Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Oct 27, 2019 12:59:58 GMT -5
I think Michael and I both agree that that narrow walkway was used to gain access to the location under the south-east corner nursery window, whether this was a staged kidnapping or not. We’re probably looking at 1930’s style 4” tongue-and-groove width here for that walkway, which we also know were arranged in both single and side-by-side fashion for most of the way along the east side of the house. So this represents a very narrow approach even in the best of conditions day or night, given the equipment the kidnappers would have brought with them. I don’t agree that the kidnappers by necessity, would not have been using flashlights. After all, this was a very high risk endeavour to begin that took place under a dark and moonless sky. Holding one flashlight low to the ground at a 45 degree angle to illuminate the path ahead would not have represented a major issue unless someone inside the house had actually opened one of the ground floor shutters and looked out the window. If that had been the case, the jig would have been up anyway, flashlight or not. Here's a typical 1930's flashlight: The moisture level of the ground itself and the footwear worn by those who traversed the pathway along the east side of the house, would be far more influential in detecting the presence of footprints than simply considering the weight of the persons alone. Ground Moisture - I believe it’s very important not to simply generalize the ground everywhere from the wall of the house all the way into the open field, as “muddy” or “very muddy” based on police descriptions. Unfortunately, it’s pretty clear that no one investigating the case at the time seemed to think it might be a good idea to be very specific here in direct relation to soil moisture content and the presence or non-presence of footprints. This was simply poor crime scene investigation and there is very good reason to be cautious in generalizing here. This is the same kind of subject you’ve been presenting in the Dark Corners series, and I’d certainly like to see you take this one on. Given the fact the rains during the daytime and the winds that evening were from the north-west, the leeward effect offered by the house itself, would essentially have yielded little or no rain directly alongside the house, and therefore a lower moisture level. If we look at the footprint evidence photo, it’s quite clear that the ground was not as “muddy” as the ground that would have clearly showed the trail of footprints further east of the house. Below is a link which relates soil appearance with moisture content. Based on the appearance of the soil close to the house in the crime scene photo, I would estimate its moisture content to be about 50 – 75%. See "Appearance of clay, clay loam, and silt clay loam soils at various soil moisture conditions." www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_051845.pdfFootwear – The kidnappers appeared to have been wearing some kind of soft coverings, possibly burlap, over their feet, socks or shoes. Anne would most likely have been wearing a 1930’s style sport / casual shoe which had a very distinct hard heel. Given the appearance and estimated characteristics of the soil in the immediate vicinity of the walkway, it seems logical that the kidnappers wearing their soft coverings, would by no means have been restricted to that narrow set of floorboards within their approach to the south-east corner window. After all, they left in a south-east direction only minutes later, so why would they even bother about being so careful as to stay on the walkway during their approach? Let’s also remember that Lindbergh, Wolfe, Williamson, Wolf, DeGaetano, and who knows else were at the point where the ladder was positioned in the ground before any crime scene photography took place. Why is their no evidence of their presence and resultant footprints in the soil? Getting back to Anne for a minute, this is from the source Vintage Dancer, and note the references I underscored: "Women’s shoes in the 1930’s were all high heels, and even sports shoes had a small flat heel. Cuban heels, Spanish heels, military heels, and built up heels were typical of the 1930s. Usually made of wood, these square heel shapes with a straight breast (inside the heel) and a curved backside graced the feet of thirties women. Heels ranged in height, 1.5 to 2.5 inches tall. Shorter heels for work, sport, and more casual looks, higher for afternoon and evening wear. Some sports shoes had a lower (1” or less) smaller square flat heel. Only house slippers and beach sandals had flat soles, and even those usually had a small heel." Let’s also remember that while it’s colourful to express things like Anne being “as light as a feather,” she was not. In fact, she weighed as you say, about 110 pounds. So she weighed the same as a 110-pound weight at the gym. And if you add a woman’s 1930’s style heel to one end of a 110-pound weight and lower it at the rate of a person stepping into the same ground as that found under the nursery window, you will obviously see a significant impression. And I’d safely venture she would have left much more of an impression with her shoe heel and even its sole, than a kidnapper weighing perhaps 170-pounds, but with his point of foot impact well spread out over a much larger surface area by virtue of the soft foot coverings he was wearing. It’s straight physics and nothing more complicated than that. Finally, the one lone footprint discovered to the left of the base of the ladder, apparently made by the kidnapper. I know this is believed by some to be the first step taken by the kidnapper during his ascent, but how then can we explain the fact there are no visible footprints leading to that one from the walkway or around the ladder? Where are the footprints that would show evidence of one or more kidnappers setting up the ladder and attempting to take it down after their descent? The actual crime scene evidence and common sense tells me that the kidnappers came along the east side of the house from a pre-arranged staging point off the north-east corner of the house, with the ladder pre-assembled. Their footprints were softened by the coverings they wore on their feet and the general moisture level of the ground they walked on and set themselves up at, at the base of the nursery window. This ground type clearly did not support readily-visible footprints. The one footprint that investigators did find was made as a result of the ladder climber coming down hard on his left foot with added force, when the ladder unexpectedly broke or shifted due to it cracking under the combined weight of kidnapper and child. The general, but not obvious outline of a footprint trail on the nursery floor, is due to the fact very little of this firmer ground actually adhered to the bottom surfaces of the kidnappers’ foot coverings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2019 19:39:14 GMT -5
This ground type clearly did not support readily-visible footprints. The one footprint that investigators did find was made as a result of the ladder climber coming down hard on his left foot with added force, when the ladder unexpectedly broke or shifted due to it cracking under the combined weight of kidnapper and child. Seriously, Joe. The investigators only found ONE FOOTPRINT???!!!! Michael covered this footprint issue very well in his first volume of The Dark Corners in Chapter 12. That ground type supported readily-visible footprints. Those investigators saw them. It is mentioned in their reports. You are free to believe what you choose but just to verify that more than one footprint was observed at the scene, I will post the reports of these investigators saying so. imgur.com/bh633cQ Assistant Chief of Hopewell Police Charles Williamson, First responder along with Hopewell Chief Harry Wolf imgur.com/vMEsNZs Trooper N. DeGaetano, NJSP imgur.com/DXtYXEo Trooper Lewis Bornmann, NJSP imgur.com/hiCHd5d Hopewell Chief of Police Harry Wolf who speaks of being instructed to guard all the prints (plural) at the scene. That ground was soft and moist enough to leave visible prints when investigators shined their flashlights upon them. Thanks for the soil information and the stuff about 1930's footwear for women. All interesting stuff.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Oct 27, 2019 20:12:12 GMT -5
