Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 20:37:49 GMT -5
Michael, I have read that after the kidnapping happened that both Schwarzkopf(NJSP) and Mulrooney (NYPD police commissioner)believed that the kidnap ladder was a prop. How prevalent was this position among all the LE forces and for how long was the ladder looked at this way? I think it's safe to say that it was the original position of most, if not all the LE Officers. I know that on March 8th Schwarzkopf was saying it was possible the front door was used. As time went on, day by day, they developed a theory that (2) people were involved and that one used the ladder while the other used the front door. As far as an exact time-line goes...while I may have known what it was a one time I don't have it committed to memory so without diving into the documentation I hesitate to present one to you. This is helpful just as it is. I don't want an exact timeline. Thanks Michael.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 29, 2015 21:17:13 GMT -5
This is helpful just as it is. I don't want an exact timeline. Thanks Michael. Thanks Amy. I do want a time-line now, but I know how long it will take to put it together. I am a little frustrated that I don't have something, but one of my mistakes has been that sometimes I believe I won't forget things then years later discover that I have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 17:59:31 GMT -5
This is helpful just as it is. I don't want an exact timeline. Thanks Michael. Thanks Amy. I do want a time-line now, but I know how long it will take to put it together. I am a little frustrated that I don't have something, but one of my mistakes has been that sometimes I believe I won't forget things then years later discover that I have. I think timelines are valuable too. I have one put together for the ransom notes but need to do a little more detailing to it. I also have been working on one for Anna Hauptmann(of all people)more because I am interested in her. I don't consider her as being involved in any way with the kidnapping/extortion. I was on Robert Bryan's website a few days ago and I read that he is writing a book on the Hauptmanns. That will be a very interesting book when it finally comes out. Since this thread is about the ladder, I am placing a link to a newsreel here because it mentions Red Johnson, The Consolidated Ship Yard where Lamont had his yacht, The Reynard, dry-docked the winter of 1931/32. This is the yacht Red worked on when he met Betty Gow in the summer of 1931. The clip also shows the ladders that the shipyard built and used. They look similar to the bottom section of the kidnap ladder but the rungs are more conventionally spaced. Because of Red Johnson's attachment to the Reynard, I am sure that the authorities checked out these ladders and the wood. footage.framepool.com/en/shot/465013892-hopewell-radio-reporter-kidnapping-frisking
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2015 17:05:32 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 14:51:41 GMT -5
This report you have posted brings up Don Guinness, whose operated a gas station on Wertsville Road. I remember talking about him on another thread. The piece of wood mentioned in this report as being similar to the kidnap ladder wood, is it because of the paint markings or is it the type of wood. I have seen other stories about wood being located in the Hopewell area that was similar to the kidnap ladder wood.
What was done with these pieces of wood? Did the police have them checked against the ladder wood? Did Squire Johnson do the evaluating of these acquired pieces of wood during the early stages of the investigation?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 11, 2015 17:44:00 GMT -5
What was done with these pieces of wood? Did the police have them checked against the ladder wood? Did Squire Johnson do the evaluating of these acquired pieces of wood during the early stages of the investigation? I always assumed wood like this was returned, however, Mark found quite a bit of unlabeled lumber in crates at the NJSP Headquarters so boards like this could be among them. Squire Johnson was at the NJSP's disposal until June of '32. After that I don't see his named even mentioned again until it's brought up by the Defense at Trial. Then after that once Hoffman brings him back to help with his "re-investigation." It's hard to say whether or not he's the one who looked at this particular piece. Unless the report specifies or other later reports bring it out I wouldn't feel comfortable to declare exactly who it was. I know they sometimes had other people look things over - like Hulfish for example.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 19:50:50 GMT -5
So, Michael, who is Hulfish??
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 11, 2015 20:42:29 GMT -5
So, Michael, who is Hulfish?? Hullfish (I mis-spelled it above) was the foreman for the Matthews Construction Company (in charge of building Highfields).
