|
Post by sue75 on Oct 30, 2009 18:48:02 GMT -5
The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Aug 21, 2000. pg. A.20
Abstract (Summary)
Ching, then in his sixties, corpulent, slow of foot and speech but sharp of mind, was of the old school of reporter who knew every police officer on any force for miles around. Ching's contacts paid off often, including by providing him with a tip when the baby was first kidnapped. Ching went to the [Charles Lindbergh] home, as did the paper's photographer, Gene Urban, who took the oft-used photo of the kidnappers' ladder leaning against the wall of the house below the nursery window.
» Jump to indexing (document details) Full Text (315 words)
Copyright The Washington Post Company Aug 21, 2000
Although it never was disclosed publicly, a veteran reporter, Charles "Ching" Leigh of the Trenton State Gazette, was present in the morgue when Charles Lindbergh identified the body of his son [Style, July 30].
Ching, then in his sixties, corpulent, slow of foot and speech but sharp of mind, was of the old school of reporter who knew every police officer on any force for miles around. Ching's contacts paid off often, including by providing him with a tip when the baby was first kidnapped. Ching went to the Lindbergh home, as did the paper's photographer, Gene Urban, who took the oft-used photo of the kidnappers' ladder leaning against the wall of the house below the nursery window.
Although at the time I was a young sports reporter, Ching took me under his wing and was a fascinating unofficial instructor. When I later shifted to city side, my desk was next to his. Ching had several quirks, one of which was to keep in his desk a file of photos of every murder victim whose case he had covered. One of those photos was of the Lindbergh baby, which had been widely distributed on fliers, etc. He took it with him when one of his police friends invited him to the morgue.
After Mr. Lindbergh had made his identification, including of the bed blanket in which the kidnapper had wrapped the child, Ching lingered for several minutes comparing the body with his photo.
As he wrote in his news story, he was as positive as Mr. Lindbergh had been about the identification. Even though it was not visible in the photo, Ching knew of the baby's foot problem, and he said he saw that the body bore that deformity.
I asked him if he had any doubts, and he emphatically said he had none.
Let this set the record straight.
SAMUEL M. SHARKEY Jr.
Washington
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 31, 2009 8:27:05 GMT -5
Obviously Mr. Sharkey is mis-remembering when he mentions the baby's "blanket" but overall, as I researched his claim a couple of years back, there's no doubt in my mind Leigh was in there. It contradicts, what we've been led to believe over the years, that this situation was "air-tight" when considering Leigh was standing where he absolutely should not have been.
Next, while Leigh was satisfied it was the actual child, there were many who were in there as well who felt it was impossible to tell due to the condition of the body.
As Rick often points out...the corpse was blackened. This led to the talk that acid may have been poured on the body prior to its discovery. Either Wendel picked up on this chatter or it was a huge coincidence that he would tell Bleefeld, to his absolute surprise, that he emasculated and poured acid on the child. This is what led to Wendel being punched the one time I ever saw it admitted to.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Oct 31, 2009 13:09:54 GMT -5
Sharkey said Ching knew about "the baby's foot problem." What in particular might he have known about...a possible deformity?