This ground type clearly did not support readily-visible footprints. The one footprint that investigators did find was made as a result of the ladder climber coming down hard on his left foot with added force, when the ladder unexpectedly broke or shifted due to it cracking under the combined weight of kidnapper and child. Seriously, Joe. The investigators only found ONE FOOTPRINT???!!!! Michael covered this footprint issue very well in his first volume of The Dark Corners in Chapter 12. That ground type supported readily-visible footprints. Those investigators saw them. It is mentioned in their reports. You are free to believe what you choose but just to verify that more than one footprint was observed at the scene, I will post the reports of these investigators saying so. imgur.com/bh633cQ Assistant Chief of Hopewell Police Charles Williamson, First responder along with Hopewell Chief Harry Wolf imgur.com/vMEsNZs Trooper N. DeGaetano, NJSP imgur.com/DXtYXEo Trooper Lewis Bornmann, NJSP imgur.com/hiCHd5d Hopewell Chief of Police Harry Wolf who speaks of being instructed to guard all the prints (plural) at the scene. That ground was soft and moist enough to leave visible prints when investigators shined their flashlights upon them. Thanks for the soil information and the stuff about 1930's footwear for women. All interesting stuff. Amy, I believe you understand well I was referring to footprints attributed to the kidnappers in the immediate vicinity of the house where a lot of activity obviously took place before the nursery window was entered, not the so called "bread crumb trail" leading off to the ladder sections and beyond. My point of the post was that the soil alongside the house was not supportive of readily-visible kidnappers' footprints during the kidnappers' approach. Of course, we have those attributed to Anne as well, due to the heels she was wearing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2019 20:30:14 GMT -5
Joe,
Prints were seen around the boardwalk. It is in another report written by Trooper DeGaetano. I will post it tomorrow. I repeat that ground was soft and moist enough to yield prints even near the house.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Oct 28, 2019 7:56:42 GMT -5
Joe, Prints were seen around the boardwalk. It is in another report written by Trooper DeGaetano. I will post it tomorrow. I repeat that ground was soft and moist enough to yield prints even near the house. Thanks Amy, I look forward to seeing that report.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2019 11:41:53 GMT -5
Thanks Amy, I look forward to seeing that report. So I am going to post Trooper DeGaetano's March 3, 1932 report here. Just a couple of comments: 1. DeGaetano does mention the footprint impression found at where the ladder had been placed in the ground. I believe this is the impression you say was made once going up and then coming back down. 2. DeGaetano does mention that about 18 inches to the right of the above print he sees a heavy woolen stocking impression with very distinct ridges. This would match to the stocking impressions DeGaetano noted as leading to the discarded ladder. 3. DeGaetano also mentions two more impressions found near the temporary boardwalk plus the woman's shoe print found near the boardwalk. Stocking impressions are footprints without shoes on the feet of those making them. They count also. They are in the boardwalk area. imgur.com/QM2BeqO Page One imgur.com/6ullEYn Page Two
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 29, 2019 9:32:07 GMT -5
Amy, I believe you understand well I was referring to footprints attributed to the kidnappers in the immediate vicinity of the house where a lot of activity obviously took place before the nursery window was entered, not the so called "bread crumb trail" leading off to the ladder sections and beyond. My point of the post was that the soil alongside the house was not supportive of readily-visible kidnappers' footprints during the kidnappers' approach. Of course, we have those attributed to Anne as well, due to the heels she was wearing. Joe, What is your source for the connection between the small footprints leading to the back of the house to the heels on Anne's shoe? The only mention of a woman's heel print that I recall came from Williamson who saw one in a print near the ladder which he believed joined the others. I think they were originally assumed to be a woman's because they were small. After that we learned that Anne supposedly stepped off the board to throw pebbles. This despite those existing prints were inside the board & the house and not outside which would have been required for such an angle AND those prints were horizontal to the house. Perhaps she was throwing hook-shots, or otherwise didn't leave impressions outside the board but only inside as she walked toward the back of the house? As to her weight that obviously makes a difference. In fact, police originally attempted to determine the weight of the person who was on the ladder by the depth of the rail holes in the mud. So a man weighing over 180 lbs carrying heavy items most definitely is going to leave a footprint if a woman weighing 110 lbs. with a pebble in her hand would. I don't care if they were wearing snow shoes. I think Michael and I both agree that that narrow walkway was used to gain access to the location under the south-east corner nursery window, whether this was a staged kidnapping or not. We’re probably looking at 1930’s style 4” tongue-and-groove width here for that walkway, which we also know were arranged in both single and side-by-side fashion for most of the way along the east side of the house. So this represents a very narrow approach even in the best of conditions day or night, given the equipment the kidnappers would have brought with them. I don’t agree that the kidnappers by necessity, would not have been using flashlights. After all, this was a very high risk endeavour to begin that took place under a dark and moonless sky. Holding one flashlight low to the ground at a 45 degree angle to illuminate the path ahead would not have represented a major issue unless someone inside the house had actually opened one of the ground floor shutters and looked out the window. If that had been the case, the jig would have been up anyway, flashlight or not. What you are doing here, in my opinion, is making my case for me. How in the hell could they walk perfectly along these boards, in this situation, without being able to see the boards? Answer: They could not. Throw in they were supposed to be from the Bronx and unfamiliar as it relates to walking there. So its quite clear whoever was using them could see those boards - otherwise they're walking in the mud. This means if it happened at night, a flashlight was used. If you believe that is an acceptable scenario to add to the laundry list of astronomical odds then your whole theory is completely based upon luck and nothing more. A light in the pitch black would likely have been noticed. We're all supposed to believe they were waiting for CAL to come home, so if that was true, I'm sure Anne wasn't only listening for him but looking out the window now and then hoping to see his headlights. It's the totality of the situation that needs to be looked at here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Nov 2, 2019 17:25:01 GMT -5
