Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jul 22, 2018 10:00:05 GMT -5
Have the major players in this case, those being Charles (presumably the mastermind) and Anne Lindbergh, Betty Gow, Henry Breckinridge, John Condon and possibly the Whateleys, Al Reich and Alexis Carrel, (have I missed anyone?) essentially decided from the beginning, or at some point thereafter depending on their point of entry into the case, to summarily defraud and deceive not only themselves and their immediate and extended families, but also all of the state and federal law enforcement agencies who have had even an investigative brush with this case, every American as well as foreign news agency that reported on this crime, the governments of affected states and the entire political structure of the United States, all the way up to the office of the president and finally, an entire planet of sympathetic and everyday people, who were shocked and revolted by the relative enormity and strangeness of this crime? I believe it’s a question every LKC researcher has to ask themselves to maintain true objectivity, in what they uncover or read. Personally, I don’t feel Charles Lindbergh or anyone else above mentioned, had it in them to stage or even support the notion of something this criminally insane.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Aug 19, 2018 8:21:44 GMT -5
Have the major players in this case, those being Charles (presumably the mastermind) and Anne Lindbergh, Betty Gow, Henry Breckinridge, John Condon and possibly the Whateleys, Al Reich and Alexis Carrel, (have I missed anyone?) essentially decided from the beginning, or at some point thereafter depending on their point of entry into the case, to summarily defraud and deceive not only themselves and their immediate and extended families, but also all of the state and federal law enforcement agencies who have had even an investigative brush with this case, every American as well as foreign news agency that reported on this crime, the governments of affected states and the entire political structure of the United States, all the way up to the office of the president and finally, an entire planet of sympathetic and everyday people, who were shocked and revolted by the relative enormity and strangeness of this crime? I believe it’s a question every LKC researcher has to ask themselves to maintain true objectivity, in what they uncover or read. Personally, I don’t feel Charles Lindbergh or anyone else above mentioned, had it in them to stage or even support the notion of something this criminally insane. There is a simple answer to this case, but no one said it was easy getting there. Of all of the potential ways Charles Lindbergh could have dealt with what you and many others here on this site consider to have been his "problem child," why do you feel he would have elected to choose such a precarious route, so full of potential pitfalls? This is certainly not a question to be shrugged off, is it?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 20, 2018 0:16:47 GMT -5
Have the major players in this case, those being Charles (presumably the mastermind) and Anne Lindbergh, Betty Gow, Henry Breckinridge, John Condon and possibly the Whateleys, Al Reich and Alexis Carrel, (have I missed anyone?) essentially decided from the beginning, or at some point thereafter depending on their point of entry into the case, to summarily defraud and deceive not only themselves and their immediate and extended families, but also all of the state and federal law enforcement agencies who have had even an investigative brush with this case, every American as well as foreign news agency that reported on this crime, the governments of affected states and the entire political structure of the United States, all the way up to the office of the president and finally, an entire planet of sympathetic and everyday people, who were shocked and revolted by the relative enormity and strangeness of this crime? I believe it’s a question every LKC researcher has to ask themselves to maintain true objectivity, in what they uncover or read. Personally, I don’t feel Charles Lindbergh or anyone else above mentioned, had it in them to stage or even support the notion of something this criminally insane. There is a simple answer to this case, but no one said it was easy getting there. Of all of the potential ways Charles Lindbergh could have dealt with what you and many others here on this site consider to have been his "problem child," why do you feel he would have elected to choose such a precarious route, so full of potential pitfalls? This is certainly not a question to be shrugged off, is it? Easy. Kidnaps, particularly of wealthy individuals, were en vogue at the time. The child dying from an accident, illness or other problem wouldn't work as it would indicate he was a bad parent or the child was sickly. A staged kidnap, whether to kill the child or send him away, accomplishes everything he needs: gets the kid out of the picture, while generating public sympathy and has no bearing on his genetics or parenting skills.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2018 9:11:02 GMT -5
