Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jan 14, 2007 19:01:12 GMT -5
Hi Mairi, from what I recall with the two section ladder setup and with the ladder footings in the found imprints, the right hand rail of the ladder is positioned just to the right of a vertical line extending downwards from the rightmost edge of the nursery window. Hope that makes sense and it's a lot easier to explain by diagram! Can anyone else confirm or correct this?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 14, 2007 21:19:36 GMT -5
Hi Joe~Thank you for your response. Don't you wish we could draw/sketch on the board ! I've been so undone because i can't visualize the lay of the land of the Highfields property! Have looked and looked at Ariel photos trying to get a fix on it. Would love to know where the ladder was afterward, how Featherbed Lane lays in relation to the driveway. I think I see other paths leading away from the house, but maybe that's not what they are. I stay in a pure fog! Which reminds me--that nice photo you added showing the start of F. Lane--was that paved road later named for Lindbergh? Did it have an earlier name back in time--at the time of the kidnapping? Thanx again.
|
|
|
Post by rick for Michael on Jan 14, 2007 22:07:22 GMT -5
Essentially, my point is "you cant make a gold purse out of a sows ear" or "masterminds have to have a track record".
Sadly, whatever imperfect methods have been used for 75 years are clearly not leading to a re-solution? Maybe the process of elimination narrows the field to a manageable number?
Wendel was not really successful at anything short of being arrested? His phoney confessions dont hold even a drop of water. The timing reveals only a despirate attempt to prevent the execution of BRH OR a dropping of his charges as was seen with Rosner/Bitz/Spitale/Madden--not a valid confession? Wendel , unlike Alfred Jones, did not implicate even one other person--making him and his confession just another red herring? Even Wendel makes a very unlikely Lone Wolf Kidnapper? Wendel is a screwup who writes bad checks.
You dont become an instant Mastermind in one fell swoop during a kidnap. This pretty much eliminates Condon/Wendel/and BRH. This leaves CAL/ Nosovitsky and Capone? That is a 50% reduction right there.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 15, 2007 8:23:59 GMT -5
Hi Mairi and Joe Mairi regarding the additional rungs, no they would not interfere with the nesting of the sections. Actually the spacing is not difficult to climb if you are of average or above in height and in good shape. But descending at night and with a passenger, well I don't know about that. Also the greater spacing of the rungs really hurts if one has to perform a work function such as manipulating the locks and latches. That is were you really want to be at an optimum working position. It makes me pretty sure that no such operation would be necessary that night.
As for the ladder location ( holes) , the only measurement I trust here is what I can see. Kelly's photo shows the left rail hole to be about 16" from the end of the plank. That puts the left rail a few inches to the left of the right side of the masonry opening. Also, please remember that this ladder is not rigid by any means. You can foot it in position and still get the top over a foot or so. Actually there are several photos which show this going on.
Joe, I think everything I said in regard to the holes would hold true for the placement on the board walk as well. Any major shift in force it going to leave a resulting mark.
