Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 21, 2008 15:54:11 GMT -5
I have great difficulty believing Betty or either of the Whateleys would have ever knowingly betrayed the Lindberghs. Even with the noose now back around Hauptmann tighter than it has been in four decades, where has there ever been even the hint of contact between him and the Hopewell servants? I tend to agree with Kevin that the common thread to any inside connection and helpful information to the architect of this crime, lies within the house itself, its construction and the commensurate network of news accounts, trade talk and general gossip that likely would have been accessible to anyone in Hauptmann's position. And there's no question the police suspected this and made a good effort of determining a connection in their questioning of all of the construction site employees. On the other hand, when you're planning to kidnap the most famous baby on the planet, you avoid the kind of direct source contact that investigators limited themselves to. With Hauptmann's penchant for resourcefulness, I'm sure he would have discovered the least detectable information trail.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 21, 2008 23:02:19 GMT -5
That's fine, nice, and easy to say, Chancellor, but what does anybody really know about Betty Gow? The Whateleys can be excluded for a variety of reasons, but Betty certainly can't if we're looking at a listing of insider suspects. Again, what does anybody know about Betty Gow? Very little for her entire life, except that she got into trouble with Red, and that the Lindbergh(s?) bailed her and forgot about it(?). Why would the Lindbergh and Morrow family (she worked there too) allow her back as a servant? That is certainly conduct unbecoming a servant or employee - yet they included her back. She must have had some punch! Parker's philosophy when looking for a crook was to find the one with the best alibi. So you and most investigators who have for years been looking at Nostyvestky(?) and perhaps Charles Olson and the NJSP should be looking for the weak link.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 22, 2008 6:10:14 GMT -5
There is one absolute fact we know about Betty Gow, Jack. She had ample opportunity as the primary caretaker of the child to facilitate an abduction under very much safer and easier conditions than that March night. She would also have able to do this in a manner which would cast far less suspicion upon her. If you argue inside help and planning with Gow in mind, then you pretty much eliminate Highfields as the target. That wasn't her domain, it was Anne's. That means Gow's assistance would be largely negated.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 22, 2008 20:45:23 GMT -5
Of course! Betty's involvement is an "if" and a "maybe" and a "possibly" - there is no proof. Unlike the implication that BRH did it alone - there is some proof of more than one person being involved. Certainly if Betty was involved the kidnappers wouldn't be running entirely along her timeline. There would have been other factors to consider including getting her involvment which would mean when that happened, to strike quickly before she changes her mind, comes to her senses, bails, whatever. Lindbergh's unusual stay onto Tuesday just presented the great opportunity when all things connected. If crimes are looked at instead of in separate most likely chunks, as a most likely flow, they are easier to see what more than likely happened. The first flow of LKC has some supporting evidence - questionable whereabouts of Hauptmann, visual evidence of Lupicia (similar car, similar person), multpile footprints going away from (but none going to?) residence, professionally (few could make it) constructed ladder, no sound inside house (Betty's radio a cover?), clean getaway, etc. Each of these points and others can be looked into lots, but the general flow and timing certainly suggests of professionalism. Logic says that if a single kidnapper was involved on 3/1/32 and about to do the deed, when CALII showed up, he/she would change their mind. This, according to flow, tells me that someone was telling them what to do. Get the job done or else. So it was a timing thing - do it now come hell or high water, and if it works it works, and unfortunately it worked. We never learned of Betty's on camera intimacy with the German Shepard, or whatever they had on her, because the MAFIA keeps their word. You are so right about Highfieldsbut and again it was probably a timing thing. They were looking for an insider (possibly got two) and the plan was probably for Highfields (long ladder which they threw a chunk of away at Hopewell). To say that ladder wouldn't work on third section is probably correct, but remember, with insider help they only had to get to the window. It's doubtfull that someone could alone enter and with a bundle exit that window with that ladder, but look at the dirt on the floor, and then again look at the no fingerprints - professional inside job. The wiping of the nursery suggests somebody went freaky when the crime actually happened and acted unusually.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 23, 2008 5:52:34 GMT -5
Good points Jack. Here is my problem with an insider at play. And when I say insider I am referring to someone in that household who physically assisted with the kidnapping. - It's almost suicidal
- The room and crib condition would never be left so undisturbed (suicidal again)
- The window would never have been closed
- No attempt to fake a forced entry
- An insider would never choose the one window with a broken shutterlock
- The ladder is completely in the wrong position for a hand off from the room. *