Thanks Amy, I look forward to seeing that report. So I am going to post Trooper DeGaetano's March 3, 1932 report here. Just a couple of comments: 1. DeGaetano does mention the footprint impression found at where the ladder had been placed in the ground. I believe this is the impression you say was made once going up and then coming back down. 2. DeGaetano does mention that about 18 inches to the right of the above print he sees a heavy woolen stocking impression with very distinct ridges. This would match to the stocking impressions DeGaetano noted as leading to the discarded ladder. 3. DeGaetano also mentions two more impressions found near the temporary boardwalk plus the woman's shoe print found near the boardwalk. Stocking impressions are footprints without shoes on the feet of those making them. They count also. They are in the boardwalk area. imgur.com/QM2BeqO Page One imgur.com/6ullEYn Page Two Amy, from the reports, it appears the only investigator who really took note of anything substantial beyond what is commonly accepted as the crime scene print evidence, was Trooper De Gaetano, who noted “two impressions near the temporary boardwalk.” Everything else has been previously recorded, ie. the one footprint pointing towards the house appearing to the left of the ladder which I mentioned, the smudged impression off the right rail of where the ladder was planted, the two rail prints themselves and the woman’s shoe print, which appears to have no relationship to the kidnapping. I believe other reports mention more than one woman’s shoe print. Beyond the above, we know there was a trail of footprints leading away from the house and towards the area where the ladder sections and chisel were found, but there appears to be no mention as to exactly how far from the house this trail of footprints clearly began to show itself in ground that was only then, time, soft and impressionable enough to clearly show prints. This indicates to me the ground nearest the house did not readily support footprint evidence, in spite of all the activity that have had to have taken place coming along that narrow walkway in the dark, raising a two or three sectioned ladder, another kidnapper possibly holding that ladder, not to mention any sudden and unexpected recovery efforts on the ground due to the ladder integrity being compromised in any way.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Nov 3, 2019 6:10:36 GMT -5
Amy, I believe you understand well I was referring to footprints attributed to the kidnappers in the immediate vicinity of the house where a lot of activity obviously took place before the nursery window was entered, not the so called "bread crumb trail" leading off to the ladder sections and beyond. My point of the post was that the soil alongside the house was not supportive of readily-visible kidnappers' footprints during the kidnappers' approach. Of course, we have those attributed to Anne as well, due to the heels she was wearing. Joe, What is your source for the connection between the small footprints leading to the back of the house to the heels on Anne's shoe? The only mention of a woman's heel print that I recall came from Williamson who saw one in a print near the ladder which he believed joined the others. I think they were originally assumed to be a woman's because they were small. After that we learned that Anne supposedly stepped off the board to throw pebbles. This despite those existing prints were inside the board & the house and not outside which would have been required for such an angle AND those prints were horizontal to the house. Perhaps she was throwing hook-shots, or otherwise didn't leave impressions outside the board but only inside as she walked toward the back of the house? As to her weight that obviously makes a difference. In fact, police originally attempted to determine the weight of the person who was on the ladder by the depth of the rail holes in the mud. So a man weighing over 180 lbs carrying heavy items most definitely is going to leave a footprint if a woman weighing 110 lbs. with a pebble in her hand would. I don't care if they were wearing snow shoes. I’m not aware of any woman’s heel print that was seen near the ladder and only know that a trail of footprints attributed to a woman, was observed running along the east wall of the house towards the back patio. Anne testified she couldn’t recall which window she threw the pebbles at, but I believe it could not have been any other than the French window along the south wall. And yes, because otherwise she would have had to have strayed off that line and well into the yard for her to hit the south-east corner nursery window with pebbles and have the baby see her. You seem entirely stuck on a person’s weight only being a factor in making an observable impression in the ground and I’m not going to repeat my case about other logical and real-world considerations that would have an equal or greater impact on the creation of observable footprints. Try talking to someone at a gardening centre or perhaps do a little experimentation of your own. If only this case was really that simple and one-dimensional as you're attempting to make it here. Yes, they tried to determine the weight of the kidnapper on the ladder, but they had no way of knowing how many times one or more kidnappers, exerting downward force, were up and down that ladder. They also tried to determine the kidnapper’s weight based on the way the ladder broke, something that would only have made any sense if they were looking at a commercially produced ladder and not a one-off with potentially fatal flaws such as the dowel holes being drilled too close to the end of the rails, a condition that would only have been exaggerated by an lateral movement by the kidnapper on the ladder. I mean, logically how much plus or minus from say 175 lbs., would the kidnapper reasonably have been, based on all other factors, including the basic design and dimensions of the the ladder? At the end of the day, it was a pretty meaningless exercise.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Nov 3, 2019 6:45:41 GMT -5
I think Michael and I both agree that that narrow walkway was used to gain access to the location under the south-east corner nursery window, whether this was a staged kidnapping or not. We’re probably looking at 1930’s style 4” tongue-and-groove width here for that walkway, which we also know were arranged in both single and side-by-side fashion for most of the way along the east side of the house. So this represents a very narrow approach even in the best of conditions day or night, given the equipment the kidnappers would have brought with them. I don’t agree that the kidnappers by necessity, would not have been using flashlights. After all, this was a very high risk endeavour to begin that took place under a dark and moonless sky. Holding one flashlight low to the ground at a 45 degree angle to illuminate the path ahead would not have represented a major issue unless someone inside the house had actually opened one of the ground floor shutters and looked out the window. If that had been the case, the jig would have been up anyway, flashlight or not. What you are doing here, in my opinion, is making my case for me. How in the hell could they walk perfectly along these boards, in this situation, without being able to see the boards? Answer: They could not. Throw in they were supposed to be from the Bronx and unfamiliar as it relates to walking there. So its quite clear whoever was using them could see those boards - otherwise they're walking in the mud. This means if it happened at night, a flashlight was used. If you believe that is an acceptable scenario to add to the laundry list of astronomical odds then your whole theory is completely based upon luck and nothing more. A light in the pitch black would likely have been noticed. We're all supposed to believe they were waiting for CAL to come home, so