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 10, 2018 21:56:38 GMT -5
Edmund DeLong, a reporter for the New York Sun, was the the first reporter to make it to Highfields on the night of the kidnapping. In 1962, he was extensively interviewed about the case. Thanks to Ronelle's site (and thanks to Scathma for posting this link before), the interview can be found here -- lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/sue.htmlOn the 5th page of Part 1, DeLong is asked what he did when he drove up to CAL's house. This is what he said: Does anyone find it odd that DeLong's first recollection (later retracted) was to say he "climbed" the ladder? This was DeLong's 9/11 moment in time. Why would he be confused on something that important?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2018 8:42:10 GMT -5
Edmund DeLong, a reporter for the New York Sun, was the the first reporter to make it to Highfields on the night of the kidnapping. I will show in V2 that he was absolutely not the 1st. I know in V1 I wasn't sure but since then I can demonstrate why he was not. In fact, Blackman preceded him there by quite a bit, and we damn near know the exact time he was there. This once and for all destroys Cahill's position that reporters made the footprints. Not a slight on him, just that we can now put this one in the "solved" column - then continue to consider the scenario as it really existed instead of guessing about it. It's also important to note how long it's been out there that DeLong was the first when he wasn't. He was putting it out there himself that he was. Does anyone find it odd that DeLong's first recollection (later retracted) was to say he "climbed" the ladder? This was DeLong's 9/11 moment in time. Why would he be confused on something that important? I just think it's an example of embellishment which he later decided wasn't a good idea. Another possibility was that perhaps he had climbed the one on the veranda later, as some did, but at the date of this '62 interview mis-remembered it as the original but corrected it later? We do know the reporters had access to the original ladder and looked it over the next day, but no reporter ever "climbed" it. We also know reporters were later allowed to see the footprints which was "around" noon. The yard had been guarded, and DeLong was not there before the first cops who stood watch over that yard. In fact, DeLong did not even get there before Breckinridge did.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 11, 2018 10:56:38 GMT -5
Michael, DeLong claims he got there "sometime between one and two, probably nearer one." Always wondered why no other reporters got there before him. (And you're right, DeLong claimed that Breckinridge was there before him). Can't wait to read what you've discovered on this. Also, regarding the ladder... it's just strange that DeLong mentioned both climbing and opening the ladder. That's why I think he's talking about the kidnap ladder. I agree with you that there's no way he climbed the kidnap ladder, it's just another weird, unexplainable detail. Status quo, huh?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 12, 2018 10:26:58 GMT -5
"Another point on the ladder:
Delong seems to hint that the ladder was leaning against the side of the house. Whether he actually saw it in that position I can't really tell. But he claims that when Betty Gow saw the baby was missing, "the window was open and they looked out and saw the ladder." One might think that it would be much too dark to see a ladder 75 feet or so from the house. At another point in the interview, Delong answers "yes" to the question "And this [ladder] went up to the second story?"
Question: Did police ever interview Delong, and if so, is there any summary of such an interview?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2018 13:56:42 GMT -5
It seems that writing events years after they have occurred can be challenging for a person's memory. You will find this in Lindbergh's Autobiography of Values. CAL started compiling his thoughts as early as 1938 for that book. Just when he jotted down his memories of the kidnapping of his son is not really known. His memory of this event can be found in Chapter 4, Out of Eden.
With the facts we all know about the night of March 1, 1932, Lindbergh recalls it quite differently. He writes how he went upstairs to the nursery and opened the door and then immediately he noticed a lifted window with a strange-looking envelope upon the sill. He then says he looked in the crib and it was empty! He then says he ran downstairs and grabbed his rifle. He then went out into the night and proceeded immediately to the side of the house where the nursery window was located. CAL then says under the nursery window he saw a ladder and it was broken. In the paragraph that follows the telling of the ladder discovery, CAL does mention there was no point in going into the woods or trying to follow roads because it was too dark and stormy to see or hear anything. (underlining is mine)
Just like Edmund DeLong seems confused about the ladder, CAL seems unable to recall accurately the immediate events surrounding the kidnapping of his own son. Well, at least he wasn't claiming to have climbed that ladder!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 13, 2018 10:16:46 GMT -5
