leading away from the house was intentional. They approached from a different place, then negotiated the boardwalk under the window. When they vacate and leave - they walk through the middle of the muddy yard. Or was can apply your theory here. They DID leave the same way but we don't know because it wasn't muddy, and the prints to the ladder were made by the Cops, and/or Reporters.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 15, 2017 17:24:03 GMT -5
Where do you think they approached from? Since there are no approach footprints, it would seem they drove up the driveway...
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jun 15, 2017 19:28:11 GMT -5
I think the minimal amount of footprints around the ladder location, where one would expect the greatest concentration of prints (or at least ground disturbance if one maintains the mud is not conducive to producing footprints of consequence) supports the notion of a staged scene.
Another indicator IMHO is the single pair of ladder holes, indicating a supposedly ideal angle for climbing being achieved on the first attempt. I will admit that my experience with an aluminum extension ladder is not extensive, but I seem to always need to adjust the ladder to get the pitch right, depending on how far I have extended the ladder. Given how flimsy the kidnap ladder was (being homemade and wooden) especially at the dowel joint, if this was the first ever deployment of this ladder by the user, it would seem even more remarkable given that flimsiness, the wind, and the lack of light that they got it right on the first try.
But if you are positioning this ladder as a prop, in late afternoon while there is still some natural light, and have no concern for whether you actually have to climb it, then just sticking it into the ground and leaning it against the house will not require as much footwork and account for the absence of numerous footprints since you can potentially stay on the boardwalk to do so.
As for Anne and the stone throwing, I find that whole story suspect. If she wants to "take joy" with her child (to paraphrase BRH) why throw pebbles from a muddy yard at a second story window on a raw windy day while "out for a walk" (of significant duration according to Gardner) while suffering from a cold and while pregnant? Simply go inside and do so in the relative warmth and comfort of the house... and if she did go for a walk, I would hope she would have the sense to put on some Wellies or other suitable footwear than to go out for a walk in "heeled shoes" down a stone driveway or muddy field. A less affluent person (say a servant perhaps?) might be forced to venture out in the footwear they happened to have on (especially if they were summoned on short notice and weren't expecting outside activities) and thus leave a small footprint with evidence of a heel... but then that requires an explanation or cover story as to how such a print was made.
I think she took one for the team and recited this concocted story to account for footprints that all but proves the presence of multiple participants in the staging and removal of the child and in a manner markedly different than the "accepted" version of the "official" timeline that authorities were intended to pursue ala breadcrumbs...
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 16, 2017 9:06:19 GMT -5
Jersey City would be at least 50 miles from Hopewell, so you can't rule out the possibility that Hopewell got a significant amount of rain that night, while Jersey City got none. Secondly, weather forecasts in the 1930s were notoriously inaccurate compared to today's.
BTW, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the observed footprints at Highfields were made a day or two before they were discovered. The interesting thing would be to try to check out when the last heavy rain there may have occurred. Maybe the Trenton or Princeton newspapers could be more helpful in that regard than the Jersey Journal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 15:15:46 GMT -5
Jersey City would be at least 50 miles from Hopewell, so you can't rule out the possibility that Hopewell got a significant amount of rain that night, while Jersey City got none. Secondly, weather forecasts in the 1930s were notoriously inaccurate compared to today's. Hurt, I was aware of where Jersey City was located when I used those weather clips. That is why I mentioned the possibility of localized activity such as showers should be considered. I also have available the weather report from the Trenton Evening Times for March 1, 1932. I will post it if you feel that would be more appropriate. I feel the weather should be considered but I also think a big factor to consider also concerning moisture content of the Highfields grounds is the type of soil that surrounded that house. It was ungraded and was the type (silt and clay) that would actually retain moisture for a much longer period of time. It could have rained three or more days before the kidnapping and that soil would have been quite soft. The cooler temperatures plus the overcast conditions would have aided in moisture retention.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 15:21:06 GMT -5
BTW, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the observed footprints at Highfields were made a day or two before they were discovered. So, are you suggesting the kidnapping occurred earlier than March 1st? Do you have another theory for when and how those prints came to be there?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 16, 2017 19:51:54 GMT -5
