hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
V4
Jun 4, 2022 4:43:23 GMT -5
Post by hiram on Jun 4, 2022 4:43:23 GMT -5
Thanks for the interesting information! John Lister of Bingham, Maine, was reported to have lived near Hopewell in the early 1930s. Does anyone know where he lived in Hopewell and for how long?
|
|
|
V4
Jun 4, 2022 14:43:42 GMT -5
Post by Sue on Jun 4, 2022 14:43:42 GMT -5
Michael and stella7,
You're welcome, and thank you for your contributions!
The genealogical research of the Hill family is much appreciated!
I wonder if J.B. Hill had more to say about the Lindbergh case?!
Sue
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jun 5, 2022 11:56:51 GMT -5
Very interesting discussion here, regarding the pathway of the body and burlap bag from Highfields to its discovered location off the Hopewell-Mt. Rose Road.
Here are some further thoughts for consideration.
Which would be the effectiveness and risk factors for each of the following kidnapper actions and the one most likely to have occurred? • Bury the body at the first opportunity following the abduction in order to remove it from the car, ie. very close to or at the discovered location. This action of course, would then raise the risk of the body being discovered and that information kept secret by authorities during the Bronx area-based negotiations, which at the very least, would potentially have led to the entrapment of the extortionist(s).
• Transport the body back to the Bronx for "safekeeping" and maintain complete control over it while the ransom negotiations were underway? By no means as risky as stealing the Lindbergh child from its crib, this option is still unnecessarily hazardous for the kidnapper(s), based on the police APB response which would have been expected following the discovery of the missing child, if Lindbergh chose not to heed kidnappers’ demand that the police not be contacted.
• Bury the body far enough away from Highfields in a pre-arranged location between Hopewell and the Bronx. Planning for the burial would have included some familiar road side marking visible in the dark and a pre-dug grave, for a targeted location along Hopewell-Rocky Hill Road passing through Blawenburg and Rocky Hill, its connecting Highway 27 and leading to a number of further highway route options on the trip back to the Bronx.
Based on my own belief that the kidnapping occurred around 9:00 pm and any nighttime pre-abduction surveillance would have determined the baby was checked in on at 10:00 pm, the kidnapper(s) would feasibly have had time to bury the child prior to 10:00 pm before reaching New Brunswick, NJ., the first comparatively-urban setting along Highway 27. Regardless, I believe it would have been in his best interests to rid himself of the body far enough away from Highfields and prior to getting this far, an option that would then still allow him to check up on it in relatively safely during the course of ransom negotiations. Potential burial locations heading north-east along Highway 27 in my opinion, would be the Franklin Park or Voorhees areas.
The extortionist committed to providing Condon, the sleeping suit of the child during their conversation of March 12 at Woodlawn Cemetery. If he hadn't previously stripped it from the body, he knew he would have to return to the original burial location in order to either i) remove it from the child and launder it to remove all traces of burial / foul play, or, ii) remove it and once checking out its condition, make and size, determine whether or not a replacement sleeping suit would then have to be purchased.
I tend to discount that the sleeping suit mailed to Condon was a replacement however, due to the extortionist not even knowing how much a size 2 Dr. Denton sleeping garment was worth. Because it took a few extra days for CJ to provide the agreed upon “token,” points to the required trip back to the original burial location to safely remove the sleeping suit, if he didn’t strip it from the child on March 1, launder it at home while his wife was working and get it into the mail.
Having said that, there is still a shrinking part within my own reasoning process that remains somewhat hopeful the kidnapper truly intended for this abduction to be in effect a “quick snatch and return” of the healthy child for the originally-stated $50,000 ransom. Numerous factors might lend to this, including the nursery letter statement that the entire process would be wrapped up in 2 to 4 days, of course based on the understanding that Lindbergh would immediately open the envelope and observe the kidnapper’s demand that he not notify the police. My own belief of what level of risk and danger vs. reward motivated the kidnapper, tell me that safely returning the child to his parents would represent the ultimate “victory” over Lindbergh, a man he truly came to resent for the fame he garnered following his trans-Atlantic flight, while he himself felt undervalued and unappreciated in anonymity, despite the tortuous Atlantic journeys he planned and endured to get to America.
After 22 years of studying this case though, I tend to have to reject that poignant optimism primarily for this reason. The kidnapper and extortionist was an exceedingly cunning, cruel and remorseless human being who after the ransom money was in his greedy hands, still felt compelled to indeed “return” the child, and did so to the side of the Hopewell-Mount Rose Road about 75 feet from its subsequent animal-burial location. I tend to see this action within the context of the note this same man left to his frustrated captors at the Kamenz Jail, when he wrote "Best wishes to the police."
And a final note.. I can’t believe I posted all of the above without once mentioning Richard Hauptmann!
|
|
|
V4
Jun 5, 2022 17:20:01 GMT -5
via mobile
IloveDFW and obi like this
Post by lightningjew on Jun 5, 2022 17:20:01 GMT -5
I also think the Cold Soil Rd. farm, where the Lindberghs stayed for awhile while Highfields was being built, might also be a possibility for where the body was kept before being dumped. Pure conjecture, just a hunch.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 6, 2022 7:11:06 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2022 7:11:06 GMT -5
Based on my own belief that the kidnapping occurred around 9:00 pm and any nighttime pre-abduction surveillance would have determined the baby was checked in on at 10:00 pm, the kidnapper(s) would feasibly have had time to bury the child prior to 10:00 pm before reaching New Brunswick, NJ., the first comparatively-urban setting along Highway 27. The major issue I have with your position is the timing. The child was taken at 8PM.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 6, 2022 7:12:42 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2022 7:12:42 GMT -5
Thanks for the interesting information! John Lister of Bingham, Maine, was reported to have lived near Hopewell in the early 1930s. Does anyone know where he lived in Hopewell and for how long? If he did there's nothing in the files about it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
V4
Jun 6, 2022 7:46:34 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Jun 6, 2022 7:46:34 GMT -5
Based on my own belief that the kidnapping occurred around 9:00 pm and any nighttime pre-abduction surveillance would have determined the baby was checked in on at 10:00 pm, the kidnapper(s) would feasibly have had time to bury the child prior to 10:00 pm before reaching New Brunswick, NJ., the first comparatively-urban setting along Highway 27. The major issue I have with your position is the timing. The child was taken at 8PM. I don't preclude the possibility the kidnapping took place earlier than 9:00 pm, but I believe more evidence points to approximately that time, than it does for 8:00 pm. Further, not a lot would actually change in my position even if you're right. For what reason(s) though, do you state your position on the time of the abduction so unequivocally?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2022 12:02:22 GMT -5
I don't preclude the possibility the kidnapping took place earlier than 9:00 pm, but I believe more evidence points to approximately that time, than it does for 8:00 pm. Further, not a lot would actually change in my position even if you're right. For what reason(s) though, do you state your position on the time of the abduction so unequivocally? For all the reasons I mention in V1. There's too many to list here but I'll mention Ellis Parker's conclusions based on his interviews with Lupica, Moore, and Conover to include the investigations that followed. There's also Anne's statement that she heard a car in the driveway very near 8PM which complements his conclusion. Furthermore, Lindbergh told Wolf he didn't hear anything, told Williamson he heard something but thought it was the wind, and later still claimed to hear an "orange crate" breaking sound that he believed came from the kitchen that Anne never heard despite standing next to him at the time. Eventually, once Curtis entered the picture, Lindbergh had no problem believing he was in touch with that actual kidnappers. This is important because Curtis said the kidnappers had inside help and exited via the front door. This is even more important once considering what Lindbergh testified to while under oath at the Curtis trial: "At between about 7:30 and 10 o'clock on the evening of March 1, 1932, my son was taken from the nursery of my home."
