|
Post by dryan on Feb 8, 2006 9:53:58 GMT -5
I confess to being a little confused here.
Michael: ***"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."
I still wonder if you mean there would have been mud on the stairs or there would not?
Kevin: "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."
Do you mean the third section was, in fact, placed in a vertical position? What interests me here is the exactness of such marks. There seems to be no "scuffling" if that is the right word, in order to get the ladder placed securely. It seems that is one more thing we have to chalk up to special circumstances -- in a case filled to the brim with them.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 8, 2006 13:24:14 GMT -5
These two marks became evident to me when I magnified the image greatly. They appear to correspond to the third or narrowest section. Unfortunately this is the only photo of the marks that I have seen and I have never heard of any exact measurements having been taken. The marks definately appear unnatural and may be the result of standing the third section against the wall while the other two were put in place.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 8, 2006 18:53:53 GMT -5
Sorry about the confusion...sometimes I am not clear but I think I am. I wouldn't think there would be much mud left if the stairs were used as an exit only. The mud found on top of the shutter was a good sized piece and I think this exemplifies how muddy it was in that yard and how much would stick to their feet.
Kev, I think your observation is important. It seems to me they were made by one of two things and I will attempt to show why we have an option...
On 3-2-32 the Police brought the ladder to the divots and placed the two-sections there and leaned it against the house. It was then they learned the marks on the side of the house were about 2-1/2" above where the top rested when placed in the divots. They also put all (3) sections together and leaned it against the house. Now these marks you have found could have been made by the Police when they attempted to recreate the crime scene scenario so it might depend when this photo was taken that you are referencing.
However, one must consider that Lt. Keaton told Agent Sisk that "about 6 feet up the side of the house there were some scratches" so this seems consistent with one section leaning against the side of the house from a closer angle and supports your position the 3rd section may have been in those faint divots you've notice. If these marks there were made by the Police then Lt. Keaton would have known about it. Its also more then likely the picture was taken before they put the ladder in those divots but I still wanted to mention the existing possibilities as I see them just so we don't overlook something.
Now Lt. Keaton supposed these marks he mentioned were made when the ladder "broke" but from what I have seen I can't see the ladder breaking in that way and still remaining in tact. Do you see any possibilities in this?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 8, 2006 19:50:16 GMT -5
Michael, I think the photo I am refering to waas taken by the NJSP ( Kelly?) sometime that night or early morning. You can even make out a part of a line that they probably used to keep that area clear. The artificial ( flash?) lighting onhighlights the surface irregularities of the ground, otherwise I doubt these marks would be visible. No I don't think these marks could possibly have been made by a broken ladder scenario.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 8, 2006 22:03:33 GMT -5
To dryan You can't be talking about the same New Jersey I know, and especialy Hopewell? You don't want to drive off the side of the road in rainy weather. If you read the piece one of the Hopewell neighbors of CAL stated that one suspicious car had been hoplessly stuck in the mud.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 8, 2006 22:09:06 GMT -5
To Dryan Where do you get the lot of mud in the nursery from, are you reading a different book. I don't understand where you got the mud on the shutter from either, are you trying to prove something that is not in the record?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 8, 2006 22:17:55 GMT -5
To Dryan You say the ground was rocky, but then say mud was heavy in the nursery, and even on the shutter, are you trying to make another inconsistancy in the case that already has too many?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 9, 2006 1:08:10 GMT -5
To Dryan To cover all the miss-conceptions about the mud deception just look at the placement of the ladder. The two ladder section were below widow level and to the side, and without even considering the actual inches seperation, and if the person had actualy climbed to the top, muddy shoes would have left mud impressions all over the siding and window sill trying to awkwardly enter the window from that nearly impossible access way. I have tried the ladder in mud routine myself with a 12 foot ladder section, and cannot be led to believe a story of two and a half inch impression if you climb to the top as the ladder sinks with each step. There are different times of the year when this does not happen, as the ground has not been saturated like March weather, but we know from descriptios it was wet, cold, rainy, and windy, and by neighbors description was very muddy. The reasoning that if the kidnaphad taken place through the stairway would there be mud on the stairway also goes nowhere since if that route was taken they would have avoided the mud, and besides didn't Hauptman say the child was handed out the door?
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 9, 2006 1:55:12 GMT -5
I certainly did not mean to say that there should or should not be a surplus of mud everywhere. My question to Michael was an effort to try to talk about his (not my) observation of mud on the shutter where someone may have stood to receive the child out of the window.
I fully agree that on a muddy night in relatively fresh soil that the ladder would sink in -- and that there would considerable mud on the ladder. Gov. Hoffman made every effort to get Bornmann to talk about that when they re-examined the ladder after the trial. I was under the impression that their efforts were inconclusive. The fact is, given the number of people who handled the ladder that night, we simply do not know how much mud was ever on the rungs.
