|
Post by rita on Feb 10, 2007 22:59:03 GMT -5
Good detective work would look at missing or hidden items as being most important to discovering the truth and solving the case. The Lindbergh Case has SO many missing components and dead ends it deifies any similarity to a real kidnap case, and consequently perpetuates controversy. How many holes in this case can have been overlooked that might lead to it's solution? Missing parts are often more important than evidence deliberately left for viewing.
!. No nursery fingerprints within hours of the kidnap?
2. No footprints by where the ladder stood except Annes and one other?
3. Ladder disassembled holding the child and carried 75 feet leaving no mud prints?
4. Missing $30,000.00 dollars gold certificates?
5. How did kidnappers know Breckenrides mail address?
6. Missing body leg and hand?
7. Rice letter curiously refers to James Roosevelt dead in WW1 20 years earlier?
8. Why were Jones and Rice letters suppressed?
9. Who gave Schwartzkopf authority to suppress Rice claims and affidavit vouch for Bette Gow at trial?
10. Why was Rosner go between gangs and intelligence agency called into the case mix?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 11, 2007 8:34:28 GMT -5
I think you have touched upon the heart of the problem with this case, That is the belief that what is not evident is somehow more important than what is. A detective works with what he has, he lets the evidence tell it's story. A good detective wrings out every possible bit of information that evidence can yield, all of it. What is not present or discernible is conjecture and that is the staple of fiction. There are so many examples in the LKC where the remaining evidence can still yield more information, or one can find if the conclusions based upon it truthful ( or not) by a more intense examination.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 11, 2007 22:04:57 GMT -5
When I was in training we learned that crooks leave items pointing to others, and remove any of their traces, so what do you base your assumption on. Crooks actually steal or borrow things from those who might fall into blame. It's the wiping of obvious signs and deletion of writing or other materials, and is why the government takes computers for restoring deletions.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Mar 9, 2007 9:17:50 GMT -5
I would guesss some of this would stem from not being able to control the crime scene right from the start. Not making a cast of the footprint - for anyone with knowledge of law enforcement, would that have been SOP to do that at that time? I really can't believe that the fact that the room was wiped down never raised any red flags: the fact that the room had been wiped down shows that the kidnapper(s) had time to do this, so it wasn't a grab and run. And also, that the lights had to have been on in the room at some point to clean the room that thoroughly.
|
|
|
Post by giszmo on Mar 9, 2007 10:02:38 GMT -5
Not making a cast of the footprint - (mc1971)
Actually, there was a cast of the footprint made at Highfields which, I think, is even more disturbing than when we believed there wasn't one (ref: the trial).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2007 20:01:20 GMT -5
Good posts.... I have something in my Archive on this here: lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=michael&action=display&thread=1143232895Another first brough out by Dr. Gardner with a little help from Mark Falzini, the NJSP Archivist. BTW - if anyone has ever thought about contacting him but hesitates becasue they don't "want to bother him" you're making a terrible mistake. Mark is a great guy and very down to earth. He loves to hear from people interested in the case and is more then glad to assist Researchers with any questions and/or requests they may have.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 9, 2007 23:12:26 GMT -5
This is a perfect example of my missing items list, and is why I would look for something others had tried to hide. It seems that the prosecution didn't want Hauptmann freed at any cost, even if took hiding or falsifying evidence.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Apr 1, 2007 20:38:03 GMT -5
I seem to have ruffled some South African Feathers over my posting about some gold certificates being sold to South African collectors. Within a week after posting gold certificates being sold to collectors there one of my sites received 165 views and e-mail from South Africa, could they be fearing exposure for some reason? I think it takes inside information to solve a case not so much theory, because theory can lead far astray.
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Apr 1, 2007 22:36:01 GMT -5
"...one of my sites received 165 views and e-mail from South Africa, could they be fearing exposure for some reason?" (Rita) It's obvious from the writing under the red circle on the ransom note signature and around the inside edge (inside, not outside edge) of the blue rings that the South Africans were involved. Also the misspellings weren't "German" but rather Afrikaans, a language based on Dutch (another Germanic language). It's obvious, too, that they (the South Africans) monitor these boards. What else would explain the nearly instant appearance of them on Rita's website? Is it a coincidence that the abbreviation for South Africa is "SA", the same as the predecessor to the "SS"?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 2, 2007 5:13:03 GMT -5
I haven't even had (1) hit from South Africa - ever. I have been keeping track of all the different Countries who check the board out in the Member's Area and I am having a fun time doing it. The newest among our ranks is Morocco. Also, I posted a link to a copy of the American Bulletin in the Member's Area as well under the Source Material Thread.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Apr 2, 2007 20:26:51 GMT -5
I'm amazed at how many viewed in such a short time. I think the gold certificate buyers don't want to get into any legal conflict over how they were purchased. Getting odd e-mail, one in particular (e-mail-- Sold to Paradisians, may they be cursed by it), no they are all dead, the money gained from the gold certificates didn't help them, but the circumstances around their deaths suggested foul play. They used to travel a lot to Europe and Bahamas, and suspect this method for reaching buyers. I saw the gold certificates once only, as they were well hidden, but learned a lesson not forgotten to never look for them again.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Aug 18, 2007 18:29:24 GMT -5
One thing that is important to me is the timeline of the window that has been agreed upon by authorities as to when the kidnapping took place. 7:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. has been the time frame most use. If we go on what's on the record, Charlie was put to bed at 7:30, and if we believe that 7:30 is ruled out. Next, Gow checks in on Charlie at 8:00, and if we believe that, then the whole 7:30 to 8:00 block is eliminated. Next, we have CAL pulling into the driveway at 8:25 honking the horn - most likely this would have scared away anyone who was casing the place and hadn't acted yet. So, is 25 minute period between 8:00 and 8:25 ample time to get the job done? Not sure if it is. And another thing, if someone were casing the house for a period of time, they'd know Charlie shouldn't be there on a weeknight.
