Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 7, 2006 12:24:46 GMT -5
Michael, my point about Lindbergh not touching the envelope, is not in part based upon him knowing whether or not it contained fingerprints, but rather the fact of him highlighting the possibility, an action which would have then been recorded in the course of subsequent investigation.
You are right when I imply that if there was insider help to wipe down the nursery then Lindbergh would have been party to that exercise alone. But as I've said before, I see no motive or anyone in that household capable of participating in the coverup of a staged kidnapping and then holding together as they did so coherently in the aftermath.
Kevin's point is a very valid one. For an insider to have knowingly wiped down the nursery crime scene just prior to the arrival of a fingerprint man would be like handing the police a short list of suspects on a silver platter.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 7, 2006 12:32:45 GMT -5
Michael, I don't think even Sherlock Holmes could make much headway given the uncertainty of the "recorded" crime scene. I would still ask; would an insider leave the scene in such a state that so many doubts were and still are present regarding the entry? It would certainly be easy enough to make it seem obvious that an outside entry was achieved. As for what might or might not be disturbed, I think there is only one way to determine that; RE-ENACTMENT.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Oct 7, 2006 13:04:07 GMT -5
Michael, where does Parker make that comment, or is quoted? In the recent book? We can all agree, I think, however much we branch off from that point, that the near-pristine condition of the nursery startled investigators and has led to speculation for near 75 years.
Kevin's point that wiping away prints where you would expect them to be actually would have the reverse effect and focus on the house residents is an excellent one. We do not know, as I suggested before, how comprehensive the print test was. One would assume that it would cover the window area and the crib. But to say there were "no prints" might well be simply a reference to those areas -- not the whole room. That puts things in a slightly different light. The "wiper-down" (if there was one) would also be concerned only about the critical area, leaving it to the police to find normal prints elsewhere, or he might have believed that his work would only leave smudges. If fingerprint technicians have trouble with such questions, why do we assume that the perp had to be more than perfect in this regard?
Here is a little query based on Kevin's wonderment that they should have fooled around with the shutter at all. Shouldn't there have been prints from Betty and Anne around the window, and wouldn't a test for prints on the French window have told us what we want to know? I.E. if the strategic area had been wiped down, and others left alone.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 7, 2006 13:19:02 GMT -5
It seems possible to me that CAL could have also admonished the household not to touch anything in the nursery, so as not to obliterate kidnapper finger prints,but prints had already been wiped down. As to the mud in crib, I , too, have wondered if that was just rumor which came around to seeming like fact in the retelling. Inasmuch as the Lindberghs were feeding many people, I'm guessing O. Whateley would have probably been the go-fer to town. He would have had opportunity to communicate to kidnappers throughout. Somewhere it's stated that he appeared very nervous, (which anyone could have been in the circumstances). Michael~ can you tell me when and how either kidnappers or CJ made reference to dealing with the people down"soud"(south). Have hunted and hunted for it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 7, 2006 14:46:27 GMT -5
Good point WC Here is the infamous window. I have enlarged, sharpened, and adjusted the contrast; www.imagecabin.com/?view=160249559ce1b7c6dc7f932dbNote the unlocked position and the meeting rail on the upper sash is slightly lower and visible. That indicates the upper sash is open ( the lower is visibly closed), the same condition found on the other double hung window. Also note that these windows have no lift handles. You can try this out for yourself if you have a double hung window, but usually people lift up the lower sash with their palms under the meeting rail and close it with their fingers on the top of that rail. For the upper sash the same method is usually used but on the muntin ( cross bar). What I find intersting about the upper sash being ajar is that as I said previously one would probably have to access the shutter latch through the upper sash. If your intention was to then leave the window open a bit, it would make sense to leave the upper sash open rather than closing it and then opening the bottom sash. I am interested to see if you take this where I think you might
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 7, 2006 15:47:27 GMT -5
