|
Post by Wayne on Mar 15, 2018 14:11:48 GMT -5
About the thumbguard… Prior to Betty’s discovery of the thumbguard on April 1,1932, there is absolutely NO mention of the thumbguard in any statement (police or household). Not one. The general consensus is there was no way anyone would have missed the thumbguard in all that time. But I say that no one KNEW to look for a thumbguard. Only 4 people knew about it -- CAL, Anne, Betty, and Elsie -- and none of them felt compelled to share it with the police or the media until after it was found. Seriously, what NJ State Trooper walking down the driveway and seeing a couple of strings attached to something that looks like the wire-frame around a Champagne cork, would have thought, "Ah-ha, that is the Lindbergh baby's thumbguard which was attached to his thumbs and wrist every night." IF someone in the household before April 1 had described to the NJSP or the media that a thumbguard was used and what it looked like, then, yes, then it might have been discovered earlier. Take a look and tell me that, if you weren’t familiar with this case, that you would look at this and say to yourself, “Yep, that there’s a baby’s thumbguard.” As for the kidnapper(s) placing it on the driveway shortly before its discovery, that doesn’t make much sense either. Every car was checked at the gatehouse before it was allowed down the Lindbergh driveway. And if Betty dropped it there, why? I think the logical conclusion is that the thumbguard fell from Charlie’s body on the night of March 1st as the kidnapper(s) crossed the Lindbergh driveway on the way to their car by the chicken coop. Nobody discovered it until April 1st simply because no one knew what it was or what they were looking at…just a piece of string and some twisted metal.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 15, 2018 14:22:53 GMT -5
All that could very well be; I don’t discount it, but my understanding is that it was found right in the middle of the drive and didn’t look like it had been outside for a month. If so, then I think that thumbguard was never put on CAL Jr., did not leave the house with him, and was intentionally placed where it was found. Not by the kidnappers, who could’ve mailed it, but by someone in the house, creating an apparent threat and giving themselves a seemingly urgent reason, on realizing the kidnappers weren’t backing down, to pay the ransom, which was done a day or two later.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 15, 2018 17:57:41 GMT -5
If I'm following this correctly, there were two sets of men's footprints leading away from a point close to the nursery window. One set was made by size 8 shoes and the other by size 10 shoes (according to what the NJSP told Mr. Delong?) Now, for comparative purposes, would anyone happen to know (A) Hauptmann's shoe size and (b) CAL Sr.'s shoe size? Was this issue mentioned at Hauptmann's trial?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 15, 2018 18:23:32 GMT -5
Okay, I think I got it:
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 15, 2018 19:44:08 GMT -5
Nice!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 21:03:02 GMT -5
About the thumbguard:
The thumbguard was tied around Charlie's wrist. I am not sure how it could have fallen from Charlie if it had been properly attached to his thumb and wrist. If Charlie was placed in a burlap bag and then removed from the nursery how could the thumbguard have ended up on the driveway if Charlie is in the bag?
Here is something to consider about that thumbguard. This is what juror Howard Biggs had to say about that thumbguard when the evidence was being reviewed by the jury in 1935. This quote is from article #12, "How The Verdict Was Reached" and appeared in newspapers July 4, 1935.
