|
Post by Michael on Apr 29, 2023 20:15:45 GMT -5
You're either reading what I wrote inaccurately or just further out in left field on this aspect of the physical evidence than originally believed. Perhaps both. What I acknowledged within my response to Sherlock is that there is no way now to accurately determine the exact ground conditions in the immediate vicinity of the house as afforded by the leeward effect of the house's east wall. We only know that there would have been one based on the direction of the recent rains that fell on Highfields and that this ground would not have demonstrated the same general degree of impressionability to footprints as the open wet field conditions further east of the house clearly did. My point remains the same and overall position unchanged. Due to the soft foot coverings the kidnapper(s) wore, they would be less likely to leave footprints within the ground they walked upon than Anne, who was wearing standard footwear.
Just remember, it's you that's claiming the kidnapper(s) became the equivalent of Shen Yun performers alongside the house, only once stepping off that single width of tongue-and-groove flooring while raising and lowering the ladder, and when they did it was a forward facing step towards the house! This notion is not only shortsighted in recognition of the relative scope of ground conditions, and entirely unfeasible and unnecessary from an ergonomics standpoint on the part of the kidnapper(s), but is self-destructible in its own right.
Okay then, you are still being irrational. Next, what I am claiming is what the evidence shows and not, like you, the other way around. Men carrying a ladder wearing boots, socks, shoes, or burlap, would obviously leave prints in a muddy area where a woman, who weighs 50% (your words) than one of the men, left footprints almost the entire length of ground from the window to the back porch. Don't get too wound up on this subject, Michael, because pretty soon you're going to be spinning off in some direction that claims I'm insisting it could only have been a Lone Wolf at the scene. That's not what I'm saying at all. And I believe you're also getting a bit too concerned about what I'm saying, you think I'm saying, or words you'd like to put in my mouth. What I am doing is questioning the integrity of the elementary crime scene reporting, and will continue to do so. Believe me, all of your above points are duly considered. Nope, just countering a fantasy with the actual facts.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 29, 2023 21:03:38 GMT -5
Joe: “What we do know is that Anne was wearing footwear and the kidnapper(s) soft textile foot coverings that left only one discernible footprint ….” Whereas we do know that Anne’s shoes made those footprints, we do not know that the kidnapper(s) wore these soft foot coverings. Maybe he/they did but this remains a belief, a theory, to explain the single indistinct footprint that was found. For me, I'm not 100% sure she did leave those prints. Her testimony smacks of uncertainty. I also can't get the contradictions about the thread retrieval out of my head either. Anne was NOT a stupid person. Regardless, she did make that claim so it's a default position, but some doubt will always be in the back of my head. Next, Joe has no idea what footwear the men had on while traversing the planks. Finally, we know one of the prints was good enough to cast. And we also know the NJSP tried to preserve the prints in the yard for as long as they could. This allowed for that cast as well as some of the photos they took. Is there anything else within reason, but for a "muffled foot" to have created a "muffled footprint" as the type photographed? What's the source and which print are you talking about? I'd like to look up that report. Another thing we don’t know is whether the kidnapper(s) were ever walking on the narrow walkway. No muddy footprints were found on it to support this belief. It is strange that on this soft ground which has been proved to yield footprints there is only one single indistinct footprint near the ladder feet impressions. Yes, that narrow single width of tongue and groove flooring looks pretty clean to me as well. I wouldn't doubt that the kidnapper(s) stepped on and off it a number of times, because I do not believe the ground in the immediate area of the house's east wall supported the production of any significant level of mud production on the soles of the feet of the kidnapper(s) other than the trace amounts that were transferred onto the nursery rug and edge of the suitcase. When we discuss the planks, we have a 'control' for the situation. That is the number of people who walked them in order to observe the situation after the crime. All of these men had flashlights, so that's number one. Next, no one seemed to have left mud on them. This appears consistent with the fact the men all approached from the front of the home. So they walked on the gravel road onto the boards and did not have the opportunity to walk in the mud. With this in mind, it would explain why the kidnappers hadn't left mud there either. But it doesn't explain "why" they felt comfortable approaching that way in the first place but leaving through the middle of that yard. It's clear they knew the layout prior to the crime. It also doesn't explain how they could have traversed these thin, varied widths, without the use of a flashlight that everyone else afterwards needed - and utilized. Or how they never stepped off while erecting that ladder except the one time. Again, Joe's idea that ground in this area wouldn't leave prints was completely demolished. So bringing it up over and over again and again seems a little silly at this point. In fact, I question why the third section would have brought the third section to the house in the first place, if the kidnapper(s) did not plan on using it. Why add approximately 30% extra weight to the equation unless it's necessary? Finally, something that makes sense! If this was a "real" kidnapping, this is a very good point. But if the ladder was brought as a prop it doesn't work. The inside job option: Again using the third element on the ground to avoid footprints, the ladder was placed in position to leave suggestive marks on the ground and the wall. But it was not used by anyone to climb into the nursery. Likewise an indistinct “footprint” was deliberately left behind to confuse investigators. Just as the ladder was. A couple of things on this... Someone put weight on that ladder. It was erected, but a certain amount of force caused the rails to sink into the mud. There was a chunk of mud on the top of the lower part of the shutter. It's hard to imagine it got there without someone being on a ladder in that same area. The next day, police erected the ladder with two sections in those rails holes. It lined up with the scratch marks on the side of the house. HOWEVER, the top of the rails were above the scratches. That to me is very curious because if the ladder was posted up, and someone stepped onto it, the ladder should have sunk downward causing those marks. So seated in those holes the top should have been at the bottom of those marks. The footprint could have been an accident when staging the scene or done on purpose. If it was done by anyone using the ladder, real or otherwise, that print most likely was made on ascent and not the descent because of the mud on the top of the shutter I mentioned earlier. There's also the two "smudges" in the nursery, one on the sill, and one in the middle of the room that police believed came from that one print facing the home. Could have been staged, but if real, it means they stepped into the mud, shook off the mud prior to entering the window which landed on top of the bottom shutter, then left those two "smudges" of what was left entering and walking toward the crib.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Apr 30, 2023 11:23:53 GMT -5
Just to be clear, Wolf's use of "apparently" does not mean "maybe or maybe not". He writes it this way based on the sources who investigated the scene and reported seeing more than one set of prints. My understanding is that there is no physical evidence such as footprints, fingerprints or visual sightings that put Hauptmann at the scene of the crime in Hopewell, nor before or after it. This is something that I have to consider when looking at Hauptmann. Hans Mueller has always and continues to be a person of interest for me. I do not believe for one second that Anna Hauptmann had anything to do with the kidnapping or extortion. I do not believe that Hauptmann ever confessed anything to Anna, which would make her an accomplice after the fact, or did he confess to anybody else. Anna Hauptmann was a loyal and devoted wife who believed in her husband's innocence and believed everything that happened to her husband was Isidor Fisch's fault. Thanks for your personal clarification of the term “apparently” used by Trooper Wolf, which is the same word Major Schoeffel used in his statement to news reporters. It's not my "personal" clarification of the term apparently. It based on the dictionary meaning of "apparent" which is "used to describe something that appears to be based on what is known". Bolding of the word is mine. He saw 2 sets of prints and noted so in his report. Police Chief Wolfe, Charlie Williamson and Lindbergh were the first to observe footprints leading away from the area around the base of the nursery to a ladder, which they could see with flashlights from their vantage point alongside the house. They do not appear to indicate at this time, how many sets of footprints were seen leading away from the house. They were also careful not to add any prints to this trail, by circling around and arriving at the location where the ladder sections were laid. You seem to be operating under the impression that because they didn't note "2 sets" specifically then maybe there wasn't. These are the first viewers of the scene that night. They did not compromise the crime scene. Then not long after Cpl. Wolf will arrive and view the scene and actually note there are 2 sets of prints there. This is noted before Trooper DeGaetano is even present at the scene. How could he possibly be the person who makes the second set of prints you prefer to think did not exist until DeGaetano made his examination of the scene? Next, Trooper Wolf, with Lindbergh, observed the one muffled footprint to the left of the ladder’s left rail and a footprint which was later identified to have been made my Anne Lindbergh. At this time, he did not appear to have seen any footprints leading away from the scene, only that he subsequently reported “apparently two sets” in his Major Initial Report. Where in Cpl. Wolf's Major report does he report seeing one muffled print? Page number please!Later, Trooper DeGaetano went to the base of the nursery window where he observed the two ladder impressions, the footprint later identified as Anne’s and the two muffled