|
Post by rick on Feb 4, 2006 12:33:47 GMT -5
Hi...I was over visiting Allens board...(dont tell Michael!) Anyways, in the middle of a string/thread I realized that Monday nite Feb 28th ;D (just trying things out) would have been an excellent nite for the snatch of the Century. Monday nite was a week nite and CAL didnt come home. He stayed over at Next Day or in Manhattan. Why didnt the gang snatch Charlie on Monday nite as it would seem it was just perfect? Not tuesday?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 4, 2006 16:56:14 GMT -5
(This probably isn't in the right category but its too early for me to try and move things around. I am not familiar enough with the controls yet so I'll just continue it here....) The first question to ask is: Was this planned or wasn't it? Depending upon the answer you come to then you must work from there. I can not believe this was an unplanned event perpetrated by a lucky immigrant carpenter. Nope - I just can't do it. One thing Joe brought up on the other board which I thought was a great point were the increased eyewitness accounts of "strange vehicles" in the area preceding the Crime. I believe this was evidence of practice runs...probably getting familiar with the back roads and getting the timing down as to how long things might take. I personally believe the "snatch" was due to take place on a weekend - possibly the following one - and that it moved up do to unforeseen circumstances.... We all know the Lindbergh's never spent the weekdays in Hopewell so if its planned these people would not have gone to Hopewell on Tuesday without inside information. (And if its not, well then someone has magical powers). So why didn't strike on Monday if they had this information available to them? The answer seems clear to me. TT p127Q: Now, how many people knew the baby had a cold and that the baby was going to stay in your house on Monday?
A[Lindbergh]: I doubt that anybody knew that on Monday, because, as I recall, there was some question as to whether my wife might not come to Englewood on Monday. I don't believe that we knew ourselves Monday morning, as I recall now. Fact is, Olly Whately didn't even know until about 3PM Mrs. Lindbergh was staying at Hopewell on Monday. The reports claim that according to Anne, she called Englewood after lunch informing that she was staying at Hopewell. According to Mrs. Whately, they had lunch at 1:30PM. At this time it seems much too late and doesn't give people who aren't expecting this information much time - especially if you consider they are coming down from NY and that it involves more then one person. So what this did, if there was an inside connection, is alert and prepare those for a possible Tuesday job. And of course I most definitely believe there was an inside connection.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 4, 2006 17:26:54 GMT -5
Another point here would be Anne's statement that she was in and out of the nursery on Monday night. In other words the strict routine was not being followed because of Charlie's cold. If one were watching, then the hours go by and the number of times the lights go on and off might well put off a potential perp.
When did the kidnapper(s )arrive? That might be a good question.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 4, 2006 18:00:45 GMT -5
If I ever find Michaels post Ill respond to that too..... I dont buy the lights on lites off argument. If in fact, some city boy is sitting out in Hopewell waiting for the proper moment to snatch Charlie on Monday nite....well eventurally everyone would go to sleep? Huh? Gary once said...there is no proper moment you just take a huge risk? Charlies Mom could also be rocking him in the dark to put him to sleep? My point...there isnt any proper perfect moment...it just aint gonna happen in a house full of people...unless they make it happen!
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 4, 2006 18:05:44 GMT -5
If I ever find Michaels post Ill respond to that too..... I dont buy the lights on lites off argument. If in fact, some city boy is sitting out in Hopewell waiting for the proper moment to snatch Charlie on Monday nite....well eventurally everyone would go to sleep? Huh? Gary once said...there is no proper moment you just take a huge risk? Charlies Mom could also be rocking him in the dark to put him to sleep? My point...there isnt any proper perfect moment...it just aint gonna happen in a house full of people...unless they make it happen!
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 4, 2006 18:07:03 GMT -5
Ah, very interesting,as a certain Mr. Chan used to say! You say that there is a great chance in any event unless there is help from the inside.
But how could one be sure with the cold that any help from inside would over-rule Anne's natural concern? The only one that could assure the strict routine was being followed was Betty Gow -- or at least that she would be the one to enter the nursery, not Anne.