I know there was not much mud on the nursery floor. I also know, however, that Gow said at one point (and I believe she was the only one) that there were muddy smudges on the nursery sheets.
The point it would seem to me, would be to try to narrow down the options as much as possible.
So, if there was little mud in the nursery, and none on the stairs, what does that tell us? You have pointed out very forcefully how muddy it can get that time of year in NJ. Kevin has suggested that the ladder was placed on the wooden walk, and yet we would still think that if there was mud in the nursery floor, there should be some on the window sill. How in the world do you enter and exit without scraping your feet? Which, I take it, is Rita's point. Do I also take it that Rita believes the child was handed out the front door?
Perhaps the ladder was merely brought to the side of the house, placed down, and then taken up again so that it would look like something happened that did not. Is that your argument, Rita?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 9, 2006 6:39:31 GMT -5
Rick,
I am going to post a little on the burlap bag to show its origins for you soon. I agree with Kev. This is something we should look at more closely.
Rita,
The mud on the top of the shutter is coming from me. It's something new that I had found but hadn't posted on in the past. Also, I know there were some detailed accounts of the condition of that yard by those who were there at the time. I want to see if I can find them in order to see exactly what they were saying.
Kev,
Kelly did take these shots on 3-2-32. He took a series of pictures inside the house, mostly the nursery and a series outside. I think its a logical conclusion that you take photos of the scene as it exists before you move things around. That's what I was taught, however, I want to try find and cross reference some material so we can conclude this. Although we may never be able to I still want to erase this slim possibility.
[shadow=white,left,300]Side-Note[/shadow]
It was one of these interior shots that Kelly gave to Lewis to sell to his contact in the newspaper. I find this to be significant because Lewis wouldn't tell on Kelly, and Kelly lied about the situation. Lewis was eventually cut loose when the NJSP made its lay-offs due to the budget-cuts but the reason was for this episode. As we all know, Lewis was brought back into the case by Gov. Hoffman while he was working for the Meade Detective Agency. Shortly thereafter, Lewis was re-hired to the NJSP but with plenty of enemies there.
Dryan,
Yes that was Gow who said that. Your focus on the mud has caught my attention and I see where you are going with this. Ho-age and Gov. Hoffman's interview with Bornmann either revealed the guy couldn't remember much, he was stupid, or that he was lying. Either way I don't think it helped as it concerns what the real facts were. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 9, 2006 10:21:31 GMT -5
Michael
The pristine condition of the room was brought to everyone's attention by Alghren and Monier. It remains their basic contribution -- even if Gov Hoffman's articles had discussed it. My point about the ladder was that it was handled so much that how could mud have still been there, anyway?
But if there was mud on the feet of the perp, shouldn't there have been some on the stairs if the person went out that way -- either front or back? It does come back to the argument that, somehow, the child was handed out the window. I believe that the ladder was used.
Why is it that Gow is the one -- and only one -- to note the mud on the crib sheets? That has always bothered me. Isn't true that Col Lindbergh, when asked about the window being opened or opened and closed (how many times?) refers questions to Betty?
We are, it would seem, still stuck in or on the mud!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 9, 2006 10:50:08 GMT -5
If fingerprints were mostlikely wiped down why couldn't the mud also be cleaned up? If there was any exit besides handing out the window one might assume there was a cover up of possible evidence inside which would include the lack of mud found. If there are mud smudges on the sheets it is a serious find that there is no mud of any significance anywhere else. Cleaning the smudges on the sheets is hard to do. IMO it seems someone inside is covering up evidence. If not its pretty hard to explain the scene of the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by rick for gary on Feb 9, 2006 11:09:08 GMT -5
Gary...actually nothing "gels" into a real kidnapping up in the nursery. The various pieces of the nursery puzzle just dont fit together.....reminiscent of Jon Benet Ramsey (JBR) case. A staged crime scene always has diss-jointed elements that cause an uncomfortable feeling that we all have been duped. How can you wipe the window ledge with a note on it??? I think everyone in the house is lying about something. They all dont necessarily need to lie about the same things....just lie. CAL protected the household by not permitting any interrogations. Buster Keaton got in hot water just for axeing Betty Gow a couple questions. Just like in the JBR case, nearly all the cops give CAL, Anne, Betty etc a free pass as no involvement at all.....Schwartzenkopf agrees to cover for them at all costs. This by no means makes the motives of the household "evil" it just means they did not want the actual set of circumstances to become known. They all could be victims as well? This is exactly the same as the "Blackmail in the Bronx"--its contrived, it takes to long, and it makes no logical sense. Its as if they too are being paid not to reveal the true nature of Charlies absencse. This is why the case lives on.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 9, 2006 17:43:22 GMT -5
didn't mean to be overly forceful , but there is also a fault with the ladder to which I am amazed was used blindly in court. The ladder was made to blueprints you can find in library books for temporary construction work. The court did not take that into consideration, and neglected the work load characteristics, and method of use factor. Upriights with nailed on boards are weaker at the nailing points, and for that reason they are fastened to construction sites temporarily. The court and NJSP completly ignored that fact, as if they intended to follow their script regardless of facts.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 9, 2006 17:55:19 GMT -5
" Upriights with nailed on boards are weaker at the nailing points, and for that reason they are fastened to construction sites temporarily. The court and NJSP completly ignored that fact, as if they intended to follow their script regardless of facts."