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
V4
Jun 7, 2022 8:51:57 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Jun 7, 2022 8:51:57 GMT -5
I don't preclude the possibility the kidnapping took place earlier than 9:00 pm, but I believe more evidence points to approximately that time, than it does for 8:00 pm. Further, not a lot would actually change in my position even if you're right. For what reason(s) though, do you state your position on the time of the abduction so unequivocally? For all the reasons I mention in V1. There's too many to list here but I'll mention Ellis Parker's conclusions based on his interviews with Lupica, Moore, and Conover to include the investigations that followed. There's also Anne's statement that she heard a car in the driveway very near 8PM which complements his conclusion. Furthermore, Lindbergh told Wolf he didn't hear anything, told Williamson he heard something but thought it was the wind, and later still claimed to hear an "orange crate" breaking sound that he believed came from the kitchen that Anne never heard despite standing next to him at the time. Eventually, once Curtis entered the picture, Lindbergh had no problem believing he was in touch with that actual kidnappers. This is important because Curtis said the kidnappers had inside help and exited via the front door. This is even more important once considering what Lindbergh testified to while under oath at the Curtis trial: "At between about 7:30 and 10 o'clock on the evening of March 1, 1932, my son was taken from the nursery of my home." As I understand it, Parker concluded that the kidnapper pulled the job at 8:00 pm, based on the fact that he "measured the distance" between Highfields and the point at which Wilmer Moore, who lived on Wertsville-Stoutsberg Rd., saw a car with some mud on its lights pass his home at 8:23 pm. Lupica and the Conovers simply reaffirmed their sightings of cars at an earlier time in the evening, and this has little relation to the actual time of the later kidnapping, or even Wilmer's sighting. Anne's statement relating to her having heard what she thought sounded like tires on the gravel drive does not necessarily mean this is what they were. It was a very windy night and there would have been numerous outside noises to contend with. But if they were car tires, it also does not mean they represented the sound of the kidnapper's car exiting the property. This could have been one of the kidnappers arriving to drop off the required equipment for the job at a location near the house. We don't know for sure. Given the multiple sources that tell us Betty Gow had just checked in on Charlie at 8:00 pm to make sure he was sleeping soundly, the sound heard by Lindbergh (not the wind) while sitting in the dining room near 9:00 pm, the corroborative Kuchter and Kristofeck accounts of their dogs responding to a disturbance near the chicken coops just after 9 pm and the obvious interplay between man and dog through the footprints found in the ground there, tells me Parker was most likely incorrect. I just don't see any measure of certainty in your statement that Parker was able to "nail down" the time of the kidnapping to 8:00 pm.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 7, 2022 11:03:35 GMT -5
As I understand it, Parker concluded that the kidnapper pulled the job at 8:00 pm, based on the fact that he "measured the distance" between Highfields and the point at which Wilmer Moore, who lived on Wertsville-Stoutsberg Rd., saw a car with some mud on its lights pass his home at 8:23 pm. Lupica and the Conovers simply reaffirmed their sightings of cars at an earlier time in the evening, and this has little relation to the actual time of the later kidnapping, or even Wilmer's sighting. It's a little more than that. What he did was old fashioned detective work and something the NJSP hadn't done. He interviewed these parties to establish they had seen the same car. Since Conover claimed the car he saw apparently got stuck in the mud, that helped to establish that Moore saw the dodge with mud covering and dimming the lights as one in the same. The timing and direction of this car is important since it was hightailing AWAY from Highfields at that time. statement relating to her having heard what she thought sounded like tires on the gravel drive does not necessarily mean this is what they were. It was a very windy night and there would have been numerous outside noises to contend with. But if they were car tires, it also does not mean they represented the sound of the kidnapper's car exiting the property. This could have been one of the kidnappers arriving to drop off the required equipment for the job at a location near the house. We don't know for sure. According to Lt. Keaten: " The Lane, as it reaches the residence, is well covered with gravel and it was noted that a car traveling on it makes considerable noise." Next, your point is correct. We don't know if it was a car that was coming or going. But what we do know is the car Moore saw was going. Here is where we put 2 + 2 together as Parker did. just don't see any measure of certainty in your statement that Parker was able to "nail down" the time of the kidnapping to 8:00 pm. Given the multiple sources that tell us Betty Gow had just checked in on Charlie at 8:00 pm to make sure he was sleeping soundly, the sound heard by Lindbergh (not the wind) while sitting in the dining room near 9:00 pm, the corroborative Kuchter and Kristofeck accounts of their dogs responding to a disturbance near the chicken coops and the obvious interplay between man and dog through the footprints found in the ground there, tells me Parker was most likely incorrect. This is where you just lost me. Dog prints and footprints being intermingled don't mean they were both made at the same time. Also, you cite the wind above as a way to avoid the position, but omit it everywhere else. Next, you don't seem to have a problem that Wahgoosh didn't hear anything, but yet the nearest neighbor had dogs that had no problem doing so despite the distance. Did these farm dogs hear a fox perhaps? I hear one outside my window every night and if I was a dog I'd take off running too. I also noticed you avoided the fact that Lindbergh himself testified that crime could have been committed anywhere between 7:30PM and 10PM. This alone completely destroys any notion that it could NOT have occurred around the time Parker showed that it did. It's Lindbergh who is supposed to be the source of the timing, yet, he himself apparently didn't even believe this in June 1932. And finally, Lindbergh originlly accepted Curtis's version about what happened. That included a staff member being involved. So what you are doing is downvoting a position because you don't want to accept the possibility Gow was involved. Of course she doesn't have to be and she may have left the room shortly before it all went down, but its clearly not an option you want to consider.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 9, 2022 10:37:55 GMT -5
I wanted to make a few comments concerning the topic of "timing" that's being discussed by Michael and Joe. As with just about every aspect of the LKC, this issue of what time the child was removed from the house is open to interpretations of the available evidence. The following are just my thoughts as I read through Michael's and Joe's posts (if I get too long winded here my apologies in advance).