Michael, DeLong claims he got there "sometime between one and two, probably nearer one." Always wondered why no other reporters got there before him. (And you're right, DeLong claimed that Breckinridge was there before him). Can't wait to read what you've discovered on this. Being 1st was a big deal. So we had two men claiming to be the first. Their children and relatives would naturally believe they were the first too, so it doesn't make a difference what they said. What matters is the documentation, and his own words prove he wasn't there for quite some time after Blackman got there. It was DeLong's claim that he was there when Lindbergh went into those woods which could lead us to believe that Richard's position might be true. However, since he didn't show until after Breckinridge then we turn to Blackman who was first. His account of events prove he did not make those prints in the yard. So the footprint evidence is solid. Speaking of footprints, I am certainly vindicated by what Schwarzkopf told DeLong "off the record" aren't I? In fact, there's even more to it and it goes well beyond what I had found. So while I suspect his recollections in '62 could be shaky in some regards, those notes he wrote in June 1932 are no doubt really what Schwarzkopf told him.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 13, 2018 11:17:27 GMT -5
Michael, Since DeLong himself states that he arrived at Highfields after Breckinridge was already there, then, yes, it looks like Blackman was the first reporter there. Nice find! Also, I agree with your footprint analysis. In case others on this board haven't read it, here's what Schwartzkopf told Delong on June 4, 1932 regarding the footprints: Amy, I also agree with you that Delong's mind might have been failing by 1962. I'm not sure how old he was then, but, dementia or Alzheimer's or simply forgetting are all possibilities. But for all of us who have been to Highfields, both inside and out, I don't think any of us would be confused whether or not we climbed a ladder there Also, have you read the DeLong interview? It's really interesting to see how many mistakes or outright lies Schwartzkopf made to Delong on June 4, 1932. I have no idea what to make of them. Just one sample: Schwartzkopf claimed that Charlie was partially identified by the callous found on his thumb! For the record, neither hand was ever recovered. Again, a shoutout to Scathma for making me aware of this link: lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/sue.html
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 14, 2018 8:39:13 GMT -5
mike how can being first is a big deal ive never heard it debated in the debates with authors I attended in the 90s. to me its not important at all. seth mosley a reporter claimed he had the only interview with lindbergh I never saw it and I have a lot of newspaper accounts. the relatives I talked to whos grandfathers and such that was involved in this case I never met one who knew anything important.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 14, 2018 8:45:28 GMT -5
I think ghosts is a great book at least jim debated his book then these current authors who write it and run
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 14, 2018 8:49:02 GMT -5
wayne sue found this stuff years ago and suddenly on this board its new.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2018 9:04:38 GMT -5
Also, have you read the DeLong interview? So I started reading through these parts last night. I have only gotten as far as part 3 but will finish reading the rest tonight. In Part One where DeLong is being interviewed, DeLong did note the remoteness of the Hopewell house and how difficult it was to find the Lindberghs home which he admitted he could not have done without his wife being with him. She had been out to the house before to visit Anne. He also verifies the muddy conditions of the grounds around the house that night. Also in part one DeLong claims on page 63 that the Princeton Student body did a hand-to-hand search of the area that was close to where the body of the child was found. I thought this did not happen. That Hibben offered to have the students do this but it was knocked down by CAL/Schwarzkopf. In part one I think we get a good example of DeLong having some recall issues. On page 64 he says "The baby was found in September 1934". Yikes! I think he confused this with the arrest of Hauptmann for some reason. When reading part one, I was surprised that DeLong wasn't in a huge hurry to get to the scene. He stops at the Balt, in Princeton, for coffee and sandwiches. He talks to Coan for at least 10 minutes and then searches for a guide to help him negotiate the woods that surround the Lindbergh home. This takes time. Blackman was coming out of Trenton which isn't that far from Princeton. DeLong taking that extra time to make that stop and then search for someone could have worked against him. Blackman could have easily made up the mileage/time difference because of DeLong's stop, actually arriving at Lindbergh's house first. I am looking forward to what Michael will publish in Volume 2 about this. Part Three gets into the Schwarzkopf memos; the notes DeLong made in June of 1932. I am still going over this section. I have so many questions about what Schwarzkopf was telling DeLong. I realize that police keep certain things back from the public so they can evaluate the stories of people they bring in for questioning. However, some of the stuff that Schwarzkopf is sharing with DeLong doesn't match up to what we know the facts to be. The two callouses found on the corpse's thumbs is totally false. There were no hands recovered. Just some bones from both hands were recovered from the burial site. Then on page 89 Delong has Schwarzkopf saying "They also found the other foot." What??!!! According to the loose bones recovered from the scene, only four bones were recovered from the left foot, not the foot. I find myself questioning whether Schwarzkopf really said some of the things in these memos. If he did, then he must be lying. On page 90 of Part Three, Schwarzkopf is telling DeLong that only one note was left in the nursery and that it was addressed simply to Charles Lindbergh, Hopewell, NJ. This is a flat out lie. I don't know any other way to describe this. (underlining is mine) There are other statements in these memos as coming from Schwarzkopf that are just as astounding as the ones mentioned above. I sit here shaking my head as I write this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2018 9:45:29 GMT -5