"One of the women is fondling the baby's thumb-guard. We look that over. The microscope comes into play and we must all have a look. We see the details just as testified to in court. The thumb-guard is weather-beaten and mashed as though by automobile tires. Its little lacing tapes are worn slightly. The thumb-guard looks as if it had been forcibly taken from its little wearer"
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 15, 2018 21:21:37 GMT -5
The thumbguard was tied around Charlie's wrist. I am not sure how it could have fallen from Charlie if it had been properly attached to his thumb and wrist. If Charlie was placed in a burlap bag and then removed from the nursery how could the thumbguard have ended up on the driveway if Charlie is in the bag? Good question Amy. If Charlie had been hurt accidentally during the kidnapping (dropped from the ladder, for instance) and was inside the burlap bag (which I believe he was), then checking on Charlie on the first patch of mud-less terrain, would have been on the driveway. Just a quick removal of the bag to check on his health. In the excitement and in the pitch black darkness, the thumbguard fell off, unnoticed. (The pediatric neurosurgeons I've talked to said the blow to the head would not necessarily have killed instantaneously, that Charlie could have moved around in the bag, possibly ripping off the thumbguard). The jury report you cited seems to prove the thumbguard was outdoors for a lengthy period of time. If it was planted on April 1, what would be the point?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 15, 2018 22:05:18 GMT -5
If it was weather-beaten, did it look like it had been outside for a month? Was it that weather-beaten? If so, I think the laces would have been worn more than just slightly--but maybe it was outside for that long. And my idea that it was planted was that Lindbergh was stalling about paying the $50K "ransom", which was originally never meant to be paid. But once the kidnappers threatened to jack the ransom up to $100K, then Lindbergh realized he had no choice and dropped the thumb guard in the drive as if this was done by the kidnappers to further pressure him--that is, giving himself a seemingly urgent reason to finally pay the ransom when he did. Just a thought though.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 16, 2018 4:05:13 GMT -5
The thumbguard was tied around Charlie's wrist. I am not sure how it could have fallen from Charlie if it had been properly attached to his thumb and wrist. If Charlie was placed in a burlap bag and then removed from the nursery how could the thumbguard have ended up on the driveway if Charlie is in the bag? Good question Amy. If Charlie had been hurt accidentally during the kidnapping (dropped from the ladder, for instance) and was inside the burlap bag (which I believe he was), then checking on Charlie on the first patch of mud-less terrain, would have been on the driveway. Just a quick removal of the bag to check on his health. In the excitement and in the pitch black darkness, the thumbguard fell off, unnoticed. (The pediatric neurosurgeons I've talked to said the blow to the head would not necessarily have killed instantaneously, that Charlie could have moved around in the bag, possibly ripping off the thumbguard). The jury report you cited seems to prove the thumbguard was outdoors for a lengthy period of time. If it was planted on April 1, what would be the point? This obviously wasn't the point of your post but if he was dropped from the ladder, there is no evidence of that. The soft mud under the ladder and near the house would have showed some kind of place of impact, if it were hard enough to kill the child, wouldn't it? Instead you just have that one foot impression. Theoretically part of the bag could have landed on the boardwalk but it was so narrow that its unlikely it could have landed without also hitting some mud, too.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 16, 2018 9:22:01 GMT -5
no I don't discount it since the forensics at that time and police procedures weren't very good. you cant go by just the footprints I look at the whole case and how it unfolded I think one man did the crime I may be wrong but that's what I think. as far as fishers research in the 80s there wasn't a website yet with ronnelle and all the great researchers putting stuff they found on the board that made it easy for beginning researchers like mike and a few others to get a head start. fisher and scaduto didn't have that nor anyone before that.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 16, 2018 9:23:03 GMT -5
I don't think he put the top section on at all
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 16, 2018 9:24:12 GMT -5
when I was in the house I should have measured the shelf its still there never moved
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2018 9:25:48 GMT -5
If Charlie had been hurt accidentally during the kidnapping (dropped from the ladder, for instance) and was inside the burlap bag (which I believe he was), then checking on Charlie on the first patch of mud-less terrain, would have been on the driveway. As has already been stated here earlier, there is just no evidence of a child in a bag being dropped. The ground underneath the nursery window was soft and not likely to cause the fracturing described in the autopsy. If Charlie had been removed via the nursery French window that was over the cement patio on the back side of the house, and dropped from there, you could have such a fracture occurring. But not from the soft ground or the boardwalk, in my opinion. I have real trouble with the idea that these kidnappers stopped on the driveway to assess the condition of Charlie. If you have been able to grab your victim and get out of the house undetected, I would think you would want to get away from the scene of the crime first and foremost. Why would the kidnappers want to stop on the property to make an assessment of their victim? That would be like a bank robber after fleeing the scene on foot stopping at the corner and looking into the bag of money to see if he got away with enough. I can't see them risking discovery on the property should a car happen by or turn into the driveway or possibly someone leaving the house and coming down that driveway and seeing them checking out Charlie. This snatch is not taking place at one o'clock in the morning when it would be highly unlikely someone would happen upon them. To take the time to do something like you mention, the kidnappers would have to be almost certain this would not happen.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 16, 2018 9:26:48 GMT -5
