|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 30, 2012 17:24:55 GMT -5
I’ve been interested in the Lindbergh Kidnapping since high school and just recently subscribed to this message board. I check back every so often and while I’ve certainly read some interesting theories here (the Daddy-Warbucks-Did-It one is especially intriguing), I find that the simplest explanation is usually the best, otherwise one gets lost in a tangle of blind alleys and false leads. That being said, what I’ve gleaned from the case over the years is that while there is certainly a good deal of circumstantial evidence to suggest something more than a simple kidnapping gone wrong may have occurred, all that evidence seems, to me, to disintegrate on close inspection. Take, for instance, Violet Sharpe’s suicide, which many take as an admission of guilt over participating in a larger kidnap conspiracy. That Violet killed herself because she was involved in the kidnapping would seem a logical enough conclusion, except for the fact that no evidence was ever found linking her to the crime and nothing in her background suggested she would’ve ever participated in anything of the sort. Nevertheless, someone doesn’t up and kill themselves simply because they feel badgered or put out by police questioning, so what happened? To begin with, Violet Sharpe seems to have been a very gregarious, outgoing person—someone who liked to date and socialize. She also seems to have been very proud to have employment at a time when so many were out of work, doubly so considering the caliber of people she was fortunate enough to work for—one of the finest families in the country. All this being the case, my guess is, to show off her intimate knowledge of the rich and famous, Violet Sharpe discussed the Lindberghs—their routine, their comings and goings, etc.—with anyone who cared to listen. And when the baby went missing, I think she assumed (correctly or incorrectly) that she’d said something to the wrong person or that someone had overheard her talking about the Lindberghs, and that she had thereby inadvertently facilitated the kidnapping. In a panic, she got very defensive and evasive when police questioned her, making her a person of interest who they were not going to let go of. At that point, Violet’s thinking could well have been, “Even though I don’t know what I said or who I said it to, now that the police won’t leave me alone, it’s only a matter of time before they figure things out. Once that happens, if I’m not tried as an accomplice (albeit an unwitting one), at the very least I’ll be thrown out into the street and never work again. My life is over.” I can see how the guilt and fear generated by this could easily drive someone to take their own life, particularly someone a bit naïve and highly strung to begin with, as Violet Sharpe seems to have been. Since nothing was ever found to link her to the crime, I think this explanation makes more sense than assuming she killed herself because she was somehow involved in the kidnapping and feared exposure, as many have suggested over the years. Something else which, for many, suggests a conspiracy or “inside help” is the crime scene itself: The ladder was found several yards from the house, with a split rail, and impressions in the mud indicated that it had been placed to the side of the nursery window, as opposed to directly below it (a seemingly easier point of entry for a kidnapper or burglar). For some, this indicates a handoff by one of the household servants to a kidnapper waiting at the top of the ladder. But while the position of the ladder does indeed indicate a handoff, it says nothing about the identity of the person doing the handing off. And since no evidence was ever found linking any members of the household to the crime, what the position of the ladder really indicates to me is two kidnappers: First, as placing the ladder directly below the nursery window would’ve also put directly in front of the lower, curtainless library window (clearly visible to anyone inside who happened to pass by), the ladder is placed to the side of the windows. Kidnapper A climbs the ladder, gets inside the nursery and subdues the baby as Kidnapper B climbs the ladder and waits at the top. Kidnapper A returns to the window, handing the baby off to Kidnapper B, who starts down the ladder as Kidnapper A pulls himself back onto the ladder from the nursery windowsill. They climb down, jump in their car and speed off with the baby. All this would’ve been extremely awkward for a single kidnapper (getting back onto the ladder carrying the baby seems especially cumbersome), so I think more than one person took part in the crime that night and that this was their plan, which went awry when Kidnapper B, suddenly too heavy with added weight of the baby, caused a rail of the ladder to split. The whole thing crashed to the ground and the baby was killed in the fall, smashing his head on a lower windowsill or the stone footer at the base of the house. In a blind panic, the kidnappers simply left the ladder where it lay (after all, what other explanation could there be for leaving something that large and incriminating behind?) and hastily dumped the body in the woods (the baby’s burial site—a shallow depression which looked as if it had been scratched out of the dirt with someone’s shoe, barely covered over with some leaves and just a few yards from a road—also seems to indicate panic, that something went horribly wrong). Something else which many feel is indicative of inside help is the timing of the kidnapping. The Lindberghs rarely (if ever) stayed at the Hopewell house past the weekend and the kidnapping occurred on a Tuesday, so how could anyone have known the family would be there that particular night? Obviously, the kidnappers must have had up-to-the-minute knowledge of the family’s movements and therefore had an accomplice in the household. Again, an easy enough conclusion to draw, but, to me, it seems extremely foolish for an informant to greenlight a kidnapping on a night when the intended victim wouldn’t usually be present. One of the first things the police would say under the circumstances is that, given the odd timing, there must’ve been inside help, and, in a household that small, whoever provided that information would then be under almost immediate suspicion and investigation. And since, again, no real evidence was ever found to incriminate the servants or anyone else in the household, I don’t believe the kidnappers had inside help, or even that it would’ve been crucial to carry out the crime: It was common knowledge where the Lindbergh house was, and the kidnappers, naturally enough, could’ve simply assumed that was where the Lindbergh baby would be and just got lucky. Further