Mairi - to answer your first point.... Kelly was able to raise prints and partials elsewhere in the house using the black powder method (same as what he used on the nursery window and sill. Lt. Hicks was able to raise the baby's prints on the railing in the hallway in June (!!!) using the black powder method. Your 2nd question has multiple answers.... Bronx Grand Jury Testimony 5-14-32 page 20: He told me the baby is not in Norfolk, Virginia nor in the north, "We relay the baby from one boat to another". In the summer of '34 Condon was asked to prepare a complete transcripts concerning his various conversations with John. By August of '34 he turns over copies to J. Edgar Hoover by Special Agent Sisk: Tell Colonel Lindbergh he's wasting his time with those people down soud; they are not the 'ride' parties. Condon's statement to Cpl. Leon's dated 6-26-34: At this time he told me to tell Col. Lindbergh not to pay any attention to the other gang, meaning Curtis, as they were not the right parties, and told me that he would send me evidence to prove that they had the baby. Reference is also found in Finn's articles and Condon's Liberty articles.... WC - I was referring to Parker's methods as exemplified in John's book and other sources where he seemed to understand and make sense of those things that didn't. It was an ability he had to see exactly what occurred despite the result being the efforts of someone to suggest something else. You are right in saying the entire nursery wasn't "wiped down." There is no evidence of that.... Joe - if there was inside help how would Lindbergh 'know' that? Kevin - Let's suppose the "inside help" was Gow. How many of these type of crimes do you believe she had been involved in? She may have thought it a good idea to remove her prints from there. Or, maybe thought it would make it look like a professional job if the area had been wiped down, etc. The other thing is that we assume the Kidnapper(s) wore gloves...Heck, maybe they didn't and they wiped down the area they knew they had touched. Let me quote Dr. Hudson's Liberty Article One Year After: A point of great importance rested in the absence of any fingerprints on the nursery window and its remarkably broad sill. Kelly had powdered it a few hours after the kidnapping. No prints were found, although Betty Gow, the child's nurse, and Mrs. Lindbergh had opened and closed the window that same night. Miss Gow had rubbed the child's chest with an ointment the oleaginous base of which would have augmented the secretion of the finger ridges in leaving clear prints. Of course there would have been older prints as well. The reason Kelly failed to get all these prints was because they must have been washed off. Some one with a pail of water and cloth undoubtedly bathed those spots where fingerprints must have been left. They did so between the time Betty Gow put the baby to bed and about four hours later, when Kelly began investigating.
It is ludicrous to to suppose that the kidnapper climbed the ladder with a pail and rag and descended with this in one hand and the baby in the other. it is equally unreasonable to suppose that any one alien to the household, wearing gloves, as the prosecution contended the kidnapper did, would have any interest in eliminating the normal fingerprints found in the nursery.
Bluntly, the absence of fingerprints on the window proves conclusively that others than Hauptmann were involved; that the kidnapper had an accomplice probably within the Lindbergh household. Major Schoeffel of the state police called my attention to this fact when he told me,
"Doctor, I cannot understand and Kelly cannot understand why the fingerprints of Betty Gow were not on that window."
Miss Gow even showed Kelly where her hand was placed on the window. No reflection whatever is cast upon Miss Gow, least of all that she may have been an accomplice. Hauptmann's counsel, during the trial, made a grievous error in attempting to belittle the fingerprint work of Sergent Kelly and Louis Kubler, Kelly's associate, both of whom, considering their equipment and experience, did an excellent job.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Oct 7, 2006 16:07:47 GMT -5
Kevin, where shall we take it? I would offer this thought. An effort is made to close and hitch the shutter, then the upper sash is pushed toward the top, but not completely, in order for there to be ventilation. As a good nurse would do in order not to have a direct wind on the crib. Is that what you mean?
But if that is so, then how does that window get in that position after someone enters and leaves? How do you close it from the outside in that position?
Is that your point?
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Oct 7, 2006 16:11:14 GMT -5
Michael, Hudson's article with the comment by Schoeffel had escaped me. Indeed, major, and why weren't these questions asked at the time? Could it be, as Betty told a reporter (or was overheard) that CAL had promised her she would not be badgered? It keeps coming back to the apparent shakiness of the first investigation.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 7, 2006 16:47:20 GMT -5
Here is just a thought. Not a theory. If you read some accounts the previous nights Ann says she left the lights on in the bathroom. If this was a stumbling block the insider might have thought if Betty was now in charge that light would not then not be left on.
