Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jun 20, 2017 12:12:49 GMT -5
If these generalized observations by Wolf and the conclusions you make from them work for you, then so be it. I believe they're hardly applicable though, due to the general scarcity of footprints observed, considering how many there should have been. Do you have an answer as to how with all this supposed "wet mud," we still only end up with one forward facing print and a burlap bag impression alongside two ladder rail holes in the ground under the nursery window. The explanation that hired kidnappers were "familiar with the ground and the conditions" and therefore were able to even just raise the ladder by apparently balancing themselves on a narrow piece of tongue and groove flooring, ie. the walkway, lacks any substance at all.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 20, 2017 13:26:42 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: Emphasis 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. I appreciate the quick response, Michael. It seems to me that the weather issue, if there are still questions, is impossible to resolve to everyone's total satisfaction due to weather reports and conditions being handled with far less precision back eighty or more years ago. The absence of nursery fingerprints strikes me as a puzzle but keeping the nursery clean may well have been the task of one member of the staff, thus the seemingly "serendipitous cleanness" of the nursery may well have been a routine thing, thus not worthy of our attention.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 20, 2017 13:36:18 GMT -5
Michael, I remembered what Whately said about Betty not helping with the housework but I know she did wash the baby's clothes. It wouldn't seem abnormal for her to disinfect the nursery because of the cold. But then why not say so. The report is interesting to me because the baby's length is listed as 29 inches again. I thought that was a printing error made when the missing fliers were put out. Someone gave that number very early it seems, which isn't even on the chart for a normal 20 month old.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 20, 2017 13:44:24 GMT -5
If these generalized observations by Wolf and the conclusions you make from them work for you, then so be it. I believe they're hardly applicable though, due to the general scarcity of footprints observed, considering how many there should have been. Do you have an answer as to how with all this supposed "wet mud," we still only end up with one forward facing print and a burlap bag impression alongside two ladder rail holes in the ground under the nursery window. The explanation that staged kidnappers were "familiar with the ground and the conditions" and therefore were able to even just raise the ladder by apparently perching balancing themselves on a narrow piece of tongue and groove flooring, ie. the walkway, lacks any substance at all. Not sure what you mean by "generalized" but these were what his investigation of the scene revealed. If he didn't believe it, why in the hell would he write it into this extremely important report? It wasn't just him - and even the Reporters the next day pointed out how muddy that yard was. It does work for me because all of the supporting documentation backs it up. His was the main report which is why no one else drew another one up like it, however, there's nothing in these other reports/statements to contradict anything about the scene. What I did in my book was bring together all of these reports to see what the discrepancies might be, and unless I am mistaken, its more about the timing of things that contradicts. They also prove the fact that yard was under guard almost as soon as Wolf arrived. For me, not liking the fact the lack of prints points to an inside job cannot call into question the facts presented by a Cop who had no reason to make up his eyewitness account that yard was muddy, did show and would have shown prints. Instead of saying since there are a lack of prints we'd expect, that means Wolf was "mistaken" or "general" in his Major Initial Report, doesn't it make more sense to say there's another explanation? I mean, in order to explain away the totality of the events, each and every red flag pointing to an inside job must be explained away using the "general" or "mistaken" excuse. There's a straight line to be drawn here because there are just too many things happening and the odds are just too great for them all to occur as they did. My answer is this was an inside job. The child was handed off to outsiders and the situation staged to look like a real kidnapping. The Cops all saw it but were blocked by Lindbergh from pursuing that position.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 20, 2017 13:55:56 GMT -5