if that was true, I'm sure Anne wasn't only listening for him but looking out the window now and then hoping to see his headlights. It's the totality of the situation that needs to be looked at here. Here we go again. "How in the hell could they walk perfectly along these boards, in this situation, without being able to see the boards," you ask? The real answer is that it's highly doubtful they were "walking perfectly" along those boards in the dark, and furthermore they had no need to. It's interesting that a couple of posts ago, you finally conceded that the ground nearest the house would naturally have been drier and firmer than the ground well east of the house, due to the leeward effect. Nice that a long-closed door was finally been nudged open a bit, and we're finally able to recognize that maybe, just maybe, that specific area of ground did not readily support the production of observable footprints. But then you slam it closed again by intimating that the kidnappers by necessity, must have stayed on that narrow walkway, otherwise their footprints would have been readily visible in the ground adjacent to the walkway. Now you're saying the ground is once again "mud" and everything else that descriptor conjures up in imagination, even though it's true texture and characteristics are clearly seen to be a kind of dense compacted clay based soil, as is readily apparent in the crime scene evidence photo. As for the flashlight, I'll leave it up to the kidnappers to decide if they wanted to bring one along, but it seems a bit doubtful to me they reckoned the nursery was going to be lit up like a Christmas tree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 8:08:36 GMT -5
the smudged impression off the right rail of where the ladder was planted, Could we just stick with what the report actually says about this impression and not change it to say what you want and need it to say to fit your theory about the ground conditions near the boardwalk. DeGaetano's report says: "The undersigned noticed a foot print pointing towards the house near the temporary boardwalk which was laid there, and approximately 18 inches to the right of this print was an impression presumed to have been made by a heavy woolen stocking as the impression of the ridges were distinctly shown."The ground near the temporary boardwalk is soft and moist enough to clearly show the ridges in that woolen stocking. Yet you change this statement to a smudge in order to bolster your soil theory to make it work. I see what you are doing here and hey....whatever makes your boat float is all that matters to you regardless whether the reports support it or not. DeGaetano's report does not support your soil theory.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Nov 7, 2019 12:03:47 GMT -5
the smudged impression off the right rail of where the ladder was planted, Could we just stick with what the report actually says about this impression and not change it to say what you want and need it to say to fit your theory about the ground conditions near the boardwalk. DeGaetano's report says: "The undersigned noticed a foot print pointing towards the house near the temporary boardwalk which was laid there, and approximately 18 inches to the right of this print was an impression presumed to have been made by a heavy woolen stocking as the impression of the ridges were distinctly shown."The ground near the temporary boardwalk is soft and moist enough to clearly show the ridges in that woolen stocking. Yet you change this statement to a smudge in order to bolster your soil theory to make it work. I see what you are doing here and hey....whatever makes your boat float is all that matters to you regardless whether the reports support it or not. DeGaetano's report does not support your soil theory.
In many ways, De Gaetano's report does support my soil theory, and it's not the only one to do so. I'm not really trying to make anything fit here, as the indications here should be more than obvious that clearly there would have been more footprints showing if the ground under the kidnappers' feet had truly had have been "soft and moist" (your words) to support the formation of impressions everywhere. De Gaetano is also making a distinction here. Note he says the left impression is a footprint and the other is only presumed to be. What if the other one was made by an object other than a foot, ie. perhaps a burlap bag? Did he know for certain either way? Do you?
In any case, my original point in all of this is that the ground around the ladder was much firmer and less prone to imprinting than the ground farther away from the house, otherwise this same and possibly greater degree of impression would be in many other places alongside the house, around the ladder and clearly connected to the retreating trail of footprints, given all of the activity which would have had to have taken place on the ground in order to achieve a multi-sectioned ladder entry into the above nursery window.
The only reason those two impressions near the ladder (and the other two, reasonably attributed to the kidnappers) were observed, is that they resulted from a greater downward force from the same foot coverings that would have been tramping about in the adjacent ground. A discerning and questioning attitude towards the inadequate observations, blatant generalizations, and poor crime scene preservation judgment made by NJSP traffic cops who were essentially thrown into critical criminal investigative service on the night of March 1, 1932, is very important here. That may not float your boat, but that's okay by me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 7:19:54 GMT -5
Note he says the left impression is a footprint and the other is only presumed to be. What if the other one was made by an object other than a foot, ie. perhaps a burlap bag? DeGaetano, in his March 3, 1932 report, posted on this thread, does note the difference between the ladder footprint and the stocking impression. The one on the right he perceived to be a heavy woolen stocking. This is footwear. It is what it looked like to him. He did not presume this stocking impression to be made by a burlap bag. Otherwise he would have stated that. He associates it with a foot impression not bag impression. Why? Because the distinct ridges he observed were consistent with a heavy woolen sock, not a burlap bag. The moisture in the soil made it possible to leave these impressions there at the boardwalk. I call your attention to DaGaetano's March 1, 1932 report. This report is consistent with his March 3rd report concerning the foot prints being found around the boardwalk and beyond. This report is posted on this thread also. What he says: "I went down into the yard and made observations of the ground beneath the window where the child was supposed to have been taken from. Noticed foot prints that was made by stockinged feet, followed these impressions to a distance about 75 feet from the house where I noticed 3 lengths of ladder."The bolding in the text is mine. This March 1 observation of stockinged feet impressions underneath the nursery room window (boardwalk area) are the same stockinged feet impressions he mentions in his March 3 report! These same stockinged feet impressions go from the boardwalk area (nursery window area) right out to the discarded ladder area. These two reports DeGaetano wrote reveal the uniform condition of the soil that existed from the boardwalk area right out to the discarded ladder. No variable soil conditions, just two persons being careful on the boardwalk while putting the ladder into place. Nothing more.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Nov 10, 2019 5:08:16 GMT -5