Of all of the potential ways Charles Lindbergh could have dealt with what you and many others here on this site consider to have been his "problem child," why do you feel he would have elected to choose such a precarious route, so full of potential pitfalls? Lindbergh was in charge of the investigation so he had control over how the investigation proceeded. I am not aware of Lindbergh having any pitfall issues that he could not manage. You mention potential ways Lindbergh could have dealt with his problem child issue. Can you identify some of these other ways CAL could have had his child go out of the picture permanently without having to explain to the world where his toddler son went and why? Charlie would have to be accounted for in the eyes of the public. He was the most famous baby in the world; son of the most famous perfect couple in the world. What other way is there that doesn't reflect negatively on the Lindberghs or force them to reveal the condition of their child? This is the 1930's we are talking about, not like today where having a child who is physically (and otherwise) challenged is acceptable and sympathized with. It was a different world back then and this has to be taken into consideration when looking at potential alternatives to a staged kidnapping. No matter what course of action would have been chosen, the media storm would have to be dealt with. Lindbergh knew this and was prepared for it.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Aug 20, 2018 9:30:36 GMT -5
An incident that would rally the major players around a fake kidnapping would be one where CALjr had been injured in either a prank gone wrong instigated by CAL or some lapse in attention or mishandling of the child by AML, especially once he were to succumb to those injuries. If the threat of criminal prosecution of him or his wife or even catastrophic damage to his reputation were possibilities, then CAL would be compelled to undertake damage control measures on the fly, regardless how precarious... and his legal counsel and loyal household staff duty-bound to go along with the ruse.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 20, 2018 11:34:25 GMT -5
They don't even try to answer those kind of questions.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 20, 2018 11:46:43 GMT -5
Joe Kennedy did it - CAL could have done it too.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 20, 2018 13:35:12 GMT -5
Joe Kennedy did it - CAL could have done it too. Except we know CAL was a strident eugenicist, both from his long-time association with Dr. Carrel and his later deliberate spreading of his gene pool in Europe. It's not a stretch, then, to believe that if he had a child who was ill with some incurable illness or disability, he would want the child removed from the household to spare himself public embarrassment and, perhaps, to use the child for scientific study.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Aug 28, 2018 9:07:04 GMT -5
There is a simple answer to this case, but no one said it was easy getting there. Of all of the potential ways Charles Lindbergh could have dealt with what you and many others here on this site consider to have been his "problem child," why do you feel he would have elected to choose such a precarious route, so full of potential pitfalls? This is certainly not a question to be shrugged off, is it? Easy. Kidnaps, particularly of wealthy individuals, were en vogue at the time. The child dying from an accident, illness or other problem wouldn't work as it would indicate he was a bad parent or the child was sickly. A staged kidnap, whether to kill the child or send him away, accomplishes everything he needs: gets the kid out of the picture, while generating public sympathy and has no bearing on his genetics or parenting skills. Lindbergh had just managed to return his life to what he felt was a manageable existence five years after his famous flight, one that was relatively free of press intrusion. By all accounts, he's settling into family life. And now, he's going to open up the biggest can of worms imaginable by staging the kidnapping of his own son, thereby allowing the press, not to mention the rest of the world to literally beat a path to his front doorstep? Sorry, it makes no sense, other than to be the biggest red flag imaginable.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 28, 2018 11:21:02 GMT -5
There is a simple answer to this case, but no one said it was easy getting there. Of all of the potential ways Charles Lindbergh could have dealt with what you and many others here on this site consider to have been his "problem child," why do you feel he would have elected to choose such a precarious route, so full of potential pitfalls? This is certainly not a question to be shrugged off, is it? Easy. Kidnaps, particularly of wealthy individuals, were en vogue at the time. The child dying from an accident, illness or other problem wouldn't work as it would indicate he was a bad parent or the child was sickly. A staged kidnap, whether to kill the child or send him away, accomplishes everything he needs: gets the kid out of the picture, while generating public sympathy and has no bearing on his genetics or parenting skills. If the child’s disappearance/death was the bottom line, this would’ve brought the world to Lindbergh’s door no matter how it occurred. That much being a given, it would’ve had to occur in such as a way as to leave Lindbergh as blameless as possible.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Aug 28, 2018 13:57:13 GMT -5