* This is very important. Try and receive this weight off center on that ladder from above and to the left. Also, try and hang that weight out the window over the table, suitcase,and deep sill. It takes considerable upper body strength. I understand what you are saying about "flow", Jack. I have a similar way of looking at things. If you have to start forcing an idea (square peg-round hole) in order for it to work or if a solution requires more and more complexity to fly, it's a clear indication that something is very wrong.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 23, 2008 12:27:35 GMT -5
As usual you are very correct, Kevkon. I know you understand about ladders - I've worked with them a lot too. Can we resolve (you're the wood guy) that the ladder was created by somebody who really knew what they were doing? Even if it's a construction ladder (meant to be attached to a structure) it would be patterned after a thing that very few people would know about. Your points are of course valid, but as I said, lots can be added to the salient issues. - Of course it would be suicidal (probably not technically, but in just) to assist from the inside. But it would also be suicidal to enter the house from the outside. Sometimes I look at things and just say this is unexplainable, but darn it, it did happen. Perhaps you didn't see the earlier post that said only a looneybinner would pull CALIII or JonBenet while their Father was home - but darn it somebody did, and in LKC I think they were under direction, or orders. - Did the police actually note an impression of CALIII? Do we have to talk to the crib guy? A lot of junk science could be eliminated right now if one of the original officers noted in his report that there was the impression of a baby still in the crib. - To my thinking, an insider would close the window - was cold - an outsider would have more of a tendency to scoot. - You're right about forced entry, but the dirt on the floor could have been a ruse (their way of faking entry). - I don't understand why an insider wouldn't choose that window. Seems they would know the faulty one, and just go with the presumed assumption that people would think the kidnapper got lucky - very lucky indeed. - You are correct, but the position of the ladder had to be not visible from CAL's desk - a strong indication that the crime happened after he got home, and the kidnapper knew something of his habits. Your footnote is, as you say, very important. A handoff is about the only way the crime could have been committed. Not crushing the suitcase or disturbing the mug are real keys (first things learned that are later disregarded). Remember it was dark, but an enterer probably would have waited until he/she got inside before they turned on the flashlight which they must have had. The longer the flashlight is off, the less attention it draws. Anne could have been about eleven feet away. That's of course if there was an enterer, which, according to the Bad Betty flow there wasn't. You are very perceptive. Square peg works sometimes, but if you've got too many square pegs sooner or later there aren't even enough holes to not fit them into. In the movie "Thelma And Louise," the detective (Harvey Keitel - should have gotten an Academy Award) says that "luck will only get you so far." Sound kinda like Haupptmann?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 23, 2008 21:32:37 GMT -5
You need not go any further than the very people who follow this case. Who among all of you have the tools, knowledge, and skill to rip saw lumber boards, plane them true, layout mortises, cut the mortises, crosscut the rungs, and nail the rungs into a 3/4"board without splitting it to pieces? Now add to all of that, all work is performed with hand tools and is probably done while wearing gloves. Oh yeah, one more minor thing. You must come up with a unique design which incorporates the need for lightness and compactness. Yeah, I'd say you would have to know what your doing.
Not an issue with an insider. The hand off (out?) would not require much time with the ladder. I doubt any insider would be concerned with the visibility of the ladder from the desk. They would have a much greater concern, the movements in the Nursery would be discernible to anyone in that Study.
The "insider" is a square peg, Jack. If you listen you can hear the noise made as people attempt to force it through a very round hole.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 23, 2008 22:31:12 GMT -5
OK Kevkon - I completely go along with you and we'll work this out. First you said the ladder was placed there by happenstance (random) but luckily it wasn't visible from the study window where Lindbergh sat. That's probably a 50-50 trial at not being seen - so a 50% chance of completion. Then the kidnapper climbs into the window and ironically doesn't step on the suitcase laying there (or if he does he's a twelve pound dwarf) and doesn't tip over the mug or whatever is sitting there - that's about a 20% chance (unbelievable to most eyes - especially because of the dirt) so now we're down to about 15%. Now he takes the baby from the crib without the baby crying and without disturbing much - ten percent easy - down to five percent. Now he exits noislessly and scoots away (closing the window - nice guy) at least ten percent and where are we? And you are really right about noises from above in the study - another five percent. We are at a position where we have to say it was impossible to do this crime from the outside. I don't know for sure that it was Betty Gow, but it was somebody.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 24, 2008 7:32:48 GMT -5
Ok, but if you completely go along with me , what's there to work out?