Jersey City would be at least 50 miles from Hopewell, so you can't rule out the possibility that Hopewell got a significant amount of rain that night, while Jersey City got none. Secondly, weather forecasts in the 1930s were notoriously inaccurate compared to today's. Hurt, I was aware of where Jersey City was located when I used those weather clips. That is why I mentioned the possibility of localized activity such as showers should be considered. I also have available the weather report from the Trenton Evening Times for March 1, 1932. I will post it if you feel that would be more appropriate. I feel the weather should be considered but I also think a big factor to consider also concerning moisture content of the Highfields grounds is the type of soil that surrounded that house. It was ungraded and was the type (silt and clay) that would actually retain moisture for a much longer period of time. It could have rained three or more days before the kidnapping and that soil would have been quite soft. The cooler temperatures plus the overcast conditions would have aided in moisture retention. Amy, that post from the Trenton newspaper on the weather mentions no rain at all. I'm not yet willing to call it with certainty, but the "rainy day" and/or "rainy night scenario for March 1, 1932 at Highfields seems to be some kind of hoax. Same with the high winds, as there is no mention of winds in the weather data. Also temperatures seem to be moderate for that time of year. As you pointed out, the wet and moist conditions could have still remained a few days after the last rain. But the fact that that last rain may have been several days previously opens up the possibility that those footprints were made several days previously. And that, in turn, brings to mind the Behn theory, in which the baby died on the previous Saturday. It would be interesting to get the local weather for the previous Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 17, 2017 6:51:07 GMT -5
Rain and "raw" weather were the reasons baby wasn't returned to Next Day Hill. Always seemed strange when cars seemed readily available to bring the nurse there. Anne was pregnant and it would seem sensible that both she and baby would want to be where they lived and near to doctors.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 18, 2017 1:38:07 GMT -5
Do you know, Kate, while we're on this topic (weather) whether the decision to stay at Hopewell was based on weather reports heard on the radio or printed in newspapers or the actual observations of those who lived in the Lindbergh home? Also, there's the time line factor as to when the decision was made. Once the decision was made and when could have sent a signal to the kidnappers, especially if inside information was relayed to outsiders.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2017 8:51:43 GMT -5
It would be interesting to get the local weather for the previous Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. Here is what I could find in the Trenton Evening Times. I apologize that some of these are difficult to read. It is how they are reproduced on the site. Friday, February 26, 1932 Saturday, February 27, 1932 Sunday, February 28, 1932. There was only a corner weather block in the Sunday paper. I went through every page hoping to find a bigger article.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2017 9:06:24 GMT -5
Do you know, Kate, while we're on this topic (weather) whether the decision to stay at Hopewell was based on weather reports heard on the radio or printed in newspapers or the actual observations of those who lived in the Lindbergh home? Also, there's the time line factor as to when the decision was made. Once the decision was made and when could have sent a signal to the kidnappers, especially if inside information was relayed to outsiders. I believe the decision to keep Charlie in Hopewell on Tuesday, March 1, 1932 was made in the a.m. hours. Anne was supposed to have called Englewood requesting Betty come to Highfields like 10:30 that morning. There was a change being forecast for the weather that would affect the coming days that week and would result in very cold temps and snow. What source Anne used that morning regarding the weather and how much that really did influence her decision to keep Charlie at the Hopewell house is something we will probably never know. Here is what the Jersey Journal printed on March 1, 1932 about the future weather that would be coming to New Jersey.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 18, 2017 9:28:16 GMT -5
John, that's a good question, and I don't know. Reading most authors I notice it's indicated, "because of the weather". Betty came from Englewood in the rain. So many books vary in small details that I think may be important details. In the Ross book he states on Monday CAL phoned Anne from NY to tell her he would stay in Englewood that night and would drive to Hopewell Tuesday after work. Also read that Anne was "exhausted" from caring for the baby, so why not call Betty to come Monday. Not to go off the subject too much but in looking for info about the weather, I pulled out Fishers book. It seems to me glaring that ln every way CAL ran this show, and I kept thinking why did he call the police? It seems he felt that he was much more competent than they were about every aspect, so why bring them in in? Was it to obtain fingerprints? Surprisingly, there were none. The note was very brief but the one thing it did instruct was to NOT call the police. Again, surprisingly the one thing CAL did do. Great way to start a kidnapping investigation. I'm not sure what happened to that baby but I don't think he was kidnapped.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jun 18, 2017 15:42:59 GMT -5
The weather according to various authors (in no particular order):
Waller Kidnap - "Tuesday March 1st was cold and windy, with a clinging dampness. Despite the unpleasant weather, AML went out for a breath of fresh air." At five o'clock "Outside in the pale dwindling light, the wind sighed through the trees and rattled the house shutters." After Betty puts CALjr to sleep "Wailing over the damp woods and muddy fields, the wind restlessly stirred the shutters..."