Michael, I remembered what Whately said about Betty not helping with the housework but I know she did wash the baby's clothes. It wouldn't seem abnormal for her to disinfect the nursery because of the cold. But then why not say so. The report is interesting to me because the baby's length is listed as 29 inches again. I thought that was a printing error made when the missing fliers were put out. Someone gave that number very early it seems, which isn't even on the chart for a normal 20 month old. Whateley was very specific in his accusation against Betty so we'll have to disagree that she'd do that without any instruction. I believe him. She had been terminated from an earlier position in Michigan for being "slip-shod" don't forget! That's in my book too (page 92). "History" brain-washed everyone to believe she was this great person and the facts have a terrible way of ruining that idea don't they? Anyway, if Elsie had wiped the nursery down for the reasons John outlined I don't see Lindbergh getting angry unless it was part of the plot he didn't want explained away. Know what I mean? Whatever happened here comes from the mind of someone doing what he/she thinks would be expected had the crime occurred. So wiping down the Nursery may have been part of that, and if Lindbergh was behind it all then he wouldn't want that narrative interfered with. But if not, I cannot see him upset by someone doing their job.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 20, 2017 14:00:35 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. The type of soil on the ground surrounding the Lindbergh house has been something I've been wondering about lately. Thanks for explaining this, Amy. I grew up on a hill and maybe because of this I'm conscious of where ground stays moist and muddy and where it doesn't, and the reasons are not always what they might appear to be. Elevation is a factor, and it's a subtle one. Where hills or really any changes in elevation, and they can be quite small, enter into the equation, a close inspection is needed to explain such things as mud and puddles. I live not far from a pond, pass it on foot nearly every day, and even after a heavy, drenching rainfall some of the grassy area right next to the pond is nearly dry the next day (i.e. if you walked on it you wouldn't leave footprints), while ten, twenty yards away the ground is muddy and wet, remains that way for days, as it's lower, yet not too obviously to the naked eye. Then there are "barriers" (rocks, trees, logs, etc.) which don't have to be large, that can keep some areas low lying ground dryer than others. Some of this might seem almost too obvious to mention, and maybe the land surrounding the Lindbergh house was flat. Does anyone know this for a fact? Also, and I don't think I've ever seen a "panoramic" shot of the Lindbergh estate from the time of the kidnapping that might give us a better sense of why and where the ground was moist and muddy. Rainfall or any kind of water creates a "trickle down effect". I've never heard of water trickling up...
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 20, 2017 14:23:51 GMT -5
Michael, I remembered what Whately said about Betty not helping with the housework but I know she did wash the baby's clothes. It wouldn't seem abnormal for her to disinfect the nursery because of the cold. But then why not say so. The report is interesting to me because the baby's length is listed as 29 inches again. I thought that was a printing error made when the missing fliers were put out. Someone gave that number very early it seems, which isn't even on the chart for a normal 20 month old. Whateley was very specific in his accusation against Betty so we'll have to disagree that she'd do that without any instruction. I believe him. She had been terminated from an earlier position in Michigan for being "slip-shod" don't forget! That's in my book too (page 92). "History" brain-washed everyone to believe she was this great person and the facts have a terrible way of ruining that idea don't they? Anyway, if Elsie had wiped the nursery down for the reasons John outlined I don't see Lindbergh getting angry unless it was part of the plot he didn't want explained away. Know what I mean? Whatever happened here comes from the mind of someone doing what he/she thinks would be expected had the crime occurred. So wiping down the Nursery may have been part of that, and if Lindbergh was behind it all then he wouldn't want that narrative interfered with. But if not, I cannot see him upset by someone doing their job. Yes, and the first order CAL gave was not to touch the note because of possible fingerprints! Emphasizing the importance of fingerprints that weren't there. Just seemed staged and waiting to unfold the "narrative"
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 20, 2017 15:56:54 GMT -5
John, I would have to drive up there again to see if I'm right but I think of the Highfields property as being along a ridge in the Sourland Mountains. There is a stram running by it and Hopewell is often referred to as Hopewell Valley. I have often had trouble driving route 518 toward Lambertville frome Hopewell because of the runoff in a rainstorm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 17:57:57 GMT -5
It seems to me that the weather issue, if there are still questions, is impossible to resolve to everyone's total satisfaction due to weather reports and conditions being handled with far less precision back eighty or more years ago. I totally get where you are coming from. Everything seems to end up a point of contention. The police reports from the night of the crime and the initial investigation of the grounds should be all we need to form a position about the footprints, the moisture level of the grounds, etc. Then there is the wind that was supposed to be present that night. According to the Lindberghs it was a very windy night, so windy that it was mentioned as one of the reasons why Wahgoosh didn't bark that night when Charlie was being kidnapped. Yet, even the wind factor was called into question. According to the May 18, 1932 police conference held in Col. Schwarzkopf's office, you will find the following comments: Mr. Nathan: One of the numerous stories is that there was a very heavy wind on that night is that correct? Answer: Yes.