I am assuming you are only refering to the first section of the ladder where the rungs are not mortised. Based on the calculations I am sure you made, what do you come up with as the maximum shear load of 4 8 penny common nails?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 9, 2006 21:04:51 GMT -5
Kevkon nails are1/8 by 2,1/2 inches, and it might make a significant difference in the 2 by 4 upright strength how they were nailed, for instance two by two or stagered, but in either case there is always the possibility of a split between nails that would nearly guarantee a break in the ladder. Regardless standiwhether a split exhists or not a free standining ladder it is not rated to hold one person and one cement bag as any carpenter would know, and I can't see a carpenter with Hauptman's experience risking his neck on an impossibility.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 9, 2006 21:47:20 GMT -5
Kevin, Ok, on the photos - First the good news... I am positive I was correct that pictures of those marks were taken before the ladder was assembled and brought to be placed against the house. I am satisfied that the ladder was photographed, the "small" footprint leading the the 2nd window next, then the ladder marks. The assembled ladder against the house was the 9th photo taken. Now for the bad news.... More photos of these marks were taken on 3-3-32. So obviously we need to identify the date on the photo in question. I can tell you from the research that I have done with these photos at the NJSP Archives that the date and description is usually pasted onto the back of the photo itself. So if we find the right picture and turn it around we will know which one it is. Of course that's not to say even if it is a 3-3 shot that these marks were made by the Police rather, its something we would simply have to consider. In the alternative, if its the 3-2 shot then (imo) there's no possibility of it. On another angle, the NJSP during their evidence review in 1978 concluded: The quality of the workmanship on the ladder is excellent and not indicative of something produced by someone without wood-working experience .Would you agree with this statement Kevin? Rita, These ladder blueprints you speak of is something new to me. I have never seen this before and apparently neither did the NJSP because in every document I found there was nothing like this mentioned although it appears to me they would have jumped on it if they knew it existed. I am still looking for observations concerning the condition of that yard. I found one by Tommy Bosnall who said he couldn't believe someone could walk through that slippery yellow clay at night with no flashlight and especially with their hands occupied without some accident or fall.... Just a "heads-up"... I believe the threads only extend to 50 posts per so feel free to start another if we get cut off in this one, or start another regardless.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 9, 2006 21:56:16 GMT -5
Rita: I guess I am the one carpenter that doesn't know that
Michael: Yeah, I was pretty certain the photo I have refered to was taken that night or early AM. Interestingly, at some point the next day the plank arrangement on the ground was altered an additional plank was added. I don't know if there is anything to be read into this but the moving of the planks may have obliterated any other marks.
|
|
|
Post by elyssa on Feb 24, 2006 10:51:29 GMT -5
If you were going to kidnap an important child like Charlie and had been planning it for a year already, would you jump ahead of plan just because the Lindberghs stayed in Hopewell past the weekend? If it was an inside job(without CAL) the inside person would have known the child was sick, therefore to be on the safe side, taking the child should wait until he was well and take him as planned, unless they didn't care that he was sick because they new he was going to die anyway. The house was almost finished, and the Lindberghs would be living there permanently soon, and with their history both CAL & Anne would be leaving Charlie with Betty for extended periods again. Why not wait a little while longer, and make sure we could get away with it without risk of getting caught, after all Grand Ma Morrow would definitely pay to get the child back if CAL&Anne were away on a flight or something like that. Plus we wouldn't have to worry about the Great Hero catching us. How far away was the house CAL &Anne rented while Highfields was being built? How long had it been since they lived there? Was the house empty March 1? Could Charlie have been taken there by CAL, then picked up later by him or by someone else Cal arranged? Last but not least Charles Lindbergh could have payed anyone of his choice (someone off the street or from anywhere) to build a ladder or take a pre built ladder, take dictation of ransom notes or anything else he wanted done. If the hired person told anyone or contacted the police who would have believe the over the GREAT HERO, everyone would think they were crazy or just trying to get in on the publicity.