impressions believed to be the kidnapper’s footprints. He also discerned “footprints that appeared to be made by stockinged feet,” but did not indicate how many sets. He then followed these impressions for about 75 to 100 feet, where he came across the three disconnected sections of ladder. In DeGaetano's March 3, 1932 report he says, "The undersigned noticed a foot print pointing towards the house near the temporary boardwalk which was laid there, and approximately 18 inches to the right of this print was an impression presumed to have been made by a heavy woolen stocking as the impression of the ridges were distinctly shown. Also noticed two impressions near the temporary boardwalk and the foot print which was later proved to have been made by the ladder. Upon further investigation found the foot print of a woman's shoe, which was explained by Chief Wolfe of the Hopewell Police to have been made by Mrs. Lindbergh. Chief Wolfe also informed the undersigned that a ladder was laying at a point approximately 75 feet East of the house near some small trees. The undersigned walked to the vicinity of where the ladder was laying and observed that it consisted of three short sections and constructed of 1 x 4" uprights."To date, I have not seen a report which identifies that its writer specifically observed two sets of footprints which were positively determined to have been made by two retreating kidnappers leading away from the base of the nursery window. I may be missing something more conclusive here, but until I see such a report, I'll continue to question whether the footprint trail leading to the ladder sections was actually two sets of kidnapper footprints, or one set of kidnapper footprints alongside one set footprints made by someone else, possibly Trooper DeGaetano. Like I said earlier in this post, two sets were noted by Cpl. Wolf before DeGaetano was ever at the scene. That leaves only Lindbergh, Chief Wolfe of Hopewell Police, and Asst. Chief Charles Williamson who are there before Cpl. Wolf arrives to note the 2 sets of prints leading away from the scene. Who else is there except one of these 3 men to compromise the scene? Of course, a second kidnapper at the scene explains the two sets of prints perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Apr 30, 2023 14:59:48 GMT -5
It is likely that a fabric shoe covering was worn. It explains the single indistinct footprint to the left of the ladder. It does not explain why there are no more indistinct footprints around the base of the ladder. The ladder didn’t erect itself. Adjustments were needed before the climb. But no footprints in ground that had yielded one only a foot or so away!
You can’t have it both ways Joe! One minute the lee side of the house is shielded from rain, the ground so hard it won’t retain footprints. The next minute the “heavy rains” of March 1st would have washed away any ladder impressions etc which had been prepared in advance as a false trail in this same location.
The split at the dowel in the lower left rail is a strong indicator that it happened when the climber ascended or came back down. I favour the return journey: if it happened when climbing, the descent with a heavier load would be risky. A quick solution would be to remove the broken element 1 and to attach element 3 to the top of element 2. This wasn’t done. An external climber does not rule out an inside job however.
Michael, I appreciate your friendly advice that I’m wasting my time. As a former research chemist I’m used to defending my ideas against the “it won’t work” brigade. Sometimes they were right, but they were proved wrong often enough for me not to give up. And I hope that current contributors can pull in ideas from a wider range of forum readers. If that happens, its time well-spent.
The ladder marks on the wall: “the tops of the rails were above the scratches.” When initially positioning the ladder the feet were held clear of the ground and the top of the ladder placed in a too low position against the wall.The ladder was pushed closer to the house to it’s final “higher” position: this movement left the scratches. The feet were then placed on the ground leaving the single set of ladder feet indentations. The fact that there were only the two ladder feet traces supports this version. Just an idea.
Mud on the shutter could indicate the ladder was climbed. But a staged crime scene suggesting window-entry could have someone placing mud on the shutter from inside the nursery and putting mud on the floor and elsewhere.
I hadn’t realised there was any doubt about the footprints being Anne Lindbergh’s. Were they not checked against the shoes she was wearing? But hers or not they do prove this ground was soft enough to yield footprints.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 30, 2023 17:17:58 GMT -5
It is likely that a fabric shoe covering was worn. It explains the single indistinct footprint to the left of the ladder. It does not explain why there are no more indistinct footprints around the base of the ladder. The ladder didn’t erect itself. Adjustments were needed before the climb. But no footprints in ground that had yielded one only a foot or so away! I highly doubt a covering was worn over shoes, but rather directly over bare feet. The footprint trail that led from the ladder to the road, indicated boots had been donned here. Is it likely boots were placed over shoes? And that single footprint to the left of the ladder could well have been caused by a downward force significantly greater than the force exerted on the ground during raising and lowering of the ladder, hence no discernible prints left by those latter actions. Interesting isn't it, that that footprint's location would coincide with a kidnapper coming down hard on the ground after the ladder cracked, thereby making a print that was visible?
You can’t have it both ways Joe! One minute the lee side of the house is shielded from rain, the ground so hard it won’t retain footprints. The next minute the “heavy rains” of March 1st would have washed away any ladder impressions etc which had been prepared in advance as a false trail in this same location. Not what I said, Sherlock. I did not say that the ladder impression or any ground in the immediate vicinity of the east wall of the house would have been affected by the rains of March 1. As I've already stated, this location would have been protected by the leeward effect of the house's east wall. The rains would have affected the open yard and field areas where the footprints trail was followed to the ladder and beyond to the road. The split at the dowel in the lower left rail is a strong indicator that it happened when the climber ascended or came back down. I favour the return journey: if it happened when climbing, the descent with a heavier load would be risky. A quick solution would be to remove the broken element 1 and to attach element 3 to the top of element 2. This wasn’t done. An external climber does not rule out an inside job however. Yes, descent seems the most likely time for the ladder rail to have split. I'm not sure exactly what you mean in your comments on the ladder elements, or sections I presume.Michael, I appreciate your friendly advice that I’m wasting my time. As a former research chemist I’m used to defending my ideas against the “it won’t work” brigade. Sometimes they were right, but they were proved wrong often enough for me not to give up. And I hope that current contributors can pull in ideas from a wider range of forum readers. If that happens, its time well-spent. Michael has formulated some very rigid belief structures within this evidence, specifically around what took place during the kidnappers approach alongside the house and at the base of the nursery window. Of course, his explanation defies logic, ergonomics, or even necessity within the scope of an actual kidnapping. But it sounds even more ludicrous in the hypothetical scenario that this was a faked kidnapping. In any case, the more the merrier, I say. Good insights and ideas will gradually rise to the surface, all helping to provide a clearer picture of what took place. The ladder marks on the wall: “the tops of the rails were above the scratches.” When initially positioning the ladder the feet were held clear of the ground and the top of the ladder placed in a too low position against the wall.The ladder was pushed closer to the house to it’s final “higher” position: this movement left the scratches. The feet were then placed on the ground leaving the single set of ladder feet indentations. The fact that there were only the two ladder feet traces supports this version. Just an idea. I've also stated this explanation previously, but I wonder how much force would actually have been put on the wall by the ladder tips during placement, ie. would there have been enough to actually make the marks? Mud on the shutter could indicate the ladder was climbed. But a staged crime scene suggesting window-entry could have someone placing mud on the shutter from inside the nursery and putting mud on the floor and elsewhere. Many options arise from these considerations when considering if this was a faked kidnapping, none seemingly conclusive as I see it. I hadn’t realised there was any doubt about the footprints being Anne Lindbergh’s. Were they not checked against the shoes she was wearing? But hers or not they do prove this ground was soft enough to yield footprints. Assuming they were Anne's footprints, the ground she walked upon was impressionable enough to yield some degree of footprint, based on the type of footwear she was wearing. What the kidnapper(s) were wearing on their feet, as evidenced by the footprint to the left of the ladder's left rail, indicates their travels alongside the house and actions at the base of the nursery window, did not leave prints in the ground they walked upon. One thing is certain. They would have been able to accomplish what they did without stepping off that single width of tongue and groove flooring, many times.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 30, 2023 20:51:07 GMT -5
I hadn’t realised there was any doubt about the footprints being Anne Lindbergh’s. Were they not checked against the shoes she was wearing? But hers or not they do prove this ground was soft enough to yield footprints. I don't have any source that I can think of where police checked those prints against her size or her shoes. There is one source, Thayer, who claimed those 'prints' in the nursery were made by Anne. Supposedly determined by the "knobs" on her golf shoes. This isn't backed up anywhere else, in fact, those have always been attributed to an intruder in all other sources. Anyway, according to the testimony police merely took Anne's word for it. Sounds crazy but because Lindbergh was running the show, I suppose it should be expected. Here's what Bornmann testified to in Flemington: TT p382 Q [Reilly]: To a cetain extent. And you found a foot print didn't you? A [Bornmann]: I did.