I think that the wildcard in this discussion is that multiple vehicles were involved in this kidnapping. I know that this issue of multiple vehicles has been previously discussed (examined) on the forum, but for me it serves to explain some of what was occurring that night. Parker correctly surmised that the vehicle observed by Conover early in the evening was the same vehicle seen by Moore leaving the area around 8:20PM. It is certainly possible that this was also the same vehicle that Anne Lindbergh heard on the gravel driveway in the 8PM time frame. It has been speculated that this vehicle was dropping off the ladder, etc. to be used by the other perpetrators who were going to execute the actual snatch of the child. If the driver of this vehicle on the driveway had completed his job, he could have sped away from the scene and traveled by Moore around 8:20 PM heading back to NYC. If Parker had believed that only one vehicle had been used in this crime then he would have naturally assumed that the child was in it, and that the child had been taken around 8 PM.
However, if Schwartzkopt is correct in his confidential interview with reporter DeLong shortly after the kidnapping, then there is evidence to suggest that another vehicle was utilized that night in the actual taking of the child. Schwartzkopt told DeLong that the kidnappers' footprints were followed by his Troopers/Investigators that night from the area of the house down the old "construction" driveway until the footprints crossed over to the newer residential gravel driveway near the entrance of the driveway, This is near the old structure at the entrance of the driveway from Wertsville Road (Hopewell-Amwell Road). (Coincidentally this point in the driveway was very close to where Betty Gow subsequently discovered the thumbguard). The footprints continued across the residential driveway and continued north beyond the old chickenhouse and ended at the Wertsville Road where recent tire tracks were observed. Schwartzkopt stated that dog tracks were observed mingled with the suspects' footprints starting at the gravel driveway location and continuing north through the old chickenhouse area. To me, Schwartzkopt certainly appeared to be inferring in this interview that the dog tracts and human footprints were similiar in freshness, etc. to make his Officers believe that they were contemporaneous. Thus it appeared that the dogs were either with, or tracking, the suspects from the driveway location north to where the suspects' footprints ended.
If all of what Schwartzkopt is telling DeLong is correct, then I've always felt that the time given by the two brother-in-laws Kuchter and Kristofeck as to the time their dogs alerted to something across the road in the area of Lindbergh's driveway (9 PM time frame) is important. Out of all the "witnesses" in the LKC, these dogs were probably the only ones with no ulterior motives. They heard something and they responded as only dogs will do. The suspects' footprints and the dog tracks tell the rest of the story. Additionally, if the "escape" vehicle was parked at this location (indicated by the tire tracks) just off of Wertsville Road, it was well north of the Lindbergh driveway. If Lindbergh did arrive home at 8:20 PM or so, he was coming from the south on the Wertsville Road and would have entered the driveway without ever seeing this vehicle.
As an aside, I've always thought that the observations of Doc Ashton in Hopewell that night was very interesting. I realize that Ashton never mentioned this until years later, but I've never heard anything negative about Ashton that would suggest he would make this up. He was a very well liked individual in Hopewell. The vehicle that he stated that he observed "flying" over the railroad bridge on Greenwood Avenue around 9:15 PM or so that night of March 1st would definitely not be a local driver. Anyone who knew about that "hump" in the roadway over the bridge (all locals knew about it) would never drive over that bridge at that speed on a stormy night--wouldn't happen. The driver of that vehicle observed by Ashton did not know about that roadway hump. If the "escape" vehicle parked north of the chickenhouse exited the area by going north on Wertsville Road, it could have made it to that railroad bridge on Greenwood Avenue in Hopewell in 15 minutes or so which does correspond to the time of Ashton's observations. The vehicle would have been heading south on Greenwood Avenue towards Broad Street as Ashton stated. At this point that vehicle was headed in the direction to get to Mt Rose Hill on the Hopewell-Princeton Road and would have been about 4 minutes or so from the body recovery site on that hill. Since hearing of Doc Ashton's story, I've always wondered if he had unkowningly observed the kidnappers' vehicle that night with the child in it (and if so, how the case would have changed if that vehicle had crashed coming over that railroad bridge).
Once again, just some current thoughts I've had concerning the timing of the kidnapping, and any evidence to subtantiate it all. I believe that it is posible that Parker got it partially correct. That vehicle oberved by Moore around 8:20 PM was involved in the kidnapping and was rapidly leaving the area, but the child was not in it. Of course all of this analysis is predicated mostly on the information DeLong recounted in his confidential interview with Schwartzkopt shortly after the kidnapping concerning the crime scene. Obviously none of this information that implies multiple supects and multiple vehicles was helpful to Wilentz's "lone wolf" prosecution theory at trial. To me, it appears that Wilentz's use of this theory in the Hauptmann trial was the biggest driver for all of the controversies that have followed the LKC for 90 years. Wilentz got his conviction, but he did not get a settled case.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
V4
Jun 9, 2022 11:44:19 GMT -5
Post by hiram on Jun 9, 2022 11:44:19 GMT -5
Thank you for the information and detail you just posted, lurp. This observation does seem to fit into the scenario very well. Did Doc. Aston make any identification of the car's make, year, and color?
|
|
|
V4
Jun 9, 2022 13:02:28 GMT -5
Post by stella7 on Jun 9, 2022 13:02:28 GMT -5
I agree with you Lurp, I think Doc Ashton's account is important and that route would have taken them to Mt Rose more directly than Stoutsburg Rd. I don't think they would gone back toward Hopewell if they were headed back to New York/the Bronx. It's interesting how some of the Hopewellians didn't come forward with their observations until many years later!
|
|
|
V4
Jun 9, 2022 14:29:04 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2022 14:29:04 GMT -5
Great post as always Lurp and it gives me a lot to think about. To assist with that, I want to try to get on the same page as you. Concerning the Delong interview ... are you referring to pages 90-2? Next, as it concerns Ashton, is your source the 1977 Princeton Recollector article?
|
|
|
V4
Jun 9, 2022 17:07:22 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jun 9, 2022 17:07:22 GMT -5
Michael,
I wrote the post from notes I took a few year ago from the downloaded copy I have of the DeLong interview. My notes do not reflect page numbers, and I remember that in the 150 plus pages of DeLong's report he jumped around a bit and seemed to both quote Schwartzkopt and summarize him. I will go through this interview and see if I can pinpoint the pertinent issues of footprints, dog prints and vehicle location.
