kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 6, 2012 10:57:00 GMT -5
Another point is that getting latent prints off some surfaces is not as easy as some might think and various factors can make it even more difficult. If the process is not done correctly the first time, any prints may be forever lost.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 6, 2012 11:56:45 GMT -5
Michael, I agree entirely that one cannot dismiss facts (selectively or wholesale) simply because they don't fit in with preconceived notions. I'm getting what you're saying about the fingerprint issue: If it's the case that only areas where an intruder would've touched were devoid of prints, that actually makes sense—you wouldn't expect to find prints in those spots, would you, because the intruder wore gloves. No mysterious wipedown needed anymore. I mean, that's certainly not the only explanation and doesn't necessarily rule out that things still couldn't have been staged, but it makes the issue a little easier to contend with. I'm rethinking the issue of the body's discovery, as well. I suppose it's still possible that it was dumped there that night and was just missed in subsequent searches of the woods, but, when I look at a map, the location where the body was found seems to be in the opposite direction for a getaway route back to NYC (this, of course, assumes Hauptmann was the kidnapper and/or that NYC was the kidnapper's final destination). But this is when the issue of the thumbguard occurred to me. The baby's thumbguard was later found on the Lindberghs' drive, while the body was discovered a few miles away. I've always felt that there were at least two people who participated in the crime that night, so maybe they each had a car and split up to scatter things over a general area (the thumbguard, the body, the baby's rubber pants which were never found). But I couldn't come up with a plausible reason for them to do that. So, given that and the fact that the body didn't seem to originally be in the place where it was ultimately found, I'm thinking that maybe the body was kept somewhere else for a while and was later deposited at the location where it was discovered (though transporting something like that seems a pretty gruesome prospect). Maybe the thumbguard was disposed of on the Lindberghs' drive at the same time. Though why the body and thumbguard would've been taken back to Hopewell from wherever they were initially placed/hidden, and, if this happened (and I can't think of a reason for that other to have them be discovered), why they were not then put in clearer spots, I'm still unsure of. A few years ago, someone here posted a hypothetical timeline of the kidnapping which seems pretty good, but it doesn't explain any of this (and I'm not sure how he arrived at Franklin Park as the initial burial site, other than because it's on the way back to NYC). But anyway, Michael, what're your thoughts on that timeline and on the thumbguard issue? How would that fit in to things?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Feb 6, 2012 22:54:21 GMT -5
My computer has been busted for about 5 days ¡ am operating on a backup here but wanted to rejoin the conversation on this interesting thread.
Kevkon--When you say "intentional killing does not require premeditation," are you envisioning something like the child waking up and the intruder smothering him in a panic? Also, assuming these two ideas go together (murder was not premeditated, but there was no accomplice), how did the kidnapper plan to take care of the child without the aid of an accomplice? Or do you perhaps envision a caretaker-accomplice waiting somewhere who was not part of the physical snatch?
I may be wrong, but I gather from your posts on this thread that you believe BRH did the kidnapping alone. Is that correct? If so, I wanted to make a few comments.
Gardner notes that several police officers attempted individually to duplicate the abduction, yet none of them completely could--even with a sturdier ladder, in daylight, in good weather, with the window already open, with no gloves on, and in cases--without a heavy bundle in tow. I'm not saying it was impossible for one person--but a heck of a feat.
If there was no inside accomplice, why was the nursery wiped down? (I see you believe this may have been an errant conclusion due to poor work by Kelly, but as Michael has pointed out, even Dr. Hudson, an acknowledged fingerprint expert, believed in the wipedown.) Also, why did the room show so few signs of disturbance (such as items knocked over)? Entry through the window, from the side and with a gale blowing and no accomplice holding the ladder steady, doesn't sound like the makings of a smooth entry and exit, including leaving the ransom note neatly on the sill.
Including partials, Erasmus Hudson lifted about 500 fingerprints off the ladder. Not one belonged to BRH. This seems odd if BRH built the ladder and used it in the crime.
According to Gardner, analysts said the ladder was built to sustain from 125 to 150 pounds. BRH weighed around 180, and the addition of the child would increase that. Why would he use a ladder with a rather high potential for failure?
