kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 13, 2012 7:55:15 GMT -5
I'm not saying Kelly was incompetent, but can you imagine the pressure he was under that night? That's the type of situation where your experience ( or lack of) comes into play.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 13, 2012 8:13:15 GMT -5
I believe they were all under pressure. But it didn't end once he started finding prints. See what I mean?
From what I think I know... the powder probably wouldn't have worked on the note. And the outside area of the window would have been affected as the chisel would have been because of the weather.
The other thing is this....
It is possible Kelly, and anyone else who checked for prints did erase some while attempting to collect them - here again there's really no way for me to know that. But its the "all or nothing" I believe is a wrong position to take. It could be argued where some were found there may have been more, but to say where absolutely nothing was found there never was any, that Kelly couldn't raise any, or he did not raise them because he accidentally erased them all in a given area - I think is a huge mistake.
I mentioned the dust on the sill earlier and I am going to research that more before I mention it again. I started to check it out yesterday. 2 of the 3 different sources I found said there was a dirt smudge on the sill believed to have been made by a muddy foot. This is important to consider too.
I hate to sound like a broken record but there are so many sources to consult so it takes a good amount of time to be reasonably certain about anything.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 15, 2012 17:07:47 GMT -5
Aside from the fingerprint debate - what does everyone think happened in relationship to what the crimescene tells us?
How did the Kidnapper(s) approach the house? From what direction? What tools were utilized? Why was the ladder left where it was dropped?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Feb 16, 2012 0:58:30 GMT -5
This is not part of this thread, but since we can't post replies in the "Links" section, Michael, I want to thank you for that link to Gardner's latest blog, which is amazingly detailed. Looks extremely unlikely that there was a taxi bringing a message to Condon on April 2. The descriptions of the message deliverer—“Jewish or Italian,” “short” “five foot six” “slim” “brown fedora hat” sound a lot like Fisch. I would be rather hard pressed to believe the cabbie Silken’s claim—which he made two years later-- that it was Anna Hauptmann whom he brought to Condon’s place. What do you make about the observations of Lindbergh’s movements, which, if accurate, differ from the official account?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 16, 2012 20:34:47 GMT -5
Trying to fit all the eyewitness accounts (at least, the ones I'm aware of) together, in terms of approaching the house, I can see how the kidnapper(s) could've parked at the end of Featherbed Ln., walked north through the woods to the house, waited in the trees until it was dark and the nursery seemed quiet for awhile, then approached the house. The ladder wound up where it was maybe because, as I said, it had broken, they were in a hurry and decided to abandon it on the way back through the woods to the car. The chisel could've been accidentally dropped at the same time. What I'm not sure of in all this (and I think I mentioned this before) is how the thumbguard wound up on the driveway--unless it was dropped there at a later date, but, given it's condition, the thumbguard seems to have been there for awhile.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 16, 2012 21:14:49 GMT -5
I've never believed it. If Myra wasn't lying for her Father then whoever it was had to have made their way to the front door from the side of the house. No car pulled up out front - that's for sure.
It reminds me of the fact that Condon failed to inform Police about a Ransom Note he'd rec'd much earlier then when he finally turned it over.
Silken would need his own thread to discuss. I believe the guy was sincere although certainly could be wrong in his identifying specific people as who he actually saw. Condon appears frightened by him somewhat which tells me he saw something.
The big eye in the sky don't lie.
Believe it or not, I actually walked from Featherbed to Highfields. I carried a briefcase. Here's what I found out by doing it: It was a longer walk then I had expected. The briefcase became very heavy. The terrain is hilly and rocky and I stumbled more then once. Oh, and I was harassed by a Pheasant that wasn't happy - usually they run away making a racket but this one kept running at me, then past, then would double back again.
I guess the point of this was, before I get side-tracked even more about the Pheasant story, was that I didn't see this as a smart approach. If they did it, then it was time consuming, they may have been following the light of the house, for sure, but they would need a flashlight so as not to trip and fall. Then, how would they find their way back to their car without a beacon to follow? Blindly walking due south is a dangerous method. One person carrying that ladder would be another problem, so it would make sense they weren't going to haul it away, child in hand, and whatever else they had which they did not drop. So if this was the plan all along, why bother moving it away from the house? Carrying it even that far across that dangerously muddy yard was an unnecessary risk.
Let me ask you this LJ....
Do you think they may have dropped the ladder off closer to the house so they wouldn't have to carry it if your theory of approach is correct?