As to Doc Ashton, I do not have a copy of his 1977 Princeton Recollector interview but I did read it when we were discussing him back in 2017. I recall that Amy had some good questions and information on his vehicle sighting, but to my knowledge everything that Ashton related on this event was from that 1977 article. If I recall correctly, he was coming out of the corner store at Greenwood Avenue and Railroad Place after 9 PM when he observed this vehicle speeding across the railroad bridge. I stand to be corrected, but I believe he decribed it a a "touring car". I also believe that Schwartzkopt told DeLong that the NJSP believed a "high power" car was used in the kidnapping.
I realize that one does have to question why Ashton didn't mention this in his two 1932 statements, but he was most likely being interviewed about what he had seen in the days prior to March 1st in his duties as a taxicab driver. Perhaps he just didn't connect what he saw that night coming out of the corner store with the kidnapping. I'm just speculating here, but perhaps he had been told by someone that the vehicle he saw that night did not match the description of the vehicle the police were looking for (the Dodge with the ladder described by Lupica) so Ashton just dismissed it.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 9, 2022 17:30:12 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jun 9, 2022 17:30:12 GMT -5
Hiram,
If I recall correctly, Ashton described this vehicle as being a "touring car". If you go to the forum archives under "General Discussion", page 5 there is a thread started by Joe in 2017 under the title "March 1, 1932 Theory Timelines". This has a good discussion in reference to Ashton.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 10, 2022 10:22:25 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 10, 2022 10:22:25 GMT -5
Michael, I wrote the post from notes I took a few year ago from the downloaded copy I have of the DeLong interview. My notes do not reflect page numbers, and I remember that in the 150 plus pages of DeLong's report he jumped around a bit and seemed to both quote Schwartzkopt and summarize him. I will go through this interview and see if I can pinpoint the pertinent issues of footprints, dog prints and vehicle location. No need Lurp. Thanks for getting back to me. Your post put me to work, which is a good thing because it keeps me out of trouble. As I said yesterday, your theory is thought provoking considering several sources to show the possibilities here. I hope you don't mind me giving you my 2 cents here, and before I get started I wanted to thank Sue for sharing the DeLong interviews and Steve Romeo for sending me copies of the Princeton Recollector (probably 17 years ago now). First thing to say is your posts are never "long winded" and the longer the better as far as I'm concerned. Next, I agree, disagree, and somewhat uncertain depending on the points you've made. First things first ... The Delong interviews/recollections are priceless. However, the part about his recollections can reveal his memory is flawed at times, many are pretty obvious so there's no point in going into them. However, DeLong kept notes from his interview with Schwarzkopf from June 1932. So when he's referring to them, there is no doubt in my mind these are real facts. One might argue that Schwarzkopf was being cagey, that is, not always being 100% truthful, but this can be tested by other known sources in order to decide if that's the case. As far as the two car scenario, you will get no argument from me. I've always believed Steve Lehman was correct about "why" the car Lupica saw pulled over like it did. Here again, one might argue he was waiting for Lindbergh himself thereby eliminating this theory but I don't believe so because Lindbergh's decision to come home appears to be a last minute decision, or if one believes him - a lapse in memory. And so, your observation that Moore seeing one car leaving doesn't mean the child was in that car is quite possible. i won't get into "why" one was leaving so early, but regardless, that doesn't neutralize the point you've made. I love the term wildcard being applied here because it makes clear to consider the possibilities. The footprints have always been a tricky situation. That's because of multiple sources giving different accounts. But here Schwarzkopf told DeLong he believed there were tracks of three separate men. He also asserted the house had been cased several times previously and that it had been carefully planned. According to him, on the night of the kidnapping, these men " started through the brush, found the wagon road, then out over the driveway and later, for some strange reason, returned to the wagon road and followed it down to the entrance gate." The "strange reason" was suggested that Lindbergh came home and forced them back so as not to be discovered and that his lights missed them. This implies they were making their escape just as Lindbergh was coming home. So apply that to the idea of Lindbergh hearing the sound he claimed to have heard. An alternate theory for this "strange" action could be, in my opinion, that their car was spotted parked on the road by their confederate, and this second driver stopped and called to them. So they came to the driveway from the wagon road, then returned after whatever discussion transpired with that driver. As far as "where" their car was, Schwarzkopf wasn't specific. He said they believed it was " parked somewhere near the main highway leading towards Hopewell" specifically saying " there are several places where a car could have been concealed" (p91 ). Later, he mentions the " high powered car" which can send me off on a tangent so I won't go there. Finally, he says "t he kidnappers took the most direct route from the scene" and " the car was parked not far from the entrance gate" (p97). Lt. Keaten told Sisk in the summer of '34 that he believed the kidnappers had parked their car on this road as well. So, unless there was some false narrative the brass at the NJSP agreed to tell everyone, its a safe bet Schwarzkopf was being accurate as to his beliefs in June 1932. Next, while there are some sources that contradict, I believe DeGaetano's official statement is probably the best since he was among those who first followed the prints before the Press arrived. That says they followed the prints from the ladder " down an old road toward the chicken coop" and "the foot prints went across the road and appeared to stop alongside some impressions that appeared to be from an automobile and then further ceased." If this account is reliable, and I believe it is, they knew exactly where that car was parked. I've never seen anything to say the car was further "north" and if it was on the road opposite the chicken coops then Lindbergh should have seen it. He also should have seen the Dodge the Moore's saw as well since that was on his "usual" route home. The other wildcard is Oscar Bush. I've always wondered since the cops and some reporters preceded him, and had walked the roads following the prints, his account could be somewhat problematic. However, some of what is attributed to him matches, that is, except his opinion that there was a " ruse of some kind." Regardless, he tracked the prints to a car parked on that road too. Lastly, there's another source and that's the NJSP Publicity Room in an official response to the written questions submitted by the press. The question posed was asking for the EXACT location of the spot where the footprints were "lost." The reply: " At the junction of the tension line and road west of the house." Someone once posted a map highlighting where these lines were. Since this was years ago I could be wrong but I remember them being south of the abandoned house. If anyone has this photo perhaps we can place exactly where the NJSP was telling the Press where these prints ended. By doing so we can match it up with DeGaetano's statement to show exactly where that car was parked. If anyone wants me to continue on about the Ashton account just let me know.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 11, 2022 7:28:34 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jun 11, 2022 7:28:34 GMT -5
Michael,
Thanks for your thorough reponse on this timeline issue of March 1st. I appreciate you taking the time to apply your vast knowledge of all the documentation in the LKC to evaluate my attempts to make some sense out of this. Your extensive research has definitely given you an insight into this case that few have. It frequently appears that this research has allowed you to really "get into the heads" of some of the main NJSP individuals who were front and center in this investigation. That certainly doesn't happen overnight.