I understand what you are saying about the ladder being built light for a swift carry, and I think that's a great observation. But I don't see why this necessarily eliminates an accomplice. A light ladder would not only make movement swifter for one person, it would make it even swifter for two. To climb an unstable ladder with a gale blowing, one would really want somebody holding the ladder steady.
I can think of a scenario that might accommodate both an accomplice and your view of the ladder. As Lightningjew has pointed out, the ladder was found about 70 feet from the house. This seems to indicate that the original plan was to escape with the ladder--otherwise why not just leave it leaning against the house? It was perhaps abandoned due to the approach of the neighbors' dogs. Now, if BRH planned to do the crime alone, could he have realistically been expecting to escape while carrying both the ladder and the child? Perhaps the idea was to have one person carry the child and another person carry the ladder. This would accommodate your built-for-one view of the ladder, but still allow for an accomplice. Oscar Bush, the tracker on the night of the kidnapping, did believe there were tracks from two people. Also, if BRH did everything without any accomplice, how did he know about the unique change in the Lindberghs' plans? I realize there is the theory that he was staking out the place from the woods--but is BRH really going to hang around in the woods, freezing his ass off in late February, on the off-chance that the Lindberghs would change their routine? And then he gets lucky, and they do?
And if BRH did it, why was the child's corpse found in a direction away from the Bronx? Did he get lost, or was he coolly trying to mislead police, or what?
Finally, I find the testimony of people like August Von Henke (who said he got into an argument with BRH on the evening of the kidnapping (he'd seen him walking the Fredericksens' dog, and thought it was his own lost dog) and Louis Kiss (who witnessed the dog argument at the bakery) to be more credible than the legally blind Amandus Hochmuth, or Millard Whited--who denied to police seeing anything suspicious on the day of the kidnapping, but came forward after reward money was offered. Von Henke and Kiss were not acquaintances of the Hauptmanns, and had no known incentive to lie. I understand that you have done some great analysis showing that the Rail 16 wood came from BRH's attic, and I need to study that. Nevertheless, even if BRH built the ladder, couldn't someone else have used it? Just thinking out loud here--this idea just occurred to me--but what if Fisch told him he needed a special ladder to pull a "job"? Maybe BRH knows it's for the Lindbergh snatch, or maybe he doesn't--maybe his information is limited to a "need to know" basis. The weight capacity of 125-150 pounds would have been just about right for Fisch, and Fisch--tubercular and smaller than Hauptmann--might have wanted someone to help carry it. (Not that I envision Fisch going through that window either, though he was certainly healthier in March 1932 than when he left for Germany.) In any event, if the abductor was a lightweight, maybe the light ladder wasn't sacrificing that much security. Someone said "no crime is perfect without a patsy"--and maybe BRH was the perfect patsy: He builds the biggest piece of evidence left at the crime scene, the ransom notes contain obvious Germanic giveways like "gut" for good and "haus" for house, and he's given a highly accessible box of money just before Fisch sails?
Gustave Mancke and his wife stated that Fisch, Oliver Whateley and Violet Sharp met at their ice cream parlor for several Sundays shortly before the kidnapping. If the Mancke statements were accurate, maybe that's our perfect cast of characters: Sharp the tipster, Fisch the kidnapper (perhaps with an accomplice) and Whateley--the only person in the house whose movements were unobserved during the snatch--to drug the baby, assist the kidnapper(s) with his removal, and wipe down the nursery. They all conveniently died in very short order--all three were in their graves long before the trial.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 7, 2012 6:40:23 GMT -5
It is true that some surfaces are harder to raise prints then others. Kelly raised prints on painted wood surfaces outside of that area. Additionally, is what Dr. Hudson wrote in that Liberty Article suspect? I have a ton of material on this. Letters, conversations, reports, articles, and recollections.
If a Kidnapper wore gloves, one would not expect the areas he touched to be completely devoid of prints if others in that house touched those same surrounding areas. You would still find fingerprints or partials. Next, we assume the Kidnapper wore gloves because none of Hauptmann's were found. If no wipe down was needed then why did it happen? Maybe its easier just to say it didn't for a whole host of reasons - but those reasons need to be similar to what Wilentz intimated (and make sense) or else it isn't true.