(And it is possible that was a wild turkey. It was years ago and my memory is fuzzy on the birds identity. I did have to pick up a tree branch so he must have had some size to him.)
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 17, 2012 0:06:52 GMT -5
Well, the guy who posted that timeline I mentioned a few days ago speculated that the ladder was dropped off earlier, the kidnapper(s) having first driven up to the house, left, parked at the end of Featherbed, then walked through the woods to the house. I suppose they could've had a flashlight for the return trip to the car or used the lights of houses on Featherbed as a guide (assuming any were lit). As to carrying/moving the ladder away from the house: Juggling the baby, the ladder, etc. would've been very difficult for a single kidnapper, true, which is why I've always felt there were two people there--one to carry the baby once they had him, another to carry the ladder. They dumped the ladder in what (to me) looks like a panic as they tried to carry it off. Unless all these things were staged by some mystery person, I don't know why they wouldn't have either a) taken the ladder with them, or b) just left it by the house if the plan was to leave it behind all along. Or, to account for the thumbguard being found where it was, it could be that the kidnapper(s) first drove up to house and dropped the ladder off to avoid having to carry it a long distance. But rather than grab the baby right then and there, they wanted to wait awhile, until the house quieted down a bit, so they drove to Featherbed Ln. and parked at the dead end. Although it's a rough little hike as you say, they didn't want to risk driving up to the house again, so Kidnapper A made his way on foot to the house through the woods, picking a good vantage point in the trees from which to watch the nursery window. Meanwhile, Kidnapper B drove over to a point nearer the mouth of the Lindberghs' driveway to meet him afterwards, since Kidnapper A wouldn't have been able to find his way back to Featherbed through the woods in the dark. After using the previously dropped-off ladder to get into the house and grab the baby, Kidnapper A then walked down the drive (it's an unfrequented road and, should any headlights appear, he could've easily ducked into the trees) to meet up with Kidnapper B, but on realizing the baby was dead, he stripped the sleeping suit off him at some point along the driveway, pulling off and losing the thumbguard in the process. (You suggested that the thumbguard was dropped on the driveway at a later date as a warning, but, given its condition, it seems to have been lying out on the ground for a long time when it was found, and, if it was intended as a warning, why not, say, mail it?) As to the ladder being found where it was: Before heading down the driveway to meet up with Kidnapper B, maybe Kidnapper A dragged the ladder to the spot where it was found, closer to the woods, in an attempt to make it look like that was his escape route, trying to throw the cops off by making it seem like he went the opposite direction. Of course, all this now leaves only one person to carry out the actual, physical snatch, which, as I originally said, would be difficult--exiting the nursery by pulling oneself back over onto the ladder, which seems to have placed to the side of the window... But maybe that awkward angle/positioning is part of what caused the ladder to break...? I dunno, just brainstorming...
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 17, 2012 15:31:28 GMT -5
Brings to mind Anne thinking she heard a car on the drive - I think it was about 8:15 (?) One can wonder if the ladder was unloaded there. But then again, if Cal showed up at about 8:30, that's a pretty tight window. Really liked hearing about your trek through the woods, Michael, the description of the ground. That opens up the view of the area from FB Lane for me. Also liked the pheasant/turkey detail - wasn't barking dogs this time Gardner's article was SO interesting!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 18, 2012 8:31:39 GMT -5
Hope no one minds but I'd like to add a comment and question. Regarding the trek from Featherbed to Highfields, I did this also, sans a briefcase or a Turkey ( though I did have a Jack Russell) and it is very difficult. It's strewn with large rocks, underbrush and fallen branches. However, if one looks at the aerial photos of 1932 you will see that much has changed. In 32 the land was more barren and there were actually a few utility roads that led towards Featherbed. I just want to point out that it was easier back then and you really need to look at those old photos to get a sense of why a particular approach was taken. Here is a link to 1930's aerial maps njstateatlas.com/1930/. Find Hopewell, then Hopewell-Amwell Rd. You will see where Featherbed crosses. If you look at where the " d" is in Hopewell-Amwell R d you will see a tree line. This is where the drive to Highfields is. Follow that west to the intersecting tree line and that is where Highfields will be built. My question involves the ladder. Why would anyone build a ladder sacrificing safety and use to the extreme for the sake of lightness if they didn't have to carry it far?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 18, 2012 10:11:08 GMT -5
You brought the perfect body-guard for the trek. (BTW - I remember it was a Pheasant - although I have a great Turkey story - but that's for some other time). Yes and no. There weren't many trees but I took that into consideration. What I also had to do was consider the pitch black night, the cold, and the muddy yard, all of which I did not have to deal with myself. So you are right in that all variables and circumstances must be considered and dealt with from a neutral perspective (as best one can). There were utility roads. Some circled the property, and some led north and south. But they didn't connect up with Featherbed because they either weren't long enough, or ever designed to do so. I can tell you that by the Spring time they were all "overgrown." For what that is worth...I am not trying to say anything but rather provide information about them I've discovered within the Reports. I agree. They also have to be taken at face value. For example, one might conclude those utility roads did lead to Featherbed from the photos but that wasn't the case. Then you take a ground level view, like we did, and combine all the known facts to drawn a reasonable conclusion. We both have that benefit and could easily draw different conclusions. But like you said, without them, its hard to really know. Several possibilities in my opinion: - Lightness equals quickness, or at least, the impression it was designed for speed.