Mairi, have you tried Google satellite maps? I use it all the time to give an overview of the various orientations and directions. You can see Highfields and Featherbed clearly. I have an official survey of the property, but it has to be reduced for scanning.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 15, 2007 10:12:19 GMT -5
Here's a good map from Rutgers University: mapmaker.rutgers.edu/MERCER_COUNTY/MercerCounty_1938.jpgAnd Liz Pagel turned me on to the Topozone Maps: www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=40.42009&lon=-74.7621&datum=nad27&u=4&layer=DRG&size=l&s=50This map is good because you can actually see Highfields on it. Additionally, you can see how far Featherbed Lane is to the South. You can also see Lindbergh Lane which branches off from the Main Road. This "Main Road" is sometimes referred to as "Hopewell-Wertsville Rd" but its really "Hopewell-Amwell Rd." www.topozone.com/states/NewJersey.asp?county=MercerWhat isn't shown are the various unbeaten and old roads which surrounded and circled the Lindbergh property. The route of the Kidnapper(s) who carried the ladder was toward this unbeaten road at about a 30 degree SE angle off from the Nursery window. H-A Rd was due E and Featherbed was due S. Rick - I am sure a lot of people could have planned this event without actually having a physical hand in it. Wendel was a serious loser despite all the resources he had. He was involved in counterfeiting but never got hemmed up for that because his co-conspirator kept his mouth shut.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 15, 2007 17:35:58 GMT -5
Michael and Kevkon~GREAT! Thank you all so much for the good map info! Can't tell you how much this helps to remove my "geographic blinders" . Now I can run the roads of the LKC! Thanx, too, for the additional ladder details. Rick~ I'm mighty interested in Nosovitsky. Some one--Behn, maybe-- listed numerous aliases he used. Joe had that good post on Jimmy Faulkner up in Canada. The name Jacob goes to the name James, with James to the nickname Jimmy. Is this a false name being built on a bit of truth(?) Would love to be able to link Nosovitsky's last tracks in the US with Faulkner first showing up in Canada and if I recall spending some big bucks. I don't think I've ever seen linkage of Noso and Fisch(money launderer), but they both lived in same area at least part of the time. Then there was Pat's Uncle Dinny recounting that Noso asked if Condon had any scandal to his name.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 16, 2007 9:10:20 GMT -5
Mairi, don't overlook EBay. I have found some really good 1932 local road maps there. They are very helpful as most indicate the quality of the road network as it existed then. Also some road names and designations have changed since and this can lead to confusion. I am lucky enough to be able to drive over to Highfields when I wish, but it is still confusing without having a 1932 reference.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 16, 2007 14:51:56 GMT -5
Kevkon~ Thank you again for the map hints.Haven't been on EBay, but more and more i hear about the amazing and unique items on there. Will have to take a look. Am also thinking of Michael's wish to find a good map to tag with the car/car&ladder sightings. Sounds like a good project-maybe he could find a good map there, too. The old maps, as you say, would be particularly helpful. That is really something that you can readily go to Highfields from where you live! It must lend alot of reality to what others can only read about.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 10, 2008 7:55:47 GMT -5
Here's a review of what we know from my perspective : The initial Police reaction was that: - There were at least two people outside of the home.
- An inside connection.
- A local connection.
- The ladder was a prop.
I believe all of these initial positions should be closely looked at because its before Lindbergh takes over the investigation and/or begins to alter its course. What Kevin says is important. If the sole purpose of this ladder was merely to be used as "throw down" evidence then all of the effort placed into making this ladder meet specific criteria doesn't make sense. However, as I have said before, it is possible it was intended to be left behind after it was used. The fact the nursery was left so nice and neat should be addressed..... Why was it? It was dark, and supposedly entered via the window - yet none of the obstacles were moved or knocked over. How's a stranger do this without knowledge and/or a light source? Additionally, why is this/these people so careful to leave everything in perfect order? The ladder being left behind is a somewhat sloppy move and isn't consistent with the nursery invasion is it? All fingerprints around the area supposedly entered were gone...to include the occupants who had just had there very own hands there. Why? The Kidnapper(s) wearing gloves doesn't explain this. No evidence of the shutter being engaged by a tool. This means the Kidnappers expected it to be unlocked or expected to make a lot of noise accessing it by somehow dis-engaging the slide-bolt. Neither was the window sill touched by any tool to unlock it. Again, as evidenced by Kevin's research and expertise these people were either prepared to break the glass and/or some other loud and destructive act OR knew it was unlocked. There's no way I'll ever believe they arrived there hoping these two obstacles were simply open. Now the ladder was up against that house. We have marks on the wall consistent with the 2 sections AND we have a big chunk of mud on the top of the bottom shutter. This mud shows at least one foot has a good amount on it. Yet, we have only a slight smudge on the top of the suitcase and a very faint trace of another supposedly heading toward the crib. Nothing anywhere else to include on the way back from the crib. That, and the ransom note are our only clues an invader had been there. Throw in the factor that Thayer wrote in his report the print in the middle of the floor was actually Anne's consistent with her golf shoe and now we have even less. I am convinced the ladder design, thanks to Kevin, was meant for the 3rd section to fit into the shutter louvers to reduce the lateral instability that existed if leaning freely against the house - especially in a wind storm. This design proves it was meant to be used. These people approached the house from either the front or the back (or both) and utilized the board-walk. This again proves planing and foresight...not to mention a light source. The footprint evidence, minus one print at the base of the ladder, all point and lead away from the nursery window. I have no doubt in my mind that this was not a 1-man job. I believe at least 2 cars are involved. I also strongly believe there was an inside connection. As far as a local being involved I find that interesting and consider that a possibility. It's very possible the child was handed out of the window to the Kidnapper on the ladder and the note given to someone who place it on the sill and closed the window. This person then wiped the window to eliminate their prints so as not to be implicated. It's also possible the invader could have entered via the window and left via one of the doors, however, I find this less likely but it should be mentioned because of was said by Curtis, Lindy, and Hauptmann. Now concerning the ladder..... The more I think about it the more I believe it was left behind on purpose as was the chisel. We know, thanks to Kevin, this 3/4" chisel would have served no purpose in gaining entrance to either the locked shutter or the locked window. So why did they bring it along? Would they have brought extra tools which would have served no purpose or was this as well thought out as the design of the ladder? I say well thought out. Which means these items were left behind on purpose. And if so the ladder served a duel purpose which is consistent with the complexity which surrounds its design. The chisel, it could be explained, was meant to be utilized to gain entrance but wasn't when they 'discovered' nothing was locked. Here is one of MMs classic posts on our current thread. The four main points: - There were at least two people outside of the home.