Or did you have another "solution" in mind?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 4, 2006 18:24:28 GMT -5
Yes, inside help is one issue and we dont know for certain when Charlie was snapped? We are taking the word of a very tightly knit group with 1-2-3 insiders? Maybe Gow had to be there? Maybe CAL had to be there? If it wernet for the blue threads I would think Charlie was taken on Monday nite/ darn---no pun intended. then the fake kidnapping is scheduled for Tuesday. Maybe that is why CAL and Con-don didnt axe CJ for the niteshirt?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 4, 2006 20:06:18 GMT -5
What would bring them to the Highfields on a Monday to begin with?
I'll say, for arguments sake, they were tipped off in time to get there on Monday.....that these people are in the woods on Monday night watching and seeing Anne going in and out of the nursery. They say "to hell with this" and leave.
What's the motivation to return the following night? Why would they believe Tuesday night would be any different?
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 4, 2006 20:45:13 GMT -5
Excellent point, Michael! Why would they return on Tuesday night? Serendipity? From their point of view certainly it was. One is struck, however, by the casual nature of saying oh, well, we'll (I'll) come back again.
Yet BRH was -- to a certain extent -- his own boss. He could have come several nights in February, and, up until the 15th of March, in that month, too. The problem with that is -- how many times can one cart a ladder around without being noticed?
No, one looking at the situation would have to say, it almost had to be Tuesday night, March 1, 1932. Let's say, for sake of argument, I know that Charles will not be home that night. But, in this case, where does home mean? Englewood or Hopewell. So what if Charles is not scheduled to be around -- one still has the problem of the family. Where are they?
What a perfect night! Charles is not supposed to be there, and my target is there. Tonight it must be -- or I have to wait until all the stars are right once again. The ladder has to be somewhere, unless I am so frustrated by life that I just threw it together at the last minute, and rushed down to Hopewell (in time for Hochmuth, poor old gent, to see me) and there all things have fallen together, like tumblers on a safe combination.
What an amazing nerve! One stands in awe at the audacity of it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 4, 2006 22:21:10 GMT -5
Exactly!
If they had "planned" this crime, how in the world would they plan it for both when the target is there but CAL is not? Very unlikely, yet, even more unlikely is the blind luck which would have been needed - not at just one level - but a myriad of varying levels.
And why must CAL not be there for this event to take place? But again, I see many of those who support the blind luck theory say Hauptmann read about his speech event and therefore chose this night just for that reason.
This doesn't address many points even though it appears to (superficially) address one.
I still don't see the point of it mattering whether or not CAL is there. After all, as I have seen mentioned and I have echoed....he was just an Aviator. In fact, if we choose to believe CAL's ex post facto recollection of a ladder breaking noise - then in fact these "criminals" had struck while he was home after all. So it seems that didn't matter....
That is if CAL's recollection was legit.
I don't think it was. I still agree with Ellis Parker's timeline in which case - the crime had happened and the perpetrators were already out of the house by the time CAL came up blowing his horn.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 4, 2006 23:08:59 GMT -5
Well, well, we are now "adding" people on Tuesday nite that were not there on Monday nite? Possibly key persons? There was only a skeleton crew Monday nite but now Gow and Cal and Ellerson show up? And yet, with all this activity Charlie still manages to turn up missing? I suspect the chances of anyone reading about CAL and NYU is slim to none. But I did spend just enough time on Allens Bored to discover that every single nuance of activity at home and abroad convicts BRH over and over and over again just like Groundhog Day with Bill Murry. Its deja vue all over again.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 4, 2006 23:25:58 GMT -5
Too many perps spoil the crime.
If the crime occurred early, say just before Lindbergh got there, then the window is very narrow - from the time of Betty's visit to Col. Lindbergh's arrival. A tight squeeze indeed.
After he arrived until the time he heard the orange crate crackling in the kitchen, provides a better time frame, but, alas, that is when the Lindberghs are moving around up and down stairs, etc. Perhaps Parker took that into account when he thought it was early rather than later.
If we plot this out carefully, moreover, the time when a person could get into and out of the house safely is quite limited. Could he hear Nurse Gow and Mrs. Whately talking in the back servants' bedroom? They were there quite some time. In any event, in that time period neither of them could have helped him.
How long would it take to commit this crime?
