|
Post by Wayne on Dec 10, 2019 13:02:32 GMT -5
Who was the first to find the ladder on the night of March 1, 1932?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 10, 2019 13:46:43 GMT -5
Who was the first to find the ladder on the night of March 1, 1932? The earliest accounts come from the phone logs.
10.25/P Col. Lindbergh phoned and requested to speak to man in charge, Spoke to Lt. Dunn, advised that his 19 months old baby boy had been kidnapped between 7.30 P.M & shortly after 10. P.M. child wearing sleeping suit, has no clues. Lt. Dunn promised an immediate Investigation. F. W. Caisse See 10 30/P, 10 32/P, 10 38/P, 1040/P, 10 53/P, 10 57/P.
10.40/P Col. Lindbergh phoned Lt. Dunn advised he had found letter on window sill had not touched same. F.W.C.
10.53/P Col. Lindbergh phoned Lt. Dunn advised he had found two more letters outside of his home. F.W.C. The last entry at 10:53PM was obviously a mistake and Lindbergh was actually reporting that he found two "ladders." Since we know two sections were together and one apart then this makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 10, 2019 15:15:07 GMT -5
Thanks Michael.
The NJSP statements and the trial testimony makes it unclear as to actually discovered the ladder.
So... did Lindbergh and Ollie find the ladder first and then point it out to Williamson and Wolfe when they were the first to arrive or did Williamson, Wolf, and Lindbergh find it together?
The 10:53/P entry you posted could support either of the above.
To add to the confusion, Bornmann testified to this at the trial:
Q. But you didn’t measure the butler’s footprint, did you?
A. I had his and the Colonel’s word that he hadn’t been outside.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 10, 2019 15:16:13 GMT -5
Damn typos: The NJSP statements and the trial testimony make it unclear as to who actually discovered the ladder.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 10, 2019 19:18:43 GMT -5
But CAL HAD been outside - with his rifle!!! Apparently that's not what CAL told Bornmann (and Bornmann was under oath). Weird, huh? With all the NJSP statements and all the trial testimony, it would seem we could figure out who discovered the ladder.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 11, 2019 11:50:27 GMT -5
Damn typos: The NJSP statements and the trial testimony make it unclear as to who actually discovered the ladder. I see your point Wayne. I've always believed the phone logs aren't the actual times of the discoveries. That is, he would find these things then, at some point after, make the calls. In other words, the calls weren't simultaneous to the discovery. NJSP Wolf's Major Initial Report seems to lay out the order of the finds and appears to put them before Wolfe and Williamson's arrival. And yet, they claimed to have arrived at approximately 10:30 (see V1 - page 138). So if that's true, Lindbergh called Lt. Dunn about the ransom note discovery while these men were already there. And, just as you mention, Williamson's statement seems to show the discovery was made while he was there. The only caveat is that Lindbergh seemed to be taking each of the first arriving police around the yard to show them the ladder so he could have been doing that with Wolfe and Williamson too. No doubt in my mind he knew it was there before Whateley left - but without another source I suppose it can always be a question. Maybe there is one and we're both not thinking of it at the moment?
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 3, 2023 11:15:29 GMT -5
This is a ladder question concerning the finding of the ladder on the night of March 1, 1932 so I thought I would ask it on this thread. I am confused about this point.
In The Dark Corners, Volume One, page 190 there is a sketch of the location of the kidnap ladder made on the night of the kidnapping. It shows the three sections. Two of the ladder sections are lying side by side and a third section is a little distance away in the same parallel position as the others. None of these sections are joined together.
Did the kidnaper take the two sections of ladder used in the kidnapping apart and then carry the 3 sections of ladder from the house? Did he carry the two sections connected together along with the third section and then take the 2 sections apart before laying them together on the ground and then place the third section off to the right of the other sections?
Either way, this seems like a cumbersome thing to do. Why not just drop them all together? Why lay them out this way, especially if you are just one man carrying a thirty pound child with one of your hands! Is there any evidence the burlap bag containing the child was put down in this area so the ladder could be arranged this way?
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Apr 4, 2023 8:53:08 GMT -5
also begs the question if whoever it was was scouting the house out beforehand, why not build the ladder to the correct length? IIRC two sections together are just a little bit short (but serviceable) and three are too tall.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 4, 2023 10:16:56 GMT -5
This is a ladder question concerning the finding of the ladder on the night of March 1, 1932 so I thought I would ask it on this thread. I am confused about this point. In The Dark Corners, Volume One, page 190 there is a sketch of the location of the kidnap ladder made on the night of the kidnapping. It shows the three sections. Two of the ladder sections are lying side by side and a third section is a little distance away in the same parallel position as the others. None of these sections are joined together. Did the kidnaper take the two sections of ladder used in the kidnapping apart and then carry the 3 sections of ladder from the house? Did he carry the two sections connected together along with the third section and then take the 2 sections apart before laying them together on the ground and then place the third section off to the right of the other sections? Either way, this seems like a cumbersome thing to do. Why not just drop them all together? Why lay them out this way, especially if you are just one man carrying a thirty pound child with one of your hands! Is there any evidence the burlap bag containing the child was put down in this area so the ladder could be arranged this way? Perfect thread for this discussion. The first issue is the various sources because, as usual, some differ. The "go to" document for many is the FBI Summary for obvious reasons and I will state here that my opinion is they were the most professional during the course of this entire matter. The problem is as I laid out in my books ... they didn't have much information and a lot of what they had came from other sources - some wrong, some bad, or made under dubious circumstances. What is reliable comes from THEIR investigations so that's important to note as well. In the case of the state of the ladder when it was discovered, the Summary claims two sections were fastened together and a third a few yards away. The source for this is good: The May 18 Conference where Inspector Walsh told the men, among them Assistant Director Nathan, the two sections were found assembled. Lt. Keaten repeated this similar claim to Agent Sisk in the summer of 1934. And yet, this sketch was clearly made by the NJSP (by whom or when I do not know), showing all three sections separated. Most of those who actually saw it as it laid at the edge of the yard don't specify, however, DeGaetano clearly says in his March 9, statement: ...the ladders were laying about seventy-five (75) feet or one hundred (100) feet from the house and then I saw three lengths of ladder. One of these ladders was about ten (10) or fifteen (15) feet away from the other two sections but all three (3) were separate and laying parallel from the ground. For me, while others may decide differently, since the sketch is supported by a very reliable source written mere days after the event, I believe it is accurate and the truest depiction of everything as it was discovered. Anyway, there's nothing mentioned about any of the prints found to suggest anyone was running. That's important. Not in the yard or on the abandoned road. These people approached from the front of the house, navigated the planks (boardwalk) without stepping into the mud except one at the base of the ladder. There were female prints inside the planks and the house leading to the back of the home which Anne took credit for. Why they chose to walk through the yard and not leave the way they came should be another mystery to consider. Since Wolf (originally) as well as others stated there were two sets of prints leading away from the house that should be a consideration. As to "why" they separated the three, it gives the impression they were breaking them down so they could nest them back together which would be an easier way to carry them back to the car. So it "suggests" they originally planned to take the ladder back with them and not leave it behind. To your other question, I've seen no evidence that the bag was dropped near where the ladder was discovered. also begs the question if whoever it was was scouting the house out beforehand, why not build the ladder to the correct length? IIRC two sections together are just a little bit short (but serviceable) and three are too tall. I think the measurements for the ladder construction was made exactly to specs, and to fit into the open shutter's louvers. The problem occurred once considering they would have to open the shutters first. Right? So the shutter would actually open onto them. This, to me, shows intelligence as to the height but not the exact situation. If Hauptmann, for example, was casing the house as Wolf claimed the kidnappers obviously did, he'd know about this situation ahead of time and not make that type of mistake. So it suggests whoever built the ladder was provided with the height, dimensions, and overall specs. This explains the plank navigation as well, the exact window, and knowing the window wouldn't be locked. The problem occurs when we see BOTH planning AND ad-libbing. For example, Squire Johnson claimed in his ladder report that a left-handed man help construct the ladder. This was supported by the fact the ladder was set up on the right side of the window, meaning, the person climbing would need to rely on their left hand to do whatever to include supposedly using the chisel. That chisel is a whole 'nother can of worms because whatever its "intended" use makes no sense either. Would Hauptmann believe he could compromise a slide bolt on the shutters with this without making noise and alerting the dog that was supposed to be in the Nursery? Or Wahgoosh? Or the occupants of the house if he knew the dog wasn't there? Or was it the idea he would use it to break the window? Or murder the child? Anyway, Lt. Keaten explained away the left-handed theory by claiming the kidnappers couldn't have placed the ladder to the left side of the window because Lindbergh would be able to see it from the Library. Think about that for a second. The level of planning it would take to know all of these things right down to the possibility of Lindbergh being in the Library at the time. And yet, we are also led to believe these culprits struck because they believed Lindbergh would be at the NYU Dinner as advertised in the papers. And of course, watching the home to see the routine of the family would have proven they shouldn't have been there on March 1 in the first place. Lastly, and I could go on forever, who does all this but doesn't cut the phone lines? They didn't want Lindbergh to see them and the note warned him not to call the cops ... but they give him that option?