|
|
|
Post by rick to elyssa on Feb 24, 2006 12:34:03 GMT -5
1. Circumstantial evidence suggests some hurry up offense was put into play sometime over the weekend...maybe on Monday when Anee and Ollie were home alone. 2. Charlie could have fallen out the window, out of crib, or downstairs? Charlie could have had some medical crisis like a seizure. Charlie could have been stolen Monday and not "missed" until Tuesday? 3. The rented farmhouse was near to Charlies final resting place on Mt Rose Hill. Someone will know its rental status on March 1st. 4. CAL may have come home Tuesday to put the final touches on the coverup? Its possible too that CAL did not know where Charlie had disappared to ?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 15, 2006 20:27:23 GMT -5
To Amatuer Carpenters If Hauptmanl was wealthy enough to travel extensivly, and had a whole year to plan, why would he jeopordize the kidnap with a ladder that could not free stand? You are all wrong in not being able to identify a rooftop, elevator shaft, and water tower ladder, made only to be attached to the side of a construction. The carpenter that spoke a few pieces of miss-information on has probably never been on a building roof, or in an elevator shaft so ignorance can be excused.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 16, 2006 5:55:06 GMT -5
I think the idea is this ladder needed to be transported inside of the car and this design is what suited this particularized need.
Exactly why it needed to be transported this way is more of a mystery to me. I think it was Kevin who said he didn't think it would have been all that suspicious if it was outside of the car as so many other sightings indicated.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 16, 2006 6:43:17 GMT -5
Rita, I admire your fearless tenacity and your ladder related questions are quite prescient, in fact amazing.
Michael, I don't think I was the first to consider a different means of transporting the ladder. I just have stressed that in the design criteria used to design and build this ladder transport size would be secondary to usage. We can see from Lupica that the ladder was diagonally placed, which is unnecessary in the nested position, so I think optimum storage within the car was a secondary, though important consideration. The two questions everyone should be asking about this ladder are; what dictated the maximum width , depth and how do you successfully step off the top rung of the second section? When and if either of those two questions are answered there may be some revisionism in store.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 16, 2006 10:19:53 GMT -5
I don't think anyone in a relevant trade would have even considered using this ladder for routine duty in any of the applications you've suggested here, Rita. It's simply not robust enough for repeated use and in fact, this one was not used or used very little prior to the night of March 1.
Hauptmann was a very thorough and calculating individual as we have seen in many instances, including his multitude of lies and deceptions and knowing when to go mute. But he did overlook some very critical design elements in his ladder construction.
I'm not necessarily saying Hauptmann was even in this fraternity, but history is full of brilliant criminal minds tripped up by the stupidest of personal mistakes.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 16, 2006 18:44:30 GMT -5
The placement of the ladder made it's practical use in a kidnapping an impossibility, as Most VDR's claim Hauptman alone did the kidnapping, which in itself eliminaytes the ladder, because he could not have side stepped onto the ladder holding the 30 pound child. My other contention elimates the ladder, because a twenty foot ladder would sink deeper than three inches if you climbed to the top in March snow melt conditions.
Realizing that everything in the kidnap story was either nearly or competly impossible, and that even their efforts and actions appear as staged, as if they acting out this staged routine(extortionist fishing) to someone not yet there. There is no realism in their actions from CAL's two hour ransom note marathon, all the way to his spy-counterspy cemetary act, and it's seems as if CAL and Breckenridge are building a counfounding cast of characters to isolate CAL himself from any blame.
|
|
|
Post by elyssa on Mar 29, 2006 17:10:48 GMT -5
There was talk of mud on top of the shutter, was this a print of some kind or just a blob of mud? If it's a chunk or blob could it have been tossed from the ground, maybe to signal someone inside or see if anyone looks out. or Anne could have thrown it at the window instead of pebbles. she didn't mind walking in the mud maybe she didn't mind getting her hands dirty, a mud ball would be less likely to break a window if she hit it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 1, 2006 19:31:35 GMT -5
It was a chunk of mud. There are photos of it at the NJSP Archives. It's not a "ball" or anything like that - it certainly looks as if someone who had stepped in the mud put their foot on the top of that shutter.
Of course no one witnesses this but it looks like an irresistible conclusion to me.
|
|
|
Post by gibwi on Apr 3, 2008 15:55:44 GMT -5
from brh's attic?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 3, 2008 16:49:13 GMT -5
I am not sure I understand the question....
|
|
|
Post by george on Apr 3, 2008 23:22:52 GMT -5
sorry. was the rail of the ladder conclusively proven to have come from brh's attic?
|
|