I'm out of time this morning....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 7, 2012 8:34:22 GMT -5
Wow Bookrefuge, that's a lot to answer. First, I don't know if I have any concrete theory. I look at the evidence and give it priority over anything written. I'm not at all sure that Hauptmann was a "lone wolf". But I am also of the opinion that he could be and the low ransom amount does not make me think it likely that others would be involved. As for the ladder entry, I think too much time has been spent debating this. I built replicas, I climbed them and I'm convinced it could be done. Over the past 35yrs I have done all sorts of things on a ladder and you would be surprised at what you can do when you have to. At this point my belief is that Hauptmann did not intend a kidnapping and he did not intend to kill the child. But he was a guy who could stay cool under pressure and very opportunistic. Hauptmann was not a kidnapper, yet he is most definately in the center of this.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 7, 2012 14:33:16 GMT -5
BR, Sorry your computer is on the fritz. Mine is giving m e a fit, too! (Good girl that I am, I confess to some un-ladylike language ). I had posted this speculation before - I don't mean to be tiresome. The newspapers would have been onto the fact of the Lindberg house being built, but maybe not know that they were only there on certain of the weekend days. This makes me wonder if THAT night was a fluke. Had they re conned previously, what would they have seen(?) A lighted house and I'd say, a vehicle parked there. ( the Whateleys) And if not a recon I believe the nursery would be easy to spot in any case. Lights on/ two women one with baby up in their arms/ shutters open/ no curtains on windows. The guard who CAL let go: Have seen so little written about him. One of the books ( maybe A and M) said he house-sat during the week before the crime so that the Whateleys could get away (from the boonies). I feel sure he would have been interviewed, but I've not seen anything of it.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Feb 7, 2012 17:21:49 GMT -5
Hi, Kevkon. Sorry about the long post. I think that's fantastic that you built replicas of the ladder and tried them out--I believe that's more than any of the original investigators ever did. Did the replicas include the same/similar types of wood as the original, and were they built to hold less than your weight?
One thing you say that fascinates me--that BRH was neither a kidnapper nor a murderer. What, then, is your theory as to why he went up that ladder?
Hi, Mairi. I had never considered that "fluke" theory before. I suppose it is possible that the kidnappers mistakenly thought the Lindberghs lived regularly at Highfields, and that they actually hadn't been tipped off about any changes. As a matter of fact, flukes and mistakes invariably occur within a case like this, and end up creating confusion when we try to interpret them as deliberate. I have a feeling, though, that this crime was planned well enough for the perpetrators to know that the Lindberghs weren't normally at Highfields on weekdays.
I also wanted to acknowledge your theory on Betty possibly wiping down the nursery for sanitary reasons. As a matter of fact, I'm an RN (so I'm germ-conscious) and I've also always wondered if the wipedown wasn't to remove something other than fingerprints. My computer's in the shop, so I don't have many files, but I believe Dr. Hudson investigated the nursery scene pretty thoroughly and talked it over with Betty. I'm pretty sure she would have mentioned any such wiping in the course of that conversation. Of course, at least in our modern understanding, the baby himself would not have been protected by a wipedown since he was already sick; and in particular it would seem to make no sense to wipe down the window sill for germs. It does seem more likely like the intent was to eliminate handprints/fingerprints made by the intruder--but I still think this is nifty thinking on your part.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 7, 2012 17:39:04 GMT -5
I think its very important to note all of Kevin's observations concerning the ladder. He was the one who wondered to me out loud why anyone would attempt to climb ANY ladder now - when the grade of the yard is much different today then it was then. That's when I knew he legit. Both Kevin and Rab independently solved the Rail 16 mystery as far as I am concerned. It's what happens when you consider all of the variables and/or circumstances with your mind clear of any preconceived notions. (It doesn't hurt that he's a Master Carpenter either).