Easy. Kidnaps, particularly of wealthy individuals, were en vogue at the time. The child dying from an accident, illness or other problem wouldn't work as it would indicate he was a bad parent or the child was sickly. A staged kidnap, whether to kill the child or send him away, accomplishes everything he needs: gets the kid out of the picture, while generating public sympathy and has no bearing on his genetics or parenting skills. If the child’s disappearance/death was the bottom line, this would’ve brought the world to Lindbergh’s door no matter how it occurred. That much being a given, it would’ve had to occur in such as a way as to leave Lindbergh as blameless as possible. Starting with speculation, ie. the child's disappearance was the bottom line, seems to me about as rational as Scaduto first concluding Hauptmann was innocent and then constructing a scenario where every piece of evidence was fabricated and every prosecution witness lied. A house of cards. I believe there are a whole lot less problems explaining things all around if one follows the actual evidence which demonstrates conclusively, someone other than Lindbergh, actually had it within themselves to try and improve their lot in life, no matter how sick the motivations and methods.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 28, 2018 14:27:22 GMT -5
That’s why I said “if”. And speaking of following the evidence, I’m still having trouble working out how an anonymous Bronx carpenter knew which was the nursery window without extensive prior surveillance of the house, which would’ve revealed that the Lindberghs were never there on a Tuesday, and why he would, even so, still choose to strike then. It’s equally baffling how he knew he had the time to walk away from the scene, or why he’d do that through a muddy field, when he had to have used a car to drive there. Equally strange is that a supposedly distraught father knew that the ransom note didn’t contain instructions to the effect of “Meet is in an hour or else,” and rather than immediately opening the note, opted to instead wait for police to arrive and find it where it was.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Aug 28, 2018 15:21:42 GMT -5
An incident that would rally the major players around a fake kidnapping would be one where CALjr had been injured in either a prank gone wrong instigated by CAL or some lapse in attention or mishandling of the child by AML, especially once he were to succumb to those injuries. If the threat of criminal prosecution of him or his wife or even catastrophic damage to his reputation were possibilities, then CAL would be compelled to undertake damage control measures on the fly, regardless how precarious... and his legal counsel and loyal household staff duty-bound to go along with the ruse. I so, so, so agree with this. I always have. The "kidnapping" was just a cover-up from the child being hurt and then dying and they could not risk it getting out. Much easier said than done, given the independent accounting of Charlie's known whereabouts immediately prior to March 1. I mean how does one arrange a fake kidnapping, which draws in an obscure carpenter in the Bronx, and that I assume would also have to be arranged on pretty short notice? And such a high profile legal counsel willing to consign their professional lives into an abyss of moral and ethical compromise? That would not have included Henry Breckinridge, no matter how subservient you believe he might have been to Charles Lindbergh. Of course, in your scenario along the way, there would be more and more people of influence within law enforcement, the political scene, not to mention immediate family, who by design or by accident, would also have to drawn or coerced in, until you really have quite the unsustainable mess. No problem, you're probably thinking, as Charles Lindbergh would have been able to marshall just this kind of a mess and do it in style. The fact is, it's really not all that messy when you strip away the nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 28, 2018 19:33:46 GMT -5
Absolutely right. Once you strip away the nonsense, it really isn’t that hard.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 28, 2018 20:29:11 GMT -5
I so, so, so agree with this. I always have. The "kidnapping" was just a cover-up from the child being hurt and then dying and they could not risk it getting out. Much easier said than done, given the independent accounting of Charlie's known whereabouts immediately prior to March 1. I mean how does one arrange a fake kidnapping, which draws in an obscure carpenter in the Bronx, and that I assume would also have to be arranged on pretty short notice? And such a high profile legal counsel willing to consign their professional lives into an abyss of moral and ethical compromise? That would not have included Henry Breckinridge, no matter how subservient you believe he might have been to Charles Lindbergh. Of course, in your scenario along the way, there would be more and more people of influence within law enforcement, the political scene, not to mention immediate family, who by design or by accident, would also have to drawn or coerced in, until you