Why does no one hear a car starting up?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 5, 2006 11:27:27 GMT -5
Rick,
The way I view Allen's board is this... There's never any real discussion, that is until recently when Joe, Rab, and Kevin started to "mix it up" and kick some ideas around. I was asking to have these posts sent my way because its this type of insight that helps us get closer to the truth.... Unfortunately though, it's like a party thrown by Hugh Hefner. It's great until Hugh shows up.
Dryan,
I agree that a Conspiracy with too many Confederates isn't a good recipe for success. However, I think bilking CAL out of $50,000 is something someone might brag about to the wrong person someday but murdering his 1st-born Son, well, I think that might be something that might cause so much stress, worry, and/or guilt which may be something one might actually kill themselves over.
It's a real confident bunch to continue with the ransom collection knowing CALjr was already dead. Nerves of steel doesn't even come close to describe this action.
The timeline of events just isn't conducive for a "snatch & grab" of this kind. The method of approach, entry, and escape seem impossible to me.
Buster Keaton told Agent Sisk it would have been impossible for someone to open the shutters with the heavy slide bolt in place using the chisel found at the scene. Keaton also confided in Sisk that the NJSP believed, from the results of its re-enactments using their replica ladder, that they (NJSP) were "reasonably certain" (2) people were most likely involved. One entered the nursery while the other received the child from him when he was handed down.
Now I've found some documentation that I haven't shared on the forum but now I think is as good a time as any. There was a piece of mud found on the top of the bottom shutter. This seems to support Keaton's theory that perhaps someone "centered" themselves with one foot on the ladder and one on the top of the shutter to receive the baby being handed down out of the window.
Keaton also confided that he couldn't see a man entering that nursery without causing a "disturbance" or a making "lot of noise." Now the theory of using the stairs wasn't dismissed outright but Keaton believed this method was "doubtful."
If we take a closer look at the ladder, as Kevin has recently pointed out, it shows it would collapse upon itself with just a little bit of pressure applied the wrong way to this top rung. Yet we are to believe we have both entrance and exit by way of this top rung.
According to Ho-age when the ladder was placed in the "ruts" that existed before the Police arrived, the top rung was 30" below the window and 15" to the right of it.
Another thing I haven't shared was my discovery concerning the marks on the side of the house made by this ladder. According to Kelly, the marks were actually 2-1/2" higher then when the ladder was placed into the pre-existing "ruts" and he simply concluded this was due to the ladder "sliding."
I couldn't agree because there is no evidence in the mud to suggest this "sliding" effect occurred and this has always puzzled me. However, recently Kevin suggested this ladder was actually placed upon the board-walk before being used. He suggested this without the knowledge I had concerning the marks due to the depth of the "ruts." This seems to explain away mystery, and puts the ladder at a steeper angle then believed by 2-1/2" inches higher.
Now the new mystery is the existence of the "ruts." Perhaps they placed the ladder there first then moved it closer? I tend to doubt this because I see no evidence in the pictures or reports of mud imprints on the board-walk to suggest it. That would mean the "ruts" were made after. But why?
I see that I have wondered off on a tangent somewhat so I'll return to the original point of a time-line. What I think my tangent does however is show the unlikeliness of any time being good or ideal due to these crazy circumstances.
Mrs. Conover claims she saw a dark colored sedan with a single driver and ladders across the top of the seats at 3 o'clock near Wertsville Road. Then at approximately 6:30 or 7:00PM, the Conover family saw a car pull into Featherbed Lane and extinguish its lights. The condition of the road was so muddy and poor that they thought it may have been stuck.
Shortly after interviewing Lupica who saw a car at about 6ish, Parker interviewed the Moore family who saw a car "at 22 or 23 minutes after 8, it was windy and this car went by. The lights looked as if they were splashed with mud." .... This was on Wertsville-Stoutsburg Road (Old Province Road). When asked by Ellis where the road went, Moore replied: "Up to the Lindbergh place."..."About two miles [from Lindbergh's house]."...."this road there is absolutely no travel. Lindbergh used the road more than anyone."
Parker concluded that Moore had seen the same car as Lupica (and Conover) and measured the time it would take to get where the car was seen. He concluded the crime took place "around 8 o'clock."
To my knowledge he doesn't consider Anne saying she heard what she thought was "wheels on gravel" about 15 minutes before Lindy came home blowing his horn at about 8:25PM. Now the only problem with this concerns what Dr. Gardner's new book revealed...that is according to Lanphier one of the family secrets was that Anne was hard of hearing so we must consider this before placing any weight on her account of this sound.