Getting back to the fingerprints quickly. In that same vein.... what was going on with the footprints? What do the reports say? What was the testimony? What is the accepted view? Well there were many prints, then there was one, then there was NONE. Why is that? Is it true? Did the print in Hopewell Lloyd proved was casted fit Hauptmann? How do we explain why not when the State is trying to hide it both physically and during the testimony? So does that mean no print was found? If there were the case, why did they take each and every pair of shoes Hauptmann owned? Why did they pay a visit to his shoe-maker if they had nothing to compare them with?
So in the end, if something did not equal Hauptmann it was deep sixed. And if there is a pattern of that conduct then we must look at everything extremely closely before dismissing or accepting it.
It's a coherent theory, and I've considered it myself when looking at everything in its totality.
Lloyd suggested the thumb-guard was placed there on April 1st to bolster legitimacy and to send a message to pay that ransom (Gardner p77).
Could you link up the time-line? I don't recall it at the moment.
I think we can safely say he was an Expert in the Silver Nitrate method. He actually taught select NSJP Members how to properly use it - which they later did themselves at other times.
Some prints were identified and many were not. This was attributed to the numerous people who were allowed to touch it at the crime scene such as Reporters, Police Officers, and County Detectives by those excusing the lack of Hauptmann's print. Or they say he wore gloves while building it. One problem with either of those theories is the print found in the mortise which Koehler believed was left behind by the Builder. We don't hear much about that one - do we?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 7, 2012 18:29:51 GMT -5
This was the timeline that was posted: lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=print&thread=81It made good sense to me (all except the part about the body being initially buried in Franklin Park), but I was wondering if you had anything to add or amend. Also, could you be a little more specific about the mystery of rail 16 being solved, and that print on the mortise—was it ever identified? And I think I may've misspoke about no prints being found in the nursery in spots where a kidnapper had to have touched. I meant to say certainly that person's prints wouldn't be there, and it might also make sense that no other prints were found in those spots either because of inadequate dusting and/or getting latent prints off surfaces isn't that easy. Either way, you don't necessarily need a mysterious whole room wipedown to explain this anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 7, 2012 20:11:08 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. That was posted by Joe quite some time ago. I'll check it out then get back to you....
I'll let Kevin answer the Rail 16 question since he's the one who figured it out. The print I mentioned was never identified.
I can understand your position. However, from my research I don't find either acceptable explanations.
Just a mysterious wipe down of the areas where the Kidnapper was. That is unless Wilentz was right in that the child was in a bag that was being drug across those surfaces thereby removed all traces of all prints. Even the one's left by Gow who had vicks on her fingertips and all those on the glass window as well.
I cannot accept that either. Not when Kelly raised prints in other areas on similiar surfaces. And not when prints were later raised in June of '32 of the child outside of the Nursery door. Everywhere they expected to find prints they did - except where they expected a Kidnapper was they found none at all. When considering all of the facts there is a much more simple explanation - a straight line between two points.
Anyway, that's just me. If anyone is personally satisfied with an idea thats contrary then don't let me talk you out of it.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 7, 2012 21:26:38 GMT -5
Okay, so... a wipedown of the areas where a kidnapper was, then? My original question about this was why do that, since a kidnapper would've probably been wearing gloves anyway and so what would there be to wipe off? I'm missing something here, probably because I don't have access to all the evidence.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 8, 2012 7:59:09 GMT -5
To get to the top, of course. I don't know if I have a theory. I have a man that in no way fits the profile of a kidnapper or a child murderer who takes a ladder and a burlap bag to a country estate at night and enters the nearest second floor room. If we were not discussing the " Crime of the Century", what would you make of that?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 8, 2012 13:44:58 GMT -5
Hi back, BR, Could have been Gow who didn't want to catch the cold(?). I'm not sure she would have wiped down the whole nursery - just wipe over certain areas, such as the little table where the child may have taken his meals and the crib railings little hands used to pull up on(?) I need to go back and review Hudson. I don't recall reading that he talked it over with Gow, but then maybe he did. Anyone, Have also wondered about "planned for a year already". Could this have been bluff - "we know what we're doing/we mean business!". The child, a year previous would have been about 8 months old. I don't know if that age was when they were living at the farmhouse. Wish I knew how long Highfields would have been under construction . Then there was something along the lines of "when the baby is stonger". According to what they had in mind - would a 20 month old be easier to steal than an 8month old(?) Oh well,I just roll these things around in my head
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 9, 2012 6:23:28 GMT -5
Let me ask you this.... What do you think of Dr. Hudson? After working on scene with the Troopers who worked all of the fingerprint investigations before his arrival, he was perfectly certain of a wipe down. He was impressed that there wasn't even dust on the window ledge when the Police arrived.