It looks like some of my notes were including some information from DeGaetano's statements as well as the DeLong interview in regards to the footprints found in the driveway entrance area near the Wertsville road. I will follow-up on my notes concerning the footprints going across the driveway (north/northeast) towards the chickenhouse and being comingled at this time with fresh dog tracks, I do remember reading this as I immediately thought how this could give an indication of the time the suspects where at the Wertsville Road area and removing the child from the property (if the time given by Kuchter and Krisstofeck concerning their dogs was correct). However, if you have not seen any documentation concerning the contemporaneous dog tracks, then I will have to rethink this.
The footprints that night were obviously a very important aspect to the investigation, however for me the documentation by the NJSP was lacking and confusing. I think this is a good example to show just how critical the first 24 hours on a crime scene are in any investigation. Without an absolute secured scene and a complete and thorough examination/documentation, it leaves so many things up in the air. You get one good shot at the scene, and then others have to live with the results forever (or for at least 90 years!).
Your post has given me many pertinent things to think about; and I would absolutely be interested in hearing your thoughts on Doc Ashton.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 11, 2022 10:13:31 GMT -5
Joe likes this
Post by Wayne on Jun 11, 2022 10:13:31 GMT -5
Do you guys agree with this route taken by the kidnapper(s), as outlined by DeGaetano? A = Highfields B = where the ladder sections were dropped C = where the thumb guard was found on the Lindbergh drive D = chicken coop E = last sighting of footprints and car
|
|
|
V4
Jun 11, 2022 13:20:10 GMT -5
Wayne likes this
Post by lurp173 on Jun 11, 2022 13:20:10 GMT -5
Wayne, That's how I was interpreting the documentation on the path of the footprints being followed that night. I thought that if a vehicle was indeed parked off of the Wertsville Road north of the chickenhouse area, then it was posible that Lindbergh (turning into his driveway from the south) would not have observed it. It was certainly a very dark moonless/starless night, and I would imagine that vehicle headlights on 1932 circa vehicles reached out only so far. From Michael's posting I believe he is leaning towards a more southernly location on Wertsville Road. Looking forward to his response on this. The attached photo from this forum gives another view of the alleged path to the entrance. One can clearly see that the yellow marked construction access road is a much more direct route to the entrance on Wertsville Road than the red marked new residential driveway. I always thought that this was a great photo of the chickenhouse in relationship to the driveway entrance. Wayne, if I may, I had a couple of questions for you in regards to the Hibbs rental agreement: 1. Have you seen anything to indicate why Cahill attached the year 1932 to the March 1st date? 2. Do you have any idea what type of file this agreement was contained in at the NYC Municipal Archives? 3. Do you suspect that this document has no relevant connection to the LKC? Thanks.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 11, 2022 14:46:57 GMT -5
Wayne likes this
Post by Michael on Jun 11, 2022 14:46:57 GMT -5
Michael, Thanks for your thorough reponse on this timeline issue of March 1st. I appreciate you taking the time to apply your vast knowledge of all the documentation in the LKC to evaluate my attempts to make some sense out of this. Your extensive research has definitely given you an insight into this case that few have. It frequently appears that this research has allowed you to really "get into the heads" of some of the main NJSP individuals who were front and center in this investigation. That certainly doesn't happen overnight. It looks like some of my notes were including some information from DeGaetano's statements as well as the DeLong interview in regards to the footprints found in the driveway entrance area near the Wertsville road. I will follow-up on my notes concerning the footprints going across the driveway (north/northeast) towards the chickenhouse and being comingled at this time with fresh dog tracks, I do remember reading this as I immediately thought how this could give an indication of the time the suspects where at the Wertsville Road area and removing the child from the property (if the time given by Kuchter and Krisstofeck concerning their dogs was correct). However, if you have not seen any documentation concerning the contemporaneous dog tracks, then I will have to rethink this. The footprints that night were obviously a very important aspect to the investigation, however for me the documentation by the NJSP was lacking and confusing. I think this is a good example to show just how critical the first 24 hours on a crime scene are in any investigation. Without an absolute secured scene and a complete and thorough examination/documentation, it leaves so many things up in the air. You get one good shot at the scene, and then others have to live with the results forever (or for at least 90 years!). Your post has given me many pertinent things to think about; and I would absolutely be interested in hearing your thoughts on Doc Ashton. I was trying not to get all the accounts involved but that's almost impossible. The problem with DeGaetano's 3/9 statement is he doesn't say exactly where the tire prints were claiming that they traced the footprints " toward the chicken coops" with the next sentence saying they went across the street by tire marks. In his 3/3 report, he writes it a little differently: "....the investigators traced prints made by rubber boots or overshoes on an abandoned road which lead to the chicken coop and abandoned house at the entrance to the Lindbergh estate. In certain sections there were also prints of a dog near the prints of the boots or overshoes. A search was made of the abandoned house and chicken coops at this point which revealed nothing of importance." Since we know where both that house and the chicken coops are, its hard to say exactly where those prints led. He's kind of giving us a "ballpark" type of direction so he never does say they led north of, at, or across from the chicken coops. I believe even if this car was parked directly across from the chicken coops, I am positive Lindbergh would have seen it because the tree line isn't where it is today. Any further north would be very near Kristofeck's Farm where both he and Kutcha lived. Kutcha said he could see Hausenbauer's house from his on that Farm. This is the property where the dogs bolted from running toward the chicken coops, according to Kutcha and Kristofeck, at 9PM and sounded like they were about to bite someone. It was also Kutcha who followed the prints early in the morning before Bush got there. He said they ended at a car that had been parked between the Hausenbauer and Sotesz's homes. Hausenbauer's home is almost directly across the road from Lindbergh's private lane and abandoned house. According to the police reports, Soltesz's home bordered the Lindbergh property. Jim Davidson used to live in the Hausenbauer house, and told me he believed the Sotesz's house was just south of the abandoned house the Trooper's were using at the front of the Private Lane. So, in the end, factor all of the combined information and that car is parked no further north than the chicken coops and no further south than Soltesz's home. The end result being, in my opinion, that Lindbergh should have seen that car unless it wasn't there at 8:25PM (if you believe that's when he came home). Regardless, he still should have passed the car the Moore's saw passing by their home sometime before it got there around that same time (again, if you believe he came home at the time history records). Anyway, I like Wayne's map but in my opinion it should be adjusted. BTW: The Lane's Belgian Sheppard jumped the fence and ran toward the Lindbergh home that night as well. Exactly when, no one seemed to have the wherewithal to ask, so unless there's a source I don't know about we'll never find out. The next issue is that other than the small prints under the window (later attributed to Anne), and the one pointing toward the window itself near the ladder holes in the mud, all prints lead away from the home. DeLong's interview bears this out too. This means they did not approach the same way or in the same manner they left. DeLong's interview shows how Schwarzkopf was attempting to account for this, somewhat, by saying Lindbergh was coming home as they were fleeing. If you have all of this information and do not want to consider it an inside job, one is forced to conclude along these lines. The problem is the narrative must be applied on a slide-rule because where it explains something in one place, it harms it elsewhere. Additions: Since seeing Lurp's picture... 1. There are no tension wires in that picture. 2. I do not believe the prints ever went further north above the entrance. 3. There are other accounts, Williamson and Bush I believe, that say the trail ended at the bridge.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 12, 2022 9:57:26 GMT -5