mike whatever happened to liz I have her report also I have the governments report on the soil also at the time
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 16, 2018 9:28:54 GMT -5
I disagree mike I think the ladder speaks for itself rail 16 did come from that attic and its backed by a lot of wood experts
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2018 9:59:25 GMT -5
If it was weather-beaten, did it look like it had been outside for a month? Was it that weather-beaten? My thinking is when Biggs said the guard appeared weather beaten, he could have been describing the soiled appearance this way. If the thumb guard had been run over the night of the kidnapping by the arriving police, it would have become embedded into the graveling. This alone would have made the lacing dirty and helped the guard to blend into the driveway. The fact that the thumb guard was flattened needs to be considered and addressed. If Betty did actually put those guards on that night, they could not have been in a flattened condition. How else might we be able to account for that condition?? As Wayne has said in another post, I have never encountered thumb guards being mentioned anywhere previous to this crime. When we evaluate this evidence, we need to take into consideration something that Michael posted about the thumb guard. This is from a post he made in August of 2016 and was reposted recently on this board by Ilovedfw. "Maish told Peacock this guard was 'three or four years old.' Since it wasn't purchased direct, I am not sure how long a guard like this would remain on a shelf before it's purchased. Maish had all of his records to show the shipments to the stores and suggested they could trace which store and when if need be but that was never done. The instructions that came with that guard showed the 'tape' is to be wrapped around the child's hand twice. Next, the tape that came with the guard was temporary, and Maish said the tape on the thumb guard shown to him wasn't the original. Something else is that Maish could not tell if this was a #2 or #3 guard. The #2 was designed for a child from 1-1/2 to 2-1/2, and the #3 for a child from 2-1/2 to 3-1/2."(bolding is mine) Taking the above into consideration, the guards Charlie was supposedly using were not the newest available. So we need to wonder just how this set of thumb guards was acquired by Anne. Plus, was the size the correct size for a child of Charlie's age?? Could what Michael posted about the thumb guard suggest that the guard was a planted piece of evidence?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 16, 2018 11:40:09 GMT -5
no I don't discount it since the forensics at that time and police procedures weren't very good. you cant go by just the footprints I look at the whole case and how it unfolded I think one man did the crime I may be wrong but that's what I think. as far as fishers research in the 80s there wasn't a website yet with ronnelle and all the great researchers putting stuff they found on the board that made it easy for beginning researchers like mike and a few others to get a head start. fisher and scaduto didn't have that nor anyone before that. I'll put you down for the "Invisible Man" theory as the person making the different set of prints. The only reason the Lone-Wolf position was ever adopted in the first place had more to do with getting a conviction and less to do with what really happened. I know it's hard to let go of something you've believed for so long so I will cut you some slack here but what you've done is fallen into a trap. You'll see even more proof of this in V2. I came onto the "scene" in 2000. I think the biggest advantage I've had is that people like you, Ronelle, David, Sam, and Richard had encouraged me to go to the Archives which I did almost immediately. After that, I can't say what links were helpful because I knew it was all down there. Our disadvantage is that most people were dead. Our advantage is that the Archives are open. But let me get something straight before you parrot anymore of this line... There are links on her site. Right? But does that mean those links are my sources? No. If you ever stop by I will show you my sources to prove it so all of this nonsense will stop. I've been going to the NJSP Archives for about 18 years now and I still have to hear I am somehow pilfering information? I was just there again last week. ANY source that I use I footnote it. Just look at the footnotes. I always give credit where credit is due. I disagree mike I think the ladder speaks for itself rail 16 did come from that attic and its backed by a lot of wood experts I am not going to re-hash this but I plan on explaining in full details about Rail 16 in V3. Since I don't think there will be a V4 then it looks like a safe bet. But who knows - I have a ton of new information. mike whatever happened to liz I have her report also I have the governments report on the soil also at the time I haven't heard from Liz since 2005 or 2006. Her report is a great bit of research! Over the years so many people come and go and it is pretty sad to start thinking about it because we've had some really great people to discuss this case with that are currently MIA. I wonder about so many people. Unfortunately, John Sasser passed away. He was such a terrific person who shared everything with me. A really awesome guy! I remember him telling me that during his last trip to the Archives his wife discovered New Hope so while he was researching she was shopping... That was why, he explained, he couldn't go as often as he would like or he'd be in the "poor house." By the way, he donated all of his material to the Archives.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 16, 2018 12:22:55 GMT -5
when I was in the house I should have measured the shelf its still there never moved Hey Wolf, Did you take pictures of the nursery? If so, would you share?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 18, 2018 17:02:38 GMT -5
LJ, Wayne and Amy, nice work with the maps and photos and helping to bring a far more visual perspective to the kidnappers' retreat path.