Mr. Nathan: Could a note have been left on the window sill, inside by anyone leaving from the window with the wind that was blowing? A. Maj. Schoeffel: That night between 8 and 11 there was not much of a wind but from then on it was bitter cold and it was windy.This is Maj. Schoeffel saying this about the wind conditions during the time of the kidnapping. So I went to Michael's book and checked Chapter 12 about the crime scene and in that chapter Michael makes it clear that Maj. Schoeffel did not arrive at the Hopewell house until after midnight, when, according to Schoeffel's answer above, it would have been cold and windy. I don't understand why Major Schoeffel was under the impression that there was very little wind during 8 and 11 p.m. The Lindberghs were saying it was quite windy during those hours. Even Wolf's Initial report mentions that it was windy. In Corporal Wolf's Initial Report he does describe the physical condition of the crime scene. He says "For a distance of about 90 feet on the east and south the grounds have been leveled off with fresh dirt which was wet at time of crime and showed footprints, etc.". The soil was clearly moist. According to a soil report posted by Liz Pagel a number of years ago, the High Fields soil was examined in May of 1932 by the Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, Washington D.C. The soil was found to be 3% clay, 64% silt, and 33% sand. This type of soil was rated granular in the report. This rating is very important. Granular soil needs to have moisture so that things like footprints and ladder indentations maintain their shape. If granular soil is dry it lacks the cohesive strength needed for those impressions to stay formed.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 20, 2017 20:31:19 GMT -5
Whateley was very specific in his accusation against Betty so we'll have to disagree that she'd do that without any instruction. I believe him. She had been terminated from an earlier position in Michigan for being "slip-shod" don't forget! That's in my book too (page 92). "History" brain-washed everyone to believe she was this great person and the facts have a terrible way of ruining that idea don't they? Anyway, if Elsie had wiped the nursery down for the reasons John outlined I don't see Lindbergh getting angry unless it was part of the plot he didn't want explained away. Know what I mean? Whatever happened here comes from the mind of someone doing what he/she thinks would be expected had the crime occurred. So wiping down the Nursery may have been part of that, and if Lindbergh was behind it all then he wouldn't want that narrative interfered with. But if not, I cannot see him upset by someone doing their job. Yes, and the first order CAL gave was not to touch the note because of possible fingerprints! Emphasizing the importance of fingerprints that weren't there. Just seemed staged and waiting to unfold the "narrative" I know Lindbergh has been credited with being concerned about not touching the note due to fingerprints, but the film footage of a reporter's interview with Hopewell Police Officer Charles Williamson that has been posted previously on this forum, clearly has Williamson saying from his own mouth "the Colonel said to me do you think we better open it now and I said no we better leave it and let the fingerprint men look it over in case there are any fingerprints on the note". Unless Williamson is misrepresenting a recent event or outright lying, it was his instructions to Lindbergh from the get go to leave the note alone at that point. The immediate actions of Lindbergh on finding out the child was missing (running outside with a firearm in an attempt to intercept any kidnappers) is exactly what I would have done. To hell with reading any note untill all attempts to reach the child were exhausted. Just my thoughts. I'm attaching a screen shot of that video which shows the website of that film if you haven't seen it. Sorry, Attachment Deleteddon't know how to link it directly.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 20, 2017 21:34:55 GMT -5
Wow!