as to timing, it’s been fairly well established that the kidnapping occurred at around 9pm, a relatively early hour during which the house was still active, so then the question is, without inside help, why would an intruder risk entering a house with the lights on, with the occupants clearly still up and about? First, I think it’s safe to assume that whoever committed this crime did not just drive up to the house, immediately rush inside and grab the baby. Rather, it makes more sense to me that the kidnappers arrived well beforehand and watched the house for several hours, paying special attention to the nursery window to make sure that a light didn’t come on in that room, that there was no activity in that part of the house. Waiting until the dead of night, when everyone was asleep, would probably ensure that the crime wouldn’t be discovered for hours, true—but it might also amplify any noise an intruder might make, whereas entering a house with at least some activity could more readily mask the sounds of an intruder's movements. An odd and very risky line of reasoning perhaps, but I think the best evidence for it is that it seems to have worked, as no one heard or noticed anything that they considered particularly suspicious, even as the crime was being committed in their midst. But even granting all this, how could a kidnapper know where the nursery was in the house without inside help? For one thing, plans of the house had been published and, on top of that, the butler gave unauthorized tours of the house during the week while the Lindberghs were away, so anyone could’ve gotten in and familiarized themselves with the layout beforehand. The one thing I can’t explain is why no fingerprints were found in the nursery—not the family’s, the servants’ the baby’s; no fingerprints were found whatsoever—something which continues to baffle and raise eyebrows. When this question was asked at Hauptmann’s trial, the answer could be interpreted as meaning not that there were no fingerprints found in the nursery, but rather that no USEABLE prints were found—only partials and smudges. If this was the case, then nothing strange would necessarily be indicated. But there is no way to ascertain if that was indeed the intended answer, so the fingerprint issue is essentially useless in telling us what happened, one way or the other. So, okay, if it wasn't an inside job, then who did it? While he may not have gotten a fair trial, I still think Hauptmann almost certainly had to have done...something. If not, he's the victim of the most incredible string of bad luck in the history of modern crime: That he was a German and ransom notes appeared to have been written by a German; that a rail of the kidnap ladder appears to have been made from a floorboard in his attic; that he'd previously been convicted of breaking and entering in Germany using a ladder; that he was in possession of nearly $15K in ransom money; that he lived just a few minutes from the cemeteries where the ransom was passed; that he bore a striking resemblance to the so-called "Cemetery John" to whom the ransom was passed—I could go on, but I think you get the idea. And while all this evidence is admittedly pretty circumstantial, there is nevertheless a mountain of it, which, to my mind, constitutes more than mere coincidence. So my guess is that Hauptmann and Isidor Fisch (the man Hauptmann said had given him the ransom money he was in possession of, and who also, incidentally, applied for a return visa to Germany on the day the baby's body was found) were part of a small group of German emigres in the Bronx (a group that could very well have consisted of just the two of them), who came up with a get-rich-quick kidnap scheme which went horribly wrong when their hostage was accidentally killed. There is, after all, more to suggest Hauptmann and Fisch's involvement than has been uncovered against anyone else over the years. Now, let me apologize both for the length of this post and for my ignorance. For all my interest in it, I doubt very much that I’ve researched this case anywhere near as much as some of the contributors here clearly have. So rather than debunk anyone’s theories, I’m basically trying to lay out everything substantive that always bothered me about the case (Violet Sharpe’s suicide, the question of inside help, etc.) and offering what to me seem plausible explanations, bearing in mind that, as I’ve said, the simplest explanation is often the one nearest the truth. But if anyone at all has alternative explanations or information that rule mine out, I’m eager to hear all of it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 30, 2012 22:25:26 GMT -5
Thanks for the post and I am glad you choose to type it out. My personal approach would be to comment on it piece by piece - so first is Violet Sharp.
When there is a particular angle, and the subject dies, your main source of information dies with them. So what needs to be done in my opinion, is to use this board to brain-storm the many different ideas.
Now your ideas are very good ones concerning "why" she may have acted as she did then eventually commit suicide. I don't have her file in front of me so I will go from memory at the moment....
She did accept money for information in the past. I believe it was a Reporter who befriended her. If someone remembers this then back me up, if not then I will have to locate it. Sharp is very unstable. On top of that I remember in the Reports it saying she wasn't "right" after an motorcycle accident. Either way, when it came to men Sharp seemed to be extremely weak and emotional. Both Inspector Walsh and Col. Schwarzkopf said that her suicide implied guilt of involvement. Walsh went on to say that men will use women for exactly the reasons I outlined above concerning Sharp.
I also seem to recall that Hauptmann was asked by Leibowitz to tell him how he would have committed the crime if he'd decided to do it. At some point Hauptmann said he would have gotten "sweet" with one of the woman who worked there.....
Is there anything in Sharp's backround which suggests she would be involved in the Kidnapping knowingly? IDK. I haven't seen anything. But, in the alternative, is there anything in Hauptmann's back round to suggest he'd Kidnap or Murder a child? Absolutely not. So I'd say, as a matter of a test or control, that this fact has no real standing to eliminate someone.
Sharp's actions are odd. Her running down the steps to announce she'd been poisoned I believe helped create a rumor that she had been murdered. If one thinks about it - why did she do that if she wanted to kill herself? Obviously if you swallow that stuff you know what you are doing and know the end result regardless.
The other theory was that she was pregnant and ashamed.