Q: And you knew it wasn't the Colonel's foot print, didn't you? A: And I knew it wasn't the bulter's foot print.
Q: Did you take him out and measure it? A: I questioned him.
Q: Never mind about questioning him. Did you take his shoe off and try to fit it in there? Did you? A: No, I did not.
Q: Because you asked a man what size shoe he wore you came to the conclusion that was not his foot print, is that it? A: I knew he hadn't been out there.
Q: Did you see this house before you were sent for? A: No.
Q: How did you know he wasn't out there? A: I had his word for it.
Q: Oh, you took his word for it? You took the word of that man who has since died that he hadn't gone outside the house, is that it? A: That is correct.
Q: When you saw the woman's footprints, did you take anybody's word for it as to who was outside? A: Yes.
Q: Who? A: Mrs. Lindbergh.
Q: Did you take Betty Gow's word? A: She hadn't been out.
Q: You don't mean to say you asked Mrs. Lindbergh whether she was outside the house in the mud? A: I did.
Q: You wouldn't accuse Mrs. Lindbergh of anything?
(Objection Wilentz) TT p384 Q: You knew it wasn't the Colonel's, didn't you? A: I knew it was none of the men that was found there that night.
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.
Q: Why, did you know that the butler was alone in that house on the ground floor for two hours while his wife and Betty Gow were upstairs? Did you know that?
(Objection Wilentz)
Q: Did you know that night that this child was for two hours from eight o'clock until ten, as far as any servants were concerned, absolutely alone; did you know that? A: As to the question of servants, yes.
Q: Well my goodness, you don't believe everybody that you question when you are sent out to investigate a crime, do you? A: I take a statement from them then investigate.
Q: And if you like the statement, you believe it, is that it? A: No.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on May 1, 2023 3:00:15 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Just to clarify my remarks on the ladder sections. If Section 1 failed at the left hand dowel during the initial climb it would be risky to continue the ascent and even more risky to descend with an extra load. This could have been avoided by the climber returning to the ground, removing Section 1, then using Sections 2 and 3 together as the new ladder. The feet impressions on the ground fit with Section 1 so this wasn't done done. So we can conclude that the failure must have occurred on descent. I too wondered whether merely leaning the ladder again that "shingle" "pebble-dashed" surface would leave any marks/scratches. We have scratches which don't correspond with the ladder position in contact with the wall. Are we tying ourselves in knots attempting to explain it when the marks could be pure coincidence and nothing to do with the ladder? The single footprint may as you say have been made by someone coming down hard following the cracking at the dowel. I still can't get my head around this apparent need to avoid footprints taking elaborate measures like covering bare feet. Clear footprints were found away from the ladder site so why try to avoid leaving prints near the ladder?
HI Michael, The questioning of Bornmann which you cite is a perfect example if ever one were needed of the NJSP's acceptance of every word from the Lindberghs and staff as Gospel Truth with no need for checks on its accuracy or veracity. It also highlights the slipshod nature of the initial investigation: failure to match shoes with footprints etc. Unbelievable!
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on May 1, 2023 6:59:41 GMT -5
Anne Lindbergh was about five feet tall and weighed about 100 pounds. A woman of those dimensions is not likely to wear a size 8 shoe, more likely a size five or five and half. A man who is about five foot six to five foot eight might well wear a size 8 shoe. The footprint found at the cemetery was about 10 and one/half inches, indicating that the individual making the print would be about five foot ten inches tall. A physician would tell us that the height of a person and the size of shoe worn do correspond. The women in my own family are short, about five feet two inches tall and wear (or wore) sizes five or five and a half. These are sizes used in the US. A woman wearing a size eight shoe would probably be about five feet eight inches tall, about the height of Violet Sharp.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on May 1, 2023 7:13:57 GMT -5
Violet Sharp's sister, Emily (Edna), appears to have been about the same height as Violet. The height of the average woman in the 1930's would have been about five foot four or five, several inches shorter than that of women today.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 1, 2023 13:19:28 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Just to clarify my remarks on the ladder sections. If Section 1 failed at the left hand dowel during the initial climb it would be risky to continue the ascent and even more risky to descend with an extra load. This could have been avoided by the climber returning to the ground, removing Section 1, then using Sections 2 and 3 together as the new ladder. The feet impressions on the ground fit with Section 1 so this wasn't done done. So we can conclude that the failure must have occurred on descent. Thanks Sherlock, I understand now what you meant. What you’ve suggested might well have represented a spur-of-the-moment contingency if the ladder had cracked during the ascent. As you indicate and I also support, the ladder rail would have split on the descent. Your observation about the one set of ladder rail impressions in the ground is a good one, and also supports this.I too wondered whether merely leaning the ladder again that "shingle" "pebble-dashed" surface would leave any marks/scratches. We have scratches which don't correspond with the ladder position in contact with the wall. Are we tying ourselves in knots attempting to explain it when the marks could be pure coincidence and nothing to do with the ladder? I tend to believe the wall scratches were in fact, made from the two-section ladder rail tops, as they did match up exactly to the centre-to-centre width between Rails 14 and 15. The stonework of the house was brushed or sprayed with a high-opacity whitewash, which by nature would have had a relatively flat and chalky appearance and texture, thereby making it more prone to marking than regular house paint of a higher sheen. The single footprint may as you say have been made by someone coming down hard following the cracking at the dowel. I still can't get my head around this apparent need to avoid footprints taking elaborate measures like covering bare feet. Clear footprints were found away from the ladder site so why try to avoid leaving prints near the ladder? Here are some additional thoughts:Why I believe soft coverings or slipper type socks were worn directly over the feet of the kidnapper(s):• Eliminate the possibility of a specific design or defect in the bottoms of boots or shoes from being transferred into the ground and left behind as potential evidence in the bare ground alongside the house,• As importantly if not more, to minimize the sound of kidnapper footsteps on the nursery floor. Boots would have been worn during the approach up the driveway and the original plan would have been to remove them before entering the nursery and then replacing them after the abduction for the retreat back down the driveway. Where I think things went south was with the breaking of the ladder. The kidnapper on the ladder came down hard on his left foot and the impression to the right of the ladder might have been the child in the bag impacting the ground. At this point, a hasty decision was made to deviate from the original driveway retreat to avoid a potential encounter with anyone who might have heard the noise and decided to investigate via the front door. I believe this represented a somewhat irrational decision, but was probably made in what became a sudden desire for flight and to distance themselves from the house as quickly as possible.The kidnapper(s) gathered up everything and headed off in a southeastwardly direction, not realizing they were already disoriented. Approximately 75 feet from the house, the ladder was disassembled for removal to the car, but ultimately abandoned in favour of getting away and not being slowed down any more from the muddy wet open field conditions they now found themselves in. (The dowel pin found near the third section tells me the third section might ultimately have been used for the abduction and that two sections were used to pull back the shutters) Boots were put back on and they managed to locate the road and their parked car, but not before walking a considerably longer distance than they had to.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 2, 2023 8:55:36 GMT -5
Y es, Parker demonstrated that he was a great detective in the years leading up to the LKC. His main problem in the LKC though was that he had no jurisdiction. Certainly Schwarzkopf could have embraced any and all offers of assistance from the NJ County Detectives Association, which included Parker from Burlington County. Given how outspoken the association was in its condemnation of the NJSP’s overall handling of the case, Schwarzkopf appeared to have been in no mood to entertain any direct overtures from Parker, who took shots at Schwarzkopf in the press.