Did the Kidnapper wear gloves? It's assume they did - but only because none of their prints were found. Now we don't know if they were found on the ladder or not because some were never identified. Hauptmann's weren't on the ladder prompting an explanation that he wore gloves when making it. According to Dr. Hudson, the Nitrate of Silver solution would bring to the surface prints absorbed by the wood months and months earlier.
So for me, the problem isn't whether or not someone removed prints in certain places - it is why. That is our problem. Although we would like to know whether or not the Intruder(s) wore gloves, it doesn't invalidate the facts prints were removed.
I know that you are asking me why, but I am hoping to get you to come to your own conclusion. It could be you decide there wasn't a wipe down in those places, I don't know, but I am telling you my position is there was.
I meant to compliment your suggestion yesterday... It's a common sense explanation that I like. However, there is nothing in the Statements (Hers or otherwise) that suggest she did this. If she did, I would expect that she would have remembered to tell the Police. Also (between me, you, and the Board) there were areas dusted in that Nursery where they expected the child to have touched which brought out his prints. So if these men could figure that out certainly Betty Gow, if disinfecting, would have.
On the timeline and Lincoln Park....
From reading the entire thread it simply is Joe's idea this would have been a good spot along that hypothetical route which he suggests. That area was where the Lightfoot angle developed and but was dismissed by Police - so I asked him if that was why but from what he says ... he wasn't aware of that.
I think both. Not that the year is exact, but perhaps a slip about the fact it had been thought about for some time.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 9, 2012 11:11:39 GMT -5
I know I initially suggested that it may've only appeared the room was wiped down, but that was just one possibility I'd recently heard about. For most of my time studying this, though, it always seemed to me that, at the very least, certain areas of the room had in fact been wiped down. So this is my problem too: Not so much whether this was done, but why? If it was to erase the presence of a family or household member, as, say, Behn suggests, then removing traces of this would seem unnecessary: "Sure, that person's been here; they're a relative, so what's odd about finding their prints around?" If, conversely, it was to conceal someone who's presence would've been unusual—well, again, this is where I hit a wall as to who that person is. And I think the who will go a long way to giving us the why. I've read some excellent books on the case, but, not having access to all the evidence, I'm at a loss here.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 9, 2012 15:51:09 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael, for the additional info on the "no fingerprints". Guess I'll have to head back to square one . Interesting find, Sue. Hadn't seen a picture of the hotel, before. How I wish I could take that tour! LJ, Do you think Ollie had any business in the nursery?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 9, 2012 19:01:03 GMT -5
If you're suggesting that Ollie was involved, I'm still not seeing the necessity for wiping away his fingerprints/covering up his presence in the nursery. My understanding is that he and his wife lived at the house during the week while the Lindberghs were away and, as such, I don't think it would be unusual to find fingerprints of a full-time occupant of a house in any room, even if it was a room he wouldn't have gone into regularly.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 10, 2012 10:38:37 GMT -5
I think I posted this awhile back, but in regard to fingerprints on the windows; find a double hung window and open it. I think you will see why even without gloves there might not be any usable latents.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 10, 2012 11:39:24 GMT -5
Kevkon - does the kidnap window seem rather smallish to you? Maybe my perspective from pictures isn't just right. Wish I knew the dimensions. Even went out and bought a yardstick in case I could learn the measurements ;D
I have a hard time thinking the ladder perp went in through that window, what with the obstacle course inside. Much less coming back out with the child. Everything, including the note on window ledge being all neatly in place.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 10, 2012 17:59:00 GMT -5
I would have to ask these questions:
1. How many times?
2. By how many people?
3. On both the wood, the glass, and the metal lock all of these times by all of these different people?
4. Over what period of time?
5. When we put the ointment on our fingertips, does it have to be Vicks or can it be any with an oleaginous base?
6. Are you saying you would expect nothing - not even a partial?
7. Does opening the window remove all traces of dust from the sill?
8. I can go on but I think you are getting the picture..... No prints. Nothing. Then the counter-measures at trial - NOT that they didn't expect them - but that they did find them because they weren't "usable". Instead of committing perjury wouldn't it have been easier to simply say they didn't expect prints because it was a double hung window?