Good job LURPS!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 22:20:12 GMT -5
This video of Chief Williamson is something I had posted quite a while back. It can be really hard to find things on this board so I will link it here for those who wish to view it. My thought is that Lindbergh should have opened that note as soon as he saw it on the windowsill. He stood in that nursery and said to Anne that "They have stolen our baby." He clearly felt it was a kidnapping and that note would be a ransom note. I will never understand why he did not tear open that note after coming into that room and seeing that empty crib at 10 p.m. at night. How could fingerprints be more important than your child? footage.framepool.com/en/shot/833436495-hopewell-title-film-reporter-policeman
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 21, 2017 1:50:13 GMT -5
This video of Chief Williamson is something I had posted quite a while back. It can be really hard to find things on this board so I will link it here for those who wish to view it. My thought is that Lindbergh should have opened that note as soon as he saw it on the windowsill. He stood in that nursery and said to Anne that "They have stolen our baby." He clearly felt it was a kidnapping and that note would be a ransom note. I will never understand why he did not tear open that note after coming into that room and seeing that empty crib at 10 p.m. at night. How could fingerprints be more important than your child? footage.framepool.com/en/shot/833436495-hopewell-title-film-reporter-policemanThis. That is the normal, parental reaction. Tearing open the note, as it could have said "meet us in one hour." Instead, he deliberately waited until the arrival of police. So the decision of leaving it sealed was made long before Williamson. Saying "we should wait to open the note" to a police officer begs for there to be a red flag. Instead, he smartly allowed the cop make the decision, thus giving himself a defense were he ever asked about it later. It was the smarter play, assuming he was attempting to redirect the attention outside the house and away from himself.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 21, 2017 2:04:54 GMT -5
Agreed. As you say, the note could've given instructions for something to happen that very night. So by not opening it, it would still make perfect sense that he had some idea that wasn't the case--that is, some knowledge of what was in the note. And if he knew even that much... well. If Williamson is correct, though, I'm wondering why all accounts have Lindbergh telling everyone to leave the note be. Not that it really matters, as neither Lindbergh doing that nor waiting for someone else to say it helps or hurts his case, one way or the other, since either can be interpreted in different ways.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 21, 2017 2:56:49 GMT -5
It seems to me that the weather issue, if there are still questions, is impossible to resolve to everyone's total satisfaction due to weather reports and conditions being handled with far less precision back eighty or more years ago. I totally get where you are coming from. Everything seems to end up a point of contention. The police reports from the night of the crime and the initial investigation of the grounds should be all we need to form a position about the footprints, the moisture level of the grounds, etc. Then there is the wind that was supposed to be present that night. According to the Lindberghs it was a very windy night, so windy that it was mentioned as one of the reasons why Wahgoosh didn't bark that night when Charlie was being kidnapped. Yet, even the wind factor was called into question. According to the May 18, 1932 police conference held in Col. Schwarzkopf's office, you will find the following comments: Mr. Nathan: One of the numerous stories is that there was a very heavy wind on that night is that correct? Answer: Yes.
Mr. Nathan: Could a note have been left on the window sill, inside by anyone leaving from the window with the wind that was blowing? A. Maj. Schoeffel: That night between 8 and 11 there was not much of a wind but from then on it was bitter cold and it was windy.This is Maj. Schoeffel saying this about the wind conditions during the time of the kidnapping. So I went to Michael's book and checked Chapter 12 about the crime scene and in that chapter Michael makes it clear that Maj. Schoeffel did not arrive at the Hopewell house until after midnight, when, according to Schoeffel's answer above, it would have been cold and windy. I don't understand why Major Schoeffel was under the impression that there was very little wind during 8 and 11 p.m. The Lindberghs were saying it was quite windy during those hours. Even Wolf's Initial report mentions that it was windy. In Corporal Wolf's Initial Report he does describe the physical condition of the crime scene. He says "For a distance of about 90 feet on the east and south the grounds have been leveled off with fresh dirt which was wet at time of crime and showed footprints, etc.". The soil was clearly moist. According to a soil report posted by Liz Pagel a number of years ago, the High Fields soil was examined in May of 1932 by the Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, Washington D.C. The soil was found to be 3% clay, 64% silt, and 33% sand. This type of soil was rated granular in the report. This rating is very important. Granular soil needs to have moisture so that things like footprints and ladder indentations maintain their shape. If granular soil is dry it lacks the cohesive strength needed for those impressions to stay formed. Much thanks again, Amy, especially the getting where I'm coming from. The stuff re Schoeffel and his comments on the wind is bizarre. Was he told to say that? It's like he's trying to make what the crime scene looked like fit the conditions of the weather outside. Since the Lindberghs are on record as saying it was a very windy night why try to change the story? The Pagel report is fascinating and it raises, again issues as to when at least some of the footprints were made. I can't help but wonder, Amy, what was really happening, as in if Wahgoosh didn't bark when it was windy, the soil around the house had at least some old footprints, would soon have newer ones, the weather conditions, by which I also mean the moisture of the ground and what obstacles to succeeding in the crime would be posed by this (not to mention driving away and getting safely home in one piece on mostly unpaved roads), and that's assuming that the kidnapper was Hauptmann, makes me think that the lone kidnapper theory is very unlikely to be true. To the contrary: it's as if things were being made easy for the kidnapper, and also raising questions in my mind as to whether what occurred in the night of March 1, 1932 was in fact a kidnapping. An abduction of some kind,--I suppose so--the kid was gone; and eventually the child was found dead. But I sense a whole lotta string pulling going on in the background, not a Bronx carpenter aiming to make a fortune,--even in 1932 50K wasn't a fortune--by driving what was at the time a very long distance in what was also at the time borderline dangerous weather to achieve his goals. It doesn't add up: what transpired strikes me, rather paradoxically, I admit, as both too easy and too hard to have been accomplished, by which I mean alone, without inside help.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 21, 2017 3:05:07 GMT -5
Terrific information, Stella, especially for a non-Jersey guy like me. It appears that the terrain in the region of Hopewell and the Sourland mountains generally is rugged.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jun 21, 2017 8:10:12 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong here Michael, as I believe Wolf did an exemplary job under some extremely challenging conditions, notwithstanding this was Lindbergh's child and home. He would have been much more comfortable and within his element handing out a traffic ticket that evening. And I wouldn't have expected him to have reported on a detailed soil/moisture content analysis for the grounds.