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Oct 31, 2009 13:22:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 1, 2009 8:12:09 GMT -5
I take it to mean the overlapping toes.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Nov 1, 2009 8:14:06 GMT -5
Obviously Mr. Sharkey is mis-remembering when he mentions the baby's "blanket" but overall, as I researched his claim a couple of years back, there's no doubt in my mind Leigh was in there. It contradicts, what we've been led to believe over the years, that this situation was "air-tight" when considering Leigh was standing where he absolutely should not have been. Next, while Leigh was satisfied it was the actual child, there were many who were in there as well who felt it was impossible to tell due to the condition of the body. As Rick often points out...the corpse was blackened. This led to the talk that acid may have been poured on the body prior to its discovery. Either Wendel picked up on this chatter or it was a huge coincidence that he would tell Bleefeld, to his absolute surprise, that he emasculated and poured acid on the child. This is what led to Wendel being punched the one time I ever saw it admitted to. I always get a kick out of any of the perfect strangers claiming they can identify the blackened skeleton? If you hold a similar illusion--get a reality check by examining the Coffin Photo. see Scaduto p. 161 +2 or Theone Wright p. 100; Behn p.208 + 4. Fisher summarized it correctly--the body was I?Ded by hair, shirt, teeth and toes? Betty, CAL, VanIngen did not in point of fact say the skeleton looked just like anybody they knew? CAL was counting teeth? The probablity of mistaken identification was high. There is also confusion as to which toes were "deformed" or lapped? The second toe over the big toe/ or little toes? And we only have one blackened foot left to check? see Gardner p.210+4 and check out the huge 1" hole in top of head! 12. "there was a failure to use numerous possible methods of scientific identification" Al Dunlap; Why is this? We lean so heavily on DNA now we have forgotten them. Blood typing? Landsteiner discovered the ABO blood group system by mixing the red cells and serum of each of his staff. He demonstrated that the serum of some people agglutinated the RBCs of others ...1900/ Nobel Prize 1930. www.decodeme.com/abo-blood-types-historyCerebral Swelling: The appalling frequency of cerebral swelling in neurosurgical practice ..... Cerebral liquefaction. Large accumulations of serous fluid throughout the ... thejns.org/doi/pdf/10.3171/jns.1947.4.3.0255 - Similar - by IM Scheinker - 1947 - Cited by 27 - Related articles - All 2 versions
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 3, 2009 7:16:45 GMT -5
Every Authority on scene, and apparently any Reporter that made their way into the morgue, were armed with the photo of the child. First thing they did was to compare the facial features which remained on the corpse.
Some were satisfied, and some weren't.
The "identification" went to the next level when Gow identified the clothing...complete with a special "blue" thread which was used to stitch a home-made shirt only hours before he was abducted. I've seen the blue thread (before it was taken away) and can see why its mentioned for identification purposes.
Next, the actual identification by Gow then later the next day by Lindbergh. These were done based upon physical features unique to the child. And there's many.....
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Nov 6, 2009 8:37:30 GMT -5
The "identification" went to the next level when Gow identified the clothing...complete with a special "blue" thread which was used to stitch a home-made shirt only hours before he was abducted. I've seen the blue thread (before it was taken away) and can see why its mentioned for identification purposes. Next, the actual identification by Gow then later the next day by Lindbergh. These were done based upon physical features unique to the child. And there's many..... I consider the Silko Blue Shirt a red herring {or afterthought?}simply because it was never used to confirm Charlie Jrs identity with the putative kidnappers? The sleeping suite gambit with JFC just plain stupid and even less credible...None of this could be credibly sustained in the Trial and Riley had to conceed the identity of the corpse to make it work.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 7, 2009 8:18:15 GMT -5
I had heard alot about the "blue thread" as a means of identification and always thought "so what?" each and every time I heard it. That all stopped once I saw the thread still a very bright and unique color blue even all those years later.
I've always felt it odd that a family as rich as them would have no bed-clothes for their child forcing their Nurse to create a make-shift shirt on-the-spot like that. But be wary of indulging in this type of speculation because if you do - then everyone involved qualifies due to all of the "weird" things you find here, there, and just about everywhere. I realize its impossible not to, but as a piece of advice.....just don't ignore it everywhere else because its there too. Also, accept all the possibilities which spring forth as a result, and not just the one you like.
Know what I mean?
Surely though, throw it in there for consideration of criminal intent to identify a dead child if you like, but that means the child was then dead or that Gow knew he was to be murdered.
The sleeping suit is a joke. Why would the Kidnappers take an item which has no real identification purpose when their identities were revealed by and through the "secret symbol?" If they did remove that suit - when? - and if it was on the property, as some surmise due to the discovery of the thumb-guard, then these guys really weren't in such a hurry were they? And they are calm considering they must have known the child was dead.
And if they didn't that means they either "returned" to the "grave" to remove it, or as I suspect, went to where he was at that time. So if they HAD the child, as the suit was to establish, why wouldn't Lindy or Condon demand fingerprints, or a photo - something that would really prove the facts they were trying to determine?
In the words of Dr. Henry Lee: "Something ain't right."