really have quite the unsustainable mess. No problem, you're probably thinking, as Charles Lindbergh would have been able to marshall just this kind of a mess and do it in style. The fact is, it's really not all that messy when you strip away the nonsense. Assuming you're the most famous man in the world and spend your days working in the offices of a world-famous eugenicist, you probably have the right connections who would be able to arrange for this to happen. One example, perhaps, is that it was common for seedy types looking to make a buck to produce cadavers and specimens for medical schools. It's very like that Carrell knew such people. That Lindbergh hired a group to essentially stage this and remove the child is far more believable, based on what we know of him and the child's health, than it would be for an obscure carpenter from the Bronx making his way to a basically hidden house, on a night the family wasn't supposed to be there, that the dog under the bed "happened" to be left behind, while everyone else in the house was awake at peak dinner hours - all to kidnap the most famous baby in the world! Once there, this magician can walk across a boardwalk, put up a ladder without stepping off of it and then become an acrobat getting into and out of the room. All while the wind was blowing heavily. Not to mention, we know the kidnapper never walked the 10' necessary back from the boardwalk to inspect the occupants of the room he as about to enter. For all he knew Lindbergh was standing inside with a gun. At least he didn't forget to wipe away all the prints in the nursery and he was nice enough to not move the chest in front of the window away so as to make his exit exponentially easier. None of it makes sense. Peel the layers of lies away and it becomes quite clear. If this case happened today and/or if Lindbergh weren't who he was, it would have been solved in about fifteen minutes.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Aug 28, 2018 21:24:18 GMT -5
Much easier said than done, given the independent accounting of Charlie's known whereabouts immediately prior to March 1. I mean how does one arrange a fake kidnapping, which draws in an obscure carpenter in the Bronx, and that I assume would also have to be arranged on pretty short notice? And such a high profile legal counsel willing to consign their professional lives into an abyss of moral and ethical compromise? That would not have included Henry Breckinridge, no matter how subservient you believe he might have been to Charles Lindbergh. Of course, in your scenario along the way, there would be more and more people of influence within law enforcement, the political scene, not to mention immediate family, who by design or by accident, would also have to drawn or coerced in, until you really have quite the unsustainable mess. No problem, you're probably thinking, as Charles Lindbergh would have been able to marshall just this kind of a mess and do it in style. The fact is, it's really not all that messy when you strip away the nonsense. Assuming you're the most famous man in the world and spend your days working in the offices of a world-famous eugenicist, you probably have the right connections who would be able to arrange for this to happen. One example, perhaps, is that it was common for seedy types looking to make a buck to produce cadavers and specimens for medical schools. It's very like that Carrell knew such people. That Lindbergh hired a group to essentially stage this and remove the child is far more believable, based on what we know of him and the child's health, than it would be for an obscure carpenter from the Bronx making his way to a basically hidden house, on a night the family wasn't supposed to be there, that the dog under the bed "happened" to be left behind, while everyone else in the house was awake at peak dinner hours - all to kidnap the most famous baby in the world! Once there, this magician can walk across a boardwalk, put up a ladder without stepping off of it and then become an acrobat getting into and out of the room. All while the wind was blowing heavily. Not to mention, we know the kidnapper never walked the 10' necessary back from the boardwalk to inspect the occupants of the room he as about to enter. For all he knew Lindbergh was standing inside with a gun. At least he didn't forget to wipe away all the prints in the nursery and he was nice enough to not move the chest in front of the window away so as to make his exit exponentially easier. None of it makes sense. Peel the layers of lies away and it becomes quite clear. If this case happened today and/or if Lindbergh weren't who he was, it would have been solved in about fifteen minutes. No, that Lindbergh would have even tried to hire a group to stage the kidnapping of his son is unbelievable. But to return to your point and given the degree of inordinate difficulty you're implying here, you're then suggesting that the logical and methodical Lindbergh would have been responsible for staging such an apparently unbelievable scenario? In any case, I don't accept your interpretation of the factors and conditions of that night, because you're simply seeing things in a way that allows you to shoehorn them into your pet theory. For example, it's quite possible the kidnapper(s) believed the