As a general commentary, your claim that there are too many things happening here for this not to have been a staged kidnapping, doesn't seem to consider the fact that each and every one of these "things" has a truthful answer that appears clearly, when viewed through the correct lens. And part of the many conundrums we seem to experience within this case can be attributed to the fact that the investigators on the scene for the most part, were not trained and/or competent enough to adequately recognize what they needed to know and document/photograph it. 99% of what we know about this case is probably peripheral to the point of it being irrelevant or totally unrelated. Conversely, the issue I've previously raised here, ie. the relative lack of footprints under the nursery window vs. the conditions of the ground, is an absolute key here and to quote one of your favorite expressions, "cannot be shrugged off."
In the immediate vicinity of the ladder and in this "muddy ground," the only footprint observed was one which faced forward to the left of the ladder. Just so I'm absolutely clear on your position, can you explain the almost total non-existence of footprints in the ground under the window, given the fact that multiple kidnappers, (hired or otherwise, take your pick) still managed to raise a two or three section ladder right there?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jun 21, 2017 9:45:57 GMT -5
Can someone please tell me what on earth a "normal parental reaction" would be to discovering a child missing from his crib at 10 pm on a cold and windy night when it was quickly determined the situation was serious? The only relevant answer here is to put yourself in the shoes of those in the household who experienced this. Did Lindbergh act any differently from someone used to taking charge of a situation with authority? He behaved the way Lindbergh would have behaved in this situation. He immediately told Whateley to call the police, grabbed his gun and ran outside to try and physically intervene. Seeing that apparently was for naught and that the kidnappers were long gone, he appears to have had the presence of mind to advise others not to touch anything including the ransom note. Where is the difficulty in understanding this unless you're basically already convinced his actions were part of an elaborate cover or you don't see his point of view?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jun 21, 2017 9:54:22 GMT -5
I've seen this or a similar interview with Deputy Chief Williamson before but wasn't aware he had advised Lindbergh not to touch the envelope. This is a valuable piece of information and I believe your analysis is very relevant.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jun 21, 2017 10:09:17 GMT -5
Amen John, (!) and thank you for stating (much more diplomatically perhaps) something that I've been trying to impress for a while here, basically that not all ground is equal or all mud is equal and you cannot base clear conclusions on inadequate and non-specific information. Your observations are extremely relevant towards what actually took place, specifically under the nursery window and on the evening of March 1, 1932. And I'm going to pull out Liz Pagel's Soil Report again this weekend.. it's pretty dry ground (no pun intended) but I'm sure it will add a lot to the specifics of this topic.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 21, 2017 11:12:49 GMT -5
This. That is the normal, parental reaction. Tearing open the note, as it could have said "meet us in one hour." Instead, he deliberately waited until the arrival of police. So the decision of leaving it sealed was made long before Williamson. Saying "we should wait to open the note" to a police officer begs for there to be a red flag. Instead, he smartly allowed the cop make the decision, thus giving himself a defense were he ever asked about it later. It was the smarter play, assuming he was attempting to redirect the attention outside the house and away from himself. Reilly asked him about this at trial (TT 167) Q: I understood you to say, Colonel, that you did not pick up this note. A: I did not.