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 4, 2023 14:38:22 GMT -5
also begs the question if whoever it was was scouting the house out beforehand, why not build the ladder to the correct length? IIRC two sections together are just a little bit short (but serviceable) and three are too tall. Thank you xjd for your response. I have wondered about this same thing. Even taking into consideration what Michael shares in his response to your post about the ladder being made to specs allowing the third section to fit into the shutter, it seems to me that this would make it more difficult and more time consuming to kidnap the child this way. They would have needed to erect the ladder twice, once to open the shutter and then again to put the third section up to the opened shutter to enter the room. From reading about this, I understand that the ladder was only placed once into the ground and that the third section of the ladder was never used. Sounds to me like the person who decided the building specs for the ladder and the person(s) who were actually on site to use this ladder might not be the same people. The third section is never used. Entry into the room and exiting would appear to be easier if using the third section but it doesn't get used. The removal plan must have changed for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 4, 2023 14:58:56 GMT -5
This is a ladder question concerning the finding of the ladder on the night of March 1, 1932 so I thought I would ask it on this thread. I am confused about this point. In The Dark Corners, Volume One, page 190 there is a sketch of the location of the kidnap ladder made on the night of the kidnapping. It shows the three sections. Two of the ladder sections are lying side by side and a third section is a little distance away in the same parallel position as the others. None of these sections are joined together. Did the kidnaper take the two sections of ladder used in the kidnapping apart and then carry the 3 sections of ladder from the house? Did he carry the two sections connected together along with the third section and then take the 2 sections apart before laying them together on the ground and then place the third section off to the right of the other sections? Either way, this seems like a cumbersome thing to do. Why not just drop them all together? Why lay them out this way, especially if you are just one man carrying a thirty pound child with one of your hands! Is there any evidence the burlap bag containing the child was put down in this area so the ladder could be arranged this way? Perfect thread for this discussion. The first issue is the various sources because, as usual, some differ. The "go to" document for many is the FBI Summary for obvious reasons and I will state here that my opinion is they were the most professional during the course of this entire matter. The problem is as I laid out in my books ... they didn't have much information and a lot of what they had came from other sources - some wrong, some bad, or made under dubious circumstances. What is reliable comes from THEIR investigations so that's important to note as well. In the case of the state of the ladder when it was discovered, the Summary claims two sections were fastened together and a third a few yards away. The source for this is good: The May 18 Conference where Inspector Walsh told the men, among them Assistant Director Nathan, the two sections were found assembled. Lt. Keaten repeated this similar claim to Agent Sisk in the summer of 1934. And yet, this sketch was clearly made by the NJSP (by whom or when I do not know), showing all three sections separated. Most of those who actually saw it as it laid at the edge of the yard don't specify, however, DeGaetano clearly says in his March 9, statement: ...the ladders were laying about seventy-five (75) feet or one hundred (100) feet from the house and then I saw three lengths of ladder. One of these ladders was about ten (10) or fifteen (15) feet away from the other two sections but all three (3) were separate and laying parallel from the ground. For me, while others may decide differently, since the sketch is supported by a very reliable source written mere days after the event, I believe it is accurate and the truest depiction of everything as it was discovered. Thank you, Michael, for responding to my post. I agree. I don't think you would have included it in your book otherwise.Anyway, there's nothing mentioned about any of the prints found to suggest anyone was running. That's important. Not in the yard or on the abandoned road. These people approached from the front of the house, navigated the planks (boardwalk) without stepping into the mud except one at the base of the ladder. There were female prints inside the planks and the house leading to the back of the home which Anne took credit for. Why they chose to walk through the yard and not leave the way they came should be another mystery to consider. Since Wolf (originally) as well as others stated there were two sets of prints leading away from the house that should be a consideration. I have read a lot about the footprint issue on this board and in your books. Because the ground was muddy, do you think that had anything to do with the retreating speed? Not wanting to slip and fall since they had the child and that ladder with them.As to "why" they separated the three, it gives the impression they were breaking them down so they could nest them back together which would be an easier way to carry them back to the car. So it "suggests" they originally planned to take the ladder back with them and not leave it behind. To your other question, I've seen no evidence that the bag was dropped near where the ladder was discovered. That explanation is something for me to consider. Take it with them? Why would you want to be seen with a ladder in your car once the story broke about the kidnapping. If no one put the burlap bag down in order to arrange the ladder, then I think it lends itself to more than one person being on site during the kidnapping of Charles, Jr.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 4, 2023 21:02:54 GMT -5
I have read a lot about the footprint issue on this board and in your books. Because the ground was muddy, do you think that had anything to do with the retreating speed? Not wanting to slip and fall since they had the child and that ladder with them. I honestly think, and this is no exaggeration, there could be a book written just on this one topic. To answer your question, I have to go back to one of my original points... These people approached the house from the front and successfully navigated the planks to directly under the nursery window. No doubt a flashlight was employed. They raised the ladder only once. There was no repositioning and we know this because there was only one set of rail holes in the mud. In light of everything that occurred, these people had to have specific knowledge about many things. This would include the yard being muddy - right? Which presumably is why it was avoided upon approach. And I say avoided assuming this was a real kidnapping for the purposes of this post. And so why, knowing the yard was as muddy as it was, did they choose this route and/or method of escape? It makes little sense to me if this was real. They had their target and one would think they'd want to get the hell out of Dodge quickly. Traversing the muddy yard at a below normal pace to prevent a fall when all they had to do was retrace what they successfully accomplished earlier perfectly. One might argue they saw Lindbergh's car heading down the driveway forcing them into the yard. But then they stopped to disassemble the ladder? No, that doesn't work. And those who suggest that usually ignore the "orange crate" sound Lindbergh claimed to hear later. Another is the ladder unexpectedly broke, there was a fall, and this spooked them as well having believed the noise may have alerted people inside. But again, they stopped to disassemble the ladder so this argument doesn't work either... Obviously, and you alluded to this earlier, if they were going to leave the ladder behind why not just lay it under the window? So they trudge through the mud, stop where they did, and disassemble the two rails only to leave that and the chisel behind anyway. Again, why? Now the ladder was cumbersome, but the chisel? Well, it is often argued that it was accidentally dropped. If that's true, I wonder what they had that they did not drop? Here comes the potential argument that Lindbergh was driving down the driveway and spooked them away causing these things to be left behind. And yet, there is no evidence of haste on the abandoned road concerning those prints either. And their car was parked on the very road Lindbergh drove to get home in a place he would have had to see it. But Lindbergh told the cops he saw no car. So if he's on the level that ends the discussion about him being the reason. That explanation is something for me to consider. Take it with them? Why would you want to be seen with a ladder in your car once the story broke about the kidnapping. If no one put the burlap bag down in order to arrange the ladder, then I think it lends itself to more than one person being on site during the kidnapping of Charles, Jr. We know it fit inside a Dodge. So the possibility could be they didn't want to leave evidence behind. Honestly, it makes more sense to merely take the ladder down and leave it by the house. Of course, I don't believe this thing was real so I'm merely trying to take the position I would if I did. Which leads me to the bag... We know there was a place between the ladder and the abandoned road that wasn't muddy and did not yield prints. One might argue the bag was placed in this area to explain why there's no evidence of it being near the ladders. Why they would care to do this, I don't know, but I'm trying to present all options to consider and not just what I personally believe. I'm also going to repeat that despite all that transpired, these people did not cut the phone lines which could have easily been done. Can you imagine? They took the trouble to warn him in the note not to contact the police but left him the ability to do it.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 5, 2023 13:53:33 GMT -5
I have read a lot about the footprint issue on this board and in your books. Because the ground was muddy, do you think that had anything to do with the retreating speed? Not wanting to slip and fall since they had the child and that ladder with them. I honestly think, and this is no exaggeration, there could be a book written just on this one topic. You could be right about that. From what I have read on this board, it is one of the most highly debated issues, probably second to Lindbergh's possible involvement with the kidnapping.To answer your question, I have to go back to one of my original points... These people approached the house from the front and successfully navigated the planks to directly under the nursery window. No doubt a flashlight was employed. They raised the ladder only once. There was no repositioning and we know this because there was only one set of rail holes in the mud. In light of everything that occurred, these people had to have specific knowledge about many things. This would include the yard being muddy - right? Which presumably is why it was avoided upon approach. And I say avoided assuming this was a real kidnapping for the purposes of this post. And so why, knowing the yard was as muddy as it was, did they choose this route and/or method of escape? It makes little sense to me if this was real. They had their target and one would think they'd want to get the hell out of Dodge quickly. Traversing the muddy yard at a below normal pace to prevent a fall when all they had to do was retrace what they successfully accomplished earlier perfectly. I do think whoever did this kidnapping did have more than a general knowledge about the property and the household. How they came by this knowledge is another whole topic on its own. I don't know that the kidnaper(s) avoided the side approach because of the muddy yard. There could have been a driveway drop off of the kidnapers with the ladder. The drop off car then retreats to an agreed spot to wait for them and the child. Could it have been decided that they would leave via the side of the house and avoid the driveway just to make sure they didn't encounter any car on the driveway at some point?