I am still confused that Anne first takes Lindy's call that he is going to come home a little late then listens for him to arrive yet is the one to tell him he forgot his engagement.
I also want to make a disclaimer concerning these things I claim I "discovered." It is quite possible someone else discovered them before me but as of this moment I have no knowledge of it. If I ever make this claim and someone is aware that it was mentioned somewhere prior just let me know and I will make the corrections.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 5, 2006 14:32:17 GMT -5
One could put toes on the shutter with one foot and reach up, yes, but wouldn't the same tipsy problem exist that you mentioned in this post?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 5, 2006 23:06:11 GMT -5
I think the knappers are waiting for Betty Gow to act as quaterback insider. In spite of CAL and police giving her and Ollie and Red "a clean bill of health" she may have been a might too far above suspicion? She wasnt there on Monday nite to hand Charlie over. It only adds more problems if Ollie is trying to get around her as well. She would make an excellent cleaner and also was in a good position to place the ransom note on the window ledge/ Maybe she just got too attached to Charlie the previous summer? or some other odd motive that we can't surmise easily. Betty has to be at least as good a liar as CAl and Anne about Charlies health. She would make a great conspirator with Ollie if he too is also a player. It cant be nobody so it must be somebody?
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 5, 2006 23:50:42 GMT -5
Yes, Betty is an interesting person, quite capable of being an effective quarterback, but she and the rest of the staff at Hopewell (especially Ollie) did not get on very well
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 6, 2006 9:38:32 GMT -5
Buster Keaton would remark that the ladder was a "flimsy affair" and this was also Kevin's (not to be confused with Kelvin) position. He explained that all of the stress from the weight of whoever is on this ladder would be on the top rung of the bottom section. When taking a good look at the actual ladder you can see, quite clearly, that he is absolutely correct.
Now stepping over to the top of the shutter would have to be done from Rung #6. This rung would have been slightly higher then the top of the shutter as positioned. Granted the ladder was flimsy but I don't think the situation is created here that would exist by Kevin's observation concerning the weight at the wrong angle on the top rung.
The weight on the top rung could be forcing down which would, no doubt in my mind, create a very dangerous situation for the ladder to fold upon itself. However, the weight upon the second rung continues to force the ladder against the side of the house. So while a danger of falling still exists due to the "flimsiness" of the ladder, its a much different one altogether then exists with the weight on that top rung.
At least that's how I see it after taking in Kevin's observations and perspectives. If anyone disagrees please post them.
Now the presence of this mud there suggests what I say but certainly doesn't prove it. A couple of years ago Rab and I kicked this around and I think one issue was whether or not the shutter would have been able to hold 1/2 of the man's (or woman) weight. I still don't know the answer to this.
Additionally, if this did occur, how did the first person get inside and get out?
As far as Betty goes.....I think we must consider that she had plans with Red this night and seems very disappointed to have to break her plans and go to Hopewell.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 6, 2006 11:14:48 GMT -5
All right, now you have the person perched one foot on the shutter, one on the ladder, arms extended out to receive the child. There is a definite shifting of weight, and you must somehow factor in all the other conditions along with the problem of holding onto the "package," while trying to gain a grip on the ladder as you move from that awkward position to one about to descend fully on the ladder. How are you holding the "package" during this series of motions, with just one hand? Remember Fisher kept asking that at the trial. It would seem that it poses problems almost as difficult as simply coming out and down.
Good point about Betty! If she were in on it, why is she so unhappy about going down to Hopewell -- or do we mistake her moodiness for disappointment?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 6, 2006 22:40:09 GMT -5
Well you have certainly made a good point. This would be no easy task either, however to me it seems more possible then the "accepted" version of events.
I have not been able to come up with an alternate scenario where the mud gets on the top of that shutter. I always envisioned someone with one foot and one hand on the ladder and one foot on the shutter with the other hand is clenching the burlap bag being lowered to them with CharlesJr in it.
I certainly don't find it out of the question to suggest maybe another person was at ground level....possibly holding the ladder or acting as a look-out of some sort....but my gut feeling is that two people are on location to get CharlesJr out of the house. This may or may not include the inside connection that I am convinced existed.
