kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Photos
Feb 15, 2010 10:52:37 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Feb 15, 2010 10:52:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Photos
Mar 5, 2010 16:41:41 GMT -5
Post by Security on Mar 5, 2010 16:41:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Photos
Mar 13, 2010 22:27:46 GMT -5
Post by Security on Mar 13, 2010 22:27:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Photos
Mar 27, 2010 11:27:53 GMT -5
Post by Security on Mar 27, 2010 11:27:53 GMT -5
Nice news photos; cgi.ebay.com/CHARLES-LINDBERGHs-BABY-KIDNAPPING-PHOTOS-IN-1932_W0QQitemZ280485110035QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Photo_Images?hash=item414e372113Interesting to note; Aerial photo # 2 was probably taken moments after the photo of the front of the house was taken ( notice the plane, shadows, and motorcycles) Aerial photo #2 shows a group of investigators about fifteen feet from the ladder location. Aerial photo #1 is taken from the entry side of Highfields . Note the barren quality of the site and the dirt road leading to Featherbed La. I believe the photo identified as the entrance to Lindbergh's estate is actually the Morrow estate. Notice the photo of the french windows taken the night of the kidnapping. It is locked, but it would be simple to open given that the window has no cremone bolts.
|
|
|
Photos
Mar 28, 2010 12:58:09 GMT -5
Post by Security on Mar 28, 2010 12:58:09 GMT -5
Anyone notice something peculiar with the photo of the Nursery french window?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Photos
Mar 28, 2010 13:57:05 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Mar 28, 2010 13:57:05 GMT -5
The window lock is only partially latched, the toy bear is knocked over, the tray and the chair are askew. Interesting since no one supposedly went through that window and the Nursery is always kept absolutely ship shape. Why??
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Photos
Mar 29, 2010 10:52:40 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Mar 29, 2010 10:52:40 GMT -5
I guess no one else finds this to be important. Oh well. Well, here is something else to consider then, these photos were taken after Kelly brushed for fingerprints. If you look at the picture he took of the window used for the entry you can clearly see the brush swirls and powder residue on the glass and frame. Yet this french window shows no sign of dusting. If that's the case then I think the whole notion of how thorough his examination was is up for debate. Same goes for the idea that the entire Nursery was free of prints and therefore "cleaned". "God is in the details." Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
|
|
|
Photos
Mar 29, 2010 15:42:32 GMT -5
Post by wolf2 on Mar 29, 2010 15:42:32 GMT -5
i think over time, kelly was fired or let go. dont forget there was no police unions back then
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Photos
Mar 29, 2010 17:52:37 GMT -5
Post by mairi on Mar 29, 2010 17:52:37 GMT -5
Well I think it's important, Kevkon. I don't know which photos you are referring to, but somehow I've had some doubts about the nursery being "wiped clean." Speculation on my part (and I understand not everyone likes speculation): ...Kelly may have just done an inadequate job. I don't think that can be ruled out. ...Gow may have wiped some of the areas, toys etc (before hand) to get rid of bad cold germs. Plenty of folks have done that very thing. Wiping down nurseries is a routine task, cold germs or not. Could have been a combination of both the above(?) Though I've been as curious as a cat about those (ebay) photos, I fear I may be a lost cause with it's mysteries. Would particularly like to see the french windows, just to see how they were located in and outside the room, ...but heck fire, I dispair.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Photos
Mar 29, 2010 18:49:38 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Mar 29, 2010 18:49:38 GMT -5
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Photos
Mar 30, 2010 8:53:52 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Mar 30, 2010 8:53:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Photos
Mar 31, 2010 5:50:05 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 31, 2010 5:50:05 GMT -5
I want to try and date the photo. I think I've done this before, but its important if we are to be sure exactly what happened before or after it was taken.
It is an important picture regardless, and one I hadn't seen before.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Photos
Mar 31, 2010 7:54:36 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Mar 31, 2010 7:54:36 GMT -5
It could help prove a number of issues and it offers a few clues as to what happened in the Nursery.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Photos
Mar 31, 2010 14:26:14 GMT -5
Post by mairi on Mar 31, 2010 14:26:14 GMT -5
It was so interesting to see the french windows photo, KevKon! Correct me if I'm wrong but I imagine them to be located across from (facing) the fireplace and set of windows(one of which being the Kidnap window) I couldn't get the kidnap window to come up but I have seen somewhere else a photo of it with the smudges on it. It certainly does enhance ones perspective to see actual photos. Thanks for posting that. Happy Birthday, Rick!