I wasn't suggesting they were retreating at a below normal pace. It was just a thought as to why they were not hurrying or even running from the scene. I find it very odd that they appeared to conduct themselves like they had all the time in the world to accomplish this. I am sorry if I wasn't clear when I wrote that.That explanation is something for me to consider. Take it with them? Why would you want to be seen with a ladder in your car once the story broke about the kidnapping. If no one put the burlap bag down in order to arrange the ladder, then I think it lends itself to more than one person being on site during the kidnapping of Charles, Jr. We know it fit inside a Dodge. So the possibility could be they didn't want to leave evidence behind. Honestly, it makes more sense to merely take the ladder down and leave it by the house. Of course, I don't believe this thing was real so I'm merely trying to take the position I would if I did. Which leads me to the bag... We know there was a place between the ladder and the abandoned road that wasn't muddy and did not yield prints. One might argue the bag was placed in this area to explain why there's no evidence of it being near the ladders. Why they would care to do this, I don't know, but I'm trying to present all options to consider and not just what I personally believe. I'm also going to repeat that despite all that transpired, these people did not cut the phone lines which could have easily been done. Can you imagine? They took the trouble to warn him in the note not to contact the police but left him the ability to do it. I understand fully that you do not embrace this kidnapping as a totally real outside job crime. Reading this board and your books makes that perfectly clear. I do thank you, though, for indulging me by answering questions that come up when I am reading and thinking about what I read. I do think that Richard Hauptmann was involved with this crime and most likely had at least one partner and somehow had access to inside information in order to accomplish this kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 5, 2023 20:45:28 GMT -5
I'm also going to repeat that despite all that transpired, these people did not cut the phone lines which could have easily been done. Can you imagine? They took the trouble to warn him in the note not to contact the police but left him the ability to do it. I thought about this phone line comment tonight and just wanted to offer my reasoning on this since you brought it up. Maybe cutting these lines was never part of the plan from either perspective. Whether one believes the kidnapping was real or a planned removal of the child, they wanted this option available to make contact to secure the $50,000. The nursery note said in 2 to 4 days they would inform Lindbergh where to deliver the money. If they had inside information to begin with, then they probably had Lindbergh's phone number and might have wanted to make this contact by phone. Lindbergh did the unexpected and did not open the note. He did not see the warning. He just phoned the police instead.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 5, 2023 21:08:32 GMT -5
I do think whoever did this kidnapping did have more than a general knowledge about the property and the household. How they came by this knowledge is another whole topic on its own. I don't know that the kidnaper(s) avoided the side approach because of the muddy yard. There could have been a driveway drop off of the kidnapers with the ladder. The drop off car then retreats to an agreed spot to wait for them and the child. Could it have been decided that they would leave via the side of the house and avoid the driveway just to make sure they didn't encounter any car on the driveway at some point? I wasn't suggesting they were retreating at a below normal pace. It was just a thought as to why they were not hurrying or even running from the scene. I find it very odd that they appeared to conduct themselves like they had all the time in the world to accomplish this. I am sorry if I wasn't clear when I wrote that. Dropping them off is a viable option to consider for sure. My issue is what made them think it was a safe one on the front end but not on the back? See what I mean? They are on the Private Lane and can't hide. Once the unloading begins they're ass out if someone rolls up on them. Even still, these men chose to approach their target from the front of the house. That's a risky proposition no matter how one looks at it. However, this solves the problem of lugging their equipment from a distance and avoids the mud. But the payday is at the back end. And yet, the evidence seems to show the intent was to lug the ladder all the way from the home, via the abandoned road, to the waiting car. And of course, no evidence of haste - quite the opposite. So why not at least circle the yard to avoid that mud like all the cops who arrived did? They wouldn't leave prints, avoid a potential fall, and not get mud all over their feet, shoes, and/or foot coverings. For me, if I was in a position where I think I might get caught, I'm trying to get away fast. There are others who would try to talk their way out of a bad situation but here that would be a hard thing to do considering they had a homemade ladder and a dead child in a burlap bag with them. The "below average" pace was my idea. It would be like walking on snow or ice from my perspective. So, if they weren't risking a run, then that tells me they were careful. Careful means slow especially since there wasn't a fall and they did not drop any of the items they were carrying until the point where they disassembled which they obviously did that on purpose. And why there anyway? Why not at some reasonable point away from the house? They chose a place without any cover by remaining in that yard. It's like the placement of the note on the sill instead of the crib. For me, it's too much like what Ho-age suggested. Then there's those phone lines again. Before cell phones, as you know, this was a common practice. To not do that here makes zero sense unless they wanted the family to have the ability to call the police.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 5, 2023 21:35:04 GMT -5
I thought about this phone line comment tonight and just wanted to offer my reasoning on this since you brought it up. Maybe cutting these lines was never part of the plan from either perspective. Whether one believes the kidnapping was real or a planned removal of the child, they wanted this option available to make contact to secure the $50,000. The nursery note said in 2 to 4 days they would inform Lindbergh where to deliver the money. If they had inside information to begin with, then they probably had Lindbergh's phone number and might have wanted to make this contact by phone. Lindbergh did the unexpected and did not open the note. He did not see the warning. He just phoned the police instead. Here's how I look at it.... The Nursery Note specifically indicated there would be more letters. It referenced the secret symbol for verification purposes. Next, if they had called the private line it would be something that clearly implicated an insider. Right? There's no way around it at that point. Next, why would anyone think Lindbergh couldn't have the line repaired the very next day? But if he immediately discovers his son is gone, calls the police who put out the APB on the wire, the risk of being stopped grows exponentially. Of course the child is dead, but if it was an accident as some believe, the line would have been cut before that accident occurred.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 6, 2023 7:32:53 GMT -5
Thank you for that explanation. Looking at this from your position that this was a planned removal of the child disguised as a real kidnapping, then why do they not cut the phone line to complete that look? Like you say, Lindbergh could have had the line repaired quickly the next day.
If they are real kidnapers with inside information, they are using the window of time they had (8 to 10 pm) to complete the task and be away from the scene before the child is discovered missing.
Wouldn't the uncut phone line look suspicious to the authorities and suggest an inside job just as the targeting of the window with the warped shutter did?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 6, 2023 8:39:55 GMT -5
Thank you for that explanation. Looking at this from your position that this was a planned removal of the child disguised as a real kidnapping, then why do they not cut the phone line to complete that look? Like you say, Lindbergh could have had the line repaired quickly the next day. If they are real kidnapers with inside information, they are using the window of time they had (8 to 10 pm) to complete the task and be away from the scene before the child is discovered missing. Wouldn't the uncut phone line look suspicious to the authorities and suggest an inside job just as the targeting of the window with the warped shutter did? For me, I always tried to make sense of what was actually supposed to happen first. Right? If it doesn't make sense, the idea that I can possibly question an alternative doesn't suddenly make it reasonable. And so, if it is real, I can think of no good reason why those lines weren't cut. Since we've already determined there's no evidence of haste, I believe this further supports this position. As to what looked suspicious, I believe it all did. Many of the officers on scene believed it was an inside job because of the whole kit & kaboodle. Frankly, there were more than most realize. I have things that I couldn't put in my book because it was provided "off the record" so to speak and it pains me not to be able to discuss, but it is what it is. Moving on to why they wouldn't be cut if Lindbergh was behind it.... For me, this whole thing strikes me as coming from people trying to stage the scene who never committed such a crime before. Like wiping down the nursery and eliminating everyone's prints - to include those in the house. Kidnappers concerned about prints wear gloves. Or leaving the note on the sill instead of the crib when its windy outside. That was clearly left at this place to show investigators they exited that way. Who does that? It's almost like how Lindbergh took over the investigation, or his actions when on that boat with Curtis. Heck, everything actually. So here I wouldn't doubt those brought in to assist probably suggested it, because its common sense, but I'm quite sure it was Lindbergh who said no. It's typical of him if you think about it. Lastly for now, the Whateley information. If the child was removed via the door, as claimed, this explains why Lindbergh actually took up with Curtis when he had no real evidence he was actually in touch with the kidnappers.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 6, 2023 22:24:49 GMT -5