Lindberghs lived in Hopewell and had no idea they were normally only there on weekends. It also seems they intended to strike in the early evening while they knew Lindbergh would be at the NYU dinner, therefore eliminating the possibility of him "waiting in the nursery with a gun in his hands." Above all, the notion that the kidnappers never stepped off the boardwalk on their approach to the window and while raising the ladder, is ludicrous, and there is a very good reason for this, despite the fact few here seem to want to recognize it. The wind.. was it blowing so heavy, that it did not give the kidnappers a chance to raise the ladder? So how did it get raised then? And I would also suggest that had a competent investigative force been on the scene, less of these kinds of questions would have been allowed to mutate into the present-day aberrations they've become.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 28, 2018 21:35:51 GMT -5
Then, once again, how did the kidnappers know where the nursery was in the house without some kind of prior surveillance, which would've shown the family wasn't there on Tuesdays?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Aug 29, 2018 9:02:03 GMT -5
Then, once again, how did the kidnappers know where the nursery was in the house without some kind of prior surveillance, which would've shown the family wasn't there on Tuesdays? I wasn't there and so I can't answer your question. I'd speculate that they (remember I'm not necessarily a "Lone Wolfer") probably had their opportunity on at least one of the weekends the Lindberghs were there. Even if they did happen to be watching on a week day on at least one occasion, would the absence of activity in the nursery tell them conclusively the Lindberghs didn't live there, but might simply have been away from home that evening? I also believe it's quite possible that "inside" information did somehow come their way, but not through a genuine intent to contribute towards the crime.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 29, 2018 10:17:02 GMT -5
I think, in order to ensure success, a long period of stalking and surveillance would have been needed, to be sure of the family’s routine. Nailing this down would’ve been paramount, which would’ve required going out there on more than just weekends. This would, again, have naturally revealed that no one was there on Tuesdays. But setting that aside, how did they know which room was the nursery? Ascertaining the family’s whereabouts that night is one thing, through some innocent slip of the tongue on Violet Sharp’s part or something, but how would the kidnappers have known the layout of the house? How was that accidentally provided? Olly Whateley would shoo the occasional sightseer off, and doesn’t seem the type to let it slip to a stranger which room was the baby’s. And why did the kidnappers walk away, eating up getaway time, when they had a car?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 1, 2018 18:53:40 GMT -5
I think, in order to ensure success, a long period of stalking and surveillance would have been needed, to be sure of the family’s routine. Nailing this down would’ve been paramount, which would’ve required going out there on more than just weekends. This would, again, have naturally revealed that no one was there on Tuesdays. But setting that aside, how did they know which room was the nursery? Ascertaining the family’s whereabouts that night is one thing, through some innocent slip of the tongue on Violet Sharp’s part or something, but how would the kidnappers have known the layout of the house? How was that accidentally provided? Olly Whateley would shoo the occasional sightseer off, and doesn’t seem the type to let it slip to a stranger which room was the baby’s. And why did the kidnappers walk away, eating up getaway time, when they had a car? Also baffling to me is that the footprint evidence makes it clear the kidnappers did not step off the boardwalk on their approach to the house. Given the boardwalk's close proximity to the house, there was no way for them to know who might be in the room before they climbed the ladder. They'd need walk at least 8-10 feet away from the house to get a good line of sight into the room. For all they knew CAL himself, Betty Gow or Anne could have been in there with the child. It makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 1, 2018 19:44:14 GMT -5
Nope. First, watching a house from the outside isn't going to realistically give you an idea of the inside layout. That being said, I could buy that someone innocently let it slip that the Lindberghs were in Hopewell that night, but I don't see how the nursery’s location could've been innocently given away. So, right there, the kidnappers had inside intel of some sort, intentionally provided. You also have footprints leading away from the house, to tire tracks on the main road--meaning the kidnappers had a car, which, given the lack of approach footprints, they must've used to head up to the house, on the driveway. And if they drove up, why not drive out too? Why eat up getaway time and leave behind incriminating footprints by tramping off through a muddy field in the dark? I mean, I suppose they could've been afraid of their car being boxed in by someone arriving home, so they just dropped