I am assuming this is due to two sets of footprints, one large one small, possibly a womans?
- An inside connection.
This help is needed to signal or indicate which window is Charlie Jrs, to hand Charlie out the window or front door, maybe to give Charlie a quieting drug, and to clean up after placing the ransom note on the ledge?
- A local connection. this one puzzles me? how local is local? Like someone who "lives" at Highfields?
Someone who owns a shack like Antonio Chowlewsky or Shippell to hide Charlie Jr? Or because of Mercer County on license plate?
- The ladder was a prop.
I totally agree here and it was left to "prove" a climbing kidnap. Likely it failed on its maiden voyage just like the Titanic? Maybe the test climber exceeded the weight of the designers specs? [/li][li] [/li][li] [/list]
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 10, 2008 14:50:05 GMT -5
What's the point of having two people outside the house if the ladder is a prop? I guess I just have a hard time following the logic or reasoning behind these assertions. I mean, everyone is surely welcome to think as they like. I just don't see any reason to take a purposefully built unique ladder left at a distance from the house and opine that it must be a ruse. A ruse so diabolical, I might add, that the perpetrators even had foresight to break it at the joint in just such a manner that the break would occur while being climbed. So we disregard the ladder marks in the soil or was that part of this ruse as well? Does that go for the marks on the wall as well? If so, we know have two people setting up a ladder, climbing it, breaking it, and removing it to a spot 75ft away. And the reason for all of this is what? Why not just use it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 10, 2008 16:02:30 GMT -5
The original thought is that those small prints were Anne's because she claimed to been walking there. No one ever checked out her shoes against those prints. Next we had a "double set" of prints leading away from Highfields. These were assumed to have been made by two people.
The ladder was utilized in some way. I agree with Kevin that it was just too precise and well thought out not to have been meant to be used in some way. I see what Ho-age is saying as important. He did a ton of insurance fraud cases and for him to say he's never seen anyone do this (e.g. removing the ladder) then I see some worth to it. Why did they remove it only to leave it behind anyway? I've seen it suggested that Lindbergh "interrupted" them, and they panicked. And they never seemed to mind the whole house was up and about while they were taking their time perpetrating this crime. Either way, they certainly weren't seen by Lindbergh.
But what then, it must be asked, was the supposed sound Lindbergh heard which history records as the ladder breaking?
An insider might have provided valuable information. They may have drawn a map, outlined the proper routes, to include the window and boardwalk below. They would ensure the window was unlocked and the "coast was clear" before possibly signaling their contacts waiting outside. We know for certain at least one criminal was there at 6PM. The insider may also have done certain things to show the route taken by the criminals such as wiping down that window area, and leaving smudges of mud in the room. There was quite a lot of discussion during the trial about the mud on the ladder rungs (or lack thereof). Ho-age would ask why there's a smudge on the suitcase but nothing knocked over and the next smudge over 6 feet away between the window and the crib. An insider may have drugged the toddler, may have made sure the dog wasn't around, or even handed the child out the window to the waiting arms of the criminals.