Amy, if I understand correctly, you're asserting that two kidnappers stepped on the "soft and moist" ground (your words) in the immediate vicinity of the house a total of 2, and possibly 4 four times (according to De Gaetano's report) while raising and taking down a rickety and multi-sectioned ladder in the blowing wind on a cold moonless March night? Would not the second kidnapper reasonably have been assisting by holding the ladder at it’s base during the first kidnapper’s climb? Do you not find it unusual for instance, that only one relatively-clear footprint, in fact one that was observed facing towards the house near the base of the ladder, to the left of where the left rail of the ladder had been planted? Perhaps the ladder climber who approached the scene from the north-east corner of the house along the walkway, arrived at the base of the south-east corner window and then leapt off that 4” piece of tongue-and-groove flooring, achieving a 180-degree turn in mid-air and landing on one foot (his left) beside the ladder, with him now facing the house? I’m being facetious of course, but if he didn’t do that, then where are the immediately-adjacent footprints leading to and from that one in the "soft and moist" ground, (your words) as these two kidnappers went about their business at the base of the ladder? I believe you’ll need to come up with a far better explanation as to how two kidnappers managed to do what would have to have been done at the scene without leaving behind dozens of foot prints near the base of the ladder, other than they were being being careful and mindful not to. That ground nearest the house simply did not support the same level of foot-printing that the ground further away from the house did, period. And the crime scene evidence photo of the ground nearest the house, which clearly demonstrates its texture and consistency, also makes this point abundantly clear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2019 13:18:57 GMT -5
Amy, if I understand correctly, you're asserting that two kidnappers stepped on the "soft and moist" ground (your words) in the immediate vicinity of the house a total of 2, and possibly 4 four times (according to De Gaetano's report) while raising and taking down a rickety and multi-sectioned ladder in the blowing wind on a cold moonless March night? Joe, you are obviously not understanding me, since you say I am asserting "a total of 2, and possibly 4 four times (according to DeGaetano's report)". I never said, nor does DeGaetano's reports assert any specific number of prints, only that he saw more than one stocking impression. Please don't add your own mistaken assertions to suit your own purposes. I stand by what I said about the ground around the boardwalk being soft and moist enough that the weave of the stockings were clearly discernable and were seen and described as such by DeGaetano in his reports and then he followed those stocking prints from the boardwalk area out to where the ladder was dumped. DeGaetano was there that night. He actually saw those stocking impressions along with the print that faced the house. If you choose to reject what he saw and wrote in his reports, that is certainly your right to do so. Just don't expect me to. This whole ridiculous scene you create and give "wings" to is only because you think there is just one footprint at that scene. You reject the stocking prints that were seen on the ground around the boardwalk. Not true. Again, in my opinion, you reject the stocking prints that were seen and written about in reports!! That evidence photo you use to support your theory doesn't make it "abundantly clear" unless you think there were no prints left anywhere, including at the base of that ladder. Your picture doesn't show that footprint there, so I guess that means the ground was too hard and dry for even that print to be made if you base your theory on that photo. I really do appreciate that you have such a theory and that you share it on the board. At the same time, I just can't reject what the reports say about additional prints seen on the ground around the boardwalk. I just don't see a middle ground here where we can meet.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 12, 2019 12:50:19 GMT -5
Again, I think the actual scene and the evidence observed by the police, visitors, and press proves the ground was such that it would reveal footprints. We absolutely know this because of those small prints which existed between the boardwalk and the house. They wouldn't be there otherwise. While I've never been able to discover all of the photographic chains of custody, there are some available to consider. Also, not all evidence was photographed or properly documented either. That's one of the problems which gave rise to all of the conjecture. Sometimes police just didn't take them. Exactly "why" has been attributed to "bungling." But other times the pictures didn't turn out right or something went wrong with the film. For example, I know that a whole roll of the dead baby was bad and none of those photos turned out. Joe's photo is listed on the attached at "No. 3." This was taken specifically to document the "ladder marks" and any footprints which existed were outside of the range of the photograph. Anyone ever hear about the "magic bullet theory?" Well I think we have one here concerning a "magic sock." Again - since the small prints were attributed to (debatable of course) Anne, the explanation for men weighing at least 185 lbs and carrying at least one heavy object would not leave any prints because they wore a sock which allowed them to walk on mud without leaving any print and climb through windows without making a sound. They might also have been wearing a cloak of invisibility too which allowed them to go anywhere without any fear of being seen. I am joking of course, and I don't mean this dissuade due consideration of any possibility - so consider everything. But dismissing evidence seems counterproductive if the truth is what we seek. And so, as a result, I agree its a hard one to get around. Men in the windy dead of night navigating a thin board in the mud without a light source while carrying a ladder without stepping off in many places seems impossible. So what's the alternative since we know the mud would yield prints? Again, if those small prints were Anne's she stepped off during the daylight hours, without wind, and carrying only a pebble.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 14, 2019 10:00:04 GMT -5
As exemplified by Amy's posts, we can see there are multiple reports which refer to the footprints. I think there's a perception out there that whatever previous authors wrote about was based upon consulting all relevant material and/or documentation. But what Amy's posts prove is that just isn't the case. DeGaetano is the perfect example because he wrote several AND there's a statement as well. There's something to be learned from each. This is why I couldn't "stop" researching until I went through everything, and I'm willing to hazard a guess and say Amy will do the same. It's almost impossible not to. And with more experience, the more understanding - not only about the case, but the way everything seems to "work." Some contain more information to add another piece to the puzzle, some will actually cause the removal of pieces, and others still will create another puzzle altogether. But this idea that one report solves an issue doesn't hold water or this case would have been solved long ago. When it comes to the crime scene, I believe most of the officers who wrote reports had Wolf's Major Report handy. After reading that they wrote more of a supplement which concerned their actions. So they weren't trying to re-write Wolf's report but rather add to it in some way. Of course its only a theory but I think its worthy of consideration. Next, when it comes to the trial testimony, consider what the Defense had to consult and what they did not. The Prosecution was fully aware of this fact, and prepped their witness testimony according to their theory ... and NOT the police reports the Defense never saw.