off a kidnapper and drove away, leaving the kidnapper at the house to sneak away off-road and not be followed--but while they were in the house, the kidnappers apparently felt they had time to wipe down the nursery before leaving. So it seems that they knew the layout, knew they had plenty of time, and knew they didn't have anything to worry about by leaving behind incriminating evidence like footprints (and a ladder and chisel). It doesn't make sense for outside kidnappers, if that's all they were, to leave all that behind, unless they were in a panic, which there's no evidence of; the ladders, for instance, seemed very deliberately placed on the ground, right by the footprint trails. Again, it doesn't make sense for outside kidnappers to do that on their own, meaning that by definition and process of elimination, it was an insider of some sort, at least directing them to do that. And who on the inside, on that very short list of household members, was in charge of everything that went on in that house, and could pass on the layout, the family's schedule, the child's routine, and so on?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 2, 2018 9:39:06 GMT -5
In so far as knowledge of the layout of the house at Highfields is concerned, we know that Ollie Whately would sometimes give outsiders and contractors informal "tours" of the house before the Lindbergh family moved in. In addition, the floor plans had been published in a magazine around this period. So many people could have known the layout. But that alone would be insufficient for an outsider to snatch the baby from the nursery without some cooperation from at least one insider at the time of the baby's removal.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 2, 2018 10:29:22 GMT -5
In so far as knowledge of the layout of the house at Highfields is concerned, we know that Ollie Whately would sometimes give outsiders and contractors informal "tours" of the house before the Lindbergh family moved in. In addition, the floor plans had been published in a magazine around this period. So many people could have known the layout. But that alone would be insufficient for an outsider to snatch the baby from the nursery without some cooperation from at least one insider at the time of the baby's removal. Actually that is incorrect on both counts. Whateley did not give tours. The source for this is in the FBI Summary and its incorrect. Next, the floorplans were never published in a magazine. Wayne posted what was in that magazine and it ain't even close to the actual floorplan.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 8, 2018 5:46:50 GMT -5
Sure it would have been easier with an insider helping, it would have been very helpful if Betty would have left Charlie all wrapped up on the steps for the taking, but that didn't happen. Also, the crime was possible without inside help. Those who say it was impossible without luck just don't understand how luck works.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 8, 2018 6:48:04 GMT -5
Sure it would have been easier with an insider helping, it would have been very helpful if Betty would have left Charlie all wrapped up on the steps for the taking, but that didn't happen. Also, the crime was possible without inside help. Those who say it was impossible without luck just don't understand how luck works. Even if Hauptmann was a Navy Seal using night vision it could not have been pulled off alone. Think about it for one second. A Seal would utilize intel and not blindly rush into this. What would their information say? First and foremost that Skean would be in that Nursery so there would be no "sneaking" into that room without alarm. (Just recently Seals lost men in a mission because, despite all of the preparation, the dogs at the compound barked and gave them away.) Bolted shutters would have to be defeated and that would make noise - correct? A locked window would need to be defeated. But they weren't? What carpenter would believe that brand new shutters were warped or knew the windows would be unlocked despite the need to be sealed tight on a windy night? Step by step this does not "work" without "help." Ignore the evidence that multiple people were involved if you like, but try to examine the steps necessary for one guy to "blindly" pull this off and it is completely impossible. There is too much they obviously knew and each and every move they made was the "right" one.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Oct 8, 2018 8:17:37 GMT -5