But does that mean the corpse wasn't really CJr. or perhaps something else?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Nov 7, 2009 13:00:25 GMT -5
Know what I mean? Surely though, throw it in there for consideration of criminal intent to identify a dead child if you like, but that means the child was then dead or that Gow knew he was to be murdered. The sleeping suit is a joke. Why would the Kidnappers take an item which has no real identification purpose when their identities were revealed by and through the "secret symbol?" If they did remove that suit - when? - and if it was on the property, as some surmise due to the discovery of the thumb-guard, then these guys really weren't in such a hurry were they? And they are calm considering they must have known the child was dead. And if they didn't that means they either "returned" to the "grave" to remove it, or as I suspect, went to where he was at that time. So if they HAD the child, as the suit was to establish, why wouldn't Lindy or Condon demand fingerprints, or a photo - something that would really prove the facts they were trying to determine? In the words of Dr. Henry Lee: "Something ain't right." But does that mean the corpse wasn't really CJr. or perhaps something else? Michael....its very difficult or seems premature to concede anything as being true in this hogpoge of lies, confounding evidence and red herrings? Yes, I agree with you...anything is possible: - CAL and JFC paid CJ? $50,000 bucks for only a "similar "sleeping suite? what exactly were they thinking? Apparently dreaming--or hid the money? CAL aint that dumb/
- the skeleton was moved at least once, twice, who knows? Who is doing that? and what motives?
- For me, the blue thread t-shirt proves that St. Raymonds gang, Curtis gang and Gaston Means gangs did not have Charlie either dead or alive--that shirt would have been worth $500K to them. But there might have been a 4th gang of insiders?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 7, 2009 20:43:53 GMT -5
Out of idle curiosity, is there some particular reason for all of this doubt regarding the identity of the body of CAL Jr? Kinda reminds me of the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza.
|
|
|
Post by sandalwood burn on Nov 8, 2009 21:13:33 GMT -5
Does that mean the Divine King was shot?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 9, 2009 11:48:47 GMT -5
I thought Elvis died from drugs Of course given the logic used in this case maybe he isn't really dead after all. I wonder if they checked with his pediatrician?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 10, 2009 8:07:08 GMT -5
Kevin,
I know in the past you seemed to believe the child had been "discarded" the night he was taken, and that his body wound up where it was either by remaining there or by forces of nature.
I don't want to put words in your mouth so let me know if I am correct.
If I am, I would like to see how your theory explains something other then the body "placement." That is, how do you address the sleeping suit missing? Did the Kidnappers return to the "grave" or do you have them removing it before disposing the body? If they removed it before they discarded the child - why? Next, what about the rubber pants & diaper? How did they become removed and for what reason?
Does the thumb-guard found on the lane factor in at all and what do you think became of the other one?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 11, 2009 11:18:45 GMT -5
Kevin, I know in the past you seemed to believe the child had been "discarded" the night he was taken, and that his body wound up where it was either by remaining there or by forces of nature. I don't want to put words in your mouth so let me know if I am correct. If I am, I would like to see how your theory explains something other then the body "placement." That is, how do you address the sleeping suit missing? Did the Kidnappers return to the "grave" or do you have them removing it before disposing the body? If they removed it before they discarded the child - why? Next, what about the rubber pants & diaper? How did they become removed and for what reason? Does the thumb-guard found on the lane factor in at all and what do you think became of the other one? Well, I'd start by saying that regardless of how or when the body ended up on Mt Rose, the missing clothing was removed. From the evidence ( or lack of) I would say it seems more likely that this was done very early on, perhaps even at the Highfields location. Since we know when the sleeping suit was sent and it's condition it seems probable that the item was taken from the start. We do know from the note symbol/ signature that the "kidnapper" was very concerned about being recognized as the one and only man to deal with. It seems to me that taking that suit and and the other items goes right along with his fear of not being taken as authentic. And, I guess, if I were in his shoes and had the intention of extorting money without the ability to return the child, I'd do the same.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Nov 12, 2009 8:27:09 GMT -5
[quote author=admin board=witnesses thread=535 post=8894 time= Well, I'd start by saying that regardless of how or when the body ended up on Mt Rose, the missing clothing was removed. From the evidence ( or lack of) I would say it seems more likely that this was done very early on, perhaps even at the Highfields location. Since we know when the sleeping suit was sent and it's condition it seems probable that the item was taken from the start. We do know from the note symbol/ signature that the "kidnapper" was very concerned about being recognized as the one and only man to deal with. It seems to me that taking that suit and and the other items goes right along with his fear of not being taken as authentic. And, I guess, if I were in his shoes and had the intention of extorting money without the ability to return the child, I'd do the same. kevin....does it matter if the rubber pants and diapers are over or under the sleeping suite? I seriously doubt the two clever sleuths (CAL and JFC) are going to pay big bucks for the daiper? Or the rubber pants? if your undressing theory is true then why not remove the now famous Silko blue-thread t-shirt as insurance as weLL? [eg the perfect proof!] So--certain logic tells us that the Dr. Denton would be a less-than-perfect-proof backup for the secret symbol--in the event the SS is rendered inoperative and published correctly, in color no less, in the newspapers for all to see ? Wouldnt that leave the rubber pants and diaper and the missing long bones in the nearbye vicinity of the skeleton on Mt. Eyre to be discovered on May 12th? BUT--as far as we know(?) no interlopers tried to fake the secret symbol to extort the ransom? It would have been nearly impossible...without perfect knowledge of how the first symbol was constructed! So again--why take the sleeping suite? Answer: Whoever mailed the sleeping suite from Stamford, CT did not hold Charlie Jr? [or signature symbol?] Which is it? lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=rab&action=display&thread=307lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=43 (see reply #50)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 12, 2009 8:45:34 GMT -5
I agree. Someone removed the thumb guards. Someone removed the sleeping suit. Someone removed the rubber pants. And someone removed the diapers.