NEGATIVE Jack. I never used the term "happenstance", nor would I. The ladder was placed where it was purposefully and most likely due to the Study window. You are taking a strike against the "insider" theory and attempting to turn it into a hit. Won't work. My point is very simply this, a person attempting to break-in would be concerned with the ladder placement due to the time required for it to be in place and the possibility of it being observed from the Study . On the other hand a person needing only very little time to grab the child from an inside accomplice, would not be overly concerned.
See above. How do you calculate these "odds" , Jack?
More dubious "odds". You are also doing it again, trying to turn a strike into a hit for the "insider" team. Anyone, inside or out, had to go over that suitcase. to get the child out the window.
Here is where you have to look at what the evidence indicates. Why would an inside accomplice be concerned with not disturbing anything? And why would you think anyone, inside or out, would attempt to take a conscious living child out of that room. It didn't happen.
Another perfect example where everyone should look at the details and listen to the evidence. The only reason I can see for the window closing is directly related to the note placement. A second ladder climb, leave the note on the sill ( only an outsider would leave the note there to avoid re-entering the room) and close the window to keep the wind from blowing the note away.
Thanks. but it only matters if someone were actually below in that room.
Everything you are using as an argument for why it "had to be an insider" also applies to the "insider" theory! It's sort of like saying Oswald couldn't have hit Kennedy from above and behind but someone in the front and to the right could have! It's a slight of hand, Jack. Bottom line. No one of somewhat sound mind would actively participate in grabbing the child in a house with only 5 possible suspects and not go to any effort to overstate the effects of a forced entry and abduction.
Jack, think about what Dave means when he says "a simple crime" (and you have to be smart to screw it up). He's right. It's simpler than most think. OSS, mafia, hundreds of co-conspirators, Nazis, and who else? Did you ever notice how some people can never accept that the actions of a few people can have such dramatic consequences? Think about what Dave means by simple, that's the key !
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2008 8:12:18 GMT -5
A right side placement of this ladder means the person (supposedly) using it to gain access to the Nursery would have to use the left hand. By placing it to the right it is out of the view for anyone at or near this desk. For my money, Ellis Parker was right and the crime occurred before Lindbergh got home.
Now, for arguments sake, they supposedly knew Lindbergh wasn't going to be home because they somehow knew he had an event to be at - it couldn't have been Lindbergh they were avoiding - right? Even if he is home the "snatch" was supposed to be when he wasn't, I mean they planned for everything else....
Additionally, why wait until he gets home anyway? If you believe Lupica saw one of the Culprits then its obvious they were there at 6PM. If they struck after Lindbergh got home I think the common sense question would be: "why did they wait?"
The same applies to the window which had no prints on it despite it having been touched within hours of the crime by the residents. And so if the Culprits wore gloves why would they wipe down the window? Betty Gow certainly wasn't wearing them.
Let's say Betty Gow was the "insider." Did she have the absolute luxury of knowing no one else in the house would stumble upon her activities? I don't and cannot believe everyone in the house "was in on it." I also do not believe whoever assisted was a real Criminal. What I see going on at this crime scene was overkill in some places and cover-up in others.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 24, 2008 12:06:01 GMT -5
I never said Betty Gow was involved - I said she was the most likely to have been involved. An interesting thing about her is that she wasn't badgered like Violet was. Walsh laid off of Betty. To say that's just an unusuality is really incorrect because Stormin Norman Sr. and his NJSP really wanted to solve this crime by themselves (plenty of evidence of that). Betty really had a couple anguish moments talking to Reily, but other than that she was left alone. Her past was never brought out except for her brother in Detroit (again by Reily) and Red was long gone (part of the plot?). There are people who havn't been looked at enough if you're truly trying to solve this. Red, Thayer, Betty - and did Curtis really know more than logic would tell us he should? Betty especially is suspect, because if CAL really wanted to get to the bottom of the thing, why protect her, yet he did because her past wasn't even known until about 1990. Thanks for the Bingos!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 24, 2008 15:06:47 GMT -5
You can say the same for the other two windows ( different side ladder placement) and they offer a much easier access for someone, especially a woman, who needs to hand out a child.
You have a lot more faith in Kelly's fingerprint abilities than me. Personally, I think he wasn't up to the task.
Then they were pretty stupid. Handing a sick 1yr old out into a March nite via a risky ladder is tantamount to homicide.