Thank you for that explanation. Looking at this from your position that this was a planned removal of the child disguised as a real kidnapping, then why do they not cut the phone line to complete that look? Like you say, Lindbergh could have had the line repaired quickly the next day. If they are real kidnapers with inside information, they are using the window of time they had (8 to 10 pm) to complete the task and be away from the scene before the child is discovered missing. Wouldn't the uncut phone line look suspicious to the authorities and suggest an inside job just as the targeting of the window with the warped shutter did? For me, I always tried to make sense of what was actually supposed to happen first. Right? If it doesn't make sense, the idea that I can possibly question an alternative doesn't suddenly make it reasonable. And so, if it is real, I can think of no good reason why those lines weren't cut. Since we've already determined there's no evidence of haste, I believe this further supports this position. I am considering what you are sharing about the phone line but I guess I am not really sure why it needs to be cut in order for this kidnapping to be real. Lindbergh's rule of nobody in the nursery between 8 and 10 p.m. provides the time to take the child, stash the body and leave the scene before it is discovered the child is missing. Even if it is a fake kidnapping, this same window of time applies to those who are assisting in the removal of the child. I am truly not trying to be argumentative on this point. I am just not sure yet I would consider this one thing to be the defining point of whether the kidnapping was real or faked. As to what looked suspicious, I believe it all did. Many of the officers on scene believed it was an inside job because of the whole kit & kaboodle. Frankly, there were more than most realize. I have things that I couldn't put in my book because it was provided "off the record" so to speak and it pains me not to be able to discuss, but it is what it is. I do think the scene reflects an inside job. I think inside information was absolutely needed to pull this kidnapping off. Someone provided that, so it makes perfect sense the authorities judged it as such.Moving on to why they wouldn't be cut if Lindbergh was behind it.... For me, this whole thing strikes me as coming from people trying to stage the scene who never committed such a crime before. Like wiping down the nursery and eliminating everyone's prints - to include those in the house. It does seem strange. Betty Gow was upstairs in the nursery suite from 7:30 until about 8 p.m. alone once Charles, Jr. was put into bed. She washed the soiled sleeping suit. Perhaps she wiped the nursery down also because Charles Jr. was sick. She was up there for a half hour. She had to be doing something up there. Kidnappers concerned about prints wear gloves. Yes they do and I believe they would have worn them for this job. Or leaving the note on the sill instead of the crib when its windy outside. It is a weird place to put it. If they are not experienced kidnappers that could be why its there. Those were deep window sills. They did close the window so the note wasn't going to get blown off. That was clearly left at this place to show investigators they exited that way. Who does that? It does call attention to that window as being used in the kidnapping and the ladder marks outside will help to confirm that. Aren't window entries/exits common for kidnappings? It's almost like how Lindbergh took over the investigation, or his actions when on that boat with Curtis. Lindbergh's firm control of this investigation is something I do find suspicious. Heck, everything actually. So here I wouldn't doubt those brought in to assist probably suggested it, because its common sense, but I'm quite sure it was Lindbergh who said no. It's typical of him if you think about it. I can agree that Lindbergh would have said no to having his phone lines cut.Lastly for now, the Whateley information. If the child was removed via the door, as claimed, this explains why Lindbergh actually took up with Curtis when he had no real evidence he was actually in touch with the kidnappers. Are you talking about Curtis seeing a key in the pantry door that should not have been there? I think I read something on your board about this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 7, 2023 10:17:38 GMT -5
I am considering what you are sharing about the phone line but I guess I am not really sure why it needs to be cut in order for this kidnapping to be real. Lindbergh's rule of nobody in the nursery between 8 and 10 p.m. provides the time to take the child, stash the body and leave the scene before it is discovered the child is missing. Even if it is a fake kidnapping, this same window of time applies to those who are assisting in the removal of the child. I am truly not trying to be argumentative on this point. I am just not sure yet I would consider this one thing to be the defining point of whether the kidnapping was real or faked. You are certainly not being argumentative and I understand that you are legitimately struggling with my point. You may never get there, or I get there with you, but I'm going to try to better explain my position for what its worth... No crime is full proof and there is always a degree of fear among criminals that they might get caught. Even if they act cool and calm the wheels are spinning in this direction. This is a complex crime. If Children or Drug Users committed this crime I would expect impulsive, reckless, emotional, and/or immediate gratification type behavior. The Mentally Ill are completely unpredictable. But other types of Criminals use every precaution to prevent getting caught. Here we have evidence of planning. Both Peacock & Agent Frank believed the ball started rolling as early as July 1930. Knowing the family schedule hardly means something could not go wrong. And if it does, an escape has a much better chance if the phones don't work. Even if the kidnapping goes as planned without a hitch, and they somehow expected perfection, there's a chance a noise is made and someone inspects, or Wahgoosh barks as he should, or Skean isn't left behind and bites them in the ass, or Anne sneaks in to check on the child before 10PM. So the phone lines being cut ensures more time to escape. It's like an insurance policy, and for me being in daily interactions with Felons for three decades, it seems like common sense to expect it to be done. I look at everything here, to include a break in the ladder, see no evidence of haste, and no evidence of precaution by cutting those lines. Along with everything else suspicious about it - and there's a ton - I can't help but to use the words of Dr. Henry Lee: " something ain't right." It is a weird place to put it. If they are not experienced kidnappers that could be why its there. Those were deep window sills. They did close the window so the note wasn't going to get blown off. Honestly speaking, how much experience in kidnapping would be needed to know that wind blows? Or that note is important if they are going to get paid? Why on earth would this person carrying the child want to carry him along with the note to the window? I can see only two options: They forgot in their excitement and haste, or they did it to show the cops which way they went. One puts the note in the crib and that's the end of it. Bringing it to the window is an unnecessary act that makes little sense otherwise especially considering the conditions outside. It does call attention to that window as being used in the kidnapping and the ladder marks outside will help to confirm that. Aren't window entries/exits common for kidnappings? Obviously, that's what they thought too. Are you talking about Curtis seeing a key in the pantry door that should not have been there? I think I read something on your board about this. According to Hoover, Lanphier told him that all parties inspecting the scene believed it impossible for the window to be closed from the outside without the note being blown off the sill. For this reason, their working theory was two people were involved with one closing the window from the inside. This second person was supposed to have exited the house via a door. Part of the Curtis story was the pantry door was locked to allow a door to be used to exit the home. It was this information that was supposed to have convinced Lindbergh that Curtis was in touch with the actual people involved.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Apr 8, 2023 10:04:54 GMT -5
Years ago, I recall reading that the phone line leading to the Lindbergh house was buried in metal conduit, and therefore it would not have possible for a kidnapper to have cut them, unless he knew exactly where they disappeared underground from the main telephone line. As some of this discussion revolves around the kidnapper intending to allow, or not allow the Lindberghs the use of their phone following discovery of the missing child, it seems important to establish what this condition was in fact. From the attached photo, I see no indication of any telephone lines being supported by wooden poles leading to the house. High tension power lines ran in a eastward direction along the path of the clear cut ground directly beneath them to a point just west of the house as seen in the attached photo. I don't know if these power lines went underground at this point but the apparent lack of any visible incoming above-ground lines of any kind leading to the house, would seem to indicate that both power and phone lines were buried. I've always had great difficulty believing that an envelope left on the nursery windowsill would, out of necessity, have been blown off the windowsill before the window could be slid shut. I'd also suggest that anyone can try this for themselves on even a very windy day in a room where one adjacent window is left open (representing the French window) and another window is opened and closed. There will always be a noticeable change in air pressure and air movement in the immediate area of the test window, but to suggest it would have been impossible for the envelope to have been quickly slid onto the windowsill before closing the window, is simply inaccurate. Moreover, I believe there were far too many of these kinds of unfounded, untested and personal "opinions" expressed by inadequately trained and inexperienced investigators at the scene of this crime, which today appear to garner support or derision, depending on the observer’s viewpoint. The pace of the retreat of the kidnappers, as their footprints showed in the muddier ground further away from the house, would quickly have become one of a self-preserving balancing act on two accounts: i) getting away quickly enough not to be caught, and ii) not slipping in the unexpected ground conditions, going down, dropping something and ultimately taking longer to get away, ie. doing it right the first time. Compared to the relatively firm ground alongside the house, seen in the attached photo, which would have been protected by its leeward effect from rains coming from the north-west earlier than day, they would soon have discovered they were venturing into a relative quagmire in the open field areas. I believe the disposal of the ladder and accidental loss of the chisel at a point only 75 feet from the house indicates strongly they were in no mood to have to deal with these same kind of open exposed field ground conditions for another half mile of travel and simply decided at this point to “lighten the load,” now treating the ladder as expendable. This unwise path of retreat they chose in haste, essentially distancing themselves from the house as soon as possible, indicates to me they had not planned on traversing unknown ground conditions and that they had originally intended to retreat back down the driveway. I also believe the state of controlled panic they would have suddenly found themselves in and resultant change of retreat route, was spontaneously decided upon when the ladder broke, the same noise that Lindbergh heard about 9:00 pm while sitting in his living room.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 8, 2023 12:25:09 GMT -5