A lot of speculation but too many things going on at the crime scene for my crediting it to a Lone-Wolf Immigrant Carpenter from the Bronx.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 10, 2008 16:53:14 GMT -5
It doesn't have to be a choice between a "lone wolf" or an "insider". Nor does the "insider" have to be an active participant in the crime. That's more or less my position and it's based on this; Any accomplice among the household staff actively participating in the removal of the child from that room would be extremely vulnerable if they intended to stick around. And there really is no reason for an accomplice in that Nursery. Any second story man is comfortable using a ladder and more than capable of removing quite a lot without someone inside helping. The fact that the choice was made to commit this crime in the manner it was shows a degree of comfort with a second floor window entry and a ladder. If such was not the case I am sure that another means would be employed which required no climbing. It's that simple. If you are not comfortable with the use of a ladder, you simply don't make your plans include one. And if you are comfortable with using a ladder, there isn't much that will stop you from completing your task.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 11, 2008 5:32:29 GMT -5
I totally agree with your logic and the possibilities included therein.
I think anyone involved would have weighed the risk and believed they could get away with it. That's the bottom line here... you don't do something like this knowing your are going to get caught. And as it turns out, the Staff at both Next Day Hill and Highfields were protected by Lindbergh. Ellerson told Hoffman that he respected CAL to the Nth degree because of his efforts to protect the Staff.
Here we disagree. Even if this was on the ground floor, if one considers all that must be known (surroundings, timing, people, dog, etc.) it requires help. On the 2nd floor without help in my opinion would be impossible or extremely lucky. This crime doesn't strike me as one perpetrated by someone counting on luck as their accomplice. The ladder design proves that to me.
Or they would know in this situation, or as the situation dictated - they needed help from the inside. See my point? No one should have been comfortable with this particular scenario.
Comfort... Agreed. But why they are so comfortable in this impossible situation is the question.
But does being comfortable on a ladder give you the ability to get around all the obstacles, pitfalls, dangers, and impossibilities one would face other then its use? How does its use explain the scenario without help?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 11, 2008 6:23:26 GMT -5
Why so? Don't crimes, even spectacular ones, get committed all the time with out a 100% guarantee of not getting caught? Maybe that's why rational people don't become criminals as often, we perceive the risk.
But why? Are there not many instances of burglary where an intruder enters a home without the help of the inhabitants?
Ok, let me ask all a question. Let's say for a moment that we change one element of this crime. Instead of an abduction, we have a burglary. CAL jr is safe, but the Lindbergh house is missing some possessions. Everything else not related to the abduction remains the same. Would you still think it impossible to undertake without an insider? I doubt we would even know that the crime occurred.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 11, 2008 16:08:19 GMT -5
Sure they do. But isn't this a little different? We're not talking a drug dealer wondering if the guy he's selling to might be an undercover cop. Look at the complexity of this crime. The totality of the circumstances make it look impossible yet we both agree they seem awful knowledgeable and comfortable.
But again, what are the circumstances? What did the crime scene say about their actions? For me its a case by case comparison and I just don't see the same variables. Do you know of any cases to compare with this?
Yes - if the exact movements occurred as they did that night. Admittedly, I'd have a weaker case if it was just a burglary because then there's no note, and no situation of a spoiled screaming-type toddler to also contend with.
|
|
|
Post by fgreenwiscedu on Jun 11, 2008 17:14:18 GMT -5
Kevin--given that all the facts have not changed one wit since Al Dunlap and the Police Cheifs Association called it an "Inside Job" in 1933 have changed. Its still impossible given the rickety ladder, the position of the ladder, the height to the window, the lack of mud, the shutters, the window up and down, the trunk, the toys, the beer stein, the condition of the Nursery eg pristine, the Whole Ball of Wax from Stem to Stern = Impossible! Just the physics of swinging up to the window and finding the ladder again over to the right on the way back down defies physics in the dark without a holder and all resonable logic with CAL in the Library as an earwitness right inside. There is no evidence of any B and E on this rainy windy muddy nite....there might have been but there just wasnt. Sorry/ its a long standing myth.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 11, 2008 17:54:38 GMT -5
Kevin raises a very interesting point......if Charlie Jr. was not reported missing, with an envelope on the window ledge and a ladder and chisel out on the lawn--then noone would have ever known there was any 2nd storey job at all because the remaining forensic evidence is far to scant to prove even a burglary, let alone any kidnapping? Why is that? Did the insider(s) do too good a job of clean-up or what? Did they just assume (incorrectly) that if you cry Wolf! or Fire! that everyone would believe them? No blood, no fingerprints, no mud, no real footprints, no mess no bother? the least they could have done is pry up the window with the now Famous chisel? or bump the trunk a few inches? Ruffle the covers? [JFC even lied about the safety pins] Its almost as if Spiderman or The Invisible Man stole lil Charlie Jr.? Or he just Vanished into thin air w/o a trace?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 11, 2008 20:57:02 GMT -5
Why? Hasn't this happened ( second story break-in) successfully many times? The issue of a screaming child is moot. He's gonna scream with or without an insider at some point and in either case he must be silenced.