I've always said there was a lot of information to hide being in that circle, and Springer was the man who was in charge to make sure it stayed a secret. So when people acted suspiciously it could have been they were guarding against something - just not information related to the Kidnapping but something that could come out as a result of it.
The bottom line (for me) is that Sharp cannot be "put to rest" based upon what we actually do know. Not yet anyway. And we certainly can't put it to rest based upon what we don't know.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 30, 2012 23:08:28 GMT -5
Quite true that Violet talked to outsiders about the family. In fact, I believe she was the one who leaked the baby's gender to reporters when he was born, so it's obvious she was willing to talk to outsiders about the family. And given this, I think it's highly plausible that when the baby was kidnapped, she assumed (rightly or wrongly) that she'd somehow gone too far and said/done something that inadvertently facilitated the kidnapping. Being highly unstable to begin with, as you say, I believe the paranoia over this is what spiraled into her suicide. I just don't see evidence for anything else. Also, I absolutely agree that there was nothing in Hauptmann's background to suggest he would murder a child, but I don't think it was murder. I think the baby's death was an accident (the hurried burial site, plus the lack of a reason to willfully kill such a high-profile hostage who, at 20 months old, could never identify his kidnapper). There is, however, evidence that Hauptmann was a risk-taker: His criminal past; his attempts to enter the US as a stowaway, diving off the ship rather than being caught; and the old charge in Germany of breaking and entering with a ladder.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 31, 2012 6:33:48 GMT -5
I think your theory is good. But I also think there is much room in it to allow for adjustments considering certain facts that aren't public or known about.
That's the key here.
As far as Hauptmann being a risk taker.... Sure, to a degree he was. As an example, we just had an Illegal Alien here jump into the Delaware in the middle of winter rather then pay his $20 tab. That was one hell of a risk. Granted, he could be a Kidnapper in whatever country he came from but I can't draw that conclusion based upon what I consider a big risk.
I don't believe there was any accident concerning the child's death. And as far as a reason goes.... if Hauptmann is in this alone then how and where does he take care of this sick/spoiled/needy toddler while in his present personal situation? So if one believes in this Lone-Wolf theory then there's only one conclusion to be drawn. If not, then there has to be a bigger picture in order to better understand what happened - to include why the body wasn't where it was originally.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 31, 2012 13:34:36 GMT -5
Well, first, I don't think Hauptmann was in this alone either. As I've said, I believe at least one other person almost certainly had to be involved, since, if nothing else, the mechanics of getting the baby out of the house seem very prohibitive to a single kidnapper. That's why I mention Fisch as a possible accomplice. Nor do I believe that jumping off a boat necessarily means someone could also be a kidnapper, simply that they're a risk-taker, and, in Hauptmann's case, if you couple that general risk-taking proclivity with a criminal past that includes a previous charge of breaking and entering with a ladder... I mean, that's certainly not hard, admissible evidence to be sure, but it's pretty suspicious and incriminating: He'd shown he was capable and willing to do something like this before. Now, I suppose it's no more suspicious or incriminating than Violet Sharpe killing herself under police questioning, but she didn't have the mountain of additional circumstantial evidence against her that Hauptmann did. I'm not saying that he did it, end of story, simply that he (and Fisch) remain very good (if not the best) suspects and that, fair trial or not, there are things about them that just can't be explained away. And as to what Hauptmann was going to do with the baby once he had him, I recall that one of the ransom notes said something about the boy being held on a boat, cared for by two women. Clearly, this did not happen, but, to my mind, represents the plan of what was supposed to happen. The baby's death rendered all that moot, but a kidnapper can't very well admit that and expect to get the ransom money, so he has to stick with his original story. Now, who those "two women" were, whether they or that boat ever existed at all, who Fisch really was—this is where I think you're absolutely right that there is much room in my theory to allow for adjustments. And of course, if and when new information comes to light, that could change everything. Two things though: If you don't think the baby's death was accidental, what do you think actually happened, and could you tell me more about the body not originally being on the spot where it was found? That's new to me.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 31, 2012 17:32:37 GMT -5
When I comment generally it really isn't an attack on anything you've said its simply an out loud comment due to what you've brought up. I am not suggesting you believe Hauptmann "did it" or "didn't do it" I am just floating ideas out there. Of course there are times where I will be specific and then its pretty clear. Hauptmann's B&E where he steals doesn't mean much (to me) about any proclivity to then turn into a Kidnapper or Murderer after having turned his life around since coming to the U.S. It's just an argument - most especially due to the lapse in time and situation he found himself in during Post WWI Germany. He found himself in no such situation here. Let me say right now that I believe Hauptmann was involved in this but my position is we don't know where that position was in relationship to the others who were clearly involved as well. He could haved helped build that ladder (as Squire Johnson suggested 2 people constructed) or by himself and it still doesn't prove he actually stepped foot on the grounds at Highfields. The totality of the evidence which isn't skewed by perjury, hidden exculpatory evidence, witness tampering, unethical behavior, and evidence tampering is still enough to show he knew more then what he was telling Police. (That's why all of that happened to begin with). As to Violet Sharp... She proved by swallowing that poison she was a risk taker. There's no bigger risk in the world. (Unless of course one considers the murder theory behind her suicide). There are varying degrees of involvement to consider, regardless, they must all be considered nevertheless. - Did not.
- Unknowingly.
- Knowingly without malice.
- Knowingly for enrichment but without the idea of a crime.