Anyway, I still think we need to find out whether this shutter could have held any real weight with someone standing on the top of it with one foot. Nothing was noted concerning any damage to this shutter in the report.
Oh and speaking of Betty.... She and Ellerson ran into an unusual car too didn't they?
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 6, 2006 23:28:32 GMT -5
Could the mud have gotten on the shutter in another way? Let's say the ladder starts to tip, and the person reaches out with a foot to steady it and him. Is that possible?
Would a car that was involved in the kidnapping have made a fuss about not moving away from the end of the road?
Going back to your view that the crime was committed at the early time -- then it would make sense to take the ladder away as Col. Lindbergh was not yet home and the lights of his car would have illuminated the ladder. This way there is more time, since ( one could argue) it was known the child would not be disturbed until 10 pm.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 6, 2006 23:41:15 GMT -5
For all At this time of year during a rainy snow melt day a ladder would sink to greater depth the longer it is used. The two and a half inch mark meant the ladder was used to cover the insider, or as I believe a prop for their story of a kidnap that coud not have occured on that day. A ladder with around 150 pounds plus ladder weight would over time sink to the first rung, or at least 8 inches, and if there had been a kidnap that day how would you account for a cleaned room? It would take a cleaning crew to remove all fingerprints from a room, and for one person perhaps hours, and this would indicate complicity with the family for some unknown reason.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 6, 2006 23:51:01 GMT -5
The soil is pretty rocky around there. I have never heard that the ladder would sink as deep as 8 ". If the kidnapping did not happen that day, one would conclude you mean that Ollie and his wife, Betty, Anne, and Col Lindbergh were all involved? And no one ever talked.
That is always the problem with the inside argument -- how to keep the persons quiet.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 7, 2006 0:05:41 GMT -5
To All If a ladder was used in a rainy snow melt day it would have sank more than two and a half inches. The ladder was used as a prop to either cover the insider, or as I believe to reinforce their story of a kidnap that didn't happen. The fingerprint cleaned nursery would have taken a cleaning crew, and to suppose one insider did the cleaning without notice would be impossible.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 7, 2006 8:47:40 GMT -5
The faked kidnapping needed the critical help of CAl and Betty Gow...heretofore given a free pass. Thats why Betty travelled to Highfields and CAl missed the NYU dinner. There was no real evidence of forced entry or any intruder. Charlie went right out the front door to a waiting car...maybe even CAls. It just took 24 hours to set it all up and deliver the fake ladder. The one big footprint was likely to be CAls and buried forever. Noone but The Team can scrubb the nursery and leave the ransom note on the window ledge from the inside? How do you wipe the window ledge w/o knocking off the note? Elementary. Maybe Mary Cerrita is correct...Charlie is 4.5 miles from home near Hopewell.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 7, 2006 21:24:33 GMT -5
Could the mud have gotten on the shutter in another way? Let's say the ladder starts to tip, and the person reaches out with a foot to steady it and him. Is that possible? (Dryan)
***I've considered this but think the marks on the side of the house would have revealed the ladder had tipped one way or the other leaving a "sliding" mark there. No such mark. The marks at the top seem to be the "pressure" marks where the top of the ladder rested against the side of the house.
I have considered an exit by hanging down from the window to the top of the shutter then stepping over to the ladder but this doesn't account for the baby, the note, closing the window, or the amount of mud left behind. The amount implies it was left from someone just leaving the yard and not having been walking around in the nursery.
Would a car that was involved in the kidnapping have made a fuss about not moving away from the end of the road? (Dryan)
***I keep thinking back to Steve Lehman's theory (the one mentioned in Dr. Gardner's unpublished work)... If the car was waiting for someone then possibly this isn't such an unusual event. Otherwise, maybe he "froze up" not expecting someone to come upon him. It's all speculation of course but I think we must consider the options before dismissing this sighting.
Going back to your view that the crime was committed at the early time -- then it would make sense to take the ladder away as Col. Lindbergh was not yet home and the lights of his car would have illuminated the ladder. This way there is more time, since ( one could argue) it was known the child would not be disturbed until 10 pm.(Dryan)
***Agreed. It's uncanny the timing which had to have occurred between the time these guys "snatched" the child then vacated to when Lindy comes home honking his horn.