Scaduto Scapegoat - "Tuesday, March first, 1932 was a scowling, bleak day... a heavy rain had fallen all day, but soon after seven o'clock it lifted and the clouds sped off...leaving a pure rain washed sky. Almost as soon as the rain stopped, great winds leapt out of the east... the winds wrenched at the shutters and roof..."
Milton Loss of Eden - "On Tuesday morning, Anne awoke to the sound of a late-winter rainstorm pounding on the slate roof..." "At least Betty didn't have to wait at the train station in the driving rain..." "In the middle of the afternoon, there was a brief lull in the rainstorm and Anne decided to go for a walk." "By 8:00pm...the weather had turned nasty again. Gusts of wind whipped through the trees and rattled the French doors..."
Norris A Talent to Deceive - "It was, to quote a famous phrase, a dark and stormy night in the Sourland Mountains of New Jersey on March 1, 1932. It had rained heavily in the afternoon. By evening the rain had ceased but there was a cold and blustery east wind."
AML Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead - "Wahgoosh was in the opposite wing of the house that night and did not bark. He couldn't have heard through the howling wind all that distance."
Cahill Hauptmann's Ladder - "Monday, February 29, proved to be a very windy and cold day..."
Fisher The Lindbergh Case - "On Monday, February 28 (sic) ... it was chilly, windy and rainy..." Tuesday March 1st "Outside the nursery the raw winds were damp and biting." "At about 8:30...(t)he rain that had been falling all day had just stopped and it was turning cold."
Gardner TCTND - March 1st, Betty arrives "That rainy afternoon, the car exited the highway and wound its way along small country roads..." "Anne, meanwhile, had taken advantage of a temporary break in the weather to 'walk down the road.' " "It was now near dusk on a moonless cloudy night with the wind rising." After 8pm " 'The wind was howling around the house' Anne noticed"
Behn Lindbergh: The Crime - "It was a cold, dark, wind wrapped night..."
The consensus seems to be that it rained during the day, then tapered off and, by evening, had become cold and windy...
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 19, 2017 11:30:42 GMT -5
joe I leaped over it when I was younger on one the first. it wasn't 14 feet
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 19, 2017 12:45:20 GMT -5
Steve, I know the fence is probably only about 8 feet high and when I was there I could see CJ doing that as well. Riehl was talking about those original stone columns and a couple of them are every bit as high as what he said. And according to Riehl, the guy who jumped from the stone column didn't look anything like Condon's description of CJ, which is why I believe CJ wasn't the only representative of the kidnappers there that night.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 20, 2017 4:03:31 GMT -5
John, that's a good question, and I don't know. Reading most authors I notice it's indicated, "because of the weather". Betty came from Englewood in the rain. So many books vary in small details that I think may be important details. In the Ross book he states on Monday CAL phoned Anne from NY to tell her he would stay in Englewood that night and would drive to Hopewell Tuesday after work. Also read that Anne was "exhausted" from caring for the baby, so why not call Betty to come Monday. Not to go off the subject too much but in looking for info about the weather, I pulled out Fishers book. It seems to me glaring that ln every way CAL ran this show, and I kept thinking why did he call the police? It seems he felt that he was much more competent than they were about every aspect, so why bring them in in? Was it to obtain fingerprints? Surprisingly, there were none. The note was very brief but the one thing it did instruct was to NOT call the police. Again, surprisingly the one thing CAL did do. Great way to start a kidnapping investigation. I'm not sure what happened to that baby but I don't think he was kidnapped. Kate: thanks a bunch for responding. We've been dealing with weather issues lately and I think there's still a lot to say on the topic, especially as pertains to ground conditions (so to speak), and how wet or muddy the soil was. Yet I can't help but wonder if the wiping clean of fingerprints in the nursery isn't the elephant in the living room in all this inasmuch as this seems an odd and highly unproductive (from a LE standpoint especially) act, assuming that it happened after the abduction, and, as always, assuming that abduction is what happened (etc.). But then this may not be true. For instance: is it