- Knowingly for enrichment with the idea of a crime but not to the level which took place.
- Knowing Accomplice.
For me, I am way too serious about figuring out the crime to allow any of these to slip past without the necessary research to at least rank their possibilities. And even then, I have to be unbiased enough to allow room for mistakes, or simply deciding on the wrong one. If I had (1) piece of advice for anyone researching this Case it's not to hold onto any idea, theory, or assertion with a death grip. You will never get to the truth if you don't make room for error and adjustments. Excellent theory. It's ideas like this which could open up a new door to certain things we haven't figured out. It's why I love this message board as opportunities to brain-storm, disagree, and share certain perspectives. Everyone has different personalities, and no two people think exactly alike. We need that if we are going to come to any worthy conclusions. I've always said that liars usually inject a bit of the truth into their tales so they feel its more/make it more believable. The Fisch Story is a perfect example of that in my opinion. I believe he was dead before he ever left the Nursery. I plan on providing everything about that in my "book" if and when I ever get it done. My original position about this was based upon all the reports, letters, interviews, and memos concerning everyone saying they crossed, passed, near, or were on that spot and there wasn't a corpse there. One person even had his hunting dogs with him, the temporary phone lines ran right past that site - and they were run before all of the leaves and foliage. The bag being discovered where it was also influenced me. Then Rab's research seemed to back me up:
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 31, 2012 19:08:57 GMT -5
Well, please don't misunderstand. I don't think you're "attacking" anything I've said or suggesting that I think Hauptmann had to have acted alone. What I think is that he was clearly involved and had to have some sort of cohort(s). For this (as much as is possible anymore), I would look at his inner circle of friends and associates, especially Fisch. I do, however, tend to stop short when the conspiracy theories get too elaborate. At that point, for me, they just get unrealistic. As to the body not previously being in the spot where it was found: Looking for anything in the woods can be a real needle-in-a-haystack prospect; it's amazing how easy it is to walk right past things, even if you're mere yards from what you're looking for. Additionally, I suppose it's possible that animals, like foxes or something, could've dragged the body to various spots around that general area as it was being scavenged. Some sources indicate that, when the body was found, there appeared to be a rudimentary attempt to bury it, while some say there wasn't (like so much else in this case, it's a question of which set of facts you accept). But either way, you're right—telephone wires were being strung through that area, so, if the body was there, it's odd no one discovered it earlier.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jan 31, 2012 20:20:18 GMT -5
Michael, can you possibly share with us your theory on how the child died before leaving the nursery? Obviously, Wilentz’s summation image of BRH hammering him with the chisel doesn’t cut it since there was no evidence of blood. Certainly, a kidnapper couldn’t risk the child crying. I doubt that Wendel’s tale of Paregoric would do the trick, though—I think the cold snap of the howling wind would risk waking him right out of sedation. I do recall that one version—I think it was the alleged informants of John Hughes Curtis—said the baby was drugged from something put in his milk (and was then carried out the front door). I have always thought that Betty Gow’s report that CAL Jr. had fallen asleep unusually early might just jive with that. If something like Morphine was added to his milk, it could have knocked him totally out—and also ODed him if the “insider” accidentally put in too much. This might be an alternative to the “fall from the ladder” explanation of how CAL Jr. died early during the kidnapping.
Killing the kid right in the nursery would be a heck of a risk for the kidnappers—if caught on the spot, they’re facing murder charges. But if the kid is only sedated into a heavy sleep, they’re only facing breaking and entering and an attempted snatch. Or are you perhaps leaning away from a kidnapping toward something like Behn’s theory about Elisabeth Morrow? I have just begun Behn’s book, and while I don’t like his theory, that nursery wipedown is worrisome—have to wonder if someone was concealing more than fingerprints.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 31, 2012 22:10:09 GMT -5
I too am very curious as to why the baby would've been intentionally and immediately killed. Personally, I always felt he was chloroformed or something, and there was no telltale odor in the nursery because one of the windows was open a crack since it was warped and wouldn't close. And Behn's book is actually what got me into the case to begin with, about 15 years ago. I don't buy his conclusions, but even he admits in the book that he doesn't have proof of anything, only that a lot falls into place if you accept his conclusions as a working hypothesis. And much of the book is actually a really thorough, well-written account of the case, so it's worth a read IMO. And as to the nursery wipedown, yeah, that's always been very strange and suspicious, but it may be a misconception that no fingerprints were found in the nursery—only that there were no useable ones, so it might be that there was no wipedown at all.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 1, 2012 9:45:29 GMT -5
It's great to see some new intelligent discussion. Some food for thought; Regarding the child's death- intentional killing does not require premeditation Regarding the ladder fall- there's asolutely no evidence to support this and , in fact there is evidence to prove it did not happen, Regarding an accomplice- why does one greatly sacrifice strength and security in building a ladder for the sake of lightness and ease of assembly?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 1, 2012 18:07:06 GMT -5