Even having the access I do and have had there are still a ton of things I don't know. There are mysteries within mysteries that can be solved by simple observations or suggestions without having it too. Next, sometimes having it creates more issue and problems.
Some friendly advice:
Create a list of possibilities. Test each one by attempting to compliment it then do the exact opposite by attacking it. Next add the pros and cons behind each. Adopt which ever you feel most comfortable with but do not set it in stone yet. Allow for change if and when something comes along to upset or create problems for it that you hadn't considered.
Don't change your thought process at all Mairi. I have been wrong before so nothing I say is unchallengeable. It's simply my perspective. Trust your instincts if what I say isn't enough for you.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 10, 2012 19:55:59 GMT -5
Mairi, the double hung windows were about the standard size one would expect. It is very possible to enter and egress through them. Michael, what I'm getting at is that it is very possible to open and close the windows without leaving a decent print due to both the means of opening an closing a double hung window and the profile of the wood sash and lock.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 11, 2012 9:47:48 GMT -5
I think we are debating both sides of the stick against the middle. My position is that while your point is a valid one it doesn't explain the situation that existed.
Let me throw a hypothetical out there... Let's say Mairi's theory happened just before the child was put to bed. Now everything was cleaned just before this fateful night. Even then our situation should be, with your position in mind, that partials (albeit without sufficient ridge count) but partials nevertheless would be discovered.
Despite anything testified to at trial, the source material reveals nothing was found there. As it would come to Gov. Hoffman's attention (becoming part of the reason for his re-investigation) the Police Officials were scratching their heads and finding themselves in the EXACT same situation LJ is now in. They said it: "Wiped down", followed by, in essence, I can't figure it out.
Claiming the Kidnappers wore gloves now creates a catch-22, and nobody likes that situation.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 11, 2012 11:45:34 GMT -5
Given all this, it seems to me that either a) the kidnappers didn't wear gloves and instead chose to wipe the room down as they went through (though I can't understand why they would do that and not just wear gloves), or b) someone's identity and presence in that room was being covered up.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 11, 2012 12:14:15 GMT -5
I'm still not convinced of a "wipedown". All of the other evidence shows regard to fingerprints and the likely use of gloves. The entry and murder/abduction of the child would not require touching many surfaces. From onin.com/fp/lpfaq.html#q2jq
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 11, 2012 16:47:17 GMT -5
I can understand your position. I just wish we could come up with another explanation for that area being devoid of prints - because it was. No partials, or little ridge detail - nothing there at all.
Just wondering what that evidence is... Not being a smartas* I just don't see any evidence aside from the lack of fingerprints in the Nursery. But that lack of evidence looks artificial to me, (or could be), due to the fact someone attempted to clean that area up during or immediately after the crime.
The ladder we don't know for sure because even if Hauptmann did touch it his could be among the those which weren't good. And of course those that were good and unidentifiable could have been someone else involved.
Shutters, Window, Window Frame, Window Sill, Window Ledge, Suitcase, Toy on top of suitcase, Stein on Window Ledge, and possibly the crib. (I am just going to omit what happens if someone is feeling their way around a dark room they've never been in before). If wearing gloves then it doesn't matter. However, others touched those areas and prints were found as expected everywhere except those few areas we expect the Kidnapper to have touched.
Simply apply the 50% rule you cited above - it doesn't jibe here.
Whatever you do, don't rely on Fisher's books when looking at this evidence. He's right about some stuff but very wrong about others. Just as an example he writes that Dr. Hudson switched sides when he learned Hauptmann's prints weren't on the ladder (Ghosts p. 101).