possible there's an "innocent" explanation for this, as Betty or someone in the household staff wiped the nursery clean just prior to putting little Charlie to bed (to keep the room germ free, especially that time of year)? If so, whoever did the wiping must have been wearing gloves, but no matter. All someone had to do was speak up about it and the air would have been cleared, so to speak. But then there was CAL, Sr. to answer to. If one assumes that the print wiping was post-abduction this makes CAL & staff look bad; and that he early and often "vouched" for his help, as to their honesty, loyalty and the like, really shouldn't have "rated" with the police. Yet it did due to CAL's running the show, which at this point ought to have been stopped. Things were getting bungled and jumbled well before Condon and, later on, whoever Cemetery John was, leaped into the fray.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 20, 2017 6:24:43 GMT -5
Possibly so! Maybe the staff wasn't aware of the fingerprinting until much later and then too frightened to speak up. If I'd been law enforcement I think that would have been an appropriate time to start questioning the staff. Probably they thought so too! Could have been an innocent explanation but if so way not say? Enjoying your thoughts on this....thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 20, 2017 7:10:54 GMT -5
Kate: thanks a bunch for responding. We've been dealing with weather issues lately and I think there's still a lot to say on the topic, especially as pertains to ground conditions (so to speak), and how wet or muddy the soil was. For me, all of this seems answered by Wolf's major initial report since he's specific: Attachment DeletedEmphasis mine: - "The Kidnappers consisted apparently of a party of at least two or more persons."
- "For a distance of about 90 feet on the east and south the grounds have been levelled [sic] off with fresh dirt which was wet at the time of crime and showed footprints etc."
These are the unbiased observations of the third police officer and first representative of the NJSP on the scene. Do other reports from those there that night contradict him? No. So for me, asking questions is a good thing but we can plainly see they've already been answered. The only time the waters get muddied is once the State has Hauptmann and they need for him to be a Lone-Wolf in order for their theory to work in Court. Yet I can't help but wonder if the wiping clean of fingerprints in the nursery isn't the elephant in the living room in all this inasmuch as this seems an odd and highly unproductive (from a LE standpoint especially) act, assuming that it happened after the abduction, and, as always, assuming that abduction is what happened (etc.). But then this may not be true. For instance: is it possible there's an "innocent" explanation for this, as Betty or someone in the household staff wiped the nursery clean just prior to putting little Charlie to bed (to keep the room germ free, especially that time of year)? If so, whoever did the wiping must have been wearing gloves, but no matter. All someone had to do was speak up about it and the air would have been cleared, so to speak. But then there was CAL, Sr. to answer to. It wouldn't have been Betty because she did not do any of the housework, and in fact, never offered to help the Whateleys who's job it was. " Never offered" and " would never lift a finger to anything except when asked." I mentioned this in my book at pages 81-2.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 20, 2017 9:07:44 GMT -5
This begs the question: Was the fresh dirt wet from a recent rain? Recall that in all the weather info from the Trenton newspapers for March 1 and the preceding days, as posted by amy35, there was NO mention of rain. One other outside possibility might be that fresh dirt was naturally softer than the surrounding soil, and so more prone to leaving footprints. Another possibility could be the deliberate wetting of the fresh dirt so as to deliberately leave footprints there and nowhere else on the property.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 20, 2017 11:57:30 GMT -5
It's always seemed a possibility in my mind that Betty or perhaps Anne or Elsie just made it a casual routine to ensure the nursery was kept wiped down and even disinfected. Given that the child had been suffering from a cold and was known to have a moderate case of rickets, this action seems reasonable.
I wonder too, if the relative dryness of the nursery air, due to the presence of the heater and sunlamp in general may have made fingerprints that much more difficult to deposit.
|
|