Q: Why? A: Because I thought there might be fingerprints on it.
Q: You were very much alarmed, were you not, at that time? A: Well, I realized what had happened at that time. Also, you make a great point about Lindbergh finding then not touching the note proves he's already made up his mind. He found the note during the "first or second" trip to the nursery which he testified was made only 5 minutes apart and that he found it - no one had pointed it out to him. ( TT 86) I know Lindbergh has been credited with being concerned about not touching the note due to fingerprints, but the film footage of a reporter's interview with Hopewell Police Officer Charles Williamson that has been posted previously on this forum, clearly has Williamson saying from his own mouth "the Colonel said to me do you think we better open it now and I said no we better leave it and let the fingerprint men look it over in case there are any fingerprints on the note". Unless Williamson is misrepresenting a recent event or outright lying, it was his instructions to Lindbergh from the get go to leave the note alone at that point. I believe it's human nature to immediately embrace something one wants to see or hear, or in the alternative, to embrace the source that's in front of us at the time. However, everything must be tested and evaluated. In order to diagnose this interview we must go back to the original statements from both Wolfe and Williamson. Here are the relevant portions: [Wolfe]: Then we came inside the house. The Colonel and his wife and Williamson and I were there. The Colonel said, "Don't touch anything until we get more here." He said he was expecting troopers at any time.
[Williamson]: We then asked the Colonel to show us the room and he took us up to the child's bed room and the lights were lit; all the windows were closed. The Colonel cautioned us not to touch anything; to be sure that we did not obliterate fingerprints if there were any. In complimenting this information, Lindbergh's testimony echos what these men are reporting occurred: [TT 86]: Very shortly after that, Chief Wolfe arrived. Meanwhile, we had touched nothing in the house, in the nursery room. I left instructions not to touch anything there. I myself had not touched the note. And after Chief Wolfe arrived, we began looking around the house outside.
[TT 87]: I left instructions, after finding the note, that no one was to touch it, and the note was not touched until Trooper Wolfe [sic] of the New Jersey State Police arrived.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 21, 2017 11:24:18 GMT -5
Amen John, (!) and thank you for stating (much more diplomatically perhaps) something that I've been trying to impress for a while here, basically that not all ground is equal or all mud is equal and you cannot base clear conclusions on inadequate and non-specific information. Your observations are extremely relevant towards what actually took place, specifically under the nursery window and on the evening of March 1, 1932. And I'm going to pull out Liz Pagel's Soil Report again this weekend.. it's pretty dry ground (no pun intended) but I'm sure it will add a lot to the specifics of this topic. But the information is specific from every source. Take Lindbergh himself for example [ TT 142]: Q: Had it rained that day or the day before?
A: I am not sure. The ground was wet. Or how about Williamson [ TT 223]? Q: You found two prints in the mud, did you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Was the mud soft?
A: Very soft.
Q: Very soft?