I would agree, in theory, however the body wasn't far off the road, and having grown up in Hunterdon County myself, I do believe the Locals would have known if they were at that place and nothing was there. For example, I used to hunt pheasant on Cottage Hill in Doc Hamilton's woods near his mansion when I was younger. If someone would have told me there was a dead child there the 2-1/2 months during the time I hunted I would have known that to be untrue. And this would be without being aware of a dead child to be found - worth a large sum to discover. Then you have the burlap bag discovered on a straight line in from the body lying on the road. What animal drags a bag towards the road if the body has already come out? And why didn't that animal completely tear this body apart? Key organs were still there that animals typically favor. From reading all of the Reports & Statements its clear to me there was an attempt to bury. But if so, its while the child was out of the bag. Both Pam and Rab's research shows the body was in that bag for a while. Once the two became separated I believe both a person or an animal should be considered as the source of the burial. Next, consider the NJSP routinely patrolled those phone lines looking for taps. Never once did they see this burlap bag on the side of the road. It should be remembered that Lupica told them about seeing burlap bags in the car he saw so clearly they were aware of this item. Anyway, I will never tell anyone what to believe but there is a lot to think about. I know it sux but if I were to it would lead to many other questions which would then upset some of the important material I am trying to add in the book. I had some of my unique material I've written about on the net ripped off in the past so I don't want that to happen again. The whole book is meant to show or demonstrate all new material or angles. I've said before that it will re-write the history of what's accepted as "fact" in this Case and I meant it. As most know I admire Lloyd's approach of laying out the new stuff he found but not telling anyone what or what not to believe. Anyway, I plan an entire chapter on the crime-scene and will attempt to correct all the mistakes from all of the previous Authors about it. But I will say what I can when I can.... None of the windows were warped. The shutter was supposedly warped even though the man who installed them claimed it was impossible they warped( Gardner p.412). All of the Reports are clear about no prints being found. None. During the Trial even Kelly testifies that 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. It was simply a countermeasure to the Insider Theory the Defense was relying on. Like the footprint testimony which clearly contradicts the Reports. But you see, the Defense did not have those reports so they couldn't bring it up on Cross. 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. As a reminder, Kelly did find prints elsewhere in that house and prints of the child were raised from the banister outside of that room as late as June '32. Designed to be transported inside of a car, light so that it could be carried easily to the point from where the person bringing it could carry it, and for speed. Next its discarded for the reasons Leon Ho-age outlined in his Report to the Governor.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 1, 2012 18:56:07 GMT -5
So the shutter (sorry I said window; shutter's what I meant) wasn't warped at all? Hadn't heard that before. Also, if the room was wiped down and no fingerprints were found whatsoever, who do you think did that and why? (I realize you probably don't want to say, but I have to at least ask.) Additionally, I'm wondering, if it wasn't just thrown there and quickly covered over with some leaves or whatever in a panic, why wouldn't someone just bury the baby's body completely? I'm guessing you think, then, it was planted in the spot where the truckers found it, only sloppily half-buried specifically so it would be discovered later. If so, then why wouldn't whoever planted the body not put it in a clearer spot? And a question for 'kevkon': I'm curious about the evidence you mentioned that rules out the fall from the ladder.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Feb 1, 2012 21:05:10 GMT -5
If smart guys like you won’t post your discoveries, how can lazy crooks like myself be expected to make a living by ripping them off and falsely copyrighting them in our names? Sheesh! There was a day when plagiarism was such a snap.
Seriously, I understand what you’re saying (Robert Zorn might be keeping mum about his “mastermind” for a similar reason) and I appreciate all the incredible information and insights that you share on this board.
I look forward to your book, Michael, and hope it will resolve the tricky contradictions that every LKC theory until now seems to have run smack into. It’s very vexing. The Leopold-Loeb murder was planned for seven months by a couple of acknowledged geniuses (though not necessarily at crime), but it only took the police a few hours, I believe, to crack their alibis, and today we pretty fully understand exactly what happened in that case, except for maybe which of the two struck the fatal blow to Bobby Franks. Yet when it comes to the LKC, it seems like there are hundreds of proposed ideas which are automatically met with the phrase “Yes, but…” Without doubt, some of the confusion is due to LKC theorists, including myself, simply coming up with many wrong explanations. But I don’t believe it is that alone. There seems to have been an ingenuity behind the crime that has thrown us some curve balls we still haven’t been able to decipher yet, despite all the documents and endless discussion. Professor Moriarty would be high on my list of suspects if he wasn’t fictional.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 2, 2012 8:59:14 GMT -5
The shutter issue is a typical example of how something can become distorted ( pun intended) The issue was the inability of Gow to latch the shutter with the sliding bolt. She suggested that was due to the shutter being warped. In fact this is a common problem with shutters and may or may not be due to the shutter warping. Ususally it is due to a slight misalignment of the bolt and reciever which can make it extremely difficult to fully lock. Regarding the evidence that rules out a fall from a broken ladder, look at the photos of the ground taken by Kelly. No disturbance is evident in the soft soil. No distortions are evident in the ladder feet holes. No damage or marks are present on the house. No debris from a broken ladder is present. There is simply no evidence to support this idea other than the split in the ladder rail which was found 75 ft away and still connected to it's mating section.