So while I suspect his recollections in '62 could be shaky in some regards, those notes he wrote in June 1932 are no doubt really what Schwarzkopf told him. So, Michael, then Schwarzkopf is lying or stretching the truth or however you want to describe some of the statements that are attributed to him in these memos? If I am understanding what I read, these memos were not to be publicized right away. I had a smile on my face when I read on page 58 of Part 3 that Schwarzkopf classified both Condon and Perrone as hopeless. The section on the footprints found at the scene that Wayne had in his post (from page 90, Part 3), is troubling as Schwarzkopf is telling it. He has two sets of foot prints leading from some scrub Oaks that were 40 feet from the house. Both men made two trips from the scrub Oaks to the house. Schwarzkopf then goes on to say there was another set of tracks found about 30 feet from the house and that these tracks were more difficult to trace. He does add that the person who made this set of tracks had apparently walked back and forth within a 5 foot radius. (underlining is mine.) Michael, what tracks is Schwarzkopf speaking about here? Surely he did not think these were from the kidnappers. There were no footprints leading to the house by the kidnappers. Your book has made this abundantly clear! Could these prints have been made by a reporter such as DeLong? He claimed he walked around the property. Are these prints mentioned in any reports you have reviewed at the archives?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2018 9:51:16 GMT -5
I think ghosts is a great book at least jim debated his book then these current authors who write it and run It is a terrible book with so many mistakes and false assertions that I've lost count. mike how can being first is a big deal ive never heard it debated in the debates with authors I attended in the 90s. to me its not important at all. seth mosley a reporter claimed he had the only interview with lindbergh I never saw it and I have a lot of newspaper accounts. the relatives I talked to whos grandfathers and such that was involved in this case I never met one who knew anything important. First of all, whoever these Debaters may or may not be does not apply to the level of knowledge we currently have. Maybe back then but not now. Next, it is a big deal for several reasons. First of foremost for the historical record. Getting it "right" is important. Certain things accepted as fact turn out to be incorrect. How does that assist in getting to the truth? It doesn't. Next, because Richard Cahill, who unlike many other "Experts," actually did a good bit of research, its important to note that his book floated the idea that the footprints were made by Reporters and not the criminals. Since DeLong was not first, that disproves his theory. Not that it was true if he was first, but with Blackman being first it removes it from the discussion. wayne sue found this stuff years ago and suddenly on this board its new. Of course its not "new" since its existed since 1962. I think its great Sue found this stuff years ago so it obviously wasn't new to her - but why didn't she ever discuss it? That's not like her and in my experiences she posts and discusses things almost simultaneous to her coming into anything. With all of that being said, I assume it is now in the public domain so everyone can now read and discuss it. Right? So that's why everyone is doing just that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2018 10:08:20 GMT -5
So, Michael, then Schwarzkopf is lying or stretching the truth or however you want to describe some of the statements that are attributed to him in these memos? If I am understanding what I read, these memos were not to be publicized right away. Not necessarily. It's not how I see it anyway. I had a smile on my face when I read on page 58 of Part 3 that Schwarzkopf classified both Condon and Perrone as hopeless. It just backs up what they thought at the time. That position had to change for Court. So when we see Authors or Researchers only point to the testimony to back their positions its proof they are flawed. What Schwarzkopf said about this is backed up by the documentation -- much of which I cited in V1. The section on the footprints found at the scene that Wayne had in his post (from page 90, Part 3), is troubling as Schwarzkopf is telling it. He has two sets of foot prints leading from some scrub Oaks that were 40 feet from the house. Both men made two trips from the scrub Oaks to the house. Schwarzkopf then goes on to say there was another set of tracks found about 30 feet from the house and that these tracks were more difficult to trace. He does add that the person who made this set of tracks had apparently walked back and forth within a 5 foot radius. (underlining is mine.) Michael, what tracks is Schwarzkopf speaking about here? Surely he did not think these were from the kidnappers. There were no footprints leading to the house by the kidnappers. Your book has made this abundantly clear! Could these prints have been made by a reporter such as DeLong? He claimed he walked around the property. Are these prints mentioned in any reports you have reviewed at the archives? No Reporter made any of the footprints there. That yard was constantly under guard. DeLong hadn't gotten there until after Breck, therefore, the police had already noted then followed the footprints probably way over an hour before his arrival. Blackman made his call at 12:40AM. By his own words he never left the driveway, and ran into Lindbergh after they had already followed those prints. Stick a fork into any idea that Reporters made