Now, when looking at Joe's picture below, I wanted to resurrect another point. Look at those ladder prints. Not only did these people navigate that boardwalk without any light, once they hoisted the ladder up to the window it was perfectly placed during the first attempt. We know this because if there was "jockeying" the mud would have revealed that too. This also suggests a hell of a lot of "luck." No light source to shine up to that window. Raising a ladder in high wind, cold, in the pitch black night. The totality of the entire scenario has caused me to consider the possibility that ladder may have actually been lowered to those standing on the boardwalk below through the nursery window down to them in order to stage the entire thing. Again, I really wish NOVA hadn't cut out that scene showing the three men (I believe it was Falzini, Klein, and Douglas) trying to raise it in the daylight hours. All three were moving their feet around.
So I still say that while examining each individual "clue" and debating it alone is worthwhile - try doing it all at once. Footprints, ladder post holes, boardwalk, mud, wind, cold, night, lack of a light source, isolated area, dog(s), etc. etc. ... the totality of everything necessary against exactly what the evidence reveals. After that then consider it was all supposed to have been done by an immigrant carpenter, acting alone, and driving down last minute blindly to commit this fantastic crime. It's so impossible that in order to "get around" the facts certain possibilities get suggested that make very little sense. "He wrote the note in the car," "he didn't know where the house was," "he got lucky that Skein was left behind," "he thought Lindbergh would be at the dinner," "he guessed at the window," "he didn't know the window would be unlocked or that shutter would be warped," "he wore a sock and the mud wasn't hard in the places he walked," (add your own here).
Just that boardwalk alone reminds me of one of those confidence or team work building exercises. Never mind carrying a ladder meant to be erected to a window - for the FIRST time - in the windy darkness. And that's just the start of it all.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 14, 2019 14:33:32 GMT -5
mike not to change the subject, what do you think of russel knowing Hauptman and fisch?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 11:00:06 GMT -5
And with more experience, the more understanding - not only about the case, but the way everything seems to "work." Some contain more information to add another piece to the puzzle, some will actually cause the removal of pieces, and others still will create another puzzle altogether. But this idea that one report solves an issue doesn't hold water or this case would have been solved long ago. You explain those reports very well. I read every page that is in every folder I go through. I don't want to miss anything because, as you say, additional information about any aspect can be found in more than one location. You end up building a more complete understanding as you go through those files. And, yes, sometimes things you thought you knew everything about can get completely blown up by a report that turns up in a different folder. I am learning this and trying not to think "I've got this now" and then close my mind about a person or topic. First, I think the point you make about that ladder being perfectly placed on the first attempt is an important one and needs consideration. It also offers a valid reason why there was not even more prints made in that area of the boardwalk. Second, why do you think they did not have a flashlight? Wow! This is something that has never crossed my mind when considering the staging element; nor have I read this anywhere before. I shall think about this!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 15, 2019 21:22:04 GMT -5
Steve - I don’t buy it.
Amy - “They” obviously had a light source. My point (perhaps poorly made) is it was required. Yet, we’re supposed to believe they either didn’t OR did use one without fear of detection and simply got “lucky” whereas no one in the house saw the beam flashing on and around the outside of the house.
My suggestion about the ladder and the window is just a possibility. It’s part of the progression of consideration. It all starts with first considering a Lone-Wolf scenario then work from there to see what makes the most amount of sense with all things considered.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 16, 2019 9:41:40 GMT -5
your slipping mike, you always say do your research before making a conclusion. I have to read his 12 page interview with the fbi before I make mine
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 16, 2019 10:45:09 GMT -5
your slipping mike, you always say do your research before making a conclusion. I have to read his 12 page interview with the fbi before I make mine It's hard for me to sit here and say that I haven't. Before I make a copy of anything I read it but I don't always make a copy of everything I read. It could be the bigger report led to the follow up that I posted. And so, I copied the follow up which, for me, ended the matter. See what I mean? Of course, that's not meant to dissuade you or anyone else from reading it yourself. Other examples include Gaston Means. I absolutely know I've read all that reside at the NJSP Archives. Even his letters. However, some of them are massive, so I opted to skip making copies of them if I felt the information included wasn't something of further interest OR included in other material. But you are right Steve. In short, everything available should be read. Quite often, and Amy can back me up, certain reports on one subject can contain valuable information on another. Part of the reason I've had so much to write about is exactly because of this. Past authors obviously "skipped" over certain material in order to save time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2019 19:48:09 GMT -5
You are so right, Michael, about those reports and how the content can vary and offer information about more than just the subject head. I am going post an investigative report as an example. The subject is the continuing investigation of Isidor Fisch. Numerous names are in this report. Most pertain in some way to Fisch and one clearly does not. This report was written by Sgt. Det. E.A. Haussling of the NJSP. The report covers 3 different days of investigative activity engaged in by himself and Det. Max Leef of the NYPD. You will also notice that the report is written in numbered paragraphs according to date and topic/person. This numbering of paragraphs organizes subject matter and aids in referring back to other reports done on different dates as the investigating officers continue to follow up on previous contacts. This helps to link information together and it guides me in looking for other reports as they are not always in the same location. This two page report deals with 13 different names. I have this same report filed under Fisch, Henry Uhlig, Milton Gaglio and Joseph Perrone due to content. imgur.com/DiAIcYA Page One imgur.com/Y7rR3ns Page Two
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Nov 17, 2019 11:53:09 GMT -5