If a ladder was used in a rainy snow melt day it would have sank more than two and a half inches. (Rita)
***This was Kevin's point and the reason he believed the ladder had been on top of the board-walk when leaned against the house. The marks on the side of the house support his and Rita's position concerning this point.
As far as a "prop." I used to be very big on this idea but this has dampened some with the evidence I have been discussing above. Still not out of the question though (for me).
That is always the problem with the inside argument -- how to keep the persons quiet. (Dryan)
***Agreed. Many conspiracies have come unglued due to someone talking to the wrong person. However, consider that only Lanphier reveals the "secret" about Anne's hearing problem. So when she tells of the things she heard that night no one else dares to reveal this important detail (see Dr. Gardner's book). Additionally, with all the letters and investigations - it is quite possible someone did talk but that it was dismissed by the Police...
Again, don't forget that even in modern day - 25 out of 100 murders go unsolved. You would think with all the media coverage concerning all of the idiots who get caught that the figure was 0 out of 100.
The fingerprint cleaned nursery would have taken a cleaning crew, and to suppose one insider did the cleaning without notice would be impossible. (Rita)
***The most important point about the missing fingerprints is that window. Anne and Betty had their hands all over that window and neither claimed to be wearing gloves. There were NO prints found on that window. Now if the Kidnapper is wearing gloves he has no reason to wipe or clean the window.
The faked kidnapping needed the critical help of CAl and Betty Gow (Rick)
***Here's the problem I have with this Rick...Recently, Gary and I had a discussion off-line which caused me to look up whether or not CAL was aware of Betty being called down to Highfields. From what I have found, I don't see any evidence that CAL knew Anne was going to do this. I don't see it mentioned in their conversation and Anne is the one who makes the decision to call Englewood for her to come down.
If I am wrong about this someone please correct me.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 7, 2006 22:35:09 GMT -5
Good observation the quarterback club did their best to decieve, and each one played the part assigned to them. The trust would have reverted to others if CAL was even suspect. The only thing we don't know is by what trust violation, did CAL's playful accidental discharge of his gun nail CAL Jr. between the eyes, or did CAL drop CAL Jr. on his head from another playfull prank using the ladder?
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 7, 2006 23:35:52 GMT -5
Well, the appearance of strange cars at the end of the road was no oddity, was it? Many celebrity seekers found their way there. And to add to that, the Whateley's showed them around sometimes.
One question about the placement of the ladder: was the board walk wide enough so that there would not have to be many footprints around the bottom of the ladder?
And about the exit strategy. Am I reading you right that there was so much mud that if the exit had been down the stairs (either front or back) that more would have been left? I seem to remember that there was not a whole lot left in the nursery.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 8, 2006 6:18:35 GMT -5
Well, the appearance of strange cars at the end of the road was no oddity, was it? Many celebrity seekers found their way there. And to add to that, the Whateley's showed them around sometimes.(Dryan) ***Appearance yes, but the circumstances seem to be very different in that these actions are confusing. And to add to that, the Whateley's showed them around sometimes. (Dyran)***I am not sure I agree. I begin with a little backround on what's called the "FBI Summary Report." This report was written by Agent Sisk on 2-16-34 summarizing what the USBOI (FBI) thought it knew about the case up to that date. The problem is that much information had been withheld from them by both the NYPD and NJSP so there are some things contained within this report which are completely wrong. The only "trusted" sources the USBOI had to rely on up to this date were their own investigations and Special Agent Wilson of Special Intelligence Branch of the Treasury Department. Agent Wilson had been working with the NJSP and became very good friends with Lt. (Buster) Keaton. Once the President instructed all Federal Agencies to turn over all information to the BOI (FBI) who were to act as a "clearing house" for the Lindbergh Kidnapping Investigation, Wilson failed to turn over any report. Hoover then requested Wilson's written reports from Irey on May 16, 1932 and it was explained that Wilson was "tied up" with the Curtis investigation and would "confer" at a later date to turn over the facts. I see no evidence of this ever occurring so in 9-33 Hoover had a personal meeting with the President of the United States to voice his concerns and request withdrawal. As a direct result of this meeting Homer S. Cummings, Attorney General was contacted and informed that the President wanted the Treasury Department to turn over its information to the USBOI (FBI). AG Cummings then wrote a letter to Guy Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, requesting the President's wishes be fulfilled. On 