This is a ladder question concerning the finding of the ladder on the night of March 1, 1932 so I thought I would ask it on this thread. I am confused about this point. In The Dark Corners, Volume One, page 190 there is a sketch of the location of the kidnap ladder made on the night of the kidnapping. It shows the three sections. Two of the ladder sections are lying side by side and a third section is a little distance away in the same parallel position as the others. None of these sections are joined together. Did the kidnaper take the two sections of ladder used in the kidnapping apart and then carry the 3 sections of ladder from the house? Did he carry the two sections connected together along with the third section and then take the 2 sections apart before laying them together on the ground and then place the third section off to the right of the other sections? Either way, this seems like a cumbersome thing to do. Why not just drop them all together? Why lay them out this way, especially if you are just one man carrying a thirty pound child with one of your hands! Is there any evidence the burlap bag containing the child was put down in this area so the ladder could be arranged this way? In the case of the state of the ladder when it was discovered, the Summary claims two sections were fastened together and a third a few yards away. The source for this is good: The May 18 Conference where Inspector Walsh told the men, among them Assistant Director Nathan, the two sections were found assembled. Lt. Keaten repeated this similar claim to Agent Sisk in the summer of 1934. And yet, this sketch was clearly made by the NJSP (by whom or when I do not know), showing all three sections separated. Most of those who actually saw it as it laid at the edge of the yard don't specify, however, DeGaetano clearly says in his March 9, statement: ...the ladders were laying about seventy-five (75) feet or one hundred (100) feet from the house and then I saw three lengths of ladder. One of these ladders was about ten (10) or fifteen (15) feet away from the other two sections but all three (3) were separate and laying parallel from the ground. I hope you don't mind me jumping back to this earlier response. I want to ask if you know who told Inspector Walsh that the two sections of ladder were found assembled. I don't see anything in Dark Corners V1 Chapter 12 that says Insector Walsh was on the scene the night of March 1 to see those ladder sections all laying apart from each other. Do you know who told Inspector Walsh this, since he is already saying this as early as May 18th 1932. Why is Lt. Keaten saying these sections were attached? He knows they weren't. In Chapter 12 you explain that DeGaetano took Keaton to see the ladder that night after Keaten arrived at the scene.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 8, 2023 12:58:03 GMT -5
I am considering what you are sharing about the phone line but I guess I am not really sure why it needs to be cut in order for this kidnapping to be real. Lindbergh's rule of nobody in the nursery between 8 and 10 p.m. provides the time to take the child, stash the body and leave the scene before it is discovered the child is missing. Even if it is a fake kidnapping, this same window of time applies to those who are assisting in the removal of the child. I am truly not trying to be argumentative on this point. I am just not sure yet I would consider this one thing to be the defining point of whether the kidnapping was real or faked. You are certainly not being argumentative and I understand that you are legitimately struggling with my point. You may never get there, or I get there with you, but I'm going to try to better explain my position for what its worth... No crime is full proof and there is always a degree of fear among criminals that they might get caught. Even if they act cool and calm the wheels are spinning in this direction. This is a complex crime. If Children or Drug Users committed this crime I would expect impulsive, reckless, emotional, and/or immediate gratification type behavior. The Mentally Ill are completely unpredictable. But other types of Criminals use every precaution to prevent getting caught. Here we have evidence of planning. Both Peacock & Agent Frank believed the ball started rolling as early as July 1930. Knowing the family schedule hardly means something could not go wrong. And if it does, an escape has a much better chance if the phones don't work. Even if the kidnapping goes as planned without a hitch, and they somehow expected perfection, there's a chance a noise is made and someone inspects, or Wahgoosh barks as he should, or Skean isn't left behind and bites them in the ass, or Anne sneaks in to check on the child before 10PM. So the phone lines being cut ensures more time to escape. It's like an insurance policy, and for me being in daily interactions with Felons for three decades, it seems like common sense to expect it to be done. I look at everything here, to include a break in the ladder, see no evidence of haste, and no evidence of precaution by cutting those lines. Along with everything else suspicious about it - and there's a ton - I can't help but to use the words of Dr. Henry Lee: " something ain't right." Sorry for this late response. Had Easter baskets to work on. Thank you for taking the time to give me such a great explanation about the phone lines. It makes so much sense, of course, so I will continue to consider this for sure. It is a weird place to put it. If they are not experienced kidnappers that could be why its there. Those were deep window sills. They did close the window so the note wasn't going to get blown off. Honestly speaking, how much experience in kidnapping would be needed to know that wind blows? Or that note is important if they are going to get paid? Why on earth would this person carrying the child want to carry him along with the note to the window? I can see only two options: They forgot in their excitement and haste, or they did it to show the cops which way they went. One puts the note in the crib and that's the end of it. Bringing it to the window is an unnecessary act that makes little sense otherwise especially considering the conditions outside. This placement must seem so silly to you. In thinking about it, is it possible it was placed on the windowsill because they did not want Betty Gow to handle it; just Lindbergh? She would notice that Charles Jr was not in his crib and then go alert the Lindberghs. Just asking. It does call attention to that window as being used in the kidnapping and the ladder marks outside will help to confirm that. Aren't window entries/exits common for kidnappings? Obviously, that's what they thought too. Are you talking about Curtis seeing a key in the pantry door that should not have been there? I think I read something on your board about this. According to Hoover, Lanphier told him that all parties inspecting the scene believed it impossible for the window to be closed from the outside without the note being blown off the sill. For this reason, their working theory was two people were involved with one closing the window from the inside. This second person was supposed to have exited the house via a door. Part of the Curtis story was the pantry door was locked to allow a door to be used to exit the home. It was this information that was supposed to have convinced Lindbergh that Curtis was in touch with the actual people involved. Why would they use any downstairs door? The front door had an issue as I read in your book. Also, Wahgoosh would have picked up on the presence of a stranger if he is downstairs. How would they even know exactly how to negotiate the downstairs level of the house? Even with inside help about the nursery, they would have needed a floor plan, especially to get to the downstairs back door. Everyone in the house that night, including the dog, were in this section of the house. I am surprised Lindbergh would have thought this was a credible idea.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 8, 2023 13:18:12 GMT -5
Years ago, I recall reading that the phone line leading to the Lindbergh house was buried in metal conduit, and therefore it would not have possible for a kidnapper to have cut them, unless he knew exactly where they disappeared underground from the main telephone line. As some of this discussion revolves around the kidnapper intending to allow, or not allow the Lindberghs the use of their phone following discovery of the missing child, it seems important to establish what this condition was in fact. From the attached photo, I see no indication of any telephone lines being supported by wooden poles leading to the house. High tension power lines ran in a eastward direction along the path of the clear cut ground directly beneath them to a point just west of the house as seen in the attached photo. I don't know if these power lines went underground at this point but the apparent lack of any visible incoming above-ground lines of any kind leading to the house, would seem to indicate that both power and phone lines were buried. Thank you for sharing this. If those lines were not accessible then that would explain why they were not cut. I looked as best I could at your picture and have seen others and you are right about no elevated lines being present close to the house or on the nursery side of the house. If I am not mistaken, Lindbergh had planned a runway for his plane on the property so he would not have wanted any elevated lines on his grounds that would have interfered with his ability to use his plane.View AttachmentI've always had great difficulty believing that an envelope left on the nursery windowsill would, out of necessity, have been blown off the windowsill before the window could be slid shut. I'd also suggest that anyone can try this for themselves on even a very windy day in a room where one adjacent window is left open (representing the French window) and another window is opened and closed. There will always be a noticeable change in air pressure and air movement in the immediate area of the test window, but to suggest it would have been impossible for the envelope to have been quickly slid onto the windowsill before closing the window, is simply inaccurate. Moreover, I believe there were far too many of these kinds of unfounded, untested and personal "opinions" expressed by inadequately trained and inexperienced investigators at the scene of this crime, which today appear to garner support or derision, depending on the observer’s viewpoint. I realize it may seem like a poor choice to put it there but put it there they did. It was not a large envelope and if placed and then the window closed immediately, I can see it working. I, personally, think the child was either handed to someone on the ladder or was lowered from the window. I believe there were burlap straps found in or near the grave site area that might have been employed for this purpose.The pace of the retreat of the kidnappers, as their footprints showed in the muddier ground further away from the house, would quickly have become one of a self-preserving balance on two accounts: i) getting away quickly enough not to be caught, and ii) not slipping in the unexpected ground conditions, going down, dropping something and ultimately taking longer to get away, ie. doing it right the first time. Compared to the relatively firm ground alongside the house, seen in the attached photo, which would have been protected by its leeward effect from rains coming from the north-west earlier than day, they would soon have discovered they were venturing into an unexpected quagmire in the open field areas. I believe the disposal of the ladder and accidental loss of the chisel at a point only 75 feet from the house indicates strongly they were in no mood to have to deal with these same kind of open exposed field ground conditions for another half mile of travel and simply decided at this point to “lighten their load,” now treating the ladder as expendable. This unwise path of retreat they chose in haste, essentially distancing themselves from the house as soon as possible, indicates to they had not planned on these difficult ground conditions and that they had originally intended to retreat back down the driveway. I also believe the state of controlled panic they would have suddenly found themselves in and resultant change of retreat route, was spontaneously decided upon when the ladder broke, the same noise that Lindbergh heard about 9:00 pm while sitting in his living room. Wasn't there mud found on a lower shutter? Someone who climbed the ladder must have had mud on his feet for this to happen, I would think.View Attachment