Let's see, a ladder, footprints, ladder prints, ladder wall scrape, mud on shutter, mud in nursery, missing child, note, toy knocked over, .......
Sorry Rick, you are just dead wrong in your assertion of an impossible entry. I've spent enough time on ladders in extremely awkward situations to know so. So as hard as it might be for you to believe ( or want to) , it is possible for a human to scale a ladder and get into a window a whopping 15 ft above grade.
Are you serious?
I have to say that I find all of this kinda amusing. I mean look at this debate over an intruder getting into a second story window. Some seem to find such an action, undetected, to be beyond the scope of human endeavor and certainly beyond all reasonable odds. Yet, at the same time enormously complex conspiracy theories involving organized crime, foreign powers, police agencies, psychics, and who knows who else, are considered to be plausible. And to boot, the evidence is dismissed or selectively ignored.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 11, 2008 22:01:28 GMT -5
I think this is a good point. IF these things were true I would agree.
I would say it has, however, these circumstances are different from the cases I am aware of. Ho-age investigated a few that I have read about too. He also seems to agree with Rick's assertion that the smudges, and ransom note were probably staged to direct people towards that window then out to the footprints and ladder. Not that an Outsider wasn't involved but rather that an Insider was not.
Nothing in the room was disturbed. The toy wasn't knocked over, although there was some debate whether a toy had been moved originally or by the Police but I think it was understood that it had been moved by someone other then an intruder.
I can't agree. Especially if we assume it wasn't meant to be a kidnapping but instead an burglary. Wouldn't that mean they didn't expect the toddler to be in that room? Climbing through that window would alarm anyone - now consider you have a child who shrieks when even his Mother tries to pick him up. Only Betty was blessed with the ability to approach that child without any negative response. No one heard him cry that night unless you believe Anne did after she threw open the window.
For my money it means he never woke up because he was already dead, or drugged. Or Betty had been the one to pick him up while he was awake.
Can we honestly assign Hauptmann all of these "gifts" in order to pull this off? To name a few:
Knowing how to get to Highfields. Knowing the Security Guard had been let go. Knowing the family routine, and that it changed. Knowing the shutter is warped. Knowing the window is unlocked. Knowing exactly where the boardwalk was. Knowing the exact height of the window. Knowing the exact time to strike. Knowing the dog wasn't in that area of the house. Entering the window without disturbing anything. Entering the window without making a sound. Walking to the crib without walking into anything in the dark that was in his path. Not waking the child. Not leaving any fingerprints and/or wiping down the window area. Leaving only (3) faint smudges of mud one 6 feet away from the other supposedly being a footprint. Picking up the child and retracing his steps without doing any of the previously mentioned things. Exiting, and leaving note, or exiting then disassembling ladder to re-climb then leave the note (assuming he forgot to leave it in the crib). Closing the window. Carrying ladder 70-75 feet away along with the child. Leaving it on the ground parallel along with the chisel. Apparently takes the time to stop and remove sleeping suit from child in the middle of Lindbergh Lane but then walks all the way to Featherbed Lane, in the opposite direction, to his car.
Ho-age's point about removing the ladder is making more and more sense. Why close the window? If your attention to detail is so great why not place the ransom note in the crib? Leaving it on the sill indicates the window was used - so why close it? Why move that ladder?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 12, 2008 7:13:20 GMT -5
Why would they expect that? It's a weekend house. In any case the child must be silenced. Does it really matter if an insider does it first?