The choice to make the ladder as light as possible at the expense of both function and safety when it's intended use is so important to the success of a kidnapping clearly indicates that it had to be carried over a distance with no help. You could double the strength while still keeping the overall size the same, but it would become extremely difficult to carry over that terrain without an accomplice.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 2, 2012 13:59:03 GMT -5
Other than those photos of the police positioning the ladder against the house afterwards, I wish I could see pictures of all this—the broken ladder lying where it was on the ground, the nursery shutter (whether it was warped or just misaligned), the lack of marks on the side of the house, etc. I was always under the impression that the police, press, and locals tramped all over the site before really good pictures could be taken. And I think I may have misspoke when I suggested that the whole ladder (baby, kidnappers, and all) came crashing to the ground. Rather, I'm wondering if it might be possible that one of the ladder rails split and whoever was carrying the baby lost his balance. The baby was dropped, hitting his head on the lower windowsill or something, all with the ladder remaining upright against the house (no marks on the wall or ladder foot distortions in the mud). The kidnappers climbed down, inspected the body, and, realizing what happened, tried to disassemble the ladder, but, in a panic, were unable to do so and just made a break for the woods, abandoning the ladder in an effort to just get the hell out of there. If the broken ladder couldn't remain upright with weight on it, however, then that explanation's out. But I agree that it was probably designed to be light so it could be carried over a long distance. Makes sense. I've heard it proposed that maybe the kidnapper(s) parked at the dead end of a nearby road (Featherbed Ln. I believe it's called) and hiked through the woods to the Lindbergh house.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 2, 2012 21:41:05 GMT -5
Hi LNJ,
In reference to panic and leaving the ladder: It is said that neighborhood dogs set up to barking and if memory serves maybe paw prints at or near the ladder where it was left. I've wondered if the barking is what caused them to abandon the ladder. I hope I'm not promoting rumor, here. Others can correct me if I'm mistaken.
I guess I'm not as trusting that the crime scene was immediately secured -underneath the window, etc. Look at all the people who handled the ladder when it was found. Am not impressed with Swartsy and crew.
Great discussion going on, here!
Hey Kevkon
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 2, 2012 23:01:00 GMT -5
Paw prints around the ladder? That's a new one to me. Either way, since I don't know what "the reasons Leon Ho-age outlined in his Report to the Governor" (as cited by Michael) are, I've always thought it strange that the ladder—a piece of evidence that large and incriminating—would've just been left at the scene. The only explanations I can come up for that are A) sheer panic, and why does one panic? When something goes horribly wrong, like, say, someone getting accidentally injured or killed, or B) things were staged to look that way, which then opens the door to all the various theories as to who did that and why—some of which are lent credence by facts like the nursery apparently being mysteriously devoid of fingerprints.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 3, 2012 8:13:20 GMT -5
If you constructed the ladder and used every precaution to not leave any incriminating evidence, then why not leave it behind? It served it's function and was not really built to be used repeatedly. Keep in mind that wood forensics was not a widely known avenue of investigation and identification at the time. Of course today, with DNA testing featured in every crime show no one in their right mind would leave the ladder behind unless they had no choice. I'm not saying that BRH intended to leave it, but I believe he had anticipated that it might be necessary. Once again, we come up to the issue of accomplices. If he had help, why not take the ladder?
Hey Mairi!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 3, 2012 11:29:03 GMT -5
Interesting point. I do think, however, that if the intention was to discard it, the ladder would've been left nearer the house, either against the wall or on the ground—at any rate, much closer than where it was found. Assuming that the scene wasn't staged to begin with, the fact that the ladder was laying on the ground, 70-odd feet away from the house, looks to me like someone was trying to take it with them and just gave up and dumped it. Whether there was one person or two, I can see how, in the dark, they just couldn't get the ladder to collapse back down, being scared and in a hurry: "Screw it, we have to get out of here! Leave it!" Could be, though, that the kidnapper intended to leave it, as you say. It's true that wood forensics wasn't widely known as a science at the time, so it's possible it wouldn't have occured to anyone that they could be identified that way.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 3, 2012 16:07:04 GMT -5
I wouldn't make the claim that the entire room was wiped down. I would say that certain areas absolutely were. Exactly why is a matter for us to debate.
Why bring it back in the first place? Yet, for me, that is exactly what happened.
I'll post what I can and I certainly don't mean anyone here would do such a thing. The message boards can be a great tool - or a weapon. We're all on the honor system when it comes to sharing our thoughts and research. There's a school of thought out there which thinks you can invent dialog then use those imaginary conversations as "evidence" of something. Among them are those who have used my stuff and never once offered credit as the source instead insinuating by omission that they themselves were the source.
Just brilliant!
There was no damage on the house but I recall them finding some marks. Probably what one would expect if weight went onto that ladder at the point where the rails touched the side of the house.
It's a good theory Mairi. The paw prints weren't exactly by the ladder, however, when the footprints were tracked from that point this is what Trooper DeGaetano wrote: In certain sections there were also prints of a dog near the prints of the boots or overshoes.
Ho-age was an Insurance Fraud Investigator who worked on the Case for Governor Hoffman after he re-opened the case. He said, in essence, it was like the Kidnappers purposely hung a sign on the "kidnap" window which said:
We came in and left out here!!!
I think he believed the ladder and chisel (which served no purpose) were left behind for the same purpose.