those prints because that's done. To what Schwarzkopf said about the footprints. Once again we have it straight from the horse's mouth that there were (3) different sets. Whether they came back and forth that definitely isn't in any documentation in this way. However, as I told Wayne, I've been researching this for almost 18 years now and I STILL need to go back to the files to be 100% accurate. So I can only imagine how much information Schwarzkopf had going on in his head. With that in mind, it could have been his mistaken recollection at that moment that these prints came back to the house, or it could have been a situation where DeLong was misunderstanding it in some way. Or it could just be real but that is was never recorded anywhere before. I tend to believe it was as the source documents say some of which is supported by what Schwarzkopf said excepting they did not come back toward the house. However, I leave that up to everyone to decide for themselves. The surveillance is another interesting observation isn't it? And it fits in nicely with what I turned up in the Thompson eyewitness accounts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2018 10:58:36 GMT -5
Just one sample: Schwartzkopf claimed that Charlie was partially identified by the callous found on his thumb! So, Wayne, there is another way to look at what Schwarzkopf said about the callouses on the thumb plus the two little toes which were bent and improperly formed. Schwarzkopf could have been mentioning these as marks of identification on a living Charlie. These conditions would have aided officers in identifying whether a living child was or was not the Lindbergh baby. This is the beginning of DeLong's interview with Schwarzkopf and he (Schwarzkopf) was probably not speaking at this point about the body that was found.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2018 11:38:56 GMT -5
Stick a fork into any idea that Reporters made those prints because that's done. I hear you loud and clear, Michael. No Reporters! Three sets makes three kidnappers, one being a look-out and two handling the ladder. We have a look-out at the Hopewell house; there is a look-out at Woodlawn cemetery; there is a look-out at St. Raymonds cemetery. Yes, this works very well as does the tie in with the Christine Thompson account of the cars she saw. ( TDC Chapter 1, page 3)
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 14, 2018 12:10:10 GMT -5
wayne sue found this stuff years ago and suddenly on this board its new. Wolf, I didn't mean to imply this was new info. I was merely stating it was new to me. I also get that you like Fisher's research and findings. Fine, no problem with that. So, what do you make of Schwartzkopf's statements to DeLong on June 4, 1932? For instance, finding three different footprints outside the nursery? Do you discount the man who was in charge of the investigation?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 14, 2018 12:17:18 GMT -5
I had a smile on my face when I read on page 58 of Part 3 that Schwarzkopf classified both Condon and Perrone as hopeless. Amy, I was smiling at those as well. By the way, did you see how Schwartzkopf described Betty Gow in Part 4? "Schwartzkopf described her as being pretty dumb, unimaginative, almost bovine. Good and healthy but not much gray matter." Harsh, huh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2018 14:04:56 GMT -5
By the way, did you see how Schwartzkopf described Betty Gow in Part 4? "Schwartzkopf described her as being pretty dumb, unimaginative, almost bovine. Good and healthy but not much gray matter." Harsh, huh? Ouch! Yes indeed. I had to look ahead to read that because I am still going over Part 3. I guess Betty's "feminine wiles" weren't working on Schwarzkopf like they did on Red Johnson!! On page 91 of Part 3, Schwarzkopf brings up the "wagon road". Do you think he means the access road that cut across the open field and went behind the guard house and onto the private drive?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 8:51:27 GMT -5
According to DeGaetano, I think the kidnapper(s) followed your yellow line, then followed the white line toward the chicken coop to their car. This is also my understanding of the footprints that were followed. The chicken coop was searched and the footprints were followed to Wertsville Road, crossed there to where a car had been parked and the prints ended there. They must have gotten into the car and left the scene. Here is a link to the AP image to the Lindbergh driveway. I believe this is the pic used in Mark Falzini's awesome picture book. Lindbergh's private drive is on the left and the chicken coops are the building in the center. Just to the right of the car in that picture is the small brick overpass of the creek/runoff next to Lindbergh's private drive. According to the police theory, the kidnappers stopped at this creek to wash the blood off the child because he had been injured. So that would put the kidnap car north of the Lindbergh private drive as you show in LJ's picture. www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-NJ-USA-APHS257492-Charles-Lindberg-/ef9e1e606acb4a49b3fecdb7b0ba7420/8/1
|
|
|
The Ladder
Mar 15, 2018 11:29:12 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by lightningjew on Mar 15, 2018 11:29:12 GMT -5
Right, that’s the picture I mean (or something virtually identical). Now I want to redo those maps, but the blank picture of the scene (the first one) that Kevkon put up a few years ago is a dead link now, and I can’t find as a good a version of that picture anywhere else :-(
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 15, 2018 11:30:31 GMT -5
Amy,
Yes, that is the photograph from Mark's book that shows where DeGaetano ended his search. Nice recap too!
Thanks for posting the pic. And I highly recommend Mark's book.
|
|