But what really counts is that the "overkill" was not evident in the manner one would expect with an insider and their need to cover their actions. Anyone in that household would know all bets are off once the gate drops. They would certainly be keenly aware of the need to make it seem as if no inside assistance was provided. Ruffle the bed sheets, move the screen, leave the window open, and a few other touches would be in order to convince everyone that an outsider came into the room. Another important point which can't be ignored, the insider would be the absolute weak link in the chain. That means that they are a major liability to whomever was involved. Such a liability, in fact, that I doubt they would have a very long lifespan.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2008 15:38:05 GMT -5
Sure but they didn't have the warped shutter. The shutter explains how this group of "outsiders" were able to gain access without smashing something.
I do because he finds the baby's prints on his toys and blocks with the black powder method. Think about this.... No prints found within hours of the crime but prints are being found days, and weeks later of Charles Jr.
Lt. Hick's, while employed by Prosecutor Hauck, found Charles Jr.'s prints on the banister months after the crime using the Black Powder method.
Stupid or maybe they just didn't care.
Wiping down the Nursery window seems to be evidence of that. Muddy "smudges" toward the crib. Betty in her trial prep statement saying there were muddy hand prints on the blankets when there is no such statement to this effect anywhere by anyone else.
Not when Lindbergh says that Betty "would not be touched."
Wouldn't the real liability be Hauptmann once he's caught? Or Condon once he fingers Hauptmann? In fact, people were killed, or died, so perhaps that liability had indeed been erased.
FYI - when Hauptmann told his wife about his crimes in Germany he said that others were involved but that he kept his mouth shut about them.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 24, 2008 15:44:08 GMT -5
It's nice people who are still interested in this old crime - thanks to Kevkon and Michael. The problem, of course, is that it's always been looked at as a crime. The solution is not to solve the crime, but to figure the motive. So, I don't care what Dave says - it's not a simple crime or it would have been simply solved eighty years ago. It's more of an ongoing problem. The problem is then, since the physical crime was solved, what was the motivation? Do you buy Dudley Shoenfeldt? - I don't. I like money as an instigater. Much more money than $ 50,000 - much more. So where is that direction - not towards Hauptmann's apartment - towards big names. Donovan (especially), Thayer (accomplice) and Hoover all were in some way involved and never even questioned. So the lies about the NJSP maybe will come out - after the initial investigation they were never allowed to do anything - but it was their crime - duh? To my mind the most interesting involvement person is Thayer. Thayer and Betty? He was a party guy, and she was party too. Who knows?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 24, 2008 16:37:24 GMT -5
I know about ladders - so do you Kevkon. To most efficiently get the kid out you'd place the ladder directly under the window. But we're looking for subterfuge here, and so stop jiving. You did comment earlier, though I don't recall the word, that the ladder was placed (piecemeal - will you object to that?) and you strongly objected when you disagreed. Big deal - so I'll award you a Silver Star to your Viceroyism, but discuss relevant issues. I'm spending way too much time on this thing anyway, but it's kinda fun - but no money! So I don't want you to say anything and I won't either - listen to the band - know who Michael Nesmuth is?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 24, 2008 16:58:22 GMT -5
Anoyher Michel song pertains: Lee Michaels - "been fourtain days since I don't know when.................I just sqaw her with my best friend,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Do you know what i mean,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Do you know what I mean? ?? Do you know what I mean Kevkon? Hey Kiss will be at Sturgis - you can get tickets now from me - or be left out.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 24, 2008 20:30:16 GMT -5
Kiss? Why not throw in Wayne Newton for good measure! Just one more reason that I won't be there Jack! BTW It's Nesmith not Nesmuth
Not at all sure what the hell your talking about Jack. I'm just looking for the truth, not subterfuge. If I want that I'll read LeCarre.
You should! It was (mostly)!
It's all relevant Jack. Depends on where you are, when you're there and who you are. Sometimes it's not all about the money. Still, many have killed for far, far less than $50k of depression era greenbacks.
Sure. That's another strike against an insider at work.
That is one reason why I suspect Kelly failed that night. There's no reason for anyone inside or outside to wipe prints. Wearing gloves is easier. Also wiping prints often leaves evidence of the wiping. I think Kelly was just overwhelmed.
But who could foresee that such a demand would be made and met ?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2008 20:49:28 GMT -5
I believe its evidence of insider help. How on earth would these people know this shutter was warped? They also utilized the board-walk, in the dark, in order to use this window.