Doesn't it assume that whoever didn't bring that ladder wasn't doing, bringing, or busy with something else themselves? The Driver with the ladder that Lupica saw was in that car by himself. However, I believe Lehman's explanation that he was looking to meet up with someone else - who obviously had a car too.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 4, 2012 12:00:12 GMT -5
Whether the whole nursery was wiped down or just parts of it, if there was a wipedown of any area of the room, then that would suggest to me the possibility of someone at the house whose presence and identity needed to be concealed for some reason. So, unless evidence of some sort of struggle or something was being erased and fingerprints just got iradicated in the process, that would tend to rule out the involvement of any household members: Nothing odd about finding fingerprints of someone at a location they're regularly in, so why bother wiping the room down? So that could mean, then, that maybe whoever wiped areas of the room down was erasing the fingerprints of someone who WOULDN'T have normally been at the house. Noel Behn, for instance, suggests Anne Lindbergh's sister, but, intriguing as his book is, not a lot of people seem to agree with his conclusions. Anyway, I've always wondered why, if they were covering for her, the family wouldn't have just said that she'd been to the house before, nothing odd about that, so that's why her fingerprints were in the house. But at the same time, I'm also wondering why a kidnapper or burglar would wipe a room down: Why take the time and risk discovery, especially when an intruder would've almost certainly been wearing gloves to begin with and would've left no fingerprints? So, like most, I remain stumped on this. And I've yet to read a book on the case that offers a really good, well-supported explanation for it, so who's got ideas?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 4, 2012 12:24:02 GMT -5
Everyone had their own theories but its important to consider the information coming from all those who were behind the scenes. So if someone disagrees then its important to know exactly why. I've heard explanations that Behn's source was bogus or wasn't creditable....
Behn's source for the "Elisabeth" angle was Harry Green. Green actually is a legitimate source of information since he was involved directly with this Case since Ellis Parker's arrest and indirectly before that time. He also assisted with certain things pertaining to the various investigations. Furthermore, there is something in the Schwarzkopf file at the NJSP Archives which claims Elisabeth is involved.
So if Green says a particular document existed then I believe it. Now whether or not it carries the weight he personally assigned it at that time is another thing to think about.
However, from everything I've seen in all of the various Hoffman Collections it seems that Hoffman was more interested in DMJr. But I hadn't seen what Green says existed so I must be willing to accept there are some documents that just didn't make it to the Archives.
That's important too.
Most people only consider what they have, and what they do not have, well then to them - it doesn't exist. One can't do that. You cannot point to the one or two things you do have as if its the end all because it isn't. I am going to beat a dead horse here and say that even with the 11 years of Archival Research I've done I continue to find new things some of which ruin facts or assertions I've subscribed to for many years.
Anyway, getting back to the fingerprints.... I think you've answered your own question. Run through everything then consider it all. The prints are just one piece of the puzzle.
I don't want to hog the thread so I am anxious to see what ideas other people have about this subject.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 4, 2012 14:05:44 GMT -5
I agree that the prints are just one piece of the puzzle. I do think, though, that if it's possible to ascertain that the room was indeed wiped down, by whom, and why, that it would go a long way towards this thing finally being cracked. I agree too that one cannot just consider the bare minimum of information. But this case has grown so complex, with so many conflicting theories based on so much conflicting information. Other than maybe the one or two that say Hauptmann did it, every book on the case seems to arrive at a wildly different conclusion from the next. Speculation can certainly be useful, but I think a more back-to-basics approach can be equally useful: Setting aside for a moment everything that's ever been debatable and looking at the whole picture based solely on stuff that (at least we think) is definitely known fact. But sometimes that really isn't enough; very true. Back to fingerprints though: It seems to me the lack of fingerprints means something was being hidden or covered up. But as to what or who that something or somebody could be...no idea. Also, you mentioned something in an earlier reply about facts that are unknown, or facts that haven't been made public yet. Is there still information/evidence out there that is actively being held back, or is it just stuff that isn't commonly known or has gotten lost over the years?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 5, 2012 8:56:43 GMT -5
I believe that's where I said concerning what my book will reveal.... I meant what isn't known or is accepted as fact when it isn't true. As far as anything being "actively" being held back.... Certainly, the NJSP isn't holding anything back - they have over the last decade bent over backwards to help me with my research. And I am not just talking about Mark (who of course goes beyond the call of duty) it was everyone who ever stepped foot into the Archives connected with the State. There's one word that covers it: Professional.
Of course there are certain rules as it pertains to the evidence - even today - but they aren't meant to undermine the truth, rather, to protect its integrity. Or, in the case of returning certain items to the Lindbergh Family, it was something the AG felt was the right thing to do.
Having said that, is there someone (somewhere) who has something in their possession they are not sharing? It's very possible - I could be accused of that myself.
I believe as you continue to post here you will eventually grasp my style. I think things sometimes that do not come out the way I am trying to present (as clear as it can be). The prints are one piece, one mystery, so we should pursue our options surrounding it specifically of course. But in doing so, we should also reserve them until we find one which will fit into a bigger scheme of things, or a bigger option concerning the totality of the evidence - at the crime scene itself and not just the Nursery.
It's either related to the Kidnapping or it isn't. That's the first step. If it is, then its related to ALL of what is determined to be related to the Kidnapping.