Who would you prefer to assign them to? Pick a name. It doesn't matter to me if it's Hauptmann or not. Because, like it or not, they must be ascribed to someone.
Why is it so hard to imagine someone entering a room via a second floor window? Mark actually mentioned a crime in one of his great blogs in which an intruder entered a guarded estate and robbed the couple while they slept! Hard as it is to believe, it happens. And people who perpetrate such crimes are usually comfortable with it and adept at doing it. Hey, I'm not looking for agreement with my theory, I don't expect it. I knew the minute I thought about it that it would not appeal to anyone. Afterall, this is "The Crime of The Century". There's no way anything about it can be simple, right? I mean there's just no way that a couple of guys could have cased the joint, decided to strike on a weekday when the Lindbergh's were away, saw the unlatched shutter, and entered through a window. Can you just imagine that? How could a person climb a ladder and get into a house anyway?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 12, 2008 8:59:46 GMT -5
kevin...Hillory Clinton would be proud of you! Never give up, never concede a "mm" and never cry Uncle no matter what the odds or the math. Just fight on blindly and indefinately in the face of insurmountable odds: - Because its early evening and everyone is home and UP?
- Because there is a light on in the library under the window you have randomly picked as your target?
- Because CAL comes home unexpectedly at 8:25!!! (unless Charlie was long gone much earlier.....)
- These are all very high risk choices--unless you have some insurance policy on the inside?
Michael--what is the Cornell link???
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 12, 2008 14:18:18 GMT -5
Don't care about odds, Rick. Don't much care about Hillary Clinton either. Don't put me on the spot for suggesting that which has occurred numerous times is somehow impossible in this case. Your the one who finds the most outlandish and bizarre explanation to every aspect of this case. It's you who should be defending these extreme positions. Only in this case does the most complicated explanation seem to not only be acceptable, but welcome as well. - There is an entry from the outside via a window and by use of a ladder. You don't think so? Then the burden is on you, not me to explain the evidence to the contrary. You think it more reasonable that someone built this one of a kind ladder, trucked to the house, placed it against the house, climbed it, broke it, and then removed it just to have a go at the cops? Maybe you should give Hillary a call.
- Hard as it is to believe, break-ins do occur when people are home and they do sometimes without the knowledge of the occupants. That's a fact Rick. If you want specific cases, I will provide them.
- Believe it or not, not all criminals are intellectuals who think out each and every action and the ramifications.
Also lets stop playing games with the facts. - Just how disturbed should a simple Nursery be to satisfy everyone? So if the screen were knocked over, everyone would be satisfied?
- How much mud should be that room? How much would you like? Multiple people came in after the crime, did they track mud in? Look at Kelly's photo of the ladder imprints (you know the imprints from the ladder that wasn't used). Tell me that photo shows wet loose mud. It doesn't. The soil still appears relatively firm.
- The fingerprint nonsense. Lack of identifiable prints does not, repeat does not mean that the Nursery was "wiped down". Check with a forensic technician, I did.
- Who knows what light was on at the time of the entry and how much of a problem that posed?
Hey, I sure don't have all the answers. I just put a simple question out for everyone to answer. I'll ask it again. If the child was not there and not abducted, would anyone find an undetected entry into the Lindbergh home to be impossible?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 12, 2008 15:21:12 GMT -5
Exactly, they wouldn't barring inside help and/or an unplanned event where they just got lucky. So which was it do you think?
Now if it were a burglary attempt, which was planned, they would have not expected a child in that room. They are crawling through the window and the child starts to cry. They race across the floor to shut him up. Sounds good but that didn't happen did it? No one heard the baby cry. No one ran into anything that stood between them and the crib in the darkness blinding their eyes while the fear & alarm shot through their body like a bolt of lightning. All we have is the ransom note, two smudges near the window, then 6 six feet away toward the crib another smudge. No sounds or disturbances whatsoever.
Yes they must be assigned but they cannot all be assigned to one person in my opinion. That's my point, include Hauptmann in the mix if you want to but there are others involved.