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 8, 2023 16:35:29 GMT -5
I hope you don't mind me jumping back to this earlier response. I want to ask if you know who told Inspector Walsh that the two sections of ladder were found assembled. I don't see anything in Dark Corners V1 Chapter 12 that says Insector Walsh was on the scene the night of March 1 to see those ladder sections all laying apart from each other. Do you know who told Inspector Walsh this, since he is already saying this as early as May 18th 1932. Why is Lt. Keaten saying these sections were attached? He knows they weren't. In Chapter 12 you explain that DeGaetano took Keaton to see the ladder that night after Keaten arrived at the scene. He wasn't on the scene that night. He went to Gov. Moore's office the next day and met with Schwarzkopf and Schoeffel. From there, they proceeded to Highfields and, according to him, arrived just before noon. I have no idea why there are two different versions. Years ago, I recall reading that the phone line leading to the Lindbergh house was buried in metal conduit, and therefore it would not have possible for a kidnapper to have cut them, unless he knew exactly where they disappeared underground from the main telephone line. As some of this discussion revolves around the kidnapper intending to allow, or not allow the Lindberghs the use of their phone following discovery of the missing child, it seems important to establish what this condition was in fact. From the attached photo, I see no indication of any telephone lines being supported by wooden poles leading to the house. High tension power lines ran in a eastward direction along the path of the clear cut ground directly beneath them to a point just west of the house as seen in the attached photo. I don't know if these power lines went underground at this point but the apparent lack of any visible incoming above-ground lines of any kind leading to the house, would seem to indicate that both power and phone lines were buried. Firstly, Lindbergh testified that he expected the phones lines were cut and was surprised to hear from Whateley that the phone worked. Why would he give this testimony if it "was not possible" as you suggest? Next, the phone lines were run underground but came out of the ground on the outside of the house giving access to anyone who wanted it. I've always had great difficulty believing that an envelope left on the nursery windowsill would, out of necessity, have been blown off the windowsill before the window could be slid shut. I'd also suggest that anyone can try this for themselves on even a very windy day in a room where one adjacent window is left open (representing the French window) and another window is opened and closed. There will always be a noticeable change in air pressure and air movement in the immediate area of the test window, but to suggest it would have been impossible for the envelope to have been quickly slid onto the windowsill before closing the window, is simply inaccurate. Moreover, I believe there were far too many of these kinds of unfounded, untested and personal "opinions" expressed by inadequately trained and inexperienced investigators at the scene of this crime, which today appear to garner support or derision, depending on the observer’s viewpoint. Lanphier's source was Lindbergh. I think there are multiple sources for what they believed as a result of their investigation. Next, I think it all depends on the strength and direction of the wind so any experiment will depend on replicating the exact situation as it was that night. The pace of the retreat of the kidnappers, as their footprints showed in the muddier ground further away from the house, would quickly have become one of a self-preserving balancing act on two accounts: i) getting away quickly enough not to be caught, and ii) not slipping in the unexpected ground conditions, going down, dropping something and ultimately taking longer to get away, ie. doing it right the first time. Compared to the relatively firm ground alongside the house, seen in the attached photo, which would have been protected by its leeward effect from rains coming from the north-west earlier than day, they would soon have discovered they were venturing into a relative quagmire in the open field areas. I believe the disposal of the ladder and accidental loss of the chisel at a point only 75 feet from the house indicates strongly they were in no mood to have to deal with these same kind of open exposed field ground conditions for another half mile of travel and simply decided at this point to “lighten the load,” now treating the ladder as expendable. This unwise path of retreat they chose in haste, essentially distancing themselves from the house as soon as possible, indicates to me they had not planned on traversing unknown ground conditions and that they had originally intended to retreat back down the driveway. I also believe the state of controlled panic they would have suddenly found themselves in and resultant change of retreat route, was spontaneously decided upon when the ladder broke, the same noise that Lindbergh heard about 9:00 pm while sitting in his living room. The ground on the side of the house was not "firm." Anne testified that the ground there was soft enough to leave prints. There were footprints there, and later claimed to have been made by Anne. Anne was 130 lbs, and not 185 lbs and carrying a ladder or anything other than supposedly a pebble. You can continue to insist on this erroneous conclusion that the ground was "firm" in this area, but the evidence disproves it. This other thing about a "controlled" panic is an oxymoron. Either they were panicked or they weren't. Some people handle fear better than others but inventing things to explain circumstances away isn't very helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 9, 2023 8:40:50 GMT -5
Sorry for this late response. Had Easter baskets to work on. Thank you for taking the time to give me such a great explanation about the phone lines. It makes so much sense, of course, so I will continue to consider this for sure. Please see my response to Joe's post about the phone lines. I also wanted to add a little more about that.... It's important to note they also had to start from somewhere. Typically, they ran from the poles on the roads to the various homes. There were investigations immediately after the crime looking at potential "taps" by reporters and various other people seen climbing poles or rumored to have done so. My point is if a line could be tapped at the pole, it seems to me it could have potentially been cut there as well. This placement must seem so silly to you. In thinking about it, is it possible it was placed on the windowsill because they did not want Betty Gow to handle it; just Lindbergh? She would notice that Charles Jr was not in his crib and then go alert the Lindberghs. Just asking. Interesting theory. It's something once I read I definitely considered. But I asked myself "why" they wouldn't want Betty to find or handle it and I can't come up with an answer. She'd find the baby missing with the note in the crib. Then what? She either leaves it to alert Lindbergh or opens it, then leaves to alert Lindbergh possibly bringing it to him or perhaps dropping it back in the crib. So for me, I don't see any scenario that makes a difference. Is there something I haven't thought about? Why would they use any downstairs door? The front door had an issue as I read in your book. Also, Wahgoosh would have picked up on the presence of a stranger if he is downstairs. How would they even know exactly how to negotiate the downstairs level of the house? Even with inside help about the nursery, they would have needed a floor plan, especially to get to the downstairs back door. Everyone in the house that night, including the dog, were in this section of the house. I am surprised Lindbergh would have thought this was a credible idea. Exactly. Apparently, the pantry door was locked which would have assisted in this end somehow. But the idea someone left via any door is even more problematic than the window in my opinion. And yet, Lindbergh accepted the possibility. He concurred with investigators and accepted Curtis's story based on it. To me its pretty damning when considering the mountain of everything else and applying it all at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 9, 2023 21:37:55 GMT -5
Sorry for this late response. Had Easter baskets to work on. Thank you for taking the time to give me such a great explanation about the phone lines. It makes so much sense, of course, so I will continue to consider this for sure. Please see my response to Joe's post about the phone lines. I also wanted to add a little more about that.... It's important to note they also had to start from somewhere. Typically, they ran from the poles on the roads to the various homes. There were investigations immediately after the crime looking at potential "taps" by reporters and various other people seen climbing poles or rumored to have done so. My point is if a line could be tapped at the pole, it seems to me it could have potentially been cut there as well. I read your response to Joe and it seems that it might have been possible to cut the wire at the house if it wasn't protected once the line came up from the ground to enter into the house. Cut at the pole where the line was run from. I guess this would be a real possibility if they could have figured out which pole and line were Lindbergh's. They would have had to do this in the dark though before they ever went to the house. I understand the point you have made here.This placement must seem so silly to you. In thinking about it, is it possible it was placed on the windowsill because they did not want Betty Gow to handle it; just Lindbergh? She would notice that Charles Jr was not in his crib and then go alert the Lindberghs. Just asking. Interesting theory. It's something once I read I definitely considered. But I asked myself "why" they wouldn't want Betty to find or handle it and I can't come up with an answer. She'd find the baby missing with the note in the crib. Then what? She either leaves it to alert Lindbergh or opens it, then leaves to alert Lindbergh possibly bringing it to him or perhaps dropping it back in the crib. So for me, I don't see any scenario that makes a difference. Is there something I haven't thought about? No, you seem to think of everything. The only other thing I can think of is that the kidnappers didn't want anyone to find it in the crib so that it would remain free of any fingerprints just like the room. However, that idea seems to work better for your position of a staged kidnapping than a real kidnapping. Why would they use any downstairs door? The front door had an issue as I read in your book. Also, Wahgoosh would have picked up on the presence of a stranger if he is downstairs. How would they even know exactly how to negotiate the downstairs level of the house? Even with inside help about the nursery, they would have needed a floor plan, especially to get to the downstairs back door. Everyone in the house that night, including the dog, were in this section of the house. I am surprised Lindbergh would have thought this was a credible idea. Exactly. Apparently, the pantry door was locked which would have assisted in this end somehow. But the idea someone left via any door is even more problematic than the window in my opinion. And yet, Lindbergh accepted the possibility. He concurred with investigators and accepted Curtis's story based on it. To me its pretty damning when considering the mountain of everything else and applying it all at the same time. Did the investigators really think Curtis's story was credible? Were they fully aware of what was going on with this angle and allowed to check up on any of the contacts Curtis was claiming to be having with the kidnappers. This just seems so crazy.