It doesn't stand alone.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 5, 2012 11:00:31 GMT -5
I agree that the prints are just one piece of the puzzle. I do think, though, that if it's possible to ascertain that the room was indeed wiped down, by whom, and why, that it would go a long way towards this thing finally being cracked. I agree too that one cannot just consider the bare minimum of information. But this case has grown so complex, with so many conflicting theories based on so much conflicting information. Other than maybe the one or two that say Hauptmann did it, every book on the case seems to arrive at a wildly different conclusion from the next. Speculation can certainly be useful, but I think a more back-to-basics approach can be equally useful: Setting aside for a moment everything that's ever been debatable and looking at the whole picture based solely on stuff that (at least we think) is definitely known fact. But sometimes that really isn't enough; very true. Back to fingerprints though: It seems to me the lack of fingerprints means something was being hidden or covered up. But as to what or who that something or somebody could be...no idea. Also, you mentioned something in an earlier reply about facts that are unknown, or facts that haven't been made public yet. Is there still information/evidence out there that is actively being held back, or is it just stuff that isn't commonly known or has gotten lost over the years? I know I differ with Michael on a number of issues, I think the fingerprints ( or lack of) is one of them. For one, I'm in no way impressed by Kelly's abilities. I'm also not convinced as to the extent of which he checked. I have seen all of the crime photos of the room and you can see the residual dusting powder in some of them, but unless he dusted every square inch of the room, I don't see how one can conclude the room was "wiped down". As for all of the conflicting theories and information, I can't help not blaming the unfortunate waste of energy spent on attempting to clear Hauptmann or re-convict him. If that same energy and resources had been spent on examining the evidence without bias I know much more would be gained and we would have a better understanding of what actually happened. My two cents, anyway. As for the holding back of evidence or information, I generally agree with Michael's asessment with a caveat, there is a lot of info that various researchers have done that has more or less been lost in the shuffle, usually because it doesn't support any popular theory or it simply was never published. It's there, you just have to look hard and it can be very frustrating at times. Thankfully, there are people like Michael and Mark who will help without prejudice.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 5, 2012 12:02:40 GMT -5
Thank you, Michael. That gives me a better picture of where the doggy paw prints were.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 5, 2012 12:41:46 GMT -5
You're welcome Mairi. I think where they were found gives even more creditability to your theory. If someone if going to flee abruptly because they hear dogs, I think they would be away from where they first heard them coming.
I am not so sure we're too far apart on this one. The areas the NJSP checked in that Nursery simply became "the Nursery" so over time its assumed the entire Nursery was wiped down. The source material doesn't reflect the entire Nursery was wiped. It's mainly the window area which was accepted as the kidnap point of entry and escape.
I am not sure of what Kelly's abilities were, however, I test those abilities by seeing what else he did during his investigation using this black powder to raise prints.... He was able to raise them elsewhere. That tells me he had the ability to raise prints using the same method, in that same house, during the same investigation.
Thanks Kevin. I am not quite at the level you or Mark is at when it comes to being neutral. I have prejudices, but I do try my best in dealing with them.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 5, 2012 12:58:43 GMT -5
Like Kevkon, I'm somewhat dubious of Kelly's work. Any chance too much faith has been attached to the"wipedown - no fingerprints"(?) The baby had a cold - Anne was coming down with one. The possibility comes to my mind that Gow may have wiped over some of the surfaces to get rid of bad cold germs. It seems a natural thing to do, I think. I used to do that with my babies' cribs - the rails. - the(waterproof) matresses, etc, just as a general sanitizing.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 5, 2012 12:59:41 GMT -5
Kevkon makes an interesting point, which seems to be that no prints were found because the room wasn't dusted thoroughly enough and, in that case, no mysterious wipedown would needed to have taken place. But all I've read for years about the nursery is that there were no fingerprints, no fingerprints, no fingerprints—so therefore someone must've wiped the room down, i.e. there was some kind of coverup. I'm interested in all possibilities though, so when I later read that, well, no, maybe it wasn't that there were no prints, just that there were no useable ones and that point's just gotten lost and distorted over the years—well, okay, I'm open to that. And now there's the additional possibility that maybe it's just that the room wasn't adequately dusted and THAT'S why there appeared to be no fingerprints. I certainly agree with Michael that this issue is not something that stands alone, that the absence of fingerprints in the nursery is either related to the crime or it isn't, and that determining this is the first step in the issue. But my problem is, given all the possibilities, it seems impossible to even take that first step by conclusively determining whether this issue is in fact related to the crime or not.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 6, 2012 8:44:43 GMT -5
While considering his point don't lose focus on what was indeed the truth.... Where the Kidnapper(s) had supposedly been to touch something it was devoid of prints. One only needs to read the Dr. Hudson material to see that. He was there as an Expert. He dealt directly behind the scenes with Kelly, Kubler, Wilton, and Sjostrom. Everyone commented on what was considered the "wipe down" so much so that even Wilentz offered his own theory as to how it could have happened indirectly.
A misinterpretation of the facts concerning the entire Nursery being wiped down vs. those areas they expected to find the prints of the Intruder(s) doesn't mean the solution is to dismiss the whole issue entirely.
The first step is to identify the real facts then take it from there. I've done that to my personal satisfaction by reading everything I could get my hands on over the years. The only thing that says anything different is that dubious testimony I paraphrased above. Remember, the State was arguing privately about how many footprints existed and what actually was going to be testified to - just before that testimony. They didn't agree, didn't remember, but knew what the testimony should be. So the trial transcripts must be reviewed for its correctness by testing it against the individual reports of those who testified.
It is easier just to find what you want to see then accept what that is where you find it. But that doesn't make it true.
There was an ulterior motive behind the testimony but that particular motive did not exist in the investigations prior to Hauptmann's arrest.
It's a pain in the as*, time consuming, confusing, and sometimes frustrating because it can open up yet another can of worms.
But it must be done.
Mairi: I can't say how good Kelly was. Only I can't say he didn't know what he was doing when he was successful in other areas during the same investigation.
|
|