When I first started studying this case, Featherbed Lane (marked in purple) was considered to be the location where the kidnappers would have parked their vehicle, so it always seemed a mystery to me as to why anyone would risk getting bogged down there during their retreat. Based on the Conovers' sighting of the struggling vehicle on Featherbed Lane about 6:30 pm, it appears whatever thought the kidnappers might have had about possibly using that location to park their car would have been quashed once they were able to get out.
I've seen one newspaper map which identifies the east-west route approximately 6/10 of a mile directly south of the Lindbergh house, as Featherbed Road, even though all other sources seem to identify it as Featherbed Lane to this day. It seems very likely the Access Road which Kevin (Kevkon) first identified also became interchanged with Featherbed Road and Featherbed Lane, in the interests of best describing what was little more than an improvised private road on the property.
Regarding the chicken coops which would have then taken the kidnappers to a point north of the Lindbergh driveway. This seems to have been confirmed by the first party of four that followed the kidnappers' footprints. I don't recall it being mentioned they crossed the road, but it seems entirely likely. I'm wondering why the kidnappers would have parked their car north of the driveway entrance when a quicker path would have been directly east to Hopewell-Wertsville Road. Perhaps there was more cover for the parked vehicle at a point north of the driveway?
Wayne, I very much like your thought that the baby's thumbguard was accidentally dropped when the kidnappers had reached a location they recognized, Lindbergh's private driveway, (based on them having walked up it to approach the house) and took a few moments to reconcile their next actions. This would also seem to agree with Wilentz's assertion the sleeping suit was stripped from the child before it left the property, and then was hastily discarded a short time later, the thumbguard having been lost in the removal of the sleeping suit. I have no problem with the thumbguard's monel metal (nickel-copper alloy) weathering well for a month and it having been pressed almost immediately into the driveway gravel by the countless vehicles that would have driven back and forth. I'm sure it would have been flattened and dirty, but it also would have been corrosion-free.
Regarding the intermingled human footprints and dog paw prints which were discovered by the chicken coops. Kucher and Kutchera (sp?) both recalled their dogs barking and running towards the chicken coops shortly after 9:00 PM. I'd be interested in knowing whether or not others feel this is relevant to the kidnapping, as I do.
I hope this discussion on the kidnappers' retreat continues because it has evolved greatly from 2000. The visuals and maps presented here and the discussion are top notch!
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 19, 2018 9:49:22 GMT -5
i have pictures of the shelf and the attic and the babys closet and the closet where you only can get in the attic from at that time
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 20, 2018 9:09:39 GMT -5
I understand mike ronnelle isnt as active as she once was. we all get old. im glad I made the kidnapping symposium in 1996 because noel behn died after that and the lady who had a big collection on the case also passed. I sat with noel behn, jim fisher, Robert bryan and a few others at the dinner table it ws interesting. got to talk to 2 Lindbergh babys and anna hauptmans friend. so time marches on.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 22, 2018 10:43:29 GMT -5
Hey, Wolf, since you mentioned meeting Noel Behn, what did you think of him and the theory of the case he endorses in his book? Did he seem sincere to you or phony?
Also, since he died shortly after his book came out, could he have been the victim of foul play on the part of someone who was ticked off by his book? Would you know what Behn's cause of death was said to be?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 22, 2018 12:32:54 GMT -5
when I was in the house I should have measured the shelf its still there never moved Hey Wolf, Did you take pictures of the nursery? If so, would you share? just the window
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Apr 20, 2018 21:40:50 GMT -5
Any thoughts on this? Probably not important, but I can't come up with a reason for it... Because there were only two ladder impressions in the mud outside the southeast side of the house, I think we can all agree that the ladder was positioned a little to the right of the SE windows as shown here (and, yes, I know only two sections were used, not three) -- So, if the police wanted to re-enact where the ladder was, why didn't they re-enact where the ladder was -- And again using one of Lindbergh's ladder, but in the wrong place. Why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2018 8:47:11 GMT -5
My immediate thought is they used a position that was easiest for them to enter the nursery room window when only using two sections of the ladder. The actual placement position of the two sections of ladder make it very difficult to enter and exit that nursery window otherwise. I absolutely don't understand why the police ever used three sections of ladder when re-enacting the crime. They knew the evidence showed only two sections were employed.
|
|