10-33 Special Agent Wilson was then ordered to make a final report and turn it over to the USBOI (FBI). On 11-11-33, Wilson submitted this report which was turned over to J. Edgar Hoover. Agent Sisk, DOI (FBI) made the following in his report dated 6-8-34: ....Agent Wilson's report covering his investigation and also that of his Unit was received at the Division under date of November 11, 1933, and purported to cover the complete investigation during the period March 18, 1932 to October 14, 1933. A perusal of this report indicates that many material facts were omitted from same, and that many angles of the case worked by Wilson were not mentioned in his report. Sisk continues on in this same report: It has been previously shown that the Division was not at any time furnished with the basic facts relative to the Lindbergh kidnaping or with copies of the evidence in the case, although numerous requests, both oral and written, have been made upon the New Jersey State Police for this information. Under date of April 6, 1934 the Director addressed still another communication to Colonel Schwarzkopf requesting that the Division be furnished with all available evidence in connection with this case, so that the investigation could be conducted along intelligent lines, and so that the data might be compared with other data received in other kidnaping cases. So why have I brought all of this up and what does it have to do with Allen's statement concerning Whatley's "unauthorized" tours? Well, the only source that I have been able to find to date for these tours is located in this "FBI Summary" report. And here is what it says: Frequently in the absence of the Lindberghs, he acted as guide to tourists and other curious visitors showing them through the house and about the adjoining grounds. (p67) Did this information come from Whately? We simply don't know because even the report does not say. Did he give tours? If so, did he give tours to complete strangers? To those he knew or associate with? We just don't know because the Summary can not be trusted without something to back it up. In the very next paragraph the Summary Report says: Whately last saw Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. at 5:30PM March 1, 1932, at which time both were in the pantry. However, Whately's very own statement made on March 3, 1932 specifically states he last saw the child at 6PM. This tells me the FBI didn't even have his statement available to them for consideration within their Summary. To comply with my own test of this Summary Report (I mentioned above) I sought other sources to back this claim. I found the NJSP reports have Whately turning strange people away - not inviting them in for a tour. In Thayer's report, he has Whately listing the names of people who had been inside the house but notes they were known to Whatley and the report indicates they were all investigated. For these reasons I mention above and unless I've missed something - this piece of information concerning Whatley's tours contained within the FBI Summary report is very questionable. One question about the placement of the ladder: was the board walk wide enough so that there would not have to be many footprints around the bottom of the ladder?(Dyran)***Not at all. I believe it was 8" but I'll have to look that up. It suggests that someone utilized it and didn't approach the house from the yard. There were several footprints, and some of a different size which were attributed to Anne at trial. They were never compared to her shoe and to me it makes no sense that she would be walking around in the mud during the day she would later claim she made these prints. Of course this opens a whole new can of worms but if the Police weren't so afraid of Lindbergh they would have checked to make sure. We also have Thayer's report which claims Anne made the prints in the nursery too. And about the exit strategy. Am I reading you right that there was so much mud that if the exit had been down the stairs (either front or back) that more would have been left? I seem to remember that there was not a whole lot left in the nursery.(Dryan)***No my point is exactly the opposite. That's why I believe the mud was placed upon the shutter by someone who had just stepped out of the yard.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 8, 2006 7:21:50 GMT -5
The actual evidence for a forced entry or foreign intruder into Charlies nursery thru any window is merely assumed because Charlie turns up missing? The nursery is actually normal, pristine, cleaned-up and dusted. The covers in the crib and pinned and look normal, the vase and furniture is normal, maybe a few shards of mud? The ransom note is on the window sill inside? The windows are re-closed? With a baby in your arms? This mysterious climber could have had a great career in Cirgue de Solie! Whoever erected the ladder may have climbed up for a "peek" just to check if it was placed in a reasonable, yet phoney, spot to fool the NJSP? Not exactly a huge task with their awe of CAL/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 8, 2006 7:41:54 GMT -5
Get a high resolution image of the ladder imprint photo taken by the police and magnify it. Look closely at the ground next to the plank on the house side and I believe you will notice two marks that correspond to the third ladder section. The left hand mark is almost aligned with the left mark of the main ladder.
|
|