In your take on Parker’s investigation into the identity of the body, you don’t mention the fact that he announced publicly that the body had been dead for longer than 72 days, based on how he believed its decomposition would have been affected by the March, April and May weather, and therefore that it was not Charlie. Further, he postulated that local bootleggers had planted the body as a means of allowing police to re-open the roads they normally used for their illegal activities. The physical body was positively identified as the Lindbergh baby on many counts, so it’s little wonder Parker’s incomplete and flawed assessment was both wrong, and not taken seriously.
Your interpretation of Parker’s plan to kidnap and extract a confession out of Paul Wendel, because he firmly believed him to have been the Lindbergh kidnapper, is a pretty blank whitewash. And it’s really little more than a lame attempt to preserve what remained of Parker’s dignity and reputation at the expense of someone, who despite his overall questionable character, did not deserve the actual mistreatment he received. Wendel’s elaborate confession was in large part, the product of a keen sense of self-preservation, a fertile imagination and innate ability to adapt for survival under very difficult circumstances. If anything was really learned from this debacle and I’m thinking of Ellis Parker here, ultimately it doesn’t pay to flout the laws, mores and conventions that are designed to protect the average person, or you might just find yourself taken by the one you targeted in the first place.You are way out of your league here Joe. Again, Parker did not believe it was the corpse because he didn't think the Lindbergh child was "subnormal" and that's what he saw when he viewed the corpse on May 12. From that position, he began finding other evidence in that direction. The weather and forensics about a decaying corpse. It's good police work under the circumstances. In fact, for me, its additional information that points to the child being elsewhere originally. And again, you don't know what you are talking about. Schwarzkopf feared Parker would solve the case on his own, which was why he had someone spying on and reporting back so he could learn about what he was doing. It's also why he refused to share information with him as well. Since this spanned from 1932 to 1936, Parker's health comes into play. So he's not the same guy in 1936 he was in 1932. Next, and listen up because this is important, Wendel was telling Parker he was in touch with the people who did this all the while suggesting it was him. He WANTED Parker to believe he was involved Joe. He was a CRIMINAL so stop trying to make him look like a nice guy who didn't know what was what. Next, Bleefeld tried to sell Wendel's confession before turning it over to Parker. Listen, I'm not going to waste my time any further on this because everything I teach you falls on deaf ears anyway. You’re not wasting your time here at all. The circumstantial physical evidence is highly suggestive of the corpse having been buried somewhere else under unknown conditions, before it ended up at the Mt. Rose site. And I believe you also support this probability. What Parker determined through his weather and forensics findings, does not include this scenario, does it?
Also, I’ve never tried to make Wendel sound like a 'nice guy' so there’s no reason to try and use something I haven’t said for the purpose of excusing Parker’s criminal actions. Paul Wendel, despite his unsavory character, and the man Parker believed was involved in the LKC from the start, did not deserve to be held against his own will and tortured. Period. Remember, when we’re talking about criminals here, it was those very characters who were conscripted by Parker to carry out his twisted scheme. What would you call someone who directed the efforts of those same criminals in an attempt to coerce a confession from someone who clearly had nothing to do with the kidnapping? Feeling as though he was 'above the law,' would be a good start.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 2, 2023 23:40:00 GMT -5
On the subject of the child being ELSEWHERE before the discovery in the hamlet of Mount Rose --
A man named Charles T. Foster had been living in Hopewell, New Jersey for about 3 years when the kidnapping occurred.
Prior to this time, he was a resident of Buffalo, New York.
Foster did not believe the baby was at that site for a long time. He claims that he walked his dog in the area where the baby was found about 3-4 times between March 14 and April 15. The dog acted normal while in that locale.
Foster's "wire-haired" terrier many times would find dead animals hundreds of feet away, and feels the dog would have raised a ruckus if the body was there during the time frame mentioned above.
The Buffalo Evening News carried stories about Foster on May 17, 1932. Were they the only paper to do so? Maybe the only reason was because Foster was a former "Buffalonian"?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 3, 2023 13:32:57 GMT -5
You’re not wasting your time here at all. The circumstantial physical evidence is highly suggestive of the corpse having been buried somewhere else under unknown conditions, before it ended up at the Mt. Rose site. And I believe you also support this probability. What Parker determined through his weather and forensics findings, does not include this scenario, does it?