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Photos
Mar 31, 2010 16:07:05 GMT -5
Post by mairi on Mar 31, 2010 16:07:05 GMT -5
Well! As to my previous post guessing how the french windows were located-I may have that incorrect. Maybe on the turn-the-corner adjacent wall to the set of windows (?) Now that picture included with paper transfer of the property (1940?).The bldg's shot on the left hand side 1) the two nursery windows, chimney in between? 2)Then move forward to right hand side of photo-two more windows plus turn-the-corner to end of that wing. Is that Gow's bathroom and room? Has all that wall been there all along? Sorry to still be rather scrambled. ======================== Back to nursery being "wiped clean". Back awhile, maybe on other board someone brought up - no fingerprints vs no usable fingerprints. Any thoughts on that?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Photos
Mar 31, 2010 16:37:22 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Mar 31, 2010 16:37:22 GMT -5
You are correct Mairi, the french inswing windows are on the right wall adjacent to the double hung entry window. To left of that window is the fireplace, then another double hung window. Looking from the outside of the house, to the right of the nursery is a bathrm and Gow's room at the end. I had expressed the opinion that there is a big difference between no fingerprints and no discernible prints. I think the notion of someone "wiping down" the entire Nursery is beyond belief.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Photos
Apr 2, 2010 2:48:06 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 2, 2010 2:48:06 GMT -5
Then why did experienced police officers which we aren't say,"the room looked wiped?"
|
|
|
Photos
Apr 2, 2010 7:00:16 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Apr 2, 2010 7:00:16 GMT -5
I understand the suggestion, but when crossed referenced to see if it holds true - it doesn't. This is just my opinion of course, but here is why I say this.....
Everything I have, which comes from the Files (e.g. interoffice memos, reports, letters, etc.) all say "no prints" were found. The only place anything is ever said about "partials" was in Court. That testimony is at variance with the sources above. So was the testimony about the footprints. I hate to say this but Court testimony was "prepped" in order to take the air out of what the Defense had.... something the Prosecution was made aware of from George K. Large, who was originally co-counsel to Fawcett then bribed over to the Prosecution for $8000.
In short, the testimony cannot be trusted. I rely on what I know isn't "tainted" by an ulterior motive.
So while I don't believe the "entire" Nursery had no prints, I do believe the areas they dusted, hoping to find the Kidnappers prints, did not have any prints....not partials....no prints - just like all of the Official communications say coming out of Schwarzkopf's file, et. al..
This led the Police to believe the areas were wiped down. Of course this creates a dilemma because those in the Household touched these areas AFTER the crime. Remember, prints of the BABY were found right outside of the door on the banister almost (5) months after this crime. Some were partials, and some had enough ridge counts. All were documented.
This is important, and its a "control" about what was, or was not found in the Nursery - in the areas dusted where they believed the Kidnapper(s) had to have been.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Photos
Apr 2, 2010 8:03:59 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Apr 2, 2010 8:03:59 GMT -5
Almost everything created by the hand of man is "tainted" to some degree or another. If Kelly flubbed the print exam, do you really think he or the NJSP would admit it in a report? More to the point, the photo of the french window clearly shows that it was not dusted. So any "wiping down" of prints was more localized and manageable by a single intruder.
|
|
|
Photos
Apr 2, 2010 11:31:24 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Apr 2, 2010 11:31:24 GMT -5
I would agree that if Kelly was just incompetent that would account for not finding anything. However, he uses black powder elsewhere and raises prints. So, for me, there's checks and balances concerning this issue.
If we can determine definitely this window was never dusted, which I think we can do by taking several differing angles of approach, it then it would show a level of incompetence concerning crime scene investigation (or control by Lindbergh). A lot was done contrary to proper technique in order not to "offend" or "embarrass" Lindbergh.
We have to "date" the picture. We have to consider what happened before and after. Some areas that were dusted then became a heavy scene of traffic by Investigators after the dusting took place.
|
|
|
Photos
Apr 5, 2010 7:12:45 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Apr 5, 2010 7:12:45 GMT -5
On the chain of custody form the pictures of the Nursery include:
#10 - From Hall entering Nursery looking at French Window
This group of photos (from the Chain of Custody form I reference) were all taken on "3-2-32," which is consistent with Kelly's arrival, and his actions having taken photos just after Midnight.
This could be that photo.
|
|