I'm not sure what that means. Either he knew what he was doing or he didn't. Wiping doesn't make sense, you're right, that's why whoever did it made a mistake and most likely the insider. Now it may have been the Kidnapper(s) if they weren't wearing gloves, or, if they took them off for some reason and felt they may have touched something there.
The fact no prints were there was subject of conversation among many Troopers.
Betty, perhaps...
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 24, 2008 21:37:41 GMT -5
Unfortunately, among professional fingerprint experts there is no presumption that handling a weapon will leave any usable prints. Consider, for example, the following statement by Alan McRoberts of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Scientific Services Bureau — Identification Section:
Often, detectives are disappointed and prosecutors are frustrated with the lack of the irrefutable evidence of the "suspect's" fingerprints on a particular item of evidence, which he must have handled. It is unfortunate that, unlike on television, the suspects prints don't always appear. A look at the factors influencing the chances of obtaining prints will assist in understanding the fragile and elusive nature of latent impressions. Each of the following various factors independently or in combination can account for the lack of prints on a surface: 1) Individuals don't always have a sufficient quantity of perspiration and/or contaminates on their hands to be deposited, 2) When someone touches something, they may handle it in a manner which causes the prints to smear, 3) The surface may not be suitable for retaining the minute traces of moisture in a form representative of the ridge detail, and 4) The environment may cause the latent print to deteriorate. The most important fact dealing with the lack of fingerprints is that it neither suggests, implies, or establishes that any person did or did not touch the item of evidence. Items which have been witnessed to have been handled and laboratory experimentation repeatedly reiterate this premise.
[...]
When a report reads "no prints," what does that really mean? It means no prints of evidentiary value were preserved. It does not mean that the item was wiped down, or that no one had ever touched or handled it. Occasionally observations to establish that the item has been wiped down may be made and reported, but it usually would not be possible to determine at what point it was wiped or even if the item had been handled since the wiping. The term "no prints" does not mean that there were no marks or smears — it means that if any markings were present, they lacked sufficient detail to be of evidentiary value. As there are limits to the collection of prints at all scenes, an evaluation of what should be preserved as evidence is a necessity. Technicians cannot develop, preserve, document, and collect all fragmentary portions of ridge detail at crime scenes. Realistic expectations and a point of diminishing return are factors with which to reckon. ("Fingerprints: What They Can & Cannot Do!," The Print, Volume 10, number 7, June 1994, pp. 1-3. Emphasis in original)
Or consider the following quote from Sharon Allen, a latent fingerprint examiner with 25 years of experience in the Ohio State Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Identification and the FBI:
A survey of prospective jurors done by Sgt. Charles Illsley of the West Utah Police Department included questions dealing with fingerprint testimony. When asked where these jurors acquired most of their knowledge about fingerprints, 58 percent listed television as their primary source, followed by newspapers, radio, books, and other sources. Frequently, crime scene technicians and lab personnel feel compelled to compete with the “Quincy's” of TV and the technology of “James Bond,” all within the time frame of “Sixty Minutes.”
Although most police personnel and prosecutors are aware of the factors relating to fingerprint identifications, some myths and fallacies — many perpetrated by the media — still linger.
Myths and Fallacies:
NO LATENT PRINTS WERE FOUND AT THE SCENE, SO HE MUST HAVE WORN GLOVES OR HE WIPED THEM OFF!
There are many factors that cause an item to lack sufficient ridge detail. Surfaces, pressure, or the condition that existed before or after the finger or hand touched the surface, are some of these. If the background where the latent print is found is rough, grooved, or textured, it may impede the continuity of the ridge detail in the latent print. For example, take a plastic baggie in your hand and make a fist. Releasing the bag in your hand you will notice the baggie unraveling. The ridge detail originally connecting in its compressed state will lack this continuity in the unraveled state. The amount of pressure applied to the surface has varying effects. The results differ drastically when the items, say, papers, were “grasped or rifled” through.
Again, the examiner does not always know the conditions that existed before or after the latent print touched the surface, but understanding the factors affecting latents aids the technician in explaining the fragile nature of these prints.
Weather conditions may be a contributing factor in the lack of prints. In cold weather, the pores that exude perspiration tend to close. In hot weather, the opposite is true — too much perspiration causes the recordings of the prints to be spotty and distorted. The ridges must contain some sweat, grease, oil, or other foreign matter or no latent print will be left on the item that was touched.