Also, I’ve never tried to make Wendel sound like a 'nice guy' so there’s no reason to try and use something I haven’t said for the purpose of excusing Parker’s criminal actions. Paul Wendel, despite his unsavory character, and the man Parker believed was involved in the LKC from the start, did not deserve to be held against his own will and tortured. Period. Remember, when we’re talking about criminals here, it was those very characters who were conscripted by Parker to carry out his twisted scheme. What would you call someone who directed the efforts of those same criminals in an attempt to coerce a confession from someone who clearly had nothing to do with the kidnapping? Feeling as though he was 'above the law,' would be a good start. Nothing about Wendel's confession had anything to do with a "keen sense" of preservation. Where do you come up with this stuff? His goal, made even before he injected himself, was to get into the position where it was believed he was involved. Next, what is your source that Parker believed he was involved " from the start"? And once again, you have bought into this thing hook, line, and sinker. Parker did not contract anyone to torture Wendel. Parker had by action, by word, and by many written articles, never tortured anyone and spoke out against it. Wendel's confessions included personal gripes that no one, not Parker, Paker Jr., Bleefeld, Weiss, or Schlossman could have (or would have) ordered him under threat of violence to write - firstly because they knew nothing about them. Parker Jr. was even accused of being in Brooklyn on a day when he was in court in the Sugarman case. The Prosecution, Defense, Jury, and Judge all saw him present there. Once there was no buyer for the Wendel confession, he was asked where he wanted to go and he told them to Parker. Not to Schwarzkopf. Not to the Wilentz. Not to the NYPD. As they went thru the tunnel, their car was stopped by police. Did Wendel jump out proclaiming to be a victim or anything like that? No. Once at Parker's, he agreed in writing to go to New Lisbon. While there, he was caught striking himself in the face with his shoes. When he wasn't attempting to harm himself, he was playing cards with the men paid to watch him. The only thing noticed prior was a few bruises on his legs, and a cut on his earlobe that presumably came from shaving but he later claimed it was from a hot lightbulb someone in Brooklyn tortured him with. He wrote other confessions and it all ended with a retraction. Parker turned over the confessions as well as the repudiation once Wendel was handed over to Chief of Detectives Kirkham. Once with Kirkham, Wendel was trying to make a deal in which he would provide information about other crimes that occurred in Mercer county. Wendel committed fraud while in the Tower Hotel during the Kings County trial. This is verifiable. Later, Wendel was formulating some scheme to actually sue Wilentz. I have the documentation to prove this as well which, if I ever write a V5, I will probably include. At the Parker trial, Wendel was seen "huddled up" with Bleefeld. Reporters strained to hear what they were saying but could not because they were whispering to each other. This is one of the men who supposedly beat the hell out of him and they were damn near hugging in the hallway of the courtroom during recess. In the end, yes, Wendel did fool Parker, but he was suffering from illness and was not himself. Evidence of which was his demeanor on the stand during his trial. He winked at the Prosecutor several times who appealed to the Judge to get him to stop. He laughed when there was nothing funny. And he argued with his own counsel while on the stand and there was a joke that he should be declared a hostile witness. Once incarcerated, Harry Green went to visit him in Lewisburg and he was inappropriately laughing and crying interchangeably at various times throughout the visit. He was so bad Green worried he'd be dead soon thereafter. Sorry, but considering Parker's record, he was much more of a victim than Wendel ever was. Finally, compare this to the J. J. Devine matter that I wrote about in V2 on pages 507-511 .
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 9, 2023 10:53:05 GMT -5
Thanks for your personal clarification of the term “apparently” used by Trooper Wolf, which is the same word Major Schoeffel used in his statement to news reporters. It's not my "personal" clarification of the term apparently. It based on the dictionary meaning of "apparent" which is "used to describe something that appears to be based on what is known". Bolding of the word is mine. He saw 2 sets of prints and noted so in his report.The word “apparently..” Collins dictionary: Something that appears to be true, although you are not sure whether it is or not. Oxford dictionary: According to what seems to be true, or what is likely, based on what you know.
You appear to be claiming that Wolf personally observed two sets of prints, when he does not actually state this anywhere. He uses the word “apparently.” Wolf never claimed to have actually observed two sets of footprints, yet he is clear about virtually everything else in his initial report. Putting forth the relevant information available to him at the time he wrote his report, does not necessarily make what he wrote, accurate.
The NJSP Troopers who were among the first arrivals at the scene, for the most part, were not adequately trained and experienced enough to investigate this crime scene, and it shows in many ways. Reference DeGaetano’s measuring of the footprint with his flashlight and hand. Reilly embarrassed several of them on the stand during cross-examination.
Trooper Wolf did an admirable job in documenting the events of that night, given the very challenging conditions he and other troopers were under that evening. I believe his main objective as first NJSP arrival with jurisdiction, should have been to direct other NJSP arrivals to maintain a protective perimeter around all potential evidence only, isolate the house residents, including Charles Lindbergh and Hopewell Police Chief Wolfe and Officer Williamson into an unaffected part of the house for the purpose of taking independent witness statements, so that trained forensic investigators could then have had the opportunity to properly process the crime scene. Police Chief Wolfe, Charlie Williamson and Lindbergh were the first to observe footprints leading away from the area around the base of the nursery to a ladder, which they could see with flashlights from their vantage point alongside the house. They do not appear to indicate at this time, how many sets of footprints were seen leading away from the house. They were also careful not to add any prints to this trail, by circling around and arriving at the location where the ladder sections were laid. You seem to be operating under the impression that because they didn't note "2 sets" specifically then maybe there wasn't. These are the first viewers of the scene that night. They did not compromise the crime scene. Then not long after Cpl. Wolf will arrive and view the scene and actually note there are 2 sets of prints there. This is noted before Trooper DeGaetano is even present at the scene. How could he possibly be the person who makes the second set of prints you prefer to think did not exist until DeGaetano made his examination of the scene? I'm not even suggesting that first observers compromised the footprint trail evidence. From first hand reporting, it is clear that Wolfe, Williamson and Lindbergh intentionally circled around the trail so that they didn’t step close to the footprints, thereby adding prints that might later be confused with those of “additional kidnappers.” Again though, Trooper Wolf makes no claim to having actually observed two sets of footprints leading away from the house. You appear to be interpreting, what he said in his report, as having personally observed two sets of footprints, this without question.
I do understand that DeGaetano came after the first two sets of observers. In his March 9th report, he claims that he followed the footprints (no mention of the number of sets) but does not mention that he circled around as the first observers had done. Do we just assume from DeGaetano’s statement that he took precautions not to confuse his own footprints with those of a kidnapper? Yes, he claimed to have been careful not to spoil the existing footprints believed to have been made by kidnapper(s), but he only says he “followed” them. I do not assume from his statement that he also circled around, with the intention of not having his footprints confused with those of another potential kidnapper. Next, Trooper Wolf, with Lindbergh, observed the one muffled footprint to the left of the ladder’s left rail and a footprint which was later identified to have been made my Anne Lindbergh. At this time, he did not appear to have seen any footprints leading away from the scene, only that he subsequently reported “apparently two sets” in his Major Initial Report. Where in Cpl. Wolf's Major report does he report seeing one muffled print? Page number please!I did not claim that Trooper Wolf’s observation of the print to the left of the ladder’s left rail was contained in his report. This specific reference comes from trial testimony based on his search of the ground beneath the southeast nursery window with Lindbergh. “Muffled” is my own description, based on the print having demonstrated that the foot of whoever left it, had been covered with some kind of soft covering. This print was not clear and distinct, as one might expect a shoe or boot print, such as the one which Anne claimed she left alongside the house, to have been. Later, Trooper DeGaetano went to the base of the nursery window where he observed the two ladder impressions, the footprint later identified as Anne’s and the two muffled impressions believed to be the kidnapper’s footprints. He also discerned “footprints that appeared to be made by stockinged feet,” but did not indicate how many sets. He then followed these impressions for about 75 to 100 feet, where he came across the three disconnected sections of ladder. In DeGaetano's March 3, 1932 report he says, "The undersigned noticed a foot print pointing towards the house near the temporary boardwalk which was laid there, and approximately 18 inches to the right of this print was an impression presumed to have been made by a heavy woolen stocking as the impression of the ridges were distinctly shown. Also noticed two impressions near the temporary boardwalk and the foot print which was later proved to have been made by the ladder. Upon further investigation found the foot print of a woman's shoe, which was explained by Chief Wolfe of the Hopewell Police to have been made by Mrs. Lindbergh. Chief Wolfe also informed the undersigned that a ladder was laying at a point approximately 75 feet East of the house near some small trees. The undersigned walked to the vicinity of where the ladder was laying and observed that it consisted of three short sections and constructed of 1 x 4" uprights."Right. And in his later March 9, 1932 report, he says, “I then went down in the yard and made observation of the ground underneath the window and was careful not to spoil any footprints that might be in the ground. With my flashlight I discerned footprints that appeared to be made by a stockinged foot. I followed these impressions (my bold) to a distance of about seventy-five (75) or a 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 understand very well that there could have been two sets of kidnapper footprints left at the scene before the first observers were even on the scene. And I can also appreciate that if DeGaetano had followed the footprints he saw leading away from the house by unwisely walking alongside them, he would have compromised this same evidence. I only wish that someone (Anyone!) in an initial observer role, had stated that they observed two sets of kidnapper footprints leading away from the house and that this was not just an “apparent” understanding which was then reported later. The lack of anyone actually stating they observed two sets of kidnapper footprints leading away from the house, indicates to me the possibility that the footprint evidence was compromised by inexperienced investigators.