I am just going to start reading Chapter Three of Volume 3. It is about Schippell's Shack. I suspect it will be very interesting.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Apr 10, 2023 6:38:37 GMT -5
I hope you don't mind me jumping back to this earlier response. I want to ask if you know who told Inspector Walsh that the two sections of ladder were found assembled. I don't see anything in Dark Corners V1 Chapter 12 that says Insector Walsh was on the scene the night of March 1 to see those ladder sections all laying apart from each other. Do you know who told Inspector Walsh this, since he is already saying this as early as May 18th 1932. Why is Lt. Keaten saying these sections were attached? He knows they weren't. In Chapter 12 you explain that DeGaetano took Keaton to see the ladder that night after Keaten arrived at the scene. He wasn't on the scene that night. He went to Gov. Moore's office the next day and met with Schwarzkopf and Schoeffel. From there, they proceeded to Highfields and, according to him, arrived just before noon. I have no idea why there are two different versions. Years ago, I recall reading that the phone line leading to the Lindbergh house was buried in metal conduit, and therefore it would not have possible for a kidnapper to have cut them, unless he knew exactly where they disappeared underground from the main telephone line. As some of this discussion revolves around the kidnapper intending to allow, or not allow the Lindberghs the use of their phone following discovery of the missing child, it seems important to establish what this condition was in fact. From the attached photo, I see no indication of any telephone lines being supported by wooden poles leading to the house. High tension power lines ran in a eastward direction along the path of the clear cut ground directly beneath them to a point just west of the house as seen in the attached photo. I don't know if these power lines went underground at this point but the apparent lack of any visible incoming above-ground lines of any kind leading to the house, would seem to indicate that both power and phone lines were buried. Firstly, Lindbergh testified that he expected the phones lines were cut and was surprised to hear from Whateley that the phone worked. Why would he give this testimony if it "was not possible" as you suggest? Next, the phone lines were run underground but came out of the ground on the outside of the house giving access to anyone who wanted it. I've always had great difficulty believing that an envelope left on the nursery windowsill would, out of necessity, have been blown off the windowsill before the window could be slid shut. I'd also suggest that anyone can try this for themselves on even a very windy day in a room where one adjacent window is left open (representing the French window) and another window is opened and closed. There will always be a noticeable change in air pressure and air movement in the immediate area of the test window, but to suggest it would have been impossible for the envelope to have been quickly slid onto the windowsill before closing the window, is simply inaccurate. Moreover, I believe there were far too many of these kinds of unfounded, untested and personal "opinions" expressed by inadequately trained and inexperienced investigators at the scene of this crime, which today appear to garner support or derision, depending on the observer’s viewpoint. Lanphier's source was Lindbergh. I think there are multiple sources for what they believed as a result of their investigation. Next, I think it all depends on the strength and direction of the wind so any experiment will depend on replicating the exact situation as it was that night. The pace of the retreat of the kidnappers, as their footprints showed in the muddier ground further away from the house, would quickly have become one of a self-preserving balancing act on two accounts: i) getting away quickly enough not to be caught, and ii) not slipping in the unexpected ground conditions, going down, dropping something and ultimately taking longer to get away, ie. doing it right the first time. Compared to the relatively firm ground alongside the house, seen in the attached photo, which would have been protected by its leeward effect from rains coming from the north-west earlier than day, they would soon have discovered they were venturing into a relative quagmire in the open field areas. I believe the disposal of the ladder and accidental loss of the chisel at a point only 75 feet from the house indicates strongly they were in no mood to have to deal with these same kind of open exposed field ground conditions for another half mile of travel and simply decided at this point to “lighten the load,” now treating the ladder as expendable. This unwise path of retreat they chose in haste, essentially distancing themselves from the house as soon as possible, indicates to me they had not planned on traversing unknown ground conditions and that they had originally intended to retreat back down the driveway. I also believe the state of controlled panic they would have suddenly found themselves in and resultant change of retreat route, was spontaneously decided upon when the ladder broke, the same noise that Lindbergh heard about 9:00 pm while sitting in his living room. The ground on the side of the house was not "firm." Anne testified that the ground there was soft enough to leave prints. There were footprints there, and later claimed to have been made by Anne. Anne was 130 lbs, and not 185 lbs and carrying a ladder or anything other than supposedly a pebble. You can continue to insist on this erroneous conclusion that the ground was "firm" in this area, but the evidence disproves it. This other thing about a "controlled" panic is an oxymoron. Either they were panicked or they weren't. Some people handle fear better than others but inventing things to explain circumstances away isn't very helpful.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Apr 10, 2023 8:14:38 GMT -5
Years ago, I recall reading that the phone line leading to the Lindbergh house was buried in metal conduit, and therefore it would not have possible for a kidnapper to have cut them, unless he knew exactly where they disappeared underground from the main telephone line. As some of this discussion revolves around the kidnapper intending to allow, or not allow the Lindberghs the use of their phone following discovery of the missing child, it seems important to establish what this condition was in fact. From the attached photo, I see no indication of any telephone lines being supported by wooden poles leading to the house. High tension power lines ran in a eastward direction along the path of the clear cut ground directly beneath them to a point just west of the house as seen in the attached photo. I don't know if these power lines went underground at this point but the apparent lack of any visible incoming above-ground lines of any kind leading to the house, would seem to indicate that both power and phone lines were buried. Firstly, Lindbergh testified that he expected the phones lines were cut and was surprised to hear from Whateley that the phone worked. Why would he give this testimony if it "was not possible" as you suggest? Next, the phone lines were run underground but came out of the ground on the outside of the house giving access to anyone who wanted it. Why don't we try to establish the exact picture for the telephone lines as they came into contact with the house? I fully understand that Lindbergh was relieved to hear that they were not cut, thereby allowing the means to report the crime, but there are other factors here to consider. While I'm sure he probably knew where the line actually came into the house, exactly how familiar would he have been with the true and actual 'schematic' here? What I mean here is, just because they came out of the underground metal conduit right at the house, does this also means there was an exposed wire that could simply be snipped by anyone who wanted to do that? That does not seem a given here. For example, could the underground line have come up into a box on the wall via a protective metal conduit leading from the ground to the box itself, a configuration that is common procedure and would therefore have made it difficult to cut?
Moreover, would Lindbergh have been familiar enough with this level of installation detail to understand exactly what a perpetrator would have been reasonable capable of achieving or not achieving in the first place? At the trial, Lindbergh stated only to the effect that the telephone wires were brought to the house underground a distance equal to the spacing of one to one-and-a-half telephone pole's distance. He doesn't mention anything about whether the wire would actually have been in an exposed position to allow it to be cut, so it might then appear he was simply registering what would have been his greatest potential fear when Charlie was discovered missing.
Furthermore, what would the kidnapper have known here? If he could not see any telephone wires leading to the house for at least a good 200 or 300 feet, how would he have known where to look for an opportunity to cut them in the first place?
I'm not disregarding what Lindbergh feared here, ie. that the telephone wires had been cut, but I'm also not treating what he said as an inflexible biblical passage. Do we a have an accurate figurative or even literal understanding as to how the telephone wire came into contact with the house? I've always had great difficulty believing that an envelope left on the nursery windowsill would, out of necessity, have been blown off the windowsill before the window could be slid shut. I'd also suggest that anyone can try this for themselves on even a very windy day in a room where one adjacent window is left open (representing the French window) and another window is opened and closed. There will always be a noticeable change in air pressure and air movement in the immediate area of the test window, but to suggest it would have been impossible for the envelope to have been quickly slid onto the windowsill before closing the window, is simply inaccurate. Moreover, I believe there were far too many of these kinds of unfounded, untested and personal "opinions" expressed by inadequately trained and inexperienced investigators at the scene of this crime, which today appear to garner support or derision, depending on the observer’s viewpoint. Lanphier's source was Lindbergh. I think there are multiple sources for what they believed as a result of their investigation. Next, I think it all depends on the strength and direction of the wind so any experiment will depend on replicating the exact situation as it was that night. Exactly, and those conditions could have changed dramatically within seconds of each other depending primarily on how the wind was gusting and moving around the house. My point being there would have been no continuous wind tunnel effect going on here which, out of necessity, would have made the envelope placement on the windowsill a virtual impossibility. I believe the kidnapper simply took the opportunity when presented and made good. As for the placement location for the envelope, I agree the crib would have been the preferred location, and tend to believe he had originally intended to leave it there, as implied by CJ to Condon at Woodlawn Cemetery.