Amy, if I understand correctly, you're asserting that two kidnappers stepped on the "soft and moist" ground (your words) in the immediate vicinity of the house a total of 2, and possibly 4 four times (according to De Gaetano's report) while raising and taking down a rickety and multi-sectioned ladder in the blowing wind on a cold moonless March night? Joe, you are obviously not understanding me, since you say I am asserting "a total of 2, and possibly 4 four times (according to DeGaetano's report)". I never said, nor does DeGaetano's reports assert any specific number of prints, only that he saw more than one stocking impression. Please don't add your own mistaken assertions to suit your own purposes. I stand by what I said about the ground around the boardwalk being soft and moist enough that the weave of the stockings were clearly discernable and were seen and described as such by DeGaetano in his reports and then he followed those stocking prints from the boardwalk area out to where the ladder was dumped. DeGaetano was there that night. He actually saw those stocking impressions along with the print that faced the house. If you choose to reject what he saw and wrote in his reports, that is certainly your right to do so. Just don't expect me to. This whole ridiculous scene you create and give "wings" to is only because you think there is just one footprint at that scene. You reject the stocking prints that were seen on the ground around the boardwalk. Not true. Again, in my opinion, you reject the stocking prints that were seen and written about in reports!! That evidence photo you use to support your theory doesn't make it "abundantly clear" unless you think there were no prints left anywhere, including at the base of that ladder. Your picture doesn't show that footprint there, so I guess that means the ground was too hard and dry for even that print to be made if you base your theory on that photo. I really do appreciate that you have such a theory and that you share it on the board. At the same time, I just can't reject what the reports say about additional prints seen on the ground around the boardwalk. I just don't see a middle ground here where we can meet. Amy, I'm not sure if you've actually attempted to digest the very reports you posted. De Gaetano's is by far the most detailed when it comes to any actual footprints which were seen around the walkway and ladder, and he states having seen only a very limited number attributed to the kidnappers there. Do you not find it highly unusual then that at least two of them raised and took down a multi-sectioned ladder at the base of the nursery window (even if it was a highly unlikely fake kidnapping staged in the light of day) without investigators having observed and reported literally dozens of footprints in that immediate area? So again, my point of this post in the first place and with respect to the characteristics of the ground nearest the house versus that of the ground farther away from the house where the trail of footprints was clearly observed, the critical question Where Are All The Footprints? Clearly you don’t seem to have an answer other than to continue waffling here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Nov 17, 2019 11:54:58 GMT -5
Again, I think the actual scene and the evidence observed by the police, visitors, and press proves the ground was such that it would reveal footprints. We absolutely know this because of those small prints which existed between the boardwalk and the house. They wouldn't be there otherwise. While I've never been able to discover all of the photographic chains of custody, there are some available to consider. Also, not all evidence was photographed or properly documented either. That's one of the problems which gave rise to all of the conjecture. Sometimes police just didn't take them. Exactly "why" has been attributed to "bungling." But other times the pictures didn't turn out right or something went wrong with the film. For example, I know that a whole roll of the dead baby was bad and none of those photos turned out. Joe's photo is listed on the attached at "No. 3." This was taken specifically to document the "ladder marks" and any footprints which existed were outside of the range of the photograph. Anyone ever hear about the "magic bullet theory?" Well I think we have one here concerning a "magic sock." Again - since the small prints were attributed to (debatable of course) Anne, the explanation for men weighing at least 185 lbs and carrying at least one heavy object would not leave any prints because they wore a sock which allowed them to walk on mud without leaving any print and climb through windows without making a sound. They might also have been wearing a cloak of invisibility too which allowed them to go anywhere without any fear of being seen. I am joking of course, and I don't mean this dissuade due consideration of any possibility - so consider everything. But dismissing evidence seems counterproductive if the truth is what we seek. And so, as a result, I agree its a hard one to get around. Men in the windy dead of night navigating a thin board in the mud without a light source while carrying a ladder without stepping off in many places seems impossible. So what's the alternative since we know the mud would yield prints? Again, if those small prints were Anne's she stepped off during the daylight hours, without wind, and carrying only a pebble. Again Michael, I just don't think you really understand or appreciate the comparative imprint potential of both the foot coverings worn by the kidnappers and the shoes worn by Anne, into what you and Amy steadfastly claim was soft and moist ground. Around that crime scene evidence photo, is plenty of ground where someone raising and taking down that ladder would have had to have stood, yet there is clearly a lack of any observable footprints there. And they were not reported either there, were they? Your previous claim that all of this was accomplished while they stood on that very narrow walkway at night or by day (pick your poison, as you might say) seems beyond ridiculous. You talk of others dismissing evidence and its counter productivity however, you don’t seem to realize you’re missing a huge piece of understanding here based on what the actual evidence is essentially screaming.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Nov 17, 2019 12:02:42 GMT -5
As exemplified by Amy's posts, we can see there are multiple reports which refer to the footprints. I think there's a perception out there that whatever previous authors wrote about was based upon consulting all relevant material and/or documentation. But what Amy's posts prove is that just isn't the case. DeGaetano is the perfect example because he wrote several AND there's a statement as well. There's something to be learned from each. This is why I couldn't "stop" researching until I went through everything, and I'm willing to hazard a guess and say Amy will do the same. It's almost impossible not to. And with more experience, the more understanding - not only about the case, but the way everything seems to "work." Some contain more information to add another piece to the puzzle, some will actually cause the removal of pieces, and others still will create another puzzle altogether. But this idea that one report solves an issue doesn't hold water or this case would have been solved long ago. When it comes to the crime scene, I believe most of the officers who wrote reports had Wolf's Major Report handy. After reading that they wrote more of a supplement which concerned their actions. So they weren't trying to re-write Wolf's report but rather add to it in some way. Of course its only a theory but I think its worthy of consideration. Next, when it comes to the trial testimony, consider what the Defense had to consult and what they did not. The Prosecution was fully aware of this fact, and prepped their witness testimony according to their theory ... and NOT the police reports the Defense never saw. Now, when looking at Joe's picture below, I wanted to resurrect another point. Look at those ladder prints. Not only did these people navigate that boardwalk without any light, once they hoisted the ladder up to the window it was perfectly placed during the first attempt. We know this because if there was "jockeying" the mud would have revealed that too. This also suggests a hell of a lot of "luck." No light source to shine up to that window. Raising a ladder in high wind, cold, in the pitch black night. The totality of the entire scenario has caused me to consider the possibility that ladder may have actually been lowered to those standing on the boardwalk below through the nursery window down to them in order to stage the entire thing. Again, I really wish NOVA hadn't cut out that scene showing the three men (I believe it was Falzini, Klein, and Douglas) trying to raise it in the daylight hours. All three were moving their feet around. So