Sure it would have been easier with an insider helping, it would have been very helpful if Betty would have left Charlie all wrapped up on the steps for the taking, but that didn't happen. Also, the crime was possible without inside help. Those who say it was impossible without luck just don't understand how luck works. Even if Hauptmann was a Navy Seal using night vision it could not have been pulled off alone. Think about it for one second. A Seal would utilize intel and not blindly rush into this. What would their information say? First and foremost that Skean would be in that Nursery so there would be no "sneaking" into that room without alarm. (Just recently Seals lost men in a mission because, despite all of the preparation, the dogs at the compound barked and gave them away.) Bolted shutters would have to be defeated and that would make noise - correct? A locked window would need to be defeated. But they weren't? What carpenter would believe that brand new shutters were warped or knew the windows would be unlocked despite the need to be sealed tight on a windy night? Step by step this does not "work" without "help." Ignore the evidence that multiple people were involved if you like, but try to examine the steps necessary for one guy to "blindly" pull this off and it is completely impossible. There is too much they obviously knew and each and every move they made was the "right" one. What took place is all possible without this having been a staged kidnapping, but I would agree the likelihood of one perpetrator is almost negligible. I tend to align more these days with there having been a previous attempt and that some valuable up close surveillance was achieved through that endeavour. The scrape marks on the wall could be an indication of such a previous attempt, or even a first climb on the kidnapping night to ensure the right shutter was pushed back against the wall so that the third section could fit within it's frame. The third section could well have been a last minute consideration, that being the need for the needed extra height, and I don't believe it would have been brought to the house unless it was needed. Previous surveillance would also have revealed something errant within the shutter closure. As for the expectation of a locked window, we don't know what else the kidnappers had in their arsenal to defeat that, eg. a thin, flexible blade to rotate the sash lock, and it wouldn't surprise me if they believed the window might not be locked as well, given it's relatively safer location on the second floor. Regarding your statement that the sliding windows out of necessity would have had to have been locked on a windy night, remember that they were never locked, period. Now certainly there were many windy nights during the 17 previous weekend late-fall and winter visits made by the Lindberghs to Highfields. If rattly windows had truly been a problem, I'm sure they would have been locked during any one of those visits, but they weren't. It would therefore seem reasonable, that the Lindberghs did not have rattly windows in their new home, as you have presumed. And would someone who had previously hung windows within his line of work, have been aware of such subtleties?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 8, 2018 10:52:39 GMT -5
What took place is all possible without this having been a staged kidnapping, but I would agree the likelihood of one perpetrator is almost negligible. I wouldn't get "caught up" in thinking that you cannot agree there was inside help because you don't believe it was "staged." Know what I mean? It is possible to have one without the other. I tend to align more these days with there having been a previous attempt and that some valuable up close surveillance was achieved through that endeavour. The scrape marks on the wall could be an indication of such a previous attempt, or even a first climb on the kidnapping night to ensure the right shutter was pushed back against the wall so that the third section could fit within it's frame. The third section could well have been a last minute consideration, that being the need for the needed extra height, and I don't believe it would have been brought to the house unless it was needed. Previous surveillance would also have revealed something errant within the shutter closure. It's certainly an interesting theory and one I've considered in the past. This, I believe, is something everyone should think about. As for the expectation of a locked window, we don't know what else the kidnappers had in their arsenal to defeat that, eg. a thin, flexible blade to rotate the sash lock, and it wouldn't surprise me if they believed the window might not be locked as well, given it's relatively safer location on the second floor. Regarding your statement that the sliding windows out of necessity would have had to have been locked on a windy night, remember that they were never locked, period. Now certainly there were many windy nights during the 17 previous weekend late-fall and winter visits made by the Lindberghs to Highfields. If rattly windows had truly been a problem, I'm sure they would have been locked during any one of those visits, but they weren't. It would therefore seem reasonable, that the Lindberghs did not have rattly windows in their new home, as you have presumed. And would someone who had previously hung windows within his line of work, have been aware of such subtleties? I agree. We only know what they had based upon what they chose to leave behind.
Now as to the windows.... I ask that you apply your philosophy concerning this toward everything. The term "reasonableness" immediately comes to mind. For example, if a warped shutter was a problem it would therefore seem reasonable that Lindbergh.... 1. Did not have warped shutters as I have "presumed?"
2. Called to demand they be repaired?
3. Called to have the weather stripping on his front door fixed but not the warped shutters?
4. Did not call to have the shutters fixed because the "house was too new?"
5. Add whatever I missed here.
Do you see how that strategy doesn't work?