Gardner mentions Betty took a longer than expected stay in her own adjoining bathroom after she departed Else. Was there enough time for her to clean the room? I am really more in wonder why Else is coming over to Betty and mentioning the lemonade request at that moment.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 7, 2006 19:58:34 GMT -5
I am hoping it takes us.
Precisely. The upper sash is down a bit, but it is no longer in a venting position. That is because a small strip of wood at the top of the frame ( parting strip)is preventing a clear opening. Now there may be multiple explanations for this but for me the answer is clear. That upper sash was moved up to enable maximum clearance for entry. Because of the relationship of the upper and lower sashes I would say that it is most likely that this would only occur in an outside entry. An insider needing only to pass out the child would not have to move that outside sash up much if at all.
Gary, sorry I totally missed your post about the front stairs. Your point is well taken. This whole "wash-down" theory still makes absolutely no sense to me. I am not discounting it, but why in earth would this be necessary?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 7, 2006 20:53:37 GMT -5
Great photo, Kevin.
What struck me almost immediately is the presence of what look like indications of fingerprints on the window glass below the bottom sash on the left and right sides (thumbs?) just about where they might be expected if one was opening the window upwards. Also at the top of the second row of panes.
Were these possibly raised by Trooper Kelly but deemed to be less than complete prints and was this the untouched crime scene photograph of the southeast corner window? Was this window also deemed to have been "wiped down" before investigators arrived? It certainly doesn't appear to have been.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 8, 2006 7:57:29 GMT -5
I still say it could have been for the reasons I mentioned above, or it may have been for purposes we aren't considering. We must think outside the box.
We have to be very careful when looking at the pictures Kelly took. They weren't taken until the sometime the next day, and I hardly would expect the area to be guarded from other Police making an investigation after they were convinced no prints existed there. Often maligned for his comment about the print on the window, Condon may very well have seen this by the time he got there. So many people had been around the window on both the outside and inside.
All the Principals in all of their material say exactly that no prints were there. It wasn't until the trial this position became somewhat muddied as did the footprint evidence. Why? I'll let you be the judge of that. Or, I could go to some of Dr. Hudson's eyewitness observations.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 8, 2006 9:13:41 GMT -5
Can we be more specific? My understanding was that this photo was part of a series along with the ladder print taken sometime between the arrival on the scene from Morristown and daybreak. Is that incorrect?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 8, 2006 9:38:33 GMT -5
I wish I could be more specific and I am searching for something so that I can be. I think your assumption is a good one because I know the date on the photo is 3-2-32 and it appears to still be dark out.
I don't know, maybe its me, but it appears these photos are being used in an attempt to counter the initial reports somehow and I just don't see this as logical. Given what we know about the circus that went on as more and more people and police arrive it seems the most creditable sources are those Principals who were there first or those who spoke with them. To take these pictures, who were taken by these same people, to somehow say these show they were wrong - in essence - we see what they didn't - isn't something I can possibly consider.
All it shows me is the pictures represent a condition taken at the time they were taken. They can in no way upset the eyewitness and first-hand observations of those who were there first - most especially because Kelly is the one who took them. We would have to believe he didn't see in person what we see in his b&w photos taken ex post facto. We can't forget he saw everything in person and in the photos - then.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 8, 2006 10:00:21 GMT -5
I can believe there were many photos taken in the days following the kidnapping as new angles were explored and built upon, but in the absence of a date and time (so far) for this photo, let's not just assume it was taken at some later date, which summarily negates its significance. What would be very helpful here is exactly that, a date and time for this photgraph. My point being, if the photo was taken as an official "crime scene photograph," it seems unlikely the area would have been "mishandled" prior to Kelly's arrival.
But who convinced the other police that no prints existed. Did they make this call prior to the arrival of Kelly? If so, they would not have been in a position to conclusively state this without the aid of an identifying agent like black powder.