To date, I have not seen a report which identifies that its writer specifically observed two sets of footprints which were positively determined to have been made by two retreating kidnappers leading away from the base of the nursery window. I may be missing something more conclusive here, but until I see such a report, I'll continue to question whether the footprint trail leading to the ladder sections was actually two sets of kidnapper footprints, or one set of kidnapper footprints alongside one set footprints made by someone else, possibly Trooper DeGaetano. Like I said earlier in this post, two sets were noted by Cpl. Wolf before DeGaetano was ever at the scene. That leaves only Lindbergh, Chief Wolfe of Hopewell Police, and Asst. Chief Charles Williamson who are there before Cpl. Wolf arrives to note the 2 sets of prints leading away from the scene. Who else is there except one of these 3 men to compromise the scene? Of course, a second kidnapper at the scene explains the two sets of prints perfectly. I don’t see direct evidence that Cpl. Wolf actually observed two sets of footprints during the time he examined the ground beneath the nursery window with Lindbergh. He does use the word “apparently” to describe what he believed to have been two sets of kidnapper footprints at the time he wrote his report.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on May 9, 2023 16:37:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on May 9, 2023 16:38:57 GMT -5
Sorry, I hit the wrong button and lost my post. I will redo it.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on May 9, 2023 17:46:04 GMT -5
The word “apparently..” Collins dictionary: Something that appears to be true, although you are not sure whether it is or not. Oxford dictionary: According to what seems to be true, or what is likely, based on what you know. You appear to be claiming that Wolf personally observed two sets of prints, when he does not actually state this anywhere. He uses the word “apparently.” (Joe)
I am not claiming anything Joe. Apparently can be used when you know something. Cpl. Wolf knew he saw two sets of prints. He saw them and even described them as "fresh". He saw them and described their appearance. He needed to see them to make that assessment of their condition.
I'm not even suggesting that first observers compromised the footprint trail evidence.(Joe)
I did not say you were. You were the one who brought up the possibility that Trooper DeGaetano might have created the second set of footprints. I was merely pointing out that DeGaetano did not arrive at the scene until after Cpl. Wolf did who had observed two sets of footprints.
I did not claim that Trooper Wolf’s observation of the print to the left of the ladder’s left rail was contained in his report. (Joe)
We were discussing Cpl Wolf's report. You mixed in trial testimony without noting it was such. That is misleading and that is why I challenged it. I do hope in the future when you decide to mix something into a discussion that is not in the document being discussed that you will make that point clear. Thank you.
I understand very well that there could have been two sets of kidnapper footprints left at the scene before the first observers were even on the scene. And I can also appreciate that if DeGaetano had followed the footprints he saw leading away from the house by unwisely walking alongside them, he would have compromised this same evidence. I only wish that someone (Anyone!) in an initial observer role, had stated that they observed two sets of kidnapper footprints leading away from the house and that this was not just an “apparent” understanding which was then reported later. The lack of anyone actually stating they observed two sets of kidnapper footprints leading away from the house, indicates to me the possibility that the footprint evidence was compromised by inexperienced investigators.(Joe)
I hear your frustration, Joe. However,Cpl Wolf did see two sets of footprints and included their description in his report. The other reports only say footprints. It should be noted that none of those reports say only "one" set of footprints were seen leading to the ladders. This really should be taken into consideration also.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on May 10, 2023 4:39:20 GMT -5
There were also two sets of tire tracks in Featherbed Lane. Ben Lupica saw the Dodge sedan with the ladders. The driver was obviously looking to meet his confederate and mistakenly thought Ben's car was his confederate's car. this would have resembled Ben's. The two kidnappers did meet up afterward, and the car with the ladder sections dropped them off near the house after dark, probably about 8 pm when Anne heard the sound of a car on the gravel and presumed it was her husband--which it was not.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 11, 2023 12:54:31 GMT -5
The word “apparently..” Collins dictionary: Something that appears to be true, although you are not sure whether it is or not. Oxford dictionary: According to what seems to be true, or what is likely, based on what you know. You appear to be claiming that Wolf personally observed two sets of prints, when he does not actually state this anywhere. He uses the word “apparently.” (Joe) I am not claiming anything Joe. Apparently can be used when you know something. Cpl. Wolf knew he saw two sets of prints. He saw them and even described them as "fresh". He saw them and described their appearance. He needed to see them to make that assessment of their condition. I'm not even suggesting that first observers compromised the footprint trail evidence.(Joe) I did not say you were. You were the one who brought up the possibility that Trooper DeGaetano might have created the second set of footprints. I was merely pointing out that DeGaetano did not arrive at the scene until after Cpl. Wolf did who had observed two sets of footprints. I did not claim that Trooper Wolf’s observation of the print to the left of the ladder’s left rail was contained in his report. (Joe) We were discussing Cpl Wolf's report. You mixed in trial testimony without noting it was such. That is misleading and that is why I challenged it. I do hope in the future when you decide to mix something into a discussion that is not in the document being discussed that you will make that point clear. Thank you. I understand very well that there could have been two sets of kidnapper footprints left at the scene before the first observers were even on the scene. And I can also appreciate that if DeGaetano had followed the footprints he saw leading away from the house by unwisely walking alongside them, he would have compromised this same evidence. I only wish that someone (Anyone!) in an initial observer role, had stated that they observed two sets of kidnapper footprints leading away from the house and that this was not just an “apparent” understanding which was then reported later. The lack of anyone actually stating they observed two sets of kidnapper footprints leading away from the house, indicates to me the possibility that the footprint evidence was compromised by inexperienced investigators.(Joe) I hear your frustration, Joe. However,Cpl Wolf did see two sets of footprints and included their description in his report. The other reports only say footprints. It should be noted that none of those reports say only "one" set of footprints were seen leading to the ladders. This really should be taken into consideration also. I believe you're continuing to wordsmith for the benefit of Cpl. Wolf here, and that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. I would certainly acknowledge your statements, if he had actually stated that he observed "two sets of fresh footprints leading off in a southeast direction" but he does not do this.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 14, 2023 10:02:24 GMT -5
You’re not wasting your time here at all. The circumstantial physical evidence is highly suggestive of the corpse having been buried somewhere else under unknown conditions, before it ended up at the Mt. Rose site. And I believe you also support this probability. What Parker determined through his weather and forensics findings, does not include this scenario, does it?