However, there is another 90 minute block from appx. 8:30 to 10:00. If this were a merely a crime of opportunity then that would be ample time for someone to pull it off. However, would this area be too remote for it to be a crime of opportunity? Meaning, it's so out of the way, it seems to me a little more foresight would be needed to pull it off logistically.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 18, 2007 19:08:14 GMT -5
Good post.
I happen to believe the crime occurred @ 8PM. Ellis Parker timed the car sighting by the Moore family and this was his estimate. I believe this makes sense if one believes Lupica did see one of the Confederates around 6PM. If he did, why would the Culprits wait?
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Aug 18, 2007 20:29:39 GMT -5
I'm interested in your opinion: Mine is "if" it did occur at 8:00, then IMO it would probably have to have some inside assistance to be able to get out of there before 8:25. B/C I see the 25 minute time frame as being tight - but if someone were able to allow them to start the process right at 8:00 then I guess it would be doable.
But most of my musings on the LKC tend to be on who may be involved, not necessarily how it was pulled off. So I'm always interested to hear what people who have knowledge on the evidence have to say about how they believe the actaul kidnapping occurred.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Aug 19, 2007 9:56:07 GMT -5
I believe Parker's conclusion of an 8 pm kidnapping is entirely untenable simply due to the amount of time it would have taken the kidnapper to reach the point where the Moore's claim to have seen a car with mud on its lights, speeding by between 8:20 and 8:25 pm. There's just not enough time to do what had to be done with even a minimum of caution against rushing the nursery right after the lights were turned out at 8 pm and risking someone still in the area. Then factor in the time taken to set it up, get in and out of the nursery with a 30 pound child, tear it down, the 12 to 15 minute hike from the house to Featherbed Lane, the time to get out of Featherbed Lane and drive the equivalent distance to where the Moore's saw the car, weather and road conditions.
It's just not do-able and even suggests to me that Parker himself might not have been aware the baby was last checked on at 8 pm and not 7:30 pm as was sometimes suggested. How many other cars driving the the muddy roads around Hopewell on the night of March 1, would also have had muddy lights, and with nothing specific to further identify them to a casual observer? I would also think the Conovers would have have been more likely to notice a vehicle exiting Featherbed Lane at about 8:20 pm as opposed to a later time frame represented by a kidnapping shortly after 9 pm and car exiting FL at approx. 9:30 pm, a time when would more likely have been turned in for the night. Despite their curiousity at the struggling car in Featherbed Lane at 6:30 to 6:45 pm, they noticed nothing further.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 19, 2007 18:17:48 GMT -5
Kevin's position is listed in the ladder thread so be sure to visit there to see his or he may repost it here..... I believe Parker was right. These people knew too much and it seems to me you strike at the first moment available to you. If you strike at 8PM it gives you a good head start. If they waited until after 8:25PM then someone tell me why? Did they know what time Lindbergh was coming home? Lupica saw a Confederate. This car's actions were indicative of someone thinking Lupica was somebody else. (See Dr. Gardner's unpublished work): I do believe there was inside help. From all reports this child was spoiled, a crier, and wouldn't let anyone (to include his Mother) pick him up without screaming. Are we to believe a "kidnapper" entered the window and this child never made a noise? I believe he was already out.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Aug 20, 2007 7:42:10 GMT -5
I tend to agree Michael. It's just too remote a location for the kidnapper(s) just to happen upon the opportunity. They had to know when and where to strike. And you'd assume the best place to get that info is from the staff. Or from someone who was communicating with the staff.
And another thing you brought up makes sense. That Charlie may have been sedated (or worse) when the kidnapper(s) took possession of him.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Aug 20, 2007 23:07:43 GMT -5
One of the problems I see with the tuesday kidnap story is the short periods available to someone caseing the house, can you see someone standing a distance from the house on rainy cold night speculating the right time to go in, can he see what is happening beyond the windows? Even if there was inside help how could those outside know if the insider would not for some unkown reason have Lindbergh or Anne standing with the insider at Charley's side. It would have been an imposible risk for anyone to just walk in even with inside help in those short periods of speculation. I think the laws of probability would have been against such an action occurring in those short time periods.
|
|