Ok. Here were find a problem to which there must be a solution.
"When"
What I do is approach this problem with the solution you laid out concerning the ladder and the wind. That is these people methodically assembled then disassembled the ladder climbing whatever sections were needed to accomplish the actual "snatch" then leaving the note behind without it blowing off the ledge.
So if they stripped the child down at Highfields, then here is even more evidence of them not being in such a "hurry" that we so often read about in every account of the crime.
But these are "Amateurs" right? No one, if this scenario is true, is running like hell. No one seems to be afraid by what their actions tell us.
Now as to "Why" they stripped him down.....
Well "group" but yes.
Ok here is my first problem...
What does a Sleeping Suit prove? It was shown to be one "like" the one he was wearing. Now look at the symbol. Compare the two as identifiers.
One unique and specific the other very generic and general.
But at what point? At Highfields? If so there's the little problem of the thumb guards, the rubber pants, and the diaper. What do they have do with anything? They were on beneath the sleeping suit.
Just trying to work through this because I've found that over the years your theories bring solve a lot of my own personal mysteries I have surrounding this Case.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Nov 13, 2009 2:54:33 GMT -5
Isn't the Bronx Gang using the signature symbol to verify the origin of the sleeping suit? Why is that necessary?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 13, 2009 9:23:37 GMT -5
I hate to say it, but I do think this matter of the clothing removal is one that can easily be over thought. Who knows what level of confusion or panic occurred that night and what responses that may have wrought? Regarding the value of the sleeping suit as an identifier, sure in hindsight it's value was negligible. However, if it's possible to put oneself in the shoes of parents whose child has been taken, I think it reasonable to understand that anything provided would be accepted as proof. Once again would go back to my arguments in the past regarding the oddity of the need for a "singnature". To me it seems obvious that some great insecurity existed on the part of the kidnapper. That simply should not be. In that light is it unreasonable to believe that the articles of missing clothing were taken as additional insurance? Is it also unbelievable that those missing items were taken with some measure of haste? Is it also unbelievable that those items came off together?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 13, 2009 19:49:22 GMT -5
Let's say things are happening in "haste." Why then are they ALL happening at Highfields? All the while someone could be calling the Cops because they didn't cut the phone lines. What makes them so sure?
I have a really hard time with this.
When you were a kid - did you ever hit a car with a snowball? Imagine the Car CrAsHEs because of it. Do you stand around, slowly walk away, or do you run like hell?
Ok. Let's say they are scared but somehow, despite being a group of Amateurs.... they know the layout. They know the routine. They know the situation. And so they just got in the Nursery without being detected despite all of the obsticles, snatched the child without disturbing it when its known to cry out even at Anne, left without placing the note without the dog known to bark at anything but it doesn't hear a sound, then they drop and accidentally kill the child (ooops) without leaving a mark.
They remain composed, disassemble the ladder then lean 2 sections against the wall, re-climb, leave the note, then even shut the window so the note doesn't blow off. Next they carry the ladder in two pieces then drop it along with the chisel that wasn't used or needed. Where's the child? Well he's on the driveway being stripped of his sleeping suit. Then they take it a step further. They peel off the rubber pants and the diaper.
Then they walk back across the property almost 1 mile to Featherbed Lane? So why'd they walk in the opposite direction 1st?