A large percentage of latent prints are “lost” before they are received at the lab for analysis because of poor handling or packaging of items to be examined. Most crime labs readily dispense information and assistance to police who may be having difficulty or problems with evidence retrieval.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 25, 2008 8:47:24 GMT -5
I apprecite the information you have written and agree with it. However, I don't think it could possibly apply to this instance. Maybe if, as an example, we were discussing the chisel only but we're talking an area touched by many people within a certain & immediate period of time. (And of course this is my position - I am not trying to tell anyone what to believe because anyone studying this case MUST be comfortable with this type of evidence). We know from various accounts the Police believed the Nursery had been wiped down. Next, we have a "control" where the banister directly outside the Nursery in the hallway had fingerprints on it of the child months after he disappeared. We have Dr. Hudson's own words concerning what he saw, and what was told to him by Kelly, Kubler, and anyone else connected to the fingerprint investigation. From Dr. Hudson's Liberty Article: A point of great 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. Now by the time of Kelly's trial testimony, and even then I think it supports the above, it was "damage control" for the Prosecution. Kelly was also the guy who gave Lewis the pictures to sell to a Newspaper Contact (ultimately leading to Lewis being dismissed by the NJSP). During this testimony Kelly would say he found "no prints" of "nobody." This would graduate into one answer that no prints "of value" which would then ultimately lead to the Vick's palm print, or whatever it was, on the crib railing. Later Kelly admits he found a "mark" on the window which causes him to offer suggestions as to what could cause the "mark," like someone wearing a glove.... Wilentz would then lead Kelly into admitting a child in a bag brushed across the window sill would erase fingerprints. Fact is, I have a direct request in writing regarding fingerprints on the window and the response which comes directly from the NJSP is that there were none. Not something which says "we found some but they didn't have sufficient ridge count", or "prints were found but were of no value" as I have seen in other reports regarding fingerprint evidence.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 25, 2008 10:24:21 GMT -5
Kiss is a good show. So is Wayne Newton. Does the fact that Newton has been a headline sellout act since he was seven years old (over fifty years) count for anything? I paid to see Pat Boone once and I remember a woman commenting that she'd never pay to see Pat Boone - well the bottom line is she never saw him and I did - hey nice dinner too - was a nice time. I regret not seeing Dean Martin in a similar way, but I did see Eddy Rabbit before he died. Do you know if David Allen Coe is really talking about Eddy Rabbit in that song "Longhaired Redneck?" He says Jimmy Rabbit - I touught perhaps he legally couldn't use Rabbit's name. Did you know Eddy Rabbit wrote Elvis' biggest hit? Somebody freaked and tried to wipe the nursery at the time the crime was committed. At first I thought Ollie, because his prints shouldn't be there but it seems very much to be overkill - and Ollie could have worn gloves and probably would have if he was concerned about fingerprints. Wiping surfaces and closing windows and keeping a crib fresh is a maid thing.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 25, 2008 10:57:10 GMT -5
OK Kevkon - just one read back: You say: "I doubt any insider would be concerned with the visibility of the ladder from the desk." Why not - that would add suicide suicide to the suicide mission. For Michael - I read (perhaps in a not good source, but I can find it if it seems important) that Anne checked on the baby at 9:00. I'll look it up if you think it's of interest - several researchers don't footnote things so I'm not sure about that.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 25, 2008 11:48:51 GMT -5
Here is my problem with this issue. The lack of discernible latent prints vs the evidence of smeared or smudged prints (evidence of wiping) vs the total absence of any marks whatsoever. There are the options. Now believe it or not, I have some experience with fingerprints. I do a lot of finishing and some finishes are extremely sensitive to such things as the moisture, oils, and other substances left by fingerprints. these prints will telegraph right through the finish. Now wiping the surface will only smear the residue. The only way to eradicate them altogether is by using a solvent. Are we to believe that the entire Nursery was wiped down with a solvent ? Look at just one window and all of the irregular surfaces offered by the molding profiles, I wouldn't even wanna guess at how long it would take to eradicate all traces of human fingerprints in that one spot. Then you have different materials such as painted wood, glass, wallpaper, fabric, and a few more, each of which would require a different cleaning method. Are you suggesting that the room was cleaned to this extent? Is that more reasonable than prints that were not identifiable or an injured trooper facing the pressure of this case that night? In any case, the main question should be why would an insider have any reason to eradicate their prints when they were expected to be present?
I'm sure they are Jack.