I do remember the assertion they were never locked but I also consider other assertions that were made as well that differ with others or do not seem "right." Those types of windows need to be locked to seal the window. That is an absolute fact and there is no way around that because I am not making that up. I had a house with the same type and I confirmed this with Kevin. So yes I consider this a "problem" with the scene and I do not blindly accept everything that was said if it doesn't match up with reality. However, while I know they would have made "some" noise, I cannot say to what degree they would have so that must be a consideration which I am sure you seize on to suggest the least amount of noise possible. Regardless, one has to ask themselves what reason it would take not to seal them on such a windy night. Because supposedly they never did it before? Was the goal to get the child to go to sleep or not? It makes no sense to me. In fact, once considering everything none of it does - to me at least that is.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Oct 8, 2018 11:42:13 GMT -5
I meant to be more specific in a way that I've always believed in the possibility the kidnappers had inside information, however unintentional that might have been.
The apparently hurried nature of the inclusion of a piece of easily obtained and discarded lumber, could be very meaningful as it applies to the origin of Rail 16.
Your personal experience and Kevin's opinion are relevant if they apply to the Lindbergh sash windows, but you seem to be making a rock solid conclusion to derail any further consideration here without really knowing that. It's similar to your conclusion about Lindbergh's call having come in at Elsie Whateley's estimate of 7:00 pm, even though no one else was able to fix a time. In any case, I believe if the unlocked windows had been a problem, ie. draftiness and noise, it seems quite reasonable to me that it would have been mentioned, similar to the entire household having been forthcoming about not being able to lock the shutters. Logically, it would seem the windows were not much of an issue when unlocked in the winter.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 8, 2018 12:40:17 GMT -5
Your personal experience and Kevin's opinion are relevant if they apply to the Lindbergh sash windows, but you seem to be making a rock solid conclusion to derail any further consideration here without really knowing that. It's similar to your conclusion about Lindbergh's call having come in at Elsie Whateley's estimate of 7:00 pm, even though no one else was able to fix a time. In any case, I believe if the unlocked windows had been a problem, ie. draftiness and noise, it seems quite reasonable to me that it would have been mentioned, similar to the entire household having been forthcoming about not being able to lock the shutters. Logically, it would seem the windows were not much of an issue when unlocked in the winter. My personal experience would only be relevant to me if not for Kevin's validation. Kevin is a Master Carpenter and has been to Highfields. I am not attempting to derail further consideration only that those windows, if not locked, would have made noise from the wind blowing that night. Any amount of wind actually but the evidence is that there was a heavy wind that night. The timing of the call Elsie took came in at that time. It's not "my" conclusion, rather, what is in the source documentation. Did they make it up or is that what she told them? You may or may not like it but there it is nevertheless, and there is nothing to upset it. Furthermore, how do you " know" that " no one else was able to fix a time?" Simply because some were not asked or that they did not offer one doesn't have the meaning you assign and/or imply. Even if one other person simply said "I don't remember" there were (3) people to ask besides Elsie. If I am wrong then list here what these three people said about the timing of that call: Lindbergh, Olly, and Anne. Let's see what their various versions were so we can compare. And there you go with the idea that "reasonableness" means something here. How many examples do you need to show that it does not? Just look at this on its face value.... There was a heavy windstorm so why weren't the windows sealed to guard from both the noise and the draft leaving them unlocked would create? Oh because no one seemed to remember that the locks were ever used? That's a reasonable conclusion?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 8, 2018 13:06:19 GMT -5
You are assuming that the windows were locked when you don't know that. Mostly, like Joe says upstairs windows are left unlocked. Not only that but you're assuming that the windows rattled so much they would be locked. That's a lot of assumptions for a couple windows. You're also assuming that the shutter was warped, so left open. More assumptions - not a very handy way to solve crimes. It was a new house - the windows more that likely didn't rattle or someone would have complained while the contractors were still there. The man who built/installed the shutters said that none of them were warped. I'm sure you have that fact - why keep bring up this questionable stuff? There's lots of things unknown about the crime, but some things are known. Lets keep 'em straight.
|
|