Wayne likes this
Post by lurp173 on Jun 12, 2022 9:57:26 GMT -5
Michael. Not to belabor this, but your quote that was given by the NJSP Publicity Room piqued my curiousity. When the Publicity Room told the press "at the junction of the tension lines and the road west of the house" (as to where the footprints were lost), could they have possibly been referring to the Lindbergh house and the old construction/wagon road and not the old abandoned house and Wertsville Road? The only photo that I have seen with tension (electrical) lines is the one I have attached below. These tension lines running from the west to the Lindbergh house are near (and possibly intersect) with the western part of this old construction/wagon road behind and to the west of the house. For whatever reasons, could the press release be referring to some of the early reports on Oscar Bush's tracking. I have always been confused on some of the tracking that Bush was doing on that morning of the 2nd (as you have stated the footprints were always a tricky situation). For me, either Bush was all over the place or the early reports concerning his tracking were all over the place. The "FBI Files on the Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping" by Fensch relates to an early FBI report on page 83 as to Bush's tracking: Oscar Bush traced tracks "from the ladder through field to Featherbed lane where they ended". "Close to this point were marks in the bushes and in the grass which had apparently been made by an automobile". "Featherbed lane is an old abandoned country road". This FBI report then goes on to confuse this old abandoned road with the real Featherbed Road to the south. I'm just bring this up to ask if you think that the Press Release was mistakenly (or intentionally) referencing the area of the old road behind the Lindbergh house near the electrical lines, and not referring to what DeGaetano and others were doing down at the Wertsville Road entrance. I'm sure that especially early on in the investigation the NJSP were holding things pretty close to the chest in regards to the Press and the FBI (with the exception of the confidential interview with DeLong). I would not be surprised if the NJSP, while pursuing good leads with the footprints/vehicle marks down on the Wertsville Road near the old house, wanted both the Press and the FBI to think that the footprints ended close to the house. This press release could have accomplished that. Just some speculations on my part on the possibility that the "tension lines" and "house" references by the NJSP Press Office may not have any relationship to the vehicle location on the Wertsville Road. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
V4
Jun 12, 2022 11:53:29 GMT -5
lurp173 likes this
Post by Wayne on Jun 12, 2022 11:53:29 GMT -5
Wayne, if I may, I had a couple of questions for you in regards to the Hibbs rental agreement: 1. Have you seen anything to indicate why Cahill attached the year 1932 to the March 1st date? 2. Do you have any idea what type of file this agreement was contained in at the NYC Municipal Archives? 3. Do you suspect that this document has no relevant connection to the LKC? Thanks. <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button><button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> 1. Nope, none. 2) It looks like it was just a stand alone application form in the NYPD file. One page among many other pages. Is that what you're asking? 3) I don't think it has anything to do with the case, but I am checking with a QDE on the handwriting later today. What do you make of it?
|
|
|
V4
Jun 12, 2022 12:12:03 GMT -5
Post by Wayne on Jun 12, 2022 12:12:03 GMT -5
Anyway, I like Wayne's map but in my opinion it should be adjusted. Michael, I am open for adjustments. What path do you think DeGaetano, Lindbergh, Keaten, and Leon took? I'll be more than happy to redraw the map and post it here. As for Oscar Bush, I've always thought that he was way off. I think he was saying he followed footprints to the actual Featherbed Lane (just like he told Laura Vitray) - close to the area where the Conovers said they had seen a car. (1) I don't think a local would have confused Featherbed Lane with the construction or wagon road close to the Lindbergh house and (2) Bush never mentioned either crossing the Lindbergh driveway or passing near the chicken coop. In fact, it seems he went in exactly the opposite direction.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 12, 2022 15:34:02 GMT -5
lurp173 likes this
Post by Michael on Jun 12, 2022 15:34:02 GMT -5
Not to belabor this, but your quote that was given by the NJSP Publicity Room piqued my curiousity. When the Publicity Room told the press "at the junction of the tension lines and the road west of the house" (as to where the footprints were lost), could they have possibly been referring to the Lindbergh house and the old construction/wagon road and not the old abandoned house and Wertsville Road? The only photo that I have seen with tension (electrical) lines is the one I have attached below. These tension lines running from the west to the Lindbergh house are near (and possibly intersect) with the western part of this old construction/wagon road behind and to the west of the house. For whatever reasons, could the press release be referring to some of the early reports on Oscar Bush's tracking. I have always been confused on some of the tracking that Bush was doing on that morning of the 2nd (as you have stated the footprints were always a tricky situation). For me, either Bush was all over the place or the early reports concerning his tracking were all over the place. The "FBI Files on the Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping" by Fensch relates to an early FBI report on page 83 as to Bush's tracking: Oscar Bush traced tracks "from the ladder through field to Featherbed lane where they ended". "Close to this point were marks in the bushes and in the grass which had apparently been made by an automobile". "Featherbed lane is an old abandoned country road". This FBI report then goes on to confuse this old abandoned road with the real Featherbed Road to the south. I'm just bring this up to ask if you think that the Press Release was mistakenly (or intentionally) referencing the area of the old road behind the Lindbergh house near the electrical lines, and not referring to what DeGaetano and others were doing down at the Wertsville Road entrance. I'm sure that especially early on in the investigation the NJSP were holding things pretty close to the chest in regards to the Press and the FBI (with the exception of the confidential interview with DeLong). I would not be surprised if the NJSP, while pursuing good leads with the footprints/vehicle marks down on the Wertsville Road near the old house, wanted both the Press and the FBI to think that the footprints ended close to the house. This press release could have accomplished that. Just some speculations on my part on the possibility that the "tension lines" and "house" references by the NJSP Press Office may not have any relationship to the vehicle