As a lingering aftertaste, does the possibility exist here of a planned wipedown by incompetent investigators who might have "mishandled" the crime scene prior to Kelly's arrival and didn't want their prints being exposed?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 8, 2006 11:22:31 GMT -5
Joe , that actually makes more sense to me than any other proposal I have heard. But I can't see it as a real possibility given the time frame involved with Kelly's arrival and the number of witnesses. It certainly is thinking outside of the box, though. I am still at a loss about the "wiping down" issue. Is friction ( dry) rubbing going to erase all traces of a print or leave an obscured smudge? Would water really remove all traces of prints from glass?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 8, 2006 11:43:53 GMT -5
In the words of Lady MacBeth: "Out ,out damned spot"! As Banquos ghost prowels the castle LM is trying to wipe the blood of the King off her hands. Later on she goes bonkers. Sound familiar?
Fingerprints are not the only evidence that may need to be washed away from a crime scene? Blood evidence is another popular substance needing to disappear and soon? Many dismiss the gun shot on blood evidence alone. I think Pledge and a damp cloth will take care of fingerprints but as soon as someone starts mentioning a "bucket and rags" the problems get bigger? But even Charlies smashed skull, or some other surprise injury, could have resulted in blood evidence....you dont require any gunshot, just blunt trauma or a fall down. Is it too late to spray the Nursery with lumenol?
What do you all make of Jafsie Condon's seemingly offhanded comments that a week later he sees "a partial palm print with lump and evidence of spillt blood" in the Nursery? Its a wonder CAL didnt shoot Condon himself?
And last, Im repeating myself to add that there is NO fingerprint evidence of any consequence whatsoever in the LKC at all-- period. Beyond of course, Bornmanns prints on the ladder, its one big ZERO>any there WAS is now missing?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 8, 2006 12:00:00 GMT -5
Great quote Rick!
Well Joe has definitely come up with a suggestion by "thinking outside of the box" and I think we could shrink the odds a bit by listing those who were there ahead of Kelly and then considering the odds of it based upon the situation. Regardless - its a good example of alternative an explanation that I think we need to consider....
My original point about the picture is that I see it becoming a "chicken or egg" arguement when we already know what came first. These people were there and at the time had no reason to omit or fabricate what they saw.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 8, 2006 13:10:31 GMT -5
Not true at all Rick. You mean no fingerprint evidence that was found to be of consequence. AFIS might have changed that. Also the lack of fingerprints has a consequence, as we are arguing right now.
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Oct 8, 2006 19:32:01 GMT -5
This photo does not show that the right shutter is closed, as it was when the child was discovered missing. Is this an indication that it was taken at a later time?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 9, 2006 4:46:21 GMT -5
EMHudson raised over 500 latent prints off the ladder with silver nitrate. 30-40 considered complete. EMH suggested these be sent to the BOI, but Schvartskopf refused? EMH also raised 13 prints of Charlie jr. off his toys. EMH thought BRH innocent because he could find none of his prints on the ladder, the notes or in the nursery. EMH was a key defense witness and later worked for the Hoffman team. EMH could find no prints of Lindbergh or Gow in the nursery either. One of his early conclusions was that someone had gone to the trouble of erasing relevant prints. Dr. Hudson had trained at Scotland Yard, was a respected man of science and had no axe to grind either way. DR. ERASTUS MEAD HUDSON Fingerprint Identification in Lindbergh Case (PDF) Fingerprint and Identification Magazine Sept 1935 contributed by Harold Olson on Ronelle's Hoax Board: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/bibsources.html
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 9, 2006 5:38:03 GMT -5
Great point Pam. I may go through the reports to see when the shutters were opened and that should give us a better idea as to when this picture was taken. Obviously if the shutter was opened there was only two ways that could have been done.
I disagree with this point above. Dr. Hudson did not believe Hauptmann was 'innocent' or if he did I have found nothing to indicate that position. He was a conscientious professional and thought the fact these prints were raised should have been disclosed to the Defense. Dr. Hudson had seen some other shady things going on so when his request was ignored he had no choice but to contact the Defense himself.
His efforts to assist the Governor were totally self-less. He did what he could, without any compensation whatsoever, and loaned his Secretary to assist in the investigation while he continued to pay her salary.