What the truth is that he found out that Hauptmann's prints weren't found on the ladder, then asked if this exculpatory evidence would be turned over to the the Defense. Hudson, you see, wasn't on any side at the time. When it became known to him that this information would be purposely withheld then he took it upon himself to inform the Defense. They then added him to their witness list.
So didn't Fisher know this or did he just choose to ignore it? It's either ignorance or hedging neither of which I like much if I am trying to get to the truth of a situation.
Now baring the mistakes Fisher makes, he offers several reasons for why no prints of the Kidnapper existed:
1. Gloves 2. Wiped off what he touched 3. Prints were smudged, smeared, or partials 4. Kelly accidentally ruined them (Ghosts p. 103)
There were no smudged, smeared or partials at the "entry point." Kelly didn't accidentally ruin any elsewhere, and if they weren't good he still collected them. When considering evidence you have to look at everything. If someone, as a matter of system, policy, or even habit does something everywhere else then by nature they would do it in the questioned area as well. If not then why? That cannot be ignored.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 12, 2012 8:10:35 GMT -5
5. Surfaces in question were not condusive to the deposit of latent prints or the identification of prints with the known methods of the time.
How many prints did Kelly lift from the ladder and chisel? How many did Hudson get?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 12, 2012 8:32:25 GMT -5
I'm not an Expert on this. I've taken prints via the old ink/card system, and I've observed dusting once. Other then that my education on the subject has come only from researching this case. Having said that here is what I believe I know... Unpainted wood, and paper are difficult surfaces to print using black powder because they are porous. It's why the Silver Nitrate worked when the powder did not on the ladder, and Dr. Hudson was recommending the iodine gas on the Notes. Everything else the powder, even today, is the method of choice. Standard fingerprint powder works well on most smooth surfaces, including glass, most metals, non-porous wood, and plastics. Consult with your local experts regarding more advanced printing techniques on porous and other surfaces.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 12, 2012 10:33:14 GMT -5
But what about the ladder dowels and chisel? Both were smooth and the wood was finished?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 12, 2012 11:34:06 GMT -5
Off the top of my head I don't remember anything about the dowels. But I do remember they didn't expect to find prints on the chisel. My guess is this is why: What happens to the evidence between the times a latent print is deposited and the time it is recovered can greatly affect the processing outcome. Damage to the can be permanent or temporary, depending on the circumstances. Rain may wash away a non--fatty/oily latent print deposited on an object's surface. Dew and snow, much like rain, will adversely affect the latent print. So what appears to have happened is the prints were preserved in the ladder because it was porous - "latent print residue can soak into the surface" - while the non-porous items were adversely affected by being outside in the wet weather when being touched and/or after having been discarded. Or, in the alternative, the Kidnapper may have been wearing gloves. If that was the case, we wouldn't expect to find prints on those items like we would in the Nursery because Gow, Anne, Mrs. Morrow, Elsie Whateley, etc. didn't touch the chisel or dowels. Pick your poison.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 12, 2012 20:44:30 GMT -5
I wanted to correct something I said earlier which may not be true....
I have no way of knowing whether or not the 50% rule applies in this situation, and I think it was unfair of me to suggest it in the context that I did especially when considering he did not find prints on the ransom note (paper), the French Window area, sun lamp, screen, and the section of crib that he checked initially. In Kelly's own words "no indication of any prints." When you read Kelly's reports he is always very specific. He checked the outside of the "kidnap" window in the morning and that was blank as well.
One could argue that Kelly did not know what he was doing in order to explain that he wasn't finding anything during his search of the Nursery. I am absolutely positive his Trial Testimony, which directly contradicts his reports, cannot be relied on for all the reasons I have outlined above and in the past.
I have no problem with Kelly's ability in processing with the black or aluminum powders. As I said, he was able to raise prints elsewhere where they were expected to be found.
Anyway, in case this is new information: On March 15th, the crib was again checked for prints but this time they were looking for the child's so they powdered the lower sections close to where he slept. Here they developed prints of the child.
The child's prints were also developed on the blocks and toys by using black powder.
And as I have said previously...as late as June '32 they developed prints outside the Nursery door of the child right where they expected to find them.
|
|