A: Yes, sir.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jun 21, 2017 12:59:06 GMT -5
Michael, can you explain the fact there was only one footprint observed within the immediate vicinity of the ladder, which was raised by at least two kidnappers?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 21, 2017 13:02:39 GMT -5
Can someone please tell me what on earth a "normal parental reaction" would be to discovering a child missing from his crib at 10 pm on a cold and windy night when it was quickly determined the situation was serious? The only relevant answer here is to put yourself in the shoes of those in the household who experienced this. Did Lindbergh act any differently from someone used to taking charge of a situation with authority? He behaved the way Lindbergh would have behaved in this situation. He immediately told Whateley to call the police, grabbed his gun and ran outside to try and physically intervene. Seeing that apparently was for naught and that the kidnappers were long gone, he appears to have had the presence of mind to advise others not to touch anything including the ransom note. Where is the difficulty in understanding this unless you're basically already convinced his actions were part of an elaborate cover or you don't see his point of view? Almost certainly to understand what was going on and learn as much information as he could, as quickly as possible. Instead, he grabs his gun, determined to race out and get his child back. However, when the note is discovered, instead of ripping it open to see where his child might be and/or the quickest way to get him returned, he deliberately tells people to wait until the police arrive so as fingerprints could be ascertained. It's just not a normal reaction when it's an emergency situation.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 21, 2017 18:24:33 GMT -5
He knew it was a "kidnapping" because he told Anne "they" had stolen the baby. He was able to tell by looking at the crib.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 7:03:35 GMT -5
Lindbergh did recognize the situation as a kidnapping. As soon as he was aware of that note, he knew it was a communication from the people who took his son. Vital information that he should have wanted to know would have been in that note. Opening that note as soon as he was aware of it is showing concern for his son and the situation at hand. Instead he does nothing with that note. Delay. Delay. Delay. That is what he chose to do. This helps the kidnappers not his son. Lindbergh stays true to form yet again. When the $50,000 is given to CJ and Condon receives the Boad Nelly note the instruction is given to Condon that there is to be a delay in opening that note of like 6 to 8 hours. So Condon brings the note back to Lindbergh and relates the instruction to delay opening it for at least six to eight hours. So what does Lindbergh do. He doesn't open it. He is going to wait. He is going to comply with the delay request! Why? After 31 days of negotiations and handing over all that money, Lindbergh thinks he should wait to find out where his son is??? Here is another note that he should have opened immediately...but he doesn't. And this time there is not the "excuse" of protecting any fingerprints. Are we supposed to think that this is Lindbergh being a concerned and anxious father??
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jun 22, 2017 9:07:04 GMT -5
Lindbergh did stay true to form, this was his nature. Rigid, phlegmatic, articulate, impersonal, and these traits were only magnified by the expectations he felt were placed on him by "they," a public that had placed him on a pedestal because of his accomplishments and fame, but that he really had little use for. People can speculate all they want about what he did and should have done, pro and con, but at the end of the day, I believe his actions speak of someone who desperately tried to cling to sustain almost impossible standards he had really only placed upon himself, all against the backdrop of having his son stolen. The British call it a "stiff upper lip" but he was well beyond that, I believe. If you think he didn't really care or even feel inner pain because of his lack of outward expression and his actions, you're just not seeing the extent of his personal torment. If you haven't read Scott Berg's Lindbergh, I'd really suggest it as well as checking out some of the recorded interviews with Lindbergh's close and trusted friends such as Jim Newton, who saw first hand the devastating effect the kidnapping had on him. He's the archetypal tragic hero.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 22, 2017 9:09:49 GMT -5
I agree with Amy’s observation of CAL’s lackadaisical “delay, delay, delay” attitude. There’s another example of CAL’s actions that I find mystifying and disturbing. On the morning of March 16th Condon receives the Dr. Denton sleeping suit. Around 10:30 pm, Breckinridge calls CAL at Highfields to let him know the suit is at Condon’s house. This is the first time in 15 days that CAL has a tangible link to his missing son.
What does CAL do?
He drives to Condon’s house to identify it.
So, what’s the problem?
He arrives at Condon’s house at 1:30 AM. It took him 15 hours to make the drive! WTH was he doing that was more important than making a beeline to Condon’s house? Who on this board would have waited 15 hours?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jun 22, 2017 9:18:04 GMT -5
Wayne, he only would have had a caravan of reporters right behind him all the way from Hopewell, if he'd jumped into his car and hurried to the Bronx as you imply he should have. Even when he did feel it was safe to leave in the middle of the night, Lindbergh still disguised himself with a hunter's hat and sunglasses. I don't believe he was interested in broadcasting his intentions here.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 22, 2017 9:28:02 GMT -5
Joe, I understand what you mean about CAL’s nature and I can see that he would be of the type not to rip open the ransom note in the nursery, but to have the fortitude to wait 2 to 3 hours for the police to dust it for fingerprints. But then there’s a problem with that.
At St. Raymond’s Cemetery, CJ handed Condon the “Boad Nelly” letter sealed in an envelope. Without any doubt, there was a good chance that CJ’s fingerprints were on that envelope. Since CAL waited over 2 hours to have the nursery note dusted, what does he do with the Boad Nelly envelope? Who knows? It disappears.
It is the only envelope that wasn’t kept as evidence (it’s not at the museum).
The only envelope that CJ personally handled and CAL apparently got rid of it.
Go figure…
|
|