Well, that's not exactly what I said. The point I made is that the visibility from the desk is not your prime concern if you are conducting an abduction in a room directly overhead where the guy is sitting. Which, by the way, brings up the often contentious point about whether the child was killed instantly or not. If you're concerned with being seen and heard, you are sure as hell not going to fool around with a living child and all the trouble that will entail. Which logically brings up another contentious point. If you have planned this enterprise and all that is required to execute it, then you know that silencing and immobilizing the child is paramount to success. So if you have an insider at work, do they kill the child? If so, then why even bother with a ladder? Kill em and a toss him.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 25, 2008 12:05:13 GMT -5
That is exactly what you said, Kevkon.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 25, 2008 12:22:48 GMT -5
How do you suppose Betty, with the vics fresh on her fingertips, leaves no prints on that window sill, window pane, window glass, and window lock?
As most fingerprint experts will tell you - glass is probably one of the best surfaces to locate prints. Kelly testifies there was only 1(?) "mark" which could have been just about anything. Metal under normal conditions is a good source for prints too. Painted wood isn't the best but isn't the worst either. Just too many sources for prints from a multitude of people to believe Kelly's testimony, even if true, can be a normal situation.
In my opinion someone took a rag or otherwise and cleaned the areas they felt prints were left behind. Maybe they used a cleaner, I don't know, but what they did was effective in eliminating everyone's prints in the areas one would expect the Kidnapper(s) were when the child was snatched.
Next consider this: When they decided they needed CJr.'s prints to possibly use as an identifier they didn't have any on file. This caused them to go looking for them in the house and everywhere they expected to find his prints outside of the aforementioned areas - they found them. High chair, blocks, toys, banister, etc.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 25, 2008 13:45:36 GMT -5
Once again, no prints or smudges or no discernible prints? If you are saying that the window was wiped completely clean, then the wiping process involved a solvent. Otherwise it's either that Betty didn't touch the window in such a way as to leave an identifiable print, the surface was not conducive to prints, or Kelly was too aggressive in his brushing. Open and close a double hung colonial window. Many times the areas touched are the edge of the sash or muntins which are profiled and not flat. You don't usually touch the glass. The window was not locked, so her prints would not be there. Also again, what purpose would wiping prints serve an insider, especially one who freely admitted to being in the room? How does this in any way help the cause of the insider other than to create more suspicion? Just how long do you think it would take to completely "clean" that room and it's contents of any traces of human presence? How would one get rid of the odor of the cleaner or solvent? On the other hand, if an intruder came in and was wearing gloves he may very well have destroyed the existing latents. If he wasn't wearing gloves he may have wiped the surfaces that he touched. I still say that no insider would do something to increase their risk even if CAL himself swore to protect on a stack of bibles. The first thing you are going to think of is to show a non-assisted forced entry. And that's a helluva lot easier to accomplish than wiping down the entire room with rags and cleaning solvent. In fact it's a quite common practice used to throw off the investigators. The last thing in the world you would do is leave a nice tidy crime scene for everyone to ponder.
And I'm sure they would have or did find Betty's prints as well. But the relevant point is how many places did they dust without results that would have been expected to have them. Also, and I think it's an important point, they weren't facing the same conditions and pressure experience that night.
Sorry Jack, but it's not. Please don't take what I say out of context. If Cal was sitting at that desk during the abduction, the ladder placement is the least of your problems. Another thing, you are focusing solely on the placement of the ladder in a static position. That's only part of the picture. You still have to erect this ladder and take it down and it's not at all like a modern extension ladder. Both of these operations would put you in the sight line of the desk at some point.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 26, 2008 8:46:12 GMT -5
I am just not comfortable with the fact that when the child was there, they went through this ritual of opening and closing these windows and shutters during his naps in the afternoon and at night once he went to bed. Here we have an entire weekend plus Monday where this was going on and no prints whatsoever are found on the entire "kidnap" window. All we have its what Kelly testified to as an "unidentified mark" nearer to the stein side of the window.
As far as Betty goes, she is the one who was supposedly with the child just as I believe the "heist" took place and/or immediately before. She gives an alibi to the Dog (because it was with her), and explains the child went to sleep "unusually" fast therefore eliminating the reason for the child not crying out when the "stranger" supposedly enters the window.
Let's face the facts here.... Timing, darkness, windy, window, the rules, child home that night, no fingerprints, shutter, dog, crying spoiled toddler, obstacles throughout the room, people awake, ladder, note, and a stranger abduction, etc. etc..