Also, I’ve never tried to make Wendel sound like a 'nice guy' so there’s no reason to try and use something I haven’t said for the purpose of excusing Parker’s criminal actions. Paul Wendel, despite his unsavory character, and the man Parker believed was involved in the LKC from the start, did not deserve to be held against his own will and tortured. Period. Remember, when we’re talking about criminals here, it was those very characters who were conscripted by Parker to carry out his twisted scheme. What would you call someone who directed the efforts of those same criminals in an attempt to coerce a confession from someone who clearly had nothing to do with the kidnapping? Feeling as though he was 'above the law,' would be a good start. Nothing about Wendel's confession had anything to do with a "keen sense" of preservation. Where do you come up with this stuff? His goal, made even before he injected himself, was to get into the position where it was believed he was involved. Next, what is your source that Parker believed he was involved " from the start"? And once again, you have bought into this thing hook, line, and sinker. Parker did not contract anyone to torture Wendel. Parker had by action, by word, and by many written articles, never tortured anyone and spoke out against it. Wendel's confessions included personal gripes that no one, not Parker, Paker Jr., Bleefeld, Weiss, or Schlossman could have (or would have) ordered him under threat of violence to write - firstly because they knew nothing about them. Parker Jr. was even accused of being in Brooklyn on a day when he was in court in the Sugarman case. The Prosecution, Defense, Jury, and Judge all saw him present there. Once there was no buyer for the Wendel confession, he was asked where he wanted to go and he told them to Parker. Not to Schwarzkopf. Not to the Wilentz. Not to the NYPD. As they went thru the tunnel, their car was stopped by police. Did Wendel jump out proclaiming to be a victim or anything like that? No. Once at Parker's, he agreed in writing to go to New Lisbon. While there, he was caught striking himself in the face with his shoes. When he wasn't attempting to harm himself, he was playing cards with the men paid to watch him. The only thing noticed prior was a few bruises on his legs, and a cut on his earlobe that presumably came from shaving but he later claimed it was from a hot lightbulb someone in Brooklyn tortured him with. He wrote other confessions and it all ended with a retraction. Parker turned over the confessions as well as the repudiation once Wendel was handed over to Chief of Detectives Kirkham. Once with Kirkham, Wendel was trying to make a deal in which he would provide information about other crimes that occurred in Mercer county. Wendel committed fraud while in the Tower Hotel during the Kings County trial. This is verifiable. Later, Wendel was formulating some scheme to actually sue Wilentz. I have the documentation to prove this as well which, if I ever write a V5, I will probably include. At the Parker trial, Wendel was seen "huddled up" with Bleefeld. Reporters strained to hear what they were saying but could not because they were whispering to each other. This is one of the men who supposedly beat the hell out of him and they were damn near hugging in the hallway of the courtroom during recess. In the end, yes, Wendel did fool Parker, but he was suffering from illness and was not himself. Evidence of which was his demeanor on the stand during his trial. He winked at the Prosecutor several times who appealed to the Judge to get him to stop. He laughed when there was nothing funny. And he argued with his own counsel while on the stand and there was a joke that he should be declared a hostile witness. Once incarcerated, Harry Green went to visit him in Lewisburg and he was inappropriately laughing and crying interchangeably at various times throughout the visit. He was so bad Green worried he'd be dead soon thereafter. Sorry, but considering Parker's record, he was much more of a victim than Wendel ever was. Finally, compare this to the J. J. Devine matter that I wrote about in V2 on pages 507-511 .Put straightforwardly and without the kind of distraction you’re intimating here, both Parker and Wendel fell victim to each other’s massive egos. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if these two had previously been battling each other over multiple lifetimes and continue that today. Parker desperately wanted to solve the Lindbergh Case as the crowning achievement to his career, at the same time demonstrating to those he disparaged in the press, who was No. 1. Wendel wanted nothing more than to somehow be involved within its resolution by hitching his wagon as an investigator to the star of Parker, a man he respected for his perceived friendship and detection abilities. Parker allowed the crafty Wendel to infiltrate his psyche and the information provided him, much of it attainable through his own sources and the press, quickly deceived his common senses into believing Wendel was actually involved. If anything in particular set Parker’s health back between 1932 and 1936, it was his insurmountable ego, exacting the kind of control over him that eventually proved fatal. Parker understood only too well that time was running out in the game-for-keeps he had engineered, initiating a confession from Wendel, which he mistakenly believed would come gushing forth. Parker was in constant communication with his son Ellis Jr., himself stationed at Harry Bleefeld’s house, monitoring all activities and results. Any conclusion that Ellis Sr. was not a party to the physical abuse of Wendel by Bleefeld, Schlossman and Weiss during his incarceration as Hauptmann’s execution rapidly approached, is shortsighted and highly ingenuous. Of course, Wendel went straight to Parker upon his release and allowed himself to be placed under “protection” because he hadn’t yet realized his so-called friend was responsible for his kidnapping and mistreatment. It was only Wendel’s keenly honed sense of inspired self-preservation that ultimately allowed him to escape Parker’s clutches. Of course, it’s a very sad commentary that the brilliant but ego-driven Parker (and his son) went down the way they did, but in the end he has only himself to blame for his misfortunes. Pitying him as an unfortunate victim of someone other than himself only releases Parker from personal accountability and responsibility as an individual.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 14, 2023 12:27:04 GMT -5
There were also two sets of tire tracks in Featherbed Lane. Ben Lupica saw the Dodge sedan with the ladders. The driver was obviously looking to meet his confederate and mistakenly thought Ben's car was his confederate's car. this would have resembled Ben's. The two kidnappers did meet up afterward, and the car with the ladder sections dropped them off near the house after dark, probably about 8 pm when Anne heard the sound of a car on the gravel and presumed it was her husband--which it was not. From Lupica's statements, I don't see anything that indicates the driver of the dark coloured Dodge was reacting in a way that concludes he was obviously planning to meet anyone. I've long maintained he might just as well have been trying to avoid Lupica, by attempting to turn left into what he believed was a sideroad, but turned out to be a tractor path into the corn field that was to his left. When he realized in the growing dusk it was not a road, he recovered awkwardly, ending up on the wrong side of the road, where he remained until Lupica had passed. Or he could just have been trying to distance himself in his vehicle from Lupica, with both driver's sides being as far apart as possible. There are a number of possibilities here, but none obvious as I see them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 14, 2023 16:43:55 GMT -5
If anything in particular set Parker’s health back between 1932 and 1936, it was his insurmountable ego, exacting the kind of control over him that eventually proved fatal. Unless anyone else has any questions about what I've written, I am just going to iso on this particular point you've made above... Exactly what documents have you read that you are relying on here? Certainly, you aren't relying on Dr. Longsdorf's letter to Parker about his health or his Official Report about Parker's condition. Nor could you have read Dr. Mack's 11 page forensic evaluation on it. So please tell me what you are relying on. Perhaps its something in the Trial Transcripts? Give me the page so I can look it up. Or is it from a report? Please advise so I can review whatever it is you are getting your information from.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 16, 2023 9:39:19 GMT -5
Michael, I haven’t read Dr. Longsdorf’s letter or Dr. Mack’s 11-page forensic evaluation, but I am curious as to how they might better help to assess Ellis Parker’s true state of mind between 1932 and 1936. It’s also important to remember Parker lived an additional four years beyond the kidnapping of Paul Wendel, so any indications due to cause of death, might not be related to the time in question.
My background information comes primarily from John Reisinger’s book, ‘Master Detective.’ It certainly appears to me that Wendel was feeding Parker information to keep himself involved and employed. It’s not difficult to conclude from this that Parker, had he not been kept in relative darkness by the investigative agencies and his lack of awareness of the case’s finer points, would quickly have concluded that Wendel had nothing to do with the kidnapping, and spared himself an immense amount of subsequent grief. Unfortunately, he allowed his ego to overcome his true detection abilities and any reasonable doubts he may have had with Wendel’s potential involvement, leading to a course of action that pulled him in deeper and deeper as Hauptmann’s execution neared, until he firmly believed he was on the right path. Even Ellis Jr., appeared to have experienced a similar breakdown of ethics and actions through his unshakeable belief that if his father said it was true, then it was true.