location on the Wertsville Road. I think you are right that it is referring to Highfields. I think you are also correct about the possibility they were keeping their evidence "close to the vest" as well since it mentions nothing about a car. It's kind of hard to know exactly and I think all we can do is what we're doing right now. That is assembling everything and seeing where it all shakes out. If they are claiming the prints ended or lost in that exact spot on the map we already know this cannot be right from our other sources. The problem with Bush is that his tracking isn't recorded in any police report. Instead, what we have is in the books and certain newspaper accounts unfortunately. These are where the FBI got their information for their Summary and it proves they didn't have a clue at the time either. In fact, it wasn't until Keaten gave Special Agent Sisk a tour in the summer of 1934, that he fully understood the surrounding environment. For me, unless a reporter was from the area, or walked alongside Bush as he explained what and where he found it, they wouldn't have a clue concerning what he was telling them. The term "Featherbed Road", for example, is clearly being confused as the construction/access/unbeaten/abandoned/wagon road. And we refer to this road as if it was the only one like it near the Estate but we know it wasn't. This misunderstanding among the Reporters is what caused their focus to improperly shift to "Featherbed Lane." Bush got there in the morning hours after the mobs descended. This was even after Kutcha who was there following the prints sometime around 6AM. However, Bush's descriptions, as best we can tell based on the sources, seem to describe the common theme among the witnesses who followed them. One of the newspaper articles say the car was parked near the arch bridge. The map I have places that bridge right next to the Private Lane. Williamson also is credited by a paper as saying something similar. The more I read DeGaetano, the more I see he's giving us the direction of the road, on which the prints were made, following them out to where it connects with the Private Lane. Why he didn't just say this I don't know, but probably because he wasn't familiar with the area and simply gave the landmarks nearby. We "want" him to say the prints led to the chicken coop but he's not saying that. He's giving us the landmarks that exist on either end of where he was led, then informing that both of these places were searched - and nothing was found. To me, now that I've given it even more thought, that proves the prints led to neither the house nor the chicken coops. Anyway, I like Wayne's map but in my opinion it should be adjusted. Michael, I am open for adjustments. What path do you think DeGaetano, Lindbergh, Keaten, and Leon took? I'll be more than happy to redraw the map and post it here. As for Oscar Bush, I've always thought that he was way off. I think he was saying he followed footprints to the actual Featherbed Lane (just like he told Laura Vitray) - close to the area where the Conovers said they had seen a car. (1) I don't think a local would have confused Featherbed Lane with the construction or wagon road close to the Lindbergh house and (2) Bush never mentioned either crossing the Lindbergh driveway or passing near the chicken coop. In fact, it seems he went in exactly the opposite direction. Wayne, as I wrote above, I don't think it was Bush who was confused. Unless of course, he was following Investigators and/or Reporters footprints. As I remember, that was part of Cahill's claim in his book about the original police officers, DeGaetano among them, but he was mistaken about the timing of the Reporters arriving on scene. However, that does become a consideration after they actually did arrive. If I was to draw the map for places that car was parked, it would be on the opposite side of the street, and extend from the Bridge by the mailboxes to a spot midway between the Hausenbauer & Soltesz homes. Soltesz's home was north of Featherbed Lane. Makes sense they wouldn't park directly in front of any house, and since Kutcha knew these places, and DeGaetano did not, that's where I believe the car had been parked.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 12, 2022 19:26:05 GMT -5
Post by Wayne on Jun 12, 2022 19:26:05 GMT -5
Not to belabor this, but your quote that was given by the NJSP Publicity Room piqued my curiousity. When the Publicity Room told the press "at the junction of the tension lines and the road west of the house" (as to where the footprints were lost), could they have possibly been referring to the Lindbergh house and the old construction/wagon road and not the old abandoned house and Wertsville Road? The only photo that I have seen with tension (electrical) lines is the one I have attached below. These tension lines running from the west to the Lindbergh house are near (and possibly intersect) with the western part of this old construction/wagon road behind and to the west of the house. For whatever reasons, could the press release be referring to some of the early reports on Oscar Bush's tracking. I have always been confused on some of the tracking that Bush was doing on that morning of the 2nd (as you have stated the footprints were always a tricky situation). For me, either Bush was all over the place or the early reports concerning his tracking were all over the place. The "FBI Files on the Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping" by Fensch relates to an early FBI report on page 83 as to Bush's tracking: Oscar Bush traced tracks "from the ladder through field to Featherbed lane where they ended". "Close to this point were marks in the bushes and in the grass which had apparently been made by an automobile". "Featherbed lane is an old abandoned country road". This FBI report then goes on to confuse this old abandoned road with the real Featherbed Road to the south. I'm just bring this up to ask if you think that the Press Release was mistakenly (or intentionally) referencing the area of the old road behind the Lindbergh house near the electrical lines, and not referring to what DeGaetano and others were doing down at the Wertsville Road entrance. I'm sure that especially early on in the investigation the NJSP were holding things pretty close to the chest in regards to the Press and the FBI (with the exception of the confidential interview with DeLong). I would not be surprised if the NJSP, while pursuing good leads with the footprints/vehicle marks down on the Wertsville Road near the old house, wanted both the Press and the FBI to think that the footprints ended close to the house. This press release could have accomplished that. Just some speculations on my part on the possibility that the "tension lines" and "house" references by the NJSP Press Office may not have any relationship to the vehicle location on the Wertsville Road. I think you are right that it is referring to Highfields. I think you are also correct about the possibility they were keeping their evidence "close to the vest" as well since it mentions nothing about a car. It's kind of hard to know exactly and I think all we can do is what we're doing right now. That is assembling everything and seeing where it all shakes out. If they are claiming the prints ended or lost in that exact spot on the map we already know this cannot be right from our other sources. The problem with Bush is that his tracking isn't recorded in any police report. Instead, what we have is in the books and certain newspaper accounts unfortunately. These are where the FBI got their information for their Summary and it proves they didn't have a clue at the time either. In fact, it wasn't until Keaten gave Special Agent Sisk a tour in the summer of 1934, that he fully understood the surrounding environment. For me, unless a reporter was from the area, or walked alongside Bush as he explained what and where he found it, they wouldn't have a clue concerning what he was telling them. The term "Featherbed Road", for example, is clearly being confused as the construction/access/unbeaten/abandoned/wagon road. And we refer to this road as if it was the only one like it near the Estate but we know it wasn't. This