For my money, and I'm not a betting man, we've got an Insider involved here.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 26, 2008 10:26:55 GMT -5
But why if there is an insider involved, does that insider fail to attempt to dispel that notion? Here would be a person directly in harm's way. he/she would be acutely aware of that fact as would anyone else involved. That's a enormous risk to all. No one would want that person to be subject to undue suspicion. It's the weakest link in the chain. So why needlessly give cause for such suspicion through failing to accentuate the unassisted scenario? it makes absolutely no sense to me. And to think of how incredibly easy it would be to purposefully make the entry seem more like it was solely the work of an outsider. The fingerprint issue is just one of many examples of this. Break the window, mar up the sash, move a piece of furnishing, disrupt the crib, leave the window open, etc, etc, these are all things that could have been done to keep the investigators focused on an intruder. And then there is the timing issue to consider. If it's an inside job, why not pull off the abduction much later? Then you will have a greater span of time prior to the discovery that the child is missing. For Betty to be an accomplice we have to accept that she does so with the knowledge of the 10pm bed check. That means her cohorts are well aware of this as well. Why settle for a couple of hours when you can have 8? If you feel CAL is involved as well as Betty, then that fact becomes even more pronounced. Then there is the issue of the ladder to consider. Why bring 3 sections if you already know you don't need all of them? Why place the ladder in such an awkward position for a quick handout? I'm not even sure that someone on that ladder could grab the child from that position. If Betty is involved, then you almost have to believe CAL is as well (unless you believe she was capable of killing or silencing the child and lifting him over the table and out of the window by herself). So then why the concern with him seeing the ladder? You place the ladder wherever you want. And why stop there, why not insure that one of the other windows which are easier to pass something out of have an unlockable shutter? It just keeps getting more complicated as one explanation requires a new one. For my money, that is a clear indication of a peg that doesn't fit the hole it's being put in.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 26, 2008 11:05:59 GMT -5
I'll try to answer these questions as they come off the top of my head.... What we are doing is asking "why did" and "why didn't" as a way to answer whether or not an Insider was at work.
It depends on who you mean. Obviously not Whateley since he told Reporters that he believed there was an Inside connection as did Mrs. Morrow.
Now if you mean Betty, then I believe she did attempt to dispel that notion.
I think this was done. I believe wiping down the area was meant to do this. I believe leaving the ladder behind was meant to do this. I believe the note was meant to do this. I believe those muddy smudges or footprints leading toward the crib were meant to do this.
I believe because it was an inside job it answers this question. You need the Insider awake at the time to assist in the perpetration of the crime. You need other people occupied with whatever they are doing away from the Nursery. In this case no one was in the area of the Nursery - in a later time, we have Anne in the next room with her adjoining door open. Where's the dog then? Additionally, we're supposed to believe it was done with the knowledge that CAL wasn't going to be home when the crime was committed.
But doesn't this suggest if they don't they are pointing to an insider?
While many of CAL's actions are suspicious, I don't believe it has to be all or nothing as it relates to the both of them.
You can't do that without getting caught in my opinion. This could only have worked under all of the circumstances with someone assisting. You are pointing out things that prove they needed information they could not have possessed without help. That's why they didn't do as you suggest. Again, its simply my opinion, I may be completely alone feeling as comfortable with this, and I encourage more thoughts on the subject in either direction.
It's how I've been learning more about the case then anything else.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 26, 2008 13:07:19 GMT -5
Interesting how we are seeing this in completely different ways. Wiping the area so extensively would imply that someone had time ( and cleaning supplies!) which points toward an insider. The note, in itself may be seen either way. However, wouldn't a phone call be a lot more effective? I look at it this way, try and be at that time and place. You're faced with a missing child and few clues of identity. Ok, you have a note. But you would probably still focus on those around you. A simple phone call would be very distracting and effective. Just another example of something simple that I would expect to see happen. Look at the Ramsey case as a contemporary example. had there been a phone demand prior to discovering the body and in lieu of the long ransom note, I would bet that most of the focus would have been removed from the Ramseys.
I don't see why not, it happens every day of the week somewhere.
But help of what kind? There are just too many problems with the active insider theory, imho. Just the coordination would be incredibly difficult and risky. Too many variables out of anyone person's control. As I have said, with such an insider at play, there would be all sorts of opportunities to snatch that child under safer, more controlled, and less suspicious means.
Yeah, it's good to hash out ideas with others. It's so easy to get locked into some position without seeing it from another perspective.
|
|