For my money - somethings gotta give here.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Nov 14, 2009 16:50:28 GMT -5
Michael...your account sounds like the perps are taking their sweet time...making sure all the t's are uncrossed and holds are punched? Like there is little or no chance of getting nabbed?/ Like a walk in the park on a rainy dark windy nite w/ a baby?
Walk, dont run? Where's the evidence of panic in moving the ladder and scrubbing the Nursery for prints? Panic and fear were always given as the reason for the corpse dump on Mt. Rose Hill?
The body snatchers may have easily missed the significance of the home-made t-shirt with the blue Silko thread in the dark, but no matter how ghastly they are thinking I cant imagine why the rubber pants and diaper would be saved?* [Even Vampires don't remove diapers from a dead baby?] And don't forget.....Charlie Jr. is hiding out somewheres else for a week/month or two before being dumped on Mt Rose Hill? Maybe thats where the other clothing fell off until ransom paid in St. Raymonds? Arnt the thumbguards tied together & threaded thru the arms of the sleeping suite?
*Occam's razor says that the rubber pants and diaper are missing because....the perps changed a dirty diaper to a clean one on the fly! (someone once opined the symbol signature was made in the car on the way over!) Note: when the cops were first looking for CJr they were reportedly "sex-typing" baby diapers?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 15, 2009 9:01:53 GMT -5
It appears that way. That if things aren't happening deliberately then there's a lot of time being spent on scene that don't appear logical or could occur more realistically elsewhere. I realize that sometimes things aren't always as they appear though so I am just looking for other thoughts I can sink my teeth into.
Obviously the "more then one" comes into play here. Next, I consider something Kevin floated out there once before: The ransom note was written on scene too. Hey, its in line with these people wandering around the Nursery and outside its window then criss-crossing the Estate doing things that just don't make any sense.
I believe the Police missed, or ignored some clues. The thumb-guard proves that doesn't it? So its what we don't know is what is killing us. However, I think we can get there by what we do know and looking at each individual clue and how it could associate, in any way, with other clues.
Yes. So if that thumb-guard was really left there by the Kidnappers that night its really telling. The ribbon was still knotted. It means the sleeping suit came off, or the guard was pulled off without the suit coming off. It's laying on the Lane which leads directly to the house, and in the opposite direction from Featherbed Lane which is about .7 mile from it. And again, that's not an easy walk in the daytime in normal weather. I've done it so I know - so considering its at pitch-black night, in the cold, in the wind, and in the rain w/o a flashlight or night vision I'd have to say, assuming they didn't get lost, it took them a good 30 minutes to negotiate. Could they have stumbled over the rocks that exist on the hilly situation they must have faced? Absolutely. I've considered the child died in that way too...
But not if he was "stripped" on Lindbergh Lane.
Here's the thing....
Even if they are stripping the child of his sleeping suit at Highfield's for "identification purposes" they have absolutely no reason to remove rubber pants, or a diaper. You see one clue leads to another so we have to simultaneously figure out both to understand either.
Did the Kidnappers plan on keeping the child alive? What took John so long to send the sleeping suite and why? Hey, if they are removing it the very night they are making their "escape" and on scene why isn't it by the ready once Condon conveniently asks for it?
In the midst of considering all of these irrational events or clues there is something rational to explain it. It may be unpleasent but if we are to ever fully solve the Case then we're gonna have to let go and let the chips fall where they may.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 15, 2009 9:49:19 GMT -5
I think it would be more accurate to say they have no reason that we can understand or make any sense of. There is a huge difference.
I'm not so sure about that. The problem is that rationality can be relative. Perhaps even more importantly, not all actions are rational.
Why should there be any evidence of panic? We are talking about an individual who possesses the steely nerves required to enter a home with its occupants moving about. Think about that for a minute. I would also point out the fact that from the location where the ladder sections were found and a good distance to Featherbed, one would be able to observe the actions going on in that house. You can't see this at Highfields today, but look at the topo maps, survey map, and aerial photos of the day and that fact becomes apparent. So our kidnapper could see right into the main floor of that house and he certainly would know if the Nursery was visited. Now I'm not saying that he would just hang out, but I don't believe this guy was running scared. He obviously took some time to remove the ladder sections, didn't he?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Nov 15, 2009 18:09:27 GMT -5
Michael...can you shed more light on the following: - "Then they walk back across the property almost 1 mile to Featherbed Lane? So why'd they walk in the opposite direction 1st?" MM What direction did they walk first? West-- acrossed the back of the house? As far as a road?