His motivation seemed to be that he was convinced others were involved and that the Authorities were not acting in good faith in the Prosecution of Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 9, 2006 6:44:43 GMT -5
Dr. Erasmus M. Hudson, MD: [Murder of Justice pp 751 & 1131] {and see Fischer's Lindbergh as well!}
"///When the news of Hauptmanns arrest came out, I called a state police officer at the Trenton barracksl He told me in high elation that "We got our man"!
EMD:"Were his prints on the ladder"? I asked.
NJSP: The reply was "NO".
EMH: "Then you will have to look futher" I said.
NJSP: "Good God, dont tell us that doctor!" he said non plused.
EMH:...." if Hauptmann had made the ladder even six to eight months prior to the kidnapping his prints should be on it"
So, whose prints were on the ladder? (Abe, Anne, Baker, Charles, Condon, Ellerson, Fisch, Fred, Gow, Samuelsohn, Smyder, Whateley) And on which section?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 9, 2006 9:29:40 GMT -5
Always happy to open a "new can of worms" ( as we don't have enough already). Perhaps the shutters were not found in the closed position.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 9, 2006 11:35:44 GMT -5
Wolf-"looking out, right hand shutter open, left hand shutter closed".
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 9, 2006 20:55:03 GMT -5
OK. I reviewed most of the primary reports and found that everyone who initially entered the nursery saw all the windows closed. No one says they saw any opened or cracked open etc. This includes Williamson, Wolf, Bornmann, and DeGaetano.
So already these pictures are showing the windows in a condition that wasn't what these Officers are reporting.
Next, as both Pam and Mairi point out, Wolf says only the left-hand shutter was closed. No one else makes comment about this. Was there a way to secure one shutter w/o the slide bolt in place? If not how is one closed while the other open? And why didn't anyone hear this open shutter banging against the house?
Remember, this was the explanation for shutting them in the first place - the banging. Is this the noise Lindbergh heard?
Here's something that's interesting....Kelly arrives right around Mid-night and claims to start dusting for fingerprints immediately. This includes the crib, windowsill, windows both inside and outside but claims the outside was done later in the morning. He also says he dusted the sunlamp, screen, and French Window. Everyone who saw Kelly at the scene back this claim up.
Lt. Lange arrives @ 6AM. In his report he assists Kelly in searching for fingerprints in the nursery on both the inside and outside of the window. Lange then assists Kelly in taking photos of the ladder, ladder marks, foot prints, chisel and dowel pin.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 9, 2006 21:58:59 GMT -5
Yes and no. The windows are not latched and they are open in the photos. But the amount they are open is very little, only about 1/4" to 1/2". I think it reasonable that most observers would call this a closed position.
Only in the open position by the use of a shutter dog.
It depends largely on the hinges and how the shutters were hung. Sometimes they are loose and free to swing with the lightest pressure, other times they are bound or tight and actually require some force to swing them. So the wind may have moved them into the position found or the kidnapper may have, or it may have been a combination of both. I do think that unless whatever wind was blowing had ceased the officers would have noted the shutters swinging and banginng around.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 10, 2006 15:50:02 GMT -5
But we're not talking about most observers are we? We're talking about Police who are on site of the most important crime scene of their careers - conducting an investigation by looking for an entrance and exist possibility and/or strategy. Are we to believe they all simply missed the window being open and wrote it up as if they were closed?
I find this important - especially since your contribution concerning the shutter dogs information. It was their contention these shutters were closed to prevent banging.... yet if secured by the dogs they wouldn't have. Now we see the shutters were open and no one observes them banging around in the wind.
What to make of this?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 10, 2006 20:05:52 GMT -5
Maj Schoeffel: "That night between 8 and 11 there was not much wind but from then on it was bitter cold and it was windy"
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 11, 2006 13:52:57 GMT -5
Fullerton Guest book: Roger Parris"s relative had a right interesting impression of Betty Gow's ID of the baby's remains. That she couldn't have recognized the remains but felt she'd been steered to do so by CAL, by phone before he ever got there.
|
|