I still say that while examining each individual "clue" and debating it alone is worthwhile - try doing it all at once. Footprints, ladder post holes, boardwalk, mud, wind, cold, night, lack of a light source, isolated area, dog(s), etc. etc. ... the totality of everything necessary against exactly what the evidence reveals. After that then consider it was all supposed to have been done by an immigrant carpenter, acting alone, and driving down last minute blindly to commit this fantastic crime. It's so impossible that in order to "get around" the facts certain possibilities get suggested that make very little sense. "He wrote the note in the car," "he didn't know where the house was," "he got lucky that Skein was left behind," "he thought Lindbergh would be at the dinner," "he guessed at the window," "he didn't know the window would be unlocked or that shutter would be warped," "he wore a sock and the mud wasn't hard in the places he walked," (add your own here). Just that boardwalk alone reminds me of one of those confidence or team work building exercises. Never mind carrying a ladder meant to be erected to a window - for the FIRST time - in the windy darkness. And that's just the start of it all. Exactly! All three of the NOVA participants were moving their feet around and so clearly would have left many prints right around the base of the ladder if the ground characteristics were conducive to doing so. And how would the general universally-applied physics of March 1, 1932 be any different? Now it seems, as one wing in the grand house of cards totters dangerously, you’re just throwing another one on here in an attempt to explain away the lack of prints at the base of the ladder, by now proposing someone lowered the kidnap ladder from the nursery window? How do you come up with this stuff? Talk about introducing new medications to address negative side effects! Clearly your answers seem to be coming from a position that fails to recognize what the actual evidence conditions tell us at ground zero.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 17, 2019 20:20:01 GMT -5
Again Michael, I just don't think you really understand or appreciate the comparative imprint potential of both the foot coverings worn by the kidnappers and the shoes worn by Anne, into what you and Amy steadfastly claim was soft and moist ground. Around that crime scene evidence photo, is plenty of ground where someone raising and taking down that ladder would have had to have stood, yet there is clearly a lack of any observable footprints there. And they were not reported either there, were they? Your previous claim that all of this was accomplished while they stood on that very narrow walkway at night or by day (pick your poison, as you might say) seems beyond ridiculous. You talk of others dismissing evidence and its counter productivity however, you don’t seem to realize you’re missing a huge piece of understanding here based on what the actual evidence is essentially screaming. It seems clear that you are projecting Joe. What's not to understand? There are prints in the area where you say there should not be. There's a small print just inside the boardwalk between the board and the house just before that window. There's even a small print near the back of the house past the window and what could be considered the furthermost edge of the yard. You don't seem to be ignoring it, instead, you are trying to say it proves your position. Huh? Next, you are using a picture which shows mud with ladder rail holes in it. So we know that the yard, to include the area near where the ladder was raised (both inside and outside the boardwalk) was muddy enough to yield prints. But to you that somehow means just outside of the range of the photo there aren't any prints and that somehow proves kidnapper(s) stepped there but left no prints. But we know from the reports, photos, and even trial testimony that there were. There's one just to the right and outside of the range of that photo which was pointing toward the house. And so, your only recourse seems to be to ignore evidence and/or facts, then invent something to explain the existing scenario away. I understand why you are doing this, believe me, because what the scene reveals isn't "desirable" to someone who doesn't "like" the idea of inside help. Exactly! All three of the NOVA participants were moving their feet around and so clearly would have left many prints right around the base of the ladder if the ground characteristics were conducive to doing so. And how would the general universally-applied physics of March 1, 1932 be any different? Now it seems, as one wing in the grand house of cards totters dangerously, you’re just throwing another one on here in an attempt to explain away the lack of prints at the base of the ladder, by now proposing someone lowered the kidnap ladder from the nursery window? How do you come up with this stuff? Talk about introducing new medications to address negative side effects! Clearly your answers seem to be coming from a position that fails to recognize what the actual evidence conditions tell us at ground zero. What it means is that this event was probably rehearsed ahead of time, and that ladder was raised in more ideal conditions other than what history records. There had to be a light source (unless the whole thing took place during the daylight hours). My best guess is that two people on either side of the ladder stood on the board, raised the ladder directly against the house with the bottom rails originally on the board, then it was moved off the boardwalk out into the mud - all in one try. One guy couldn't have done that (there may have even been someone in the window assisting the process). Next, they obviously did not step in the mud purposely. So there had to be a specific effort not to. So - I believe the single print to the right of where the ladder had been was done on purpose. Further evidence of the muddy condition was the chunk of mud found on top of the bottom shutter. Even if it was a plant, it wouldn't have been planted if the actual scenario would have exposed it as a fake situation. As far as my suggestion... I came up with it (as well as other possibilities) because all things must be considered in order to try to find a reasonable solution. I cannot dispose of this by pretending that yard wasn't muddy because it defies common sense since ALL facts prove that it was. Like I wrote, Reporters couldn't originally get in the yard right away (because it was guarded) so they were making their own prints nearby to take pictures of to send to their editors. So there was even mud outside of the yard itself as well but according to everyone the yard was in much worse shape.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2019 22:13:20 GMT -5
Amy, I'm not sure if you've actually attempted to digest the very reports you posted. From Corporal Joseph A. Wolf's Major Initial Report dated March 1, 1932, page 1, section B, Surrounding Physical Conditions, I quote the following: "For a distance of about 90 feet on the east and south the grounds have been levelled off with fresh dirt which was wet at the time of crime and showed footprints etc."I have no issue "digesting" the reports, Joe. I agree with what they actually say and that is what I have shared with you. Those reports are in direct conflict with your personal theory about the soil conditions the night of March 1, 1932 at the time this crime took place. The digestion issue is with you, not me. Dozens, Joe?!! Please stop with the ridiculous exaggerations. Who do you think was out there? A whole football team? Two men with only two sections of a ladder. They were not lifting the Empire State building up to that window!!! Michael very clearly explained how it was done in his post above mine. It needs no additional explanation from me. Clearly, you reject the reports of the officers who were actually there that night and duly reported the conditions and the footprints as they existed because your theory takes precedence over the facts in this case. No waffling on my part whatsoever!
|
|