I can't recall one original Investigator of this crime, not one, who believed this was a one-man job. Simply look at the Curtis Trial and you will see the evidence of that. Wilson's testimony alone does a real good job of exemplifying that. Why the Defense didn't use this case to their benefit I will never understand.
It's in the Member's Section. You can search old copies of their newspapers for free. There's some Lindbergh material that has been digitized in there as well as a bunch of other stuff to be found.
I would expect to find enough mud consistent with the chunk found on top of that lower shutter. If that came off an Intruders foot then I say there should have been more then what existed in that room. As to the other question - I would assume those who entered the house through the front door wiped their feet.
Kevin - how do you envision that mud getting onto the top of that shutter? Just curious because I am not sure.
The documentation says "no prints" were found. None. It's the one thing down through the years that had the Troopers scratching their heads. It was understood among the Investigators it had to have been wiped down - I am convinced of that. Perhaps that wasn't the case but its what they believed at the time.
Personally, I would expect someone not having ever been in this Nursery, crawling through the window in the darkness, would probably knock something over. The stein perhaps. Who would expect those items just under the sill? The table & chairs in the middle of the room....the screen. They avoided everything, went straight to the child, then ripped him out from under the covers, then repeated their feat with child in tow and ransom note to drop off on the sill. Too much for me to swallow when all other variables are considered. Next throw in the fact I believe the Moore's saw one of them leaving I believe they went right in at 8PM.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 12, 2008 19:48:55 GMT -5
Why? How can we assume this? The windows are partly open and it's windy, did this cause the child to wake up and cry? Truth is, no one can say for certain what noises would or wouldn't disturb the baby nor what noises were generated in the course of entering the room.
I don't remember ever saying anything to the contrary.
As I said, the use of the term mud can be misleading. Kelly's photo clearly shows soil that is solid. So yes, one would pick up some depending on the type of shoes. But it could be quite less then what I think some imagine. Yes, they may have wiped their shoes. That's exactly what happens when you climb a ladder with 3/4" thick cleats. And that's probably how a chunk ended up on the top of the shutter.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 13, 2008 17:13:50 GMT -5
Using how many sections? Was the angle of that ladder and its placement give the climber the ability to step over in order to wipe one foot off?
How much mud was found on the cleats?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jun 14, 2008 9:59:30 GMT -5
Hi, Did Harold Nicholson write a book? Are were his observations contained in letters? Thanx
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 14, 2008 19:41:58 GMT -5
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jun 14, 2008 21:06:57 GMT -5
Thanks, Kevkon--for the information and the correct spelling of the author's name. I'll pass that along to one of my daughters who is becoming interested in the case. She just ordered Berg's book-(which I hope to borrow sometimes
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 15, 2008 7:40:07 GMT -5
No problem Mairi. Glad to see a new generation getting interested. Nicolson is actually an extremely interesting figure. And for those of you who like the international conspiracy angle, look at his association with Sir Oswald Mosley, founder of the British Union of Fascists ( BUF). Actually Nicolson parted ways over this, but that shouldn't stop anyone who likes a good Nazi conspiracy!
How much mud should be on such narrow cleats on a ladder that has been moved and dropped? I really think the key here is Kelly's ladder impressions photo. Look at the condition of the soil, it is pretty firm. As for how many sections, I don't think in this regard it can be determined, though with the third section the ladder is at a steeper angle and the cleats get closer to the wall.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 15, 2008 18:43:11 GMT -5
It does give that impression but the stories coming from those who were there made it sound like it was "oozing" ... Perhaps in was in other places. And somewhere for whoever left that "chunk" of mud behind on top of that shutter. That's why I am asking because I would assume whoever left the mud there probably had one foot on the ladder and one on the top of the shutter. Unless it simple fell off the bottom of their shoes as they entered the Nursery window and it just as a matter of luck fell on top (and stayed there) of the shutter. I think its important to figure out which, especially if the ladder is too far away from the house for this stepping maneuver. Then the next question would be why they would do that, and if so, how the ladder did not topple over once they attempted to place the left foot back onto the ladder again. Unless of course someone was holding it. Just thinking out loud and hoping for some opinions on the matter. In this photo you can get a good idea about the distance with (3) sections in use and if you look carefully the mud is still on top of that shutter: www.jamd.com/image/g/2696347
|
|