While there does appear to have been a significant shift within Parker’s mental health after the plan's collapse, I believe much of this could have been due to the very sudden “fall from grace” he personally experienced, following Wendel’s confession repudiation, and suddenly finding himself the hunted one. Many of Parker's actions and behaviours at this time, seem manic depressive in nature. The brain tumour which was the cause of his death in early 1940, unless it was very slow growing, appears to me more likely to have been a later development, brought about in part by the extreme 'life event' fallout of being incarcerated and losing his freedom.
|
|
|
Post by feffe08 on Aug 6, 2023 7:54:57 GMT -5
There was a rule in the household that the baby was to be put to bed at 8:00 in the evening. Then, at 10:00 the nurse was to go in and change him and put him back to bed for the night. Between 8:00 and 10:00 absolutely NO ONE was allowed in the nursery for ANY reason. From what I understand, this was an actual theory for raising children that was around in the 1920s and early 1930s. Not many people followed this theory and Lindbergh took it to the extreme. What better time to do the kidnapping! The only catch - you need to know about this rule. How did the kidnapper(s) find out?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 6, 2023 9:48:48 GMT -5
Hi feffe08, "How did the kidnappers find out?" Lindbergh told them. At least this is one of the theories supporting the notion of an "inside job." The family's last minute decision to stay an extra night at Highfields, the location of the nursery, the apparent postponement of the kidnap until the child was strong enough (from a ransom note) - the list goes on and on. All indicating an in-depth knowledge of the Lindbergh household and its internal dynamics which is hard to reconcile with an external hostile kidnapper somehow getting this key intelligence. If you haven't already read it "The case that never dies" by Lloyd Gardner is a thorough examination of these questions and many others. Recommended. Sherlock
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 6, 2023 10:31:22 GMT -5
Hi feffe08, "How did the kidnappers find out?" Lindbergh told them. At least this is one of the theories supporting the notion of an "inside job." The family's last minute decision to stay an extra night at Highfields, the location of the nursery, the apparent postponement of the kidnap until the child was strong enough (from a ransom note) - the list goes on and on. All indicating an in-depth knowledge of the Lindbergh household and its internal dynamics which is hard to reconcile with an external hostile kidnapper somehow getting this key intelligence. If you haven't already read it "The case that never dies" by Lloyd Gardner is a thorough examination of these questions and many others. Recommended. Sherlock Here's a great quote out of Dudley Schoenfeld's 'The Crime and the Criminal,' which I recommend as a highly undervalued and underappreciated book on this case. It's available for free at Ronelle Delmont's Lindbergh Case site. "What I considered of extreme importance was that the Lindbergh family, contrary to custom, were at Hopewell on a Tuesday although they had not expected to make such a lengthy stay. If members of the household had been participants in the crime, their plan would have taken in consideration the usual customs and practices of the family, not the unusual." (Dr. Dudley Schoenfeld)Simple, direct and to the point, without fanfare.. 'The List,' as you call it, indeed does go on and on, until each and every item within said list, is examined as closely as is required to eliminate all but one answer, ie. the truth.
|
|
|
Post by feffe08 on Aug 6, 2023 12:01:27 GMT -5
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 6, 2023 13:49:19 GMT -5
Here's a great quote out of Dudley Schoenfeld's 'The Crime and the Criminal,' which I recommend as a highly undervalued and underappreciated book on this case. It's available for free at Ronelle Delmont's Lindbergh Case site. "What I considered of extreme importance was that the Lindbergh family, contrary to custom, were at Hopewell on a Tuesday although they had not expected to make such a lengthy stay. If members of the household had been participants in the crime, their plan would have taken in consideration the usual customs and practices of the family, not the unusual." (Dr. Dudley Schoenfeld)Simple, direct and to the point, without fanfare.. 'The List,' as you call it, indeed does go on and on, until each and every item within said list, is examined as closely as is required to eliminate all but one answer, ie. the truth. The problem with Dr. Schoenfeld's assertion is that it assumes a lot about the "insiders." He never knew what we do now. Furthermore, could anyone reading this believe Gow, for example, was giving input as to when it should take place? Or advice about fingerprints? No, she'd be told to keep her mouth shut - or else... kinda like what Lindbergh was overheard threatening her. Or how about the fact concerning Lindbergh's reassurances to her by telling her she wouldn't be touched? I'm sure Schoenfeld wasn't aware of such things because his main source of information was coming from NY. Either way, when someone of any weight makes a prediction, you had better believe they are going to do everything they can to demonstrate they were absolutely correct once the time comes. It's a lot like politics.
In the end its a "catch-22." If outsiders were casing Highfields, as the only explanation for how certain things occurred, they would have also known the family shouldn't have been there on March 1. So either they were studying the routines or they weren't. Either way, the only real explanations are luck, inside help, or both.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 7, 2023 6:38:09 GMT -5
Here's a great quote out of Dudley Schoenfeld's 'The Crime and the Criminal,' which I recommend as a highly undervalued and underappreciated book on this case. It's available for free at Ronelle Delmont's Lindbergh Case site. "What I considered of extreme importance was that the Lindbergh family, contrary to custom, were at Hopewell on a Tuesday although they had not expected to make such a lengthy stay. If members of the household had been participants in the crime, their plan would have taken in consideration the usual customs and practices of the family, not the unusual." (Dr. Dudley Schoenfeld)Simple, direct and to the point, without fanfare.. 'The List,' as you call it, indeed does go on and on, until each and every item within said list, is examined as closely as is required to eliminate all but one answer, ie. the truth. The problem with Dr. Schoenfeld's assertion is that it assumes a lot about the "insiders." He never knew what we do now. Furthermore, could anyone reading this believe Gow, for example, was giving input as to when it should take place? Or advice about fingerprints? No, she'd be told to keep her mouth shut - or else... kinda like what Lindbergh was overheard threatening her. Or how about the fact concerning Lindbergh's reassurances to her by telling her she wouldn't be touched? I'm sure Schoenfeld wasn't aware of such things because his main source of information was coming from NY. Either way, when someone of any weight makes a prediction, you had better believe they are going to do everything they can to demonstrate they were absolutely correct once the time comes. It's a lot like politics.
In the end its a "catch-22." If outsiders were casing Highfields, as the only explanation for how certain things occurred, they would have also known the family shouldn't have been there on March 1. So either they were studying the routines or they weren't. Either way, the only real explanations are luck, inside help, or both.
I’ll start here with your second point, ie. the kidnapper(s) knowing the Lindberghs would be at Highfields on the night of March 1, 1932. Obviously, your general conclusion omits the possibility that the kidnapper did not understand that the Lindberghs were still only part-time residents of Hopewell. Further, your black-or-white comment that the kidnapper(s) were either studying the movements and routine of the household or they were not, therefore implying they knew conclusively one way or another, does not begin to explore the potential of what took place within prior surveillance, and that which took place on the evening of the crime. Among many other hats he wore, Dr. Dudley Schoenfeld, a well-know and respected NYC psychiatrist, would have considered what he believed to be of relevance within his work to profile the kidnapper / extortionist, based on his understanding of the ransom notes and those events which took place after March 1, 1932. Remember, he had the ear of both Lt. James Finn and Captain Richard Oliver of the NYPD, and probably learned things about the investigation that we might never know. Regardless, I'm sure he would have been very diligent in addressing each and every one of your own concerns for their actual significance, if you'd had the opportunity to express them at the time. And while you're implying that Schoenfeld would have done everything he could to demonstrate they were absolutely correct once the time came, ie. Hauptmann's apprehension, why don't we let the good doctor speak here for himself, as he did within this memorandum to Captain Oliver and Lt. James Finn of the NYPD, dated November 10, 1932, approximately 22 months prior to the arrest of Richard Hauptmann. Note: Third paragraph, which reads in part, “Rejection of part should no mean complete rejection of the whole.” I leave it to the individual to determine what they feel is important from the below passage from The Crime and the Criminal, and hope it will lead to further overall discussion: (continued in next post)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 7, 2023 6:41:03 GMT -5
|
|