- I recall someone followed footprints for 2 miles? Was this Oscar Busch?
- Were a 2nd set of womans shoeprints, as reported by Insp. JJ Sullivan, confirmed?
- When was the first time anyone mentioned the Silko blue thread in the homespun t-shirt? Why was it left behind?
- Kev--would someone remove the ladder sections while holding the target? Little or nothing can be gained by that other than gunshots from CAL? Unless hes not home yet?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 15, 2009 20:10:42 GMT -5
When does Lindy appear with a gun , Rick? Any target is long gone by then. The key here is the nature of a person willing to enter that occupied house. I think it's tremendously difficult for any of us to understand this. Once you try, things start to get clearer.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Nov 16, 2009 5:22:09 GMT -5
Only if we would totally suspend reality*. It is impossible to imagine something so unbelievable that it never happened? [IF there was a kidnap, the insider handed Charlie out the front door or the window] There was, is and never will be any forensic evidence linkng any outsider to the inside/ who says so? Wagoosh! [And CAL was in the Library listening for the crash...]eg:
The king was in his counting-house Counting out his money; The queen was in the parlor Eating bread and honey; The maid was in the kitchen Hanging out the clothes, Thru a window came a dickeybird, And snapt off her nose.
*no wonder Wilintz wanted to try this case in Hunterdon county.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 16, 2009 8:48:39 GMT -5
A man abducted a young girl in broad daylight and kept her captive in his backyard in a densely populated suburban neighborhood for 14+ years without anyone knowing a thing. In that period the girl gave birth to two daughters and the man operated a successful printing business from that very home.
So what's so hard to believe about a second floor break in and kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 16, 2009 10:05:00 GMT -5
Rick, I think I will need a picture or a map to better illustrate what I am saying about Featherbed in relationship to the Lane. It's like you are walking away from the Estate and turn left toward the lane. From there you would have to walk back the way you came to the point you turned left then proceed as if you turned right.
This point only works if the thumb-guard wasn't a plant....which of course is a debate we've had before and we could have again if anyone is interested.
Oscar Bush tracked the prints. Unfortunately, there isn't much by way of NJSP Reports about him. But there is other information to explore.
The "smaller" set of prints were assumed to have been a woman's. They were assumed to have been Anne's due to her position she had been there earlier in the day. There's much more about this I plan on going into... perhaps a chapter in my book which I am slowly moving along.
I'll have to look about the thread. I know the "scalloped" edges were mentioned for sure once the child was found.
Sure we know that, but do the Kidnappers? And were they "expecting" him not to be there? Was he there when this happened? If so, where were they when he ran outside?
Doesn't it depend on the circumstances? Kevin, there were other circumstances where criminals engaged in this conduct and were quickly caught in the act. Others were eventually tracked down. One involved a Servant who drugged the dog, and he was still interrupted in the act.
Isn't this different? We knew someone pulled up to a girl on the way to the bus stop, grabbed her, then drove off.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Nov 16, 2009 15:37:46 GMT -5
Oscar Bush's account of the footsteps as I understand have both leading to featherbed. Is this correct? Or does Bush mean he finds two sets of prints one of which leads to featherbed Lane.
I have always been attracted to the location of the thumbguard and possible story it has. I always thought it presented an argument for two exits. If not then a strong argument for someone attempting to remove evidence. Actually the later is more in my thinking.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 16, 2009 15:48:01 GMT -5
Was Lindbergh renown as marksman ? I mean why would you only have to fear him? There is a house in the rural country with staff present. It's a sure bet there's bound to be a gun around. So why must Lindbergh be the one to fear?
I'm not sure I completely understand what you are getting at. All I know is that anyone who plans to break into a house with the occupants walking around has a certain boldness about him that most of us would find difficult to understand. When viewing the actions at Highfields that night I think it imperative to try to keep that in mind. The ironic thing about this is that most of us would wonder why not strike when everyone is asleep. In fact, that's probably the worse time as any noise is likely to awaken someone. On the other hand, any noise created while people are up and around can mean that noises don't arouse as much interest unless everyone is in the same place. It just takes someone with a helluva lot of nerve to do this. I couldn't.
Absolutely. I only meant to show that as far as unbelievable goes there are far odder crimes and circumstances than the LKC.
|
|