misunderstanding among the Reporters is what caused their focus to improperly shift to "Featherbed Lane." Bush got there in the morning hours after the mobs descended. This was even after Kutcha who was there following the prints sometime around 6AM. However, Bush's descriptions, as best we can tell based on the sources, seem to describe the common theme among the witnesses who followed them. One of the newspaper articles say the car was parked near the arch bridge. The map I have places that bridge right next to the Private Lane. Williamson also is credited by a paper as saying something similar. The more I read DeGaetano, the more I see he's giving us the direction of the road, on which the prints were made, following them out to where it connects with the Private Lane. Why he didn't just say this I don't know, but probably because he wasn't familiar with the area and simply gave the landmarks nearby. We "want" him to say the prints led to the chicken coop but he's not saying that. He's giving us the landmarks that exist on either end of where he was led, then informing that both of these places were searched - and nothing was found. To me, now that I've given it even more thought, that proves the prints led to neither the house nor the chicken coops. Michael, I am open for adjustments. What path do you think DeGaetano, Lindbergh, Keaten, and Leon took? I'll be more than happy to redraw the map and post it here. As for Oscar Bush, I've always thought that he was way off. I think he was saying he followed footprints to the actual Featherbed Lane (just like he told Laura Vitray) - close to the area where the Conovers said they had seen a car. (1) I don't think a local would have confused Featherbed Lane with the construction or wagon road close to the Lindbergh house and (2) Bush never mentioned either crossing the Lindbergh driveway or passing near the chicken coop. In fact, it seems he went in exactly the opposite direction. Wayne, as I wrote above, I don't think it was Bush who was confused. Unless of course, he was following Investigators and/or Reporters footprints. As I remember, that was part of Cahill's claim in his book about the original police officers, DeGaetano among them, but he was mistaken about the timing of the Reporters arriving on scene. However, that does become a consideration after they actually did arrive. If I was to draw the map for places that car was parked, it would be on the opposite side of the street, and extend from the Bridge by the mailboxes to a spot midway between the Hausenbauer & Soltesz homes. Soltesz's home was north of Featherbed Lane. Makes sense they wouldn't park directly in front of any house, and since Kutcha knew these places, and DeGaetano did not, that's where I believe the car had been parked. Michael, You think the car was parked on the same side of the road where I have D (the chicken coop)? Can you tell me where you think the car was on the map in relation to where "2011 HistoricAerials" intersects the road?
|
|
|
V4
Jun 12, 2022 19:30:35 GMT -5
Post by Wayne on Jun 12, 2022 19:30:35 GMT -5
Lurp, One of the photos you posted has bothered me for quite some time. This photo - Attachment DeletedWere footprints found at "C"? Not to my knowledge. Was this just an early mistake?
|
|
|
V4
Jun 13, 2022 9:15:40 GMT -5
Wayne likes this
Post by lurp173 on Jun 13, 2022 9:15:40 GMT -5
Wayne,
I believe that I saw this picture you are referring to on a blog website of the Herbert Hoover Library & Museum. I was searching for photos from the LKC and this website had a brief article on the LKC since Hoover was the President in 1932. I thought that this picture was a good example of what the press was publishing in March/April of 1932 regarding all their speculations (and fabrications) about footprint tracks at the Lindbergh house. I'm sure the press was desperate to publish something as the NJSP was being very tight lipped as to the footprint evidence. Unfortunately, I believe pictures like this created fuel for all the various theories throughout the ensuing years as to the movement of the suspects on that night.
Thanks for responding to my questions on the Hibbs rental agreement . After seeing this application, and reading yours and Michael's thoughts on it, I don't see any relevancy to the kidnapping/ransom events. Since it was found in a NYPD Lindbergh kidnapping case file at the NYC Municipal Archives, one would have to question why in the world it was in there. Perhaps as I believe Bernardt on here stated, the NYPD found it in some of Fisch's stored belongings during the execution of the search warrant on Hauptmann's house and garage, and someone with the NYPD took it for further examination without placing the document on any search warrant inventory list or telling the NJSP about it.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 13, 2022 12:29:07 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 13, 2022 12:29:07 GMT -5
Michael, You think the car was parked on the same side of the road where I have D (the chicken coop)? Can you tell me where you think the car was on the map in relation to where "2011 HistoricAerials" intersects the road? The issue at hand are the variety of sources. Before committing to a source, I think its important to understand what that source actually says. Are we all on the same page that these prints did NOT go to the Chicken Coops? If not, consider what Cpl. Leon wrote (who was alongside of DeGaetano following these footprints): "Followed the footprints from the ladder down an old abandoned road to the end of the Lindbergh lane where empty houses and barns were searched immediately, also canvassed all the neighbors in the near vicinity..." With his account in mind, when compared to DeGaetano's, I think this supports my position. They followed the prints to where the abandoned road intersected with Lindbergh Lane. The only question now is where those prints " went across the road and appeared to stop alongside some impressions that appeared to be from an automobile and then further trace ceased." So clearly they were on the opposite side of the street - but where? Leon's report doesn't even mention the car. Nor does DeGaetano's 3/1 and 3/3 reports. However, the way the statement is written, its hard not to imagine they crossed the street right where the Private Lane ended. The next thing to consider is the newspaper reports that claimed Williamson, and I believe Bush too, claimed the prints ended at the bridge. This map shows the bridge is exactly where both Leon & DeGaetano claim to have traced the prints: imgur.com/a/pd72cSKThen we have Kutcha's account. He saw the prints in the yard and by the ladder. As he decided to head home, his dog (the same one that ran the night of the "kidnapping") decided to head toward the abandoned road. Here, as Kutcha was trying to keep pace, he saw the same prints that were in the yard. However, he did not follow the abandoned road to the private lane. Instead, his dog continued straight, where he lost sight of the prints until he got to the road and saw them next to the imprints of a car. I look at this knowing he had absolutely no clue what DeGaetano wrote in his 3/9 statement and conclude he's seeing what DeGaetano described. However, they aren't directly across from the Private Lane, instead between two and five hundred feet south off the main road. So, like I said, there's certain variables to consider. One might argue that if I'm willing to consider the 2 to 5 hundred feet south range, I should be willing to consider that figure north too. But that would contradict Kutcha. So either one accepts Kutcha or they do not. If not, that puts them back in front of the Private Lane near the bridge. So, for me anyway, it's one or the other. BTW: I went thru the property search files last night and confirmed that Soltesz's home was south of Hausenbauer's.
|
|
|
V4
Jun 13, 2022 13:36:39 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jun 13, 2022 13:36:39 GMT -5
Michael, If the below aerial photo comes through, do you agree with the marked locations? Isn't the caption under the photo of Kutcha incorrect? Wasn't Lindbergh's closest neighbor Hausenbauer at the driveway entrance? Thanks. Attachment Deleted
|
|