The pace of the retreat of the kidnappers, as their footprints showed in the muddier ground further away from the house, would quickly have become one of a self-preserving balancing act on two accounts: i) getting away quickly enough not to be caught, and ii) not slipping in the unexpected ground conditions, going down, dropping something and ultimately taking longer to get away, ie. doing it right the first time. Compared to the relatively firm ground alongside the house, seen in the attached photo, which would have been protected by its leeward effect from rains coming from the north-west earlier than day, they would soon have discovered they were venturing into a relative quagmire in the open field areas. I believe the disposal of the ladder and accidental loss of the chisel at a point only 75 feet from the house indicates strongly they were in no mood to have to deal with these same kind of open exposed field ground conditions for another half mile of travel and simply decided at this point to “lighten the load,” now treating the ladder as expendable. This unwise path of retreat they chose in haste, essentially distancing themselves from the house as soon as possible, indicates to me they had not planned on traversing unknown ground conditions and that they had originally intended to retreat back down the driveway. I also believe the state of controlled panic they would have suddenly found themselves in and resultant change of retreat route, was spontaneously decided upon when the ladder broke, the same noise that Lindbergh heard about 9:00 pm while sitting in his living room. The ground on the side of the house was not "firm." Anne testified that the ground there was soft enough to leave prints. There were footprints there, and later claimed to have been made by Anne. Anne was 130 lbs, and not 185 lbs and carrying a ladder or anything other than supposedly a pebble. You can continue to insist on this erroneous conclusion that the ground was "firm" in this area, but the evidence disproves it. This other thing about a "controlled" panic is an oxymoron. Either they were panicked or they weren't. Some people handle fear better than others but inventing things to explain circumstances away isn't very helpful. I would heartily recommend you take basic courses in the properties of natural & man-made materials as well as physical and chemical sciences, as I believe we have a major disconnect here, not worth continuing here with you. Sorry, but a career in the prison system, while it might have helped you understand the criminal mind, does very little for your understanding and credibility on this subject.
'Controlled panic' is my statement. Try not to get so hung up on semantics here, especially when you are looking for a lever to derail the discussion intent. What I meant was, that he/they were suddenly thrown into the position of having to decide what to do following circumstances (the ladder breaking) that had not been anticipated.
For the interim though, can you please explain why you believe the kidnapper would have felt compelled in the first place, to walk alongside the house and raise and position the kidnap ladder and not once step off that very narrow walkway.. and then go tromping off through the muddy open field a few minutes later, leaving behind an s-load of footprints? Do you even understand that to do what you're suggesting he/they did on that walkway (one skinny piece of tongue-and-groove flooring directly underneath the window) would have been nigh impossible and most importantly, comically unnecessary? Then think of what other available variables from your above basic course studies, what else might explain the scope of the actual circumstantial physical evidence picture.
Oh, if only Ellis Parker and/or Canada's John Murray, in their prime, could have had sole and unrestricted access to this crime scene..
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 10, 2023 12:11:59 GMT -5
Why don't we try to establish the exact picture for the telephone lines as they came into contact with the house? I fully understand that Lindbergh was relieved to hear that they were not cut, thereby allowing the means to report the crime, but there are other factors here to consider. While I'm sure he probably knew where the line actually came into the house, exactly how familiar would he have been with the true and actual 'schematic' here? What I mean here is, just because they came out of the underground metal conduit right at the house, does this also means there was an exposed wire that could simply be snipped by anyone who wanted to do that? That does not seem a given here. For example, could the underground line have come up into a box on the wall via a protective metal conduit leading from the ground to the box itself, a configuration that is common procedure and would therefore have made it difficult to cut? Moreover, would Lindbergh have been familiar enough with this level of installation detail to understand exactly what a perpetrator would have been reasonable capable of achieving or not achieving in the first place? At the trial, Lindbergh stated only to the effect that the telephone wires were brought to the house underground a distance equal to the spacing of one to one-and-a-half telephone pole's distance. He doesn't mention anything about whether the wire would actually have been in an exposed position to allow it to be cut, so it might then appear he was simply registering what would have been his greatest potential fear when Charlie was discovered missing. Furthermore, what would the kidnapper have known here? If he could not see any telephone wires leading to the house for at least a good 200 or 300 feet, how would he have known where to look for an opportunity to cut them in the first place? I'm not disregarding what Lindbergh feared here, ie. that the telephone wires had been cut, but I'm also not treating what he said as an inflexible biblical passage. Do we a have an accurate figurative or even literal understanding as to how the telephone wire came into contact with the house? What is the simplest answer to your question? Lindbergh had the plans to his new home long before. In fact, he showed them to Miss Cummings - remember? Regardless, the point of it is that he not only believed they could have been cut, he expected them to be - or so that's what he wanted everyone to believe. Applying Occam's Razor, as you "claim" you like to do, means he knew doesn't it? My preferred method is to look at everything to include examining at all the possibilities to see if they can complement or tie in with other situations and/or circumstances as well. So we can look at something by itself, but since there's so many things were dependent on another, I believe this is also an important strategy. So I believe what I posted blew up your earlier position. But instead of concession or allowing for the possibilities that information brings, your only strategy is to find some way around it without ever acknowledging the obvious implications, and in this case, the simplest solution. See where i'm going? What this shows is clear... You have no set of guidelines. Not Occam's Razor, nor anything else except looking for ways, anything actually, to bring you to the solution you happen to prefer. Now this idea that Lindbergh didn't know enough to draw such a conclusion is one that seems highly unlikely. And given what you've posted previously about Whateley, its highly unlikely you believe he wouldn't have known either. And so, even if your position defied the astronomical odds and was true, doesn't it seem likely a discussion about such a thing transpired between the two? Your actual point about the wires is a little more reasonable and is similar to A Guest's. I don't know where they came out of the ground or on which side of the house. All I know is they came out of the underground conduit onto a place on the side of the house. Were they bare or protected in some way? I don't know. But what I do know is these "culprits" were familiar with everything about the house. You've suggested it was due to surveillance, and I have suggested inside information. The answer about the phone lines could apply to one, the other, or both. What doesn't work is they didn't know or didn't want to know. Next, anyone with that knowledge would bring the proper tools to cut the lines. Again, it's pretty simple if you think about it. And before you go off and tell me these outside criminals did not "want" to cut the lines, I'll call BS before you even get the chance. As an aside, while I think about it, one of the Reporters on scene the night of the crime went to a Lindbergh neighbor's house. He paid them for use of their phone and promised to pay the bill. Because it was a party line, he called his office and both phones were left off the hook. This was to ensure his paper was the first to get any information because no one else in this area could use the phone causing them to drive some distance to make that call themselves. So you see, if Reporters did this type of stuff, how in the hell could anyone sell a bill of goods suggesting the "Kidnappers" weren't smart enough to act similarly? Just look at those holes in the note. This proves beyond all doubt there was much thought given to it. But we're expected to believe they didn't give an equal amount to their escape - or safety from capture or harm? Again, I've had decades of experience with people who committed all kinds of crimes and very few I ever interacted with would have left that phone connected. I've mentioned the characteristics in my earlier post about the few that might. Exactly, and those conditions could have changed dramatically within seconds of each other depending primarily on how the wind was gusting and moving around the house. My point being there would have been no continuous wind tunnel effect going on here which, out of necessity, would have made the envelope placement on the windowsill a virtual impossibility. I believe the kidnapper simply took the opportunity when presented and made good. As for the placement location for the envelope, I agree the crib would have been the preferred location, and tend to believe he had originally intended to leave it there, as implied by CJ to Condon at Woodlawn Cemetery. You are doing it again Joe. You have no idea how the wind was blowing. You have no idea what changes were needed to prevent it from blowing off or keeping it on. You know who did? The men at the house who drew the conclusions you don't seem to like. You're only play it to suggest they had no idea what they were doing and were wrong. That would include Lindbergh by the way since he was in agreement with their conclusions according to the source. I would heartily recommend you take basic courses in the properties of natural & man-made materials as well as physical and chemical sciences, as I believe we have a major disconnect here, not worth continuing here with you. Sorry, but a career in the prison system, while it might have helped you understand the criminal mind, does very little for your understanding and credibility on this subject. 'Controlled panic' is my statement. Try not to get so hung up on semantics here, especially when you are looking for a lever to derail the discussion intent. What I meant was, that he/they were suddenly thrown into the position of having to decide what to do following circumstances (the ladder breaking) that had not been anticipated. For the interim though, can you please explain why you believe the kidnapper would have felt compelled in the first place, to walk alongside the house and raise and position the kidnap ladder and not once step off that very narrow walkway.. and then go tromping off through the muddy open field a few minutes later, leaving behind an s-load of footprints? Do you even understand that to do what you're suggesting he/they did on that walkway (one skinny piece of tongue-and-groove flooring directly underneath the window) would have been nigh impossible and most importantly, comically unnecessary? Then think of what other available variables from your above basic course studies, what else might explain the scope of the actual circumstantial physical evidence picture. Oh, if only Ellis Parker and/or Canada's John Murray, in their prime, could have had sole and unrestricted access to this crime scene.. I don't need to do any such thing Joe. Know why? We have the sources which prove you are not only incorrect, you are inventing a situation that did not exist. If the ground was firm, then there would be no female prints. If the ground was firm, Anne wouldn't have testified that it was NOT. If the ground was firm, those planks wouldn't have been laid down because all they would have had to do was walk on the "firm" part. If the ground was firm, there would be a police source that would have mentioned it. If the ground was "firm" there would have been a newspaper source that reported it. The ONLY source for this claim in YOU. Hung up on semantics? Is that a joke or are you just an Optimistic pessimist? As far as explaining what the evidence shows, I've done that numerous times none of which included such things as magic boots, a trained monkey, safety net, or a pipe organ.
|
|