- The person with that ladder may have been responsible for it alone. That each Party had a specific duty or obligation. So that person was responsible to load and carry it by themselves.
- That the design was meant to point to a specific location. An orchard ladder, for example, may send the Police wasting their time looking in the wrong place.
- The ladder itself was a blind intended to prove someone from the outside was involved therefore neutralizing attention on any possible "inside connection" which may have existed.
- That whoever built it wasn't a real Carpenter and was seriously mistaken in its design.
- That whoever built it realized its flaws but felt it was good enough to serve whatever purpose it was needed for.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 18, 2012 11:28:30 GMT -5
I was thinking about this the other day--how aerial photos of the house taken at the time show sparse surrounding foliage. I tried to find something that pulled back further, to see if the forest that's around the place today was there in 1932, but no luck. Looks to me though, based on the njstateatlas website that kevkon supplied (many thanks, btw), that there were no woods to walk through from the end of Featherbed Ln. to Highfields. It seems there were some clumps of trees nearer the house from which to stake the place out/watch the nursury window, but, either way, if the kidnapper(s) did walk from Featherbed, they would've been moving across rough terrain, but through open country nonetheless. I think this helps with ease of approach, and cover of night with no one around also cuts back on the odds of being seen. And if you have the lights of the house to guide you, you could easily find the place, but getting back to Featherbed would still be difficult, even without any forest to walk through. So I'm not sure if there's anything I'd change about my current brainstorms on the kidnapper(s) approach. Yet.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 18, 2012 11:48:52 GMT -5
I can say with complete confidence that the ladder was not an amateur creation. I think that ladder got a bad rap from Koehler, but he didn't have the ladder as found ( and most people are not familiar with the ladder prior to the police destruction). He also didn't give the builder credit for ingenuity. I can also say that despite it's lightweight construction it is remarkably strong if it is built correctly and used correctly. I would say that nothing proves the builder's objective for weight savings as much as the rung spacing. So I remain completely convinced that the builder recognized the need to carry it over a fair distance. On the other hand it's not as fast to erect as a conventional extension ladder.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 18, 2012 12:50:02 GMT -5
Kevin, I think you might be mistaken about your map reference. The Hunterdon/Mercer Line is at the 400' mark. That occurs just below where Hopewell-Amwell bends. It's just north of that bend where the driveway begins. That drive-way works its way slightly north-west to the highest point near the 552' mark. While looking at Liz's topography map and comparing it to the one that you posted, it looks very much like that bald spot is where Highfields was built. As I remember from the maps I have, there were trees to both the north and west while clear on the south and east sides of approach of the home in '32 - so this seems to be right. When I made my walk, I positioned myself due south of Highfields before starting. I did that to make it as easy as possible considering that is probably what the Kidnapper(s) did. But of course, I only assumed that at the time. I believe that walk was .6 miles. I walked the drive-way too, and I believe that almost the same distance at .5 miles. (While thumbing through my notes I've discovered this was back in 2004 - yikes - time flies doesn't it?) That's why it's important for you to be here sharing your expertise. I think it eliminates the "Amateur" carpenter option once and for all. Again. Thanks for sharing. It had been suggested this was due to the height of the builder. This is an important and educated observation. Again, this is important. Let me ask you this.... If it could be proven that it was dropped off very near the house, as Joe theorized, how would you amend your position on its weight? Attachments:
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 18, 2012 14:03:13 GMT -5
Michael, I think that I should not have used the road label as a marker. Actually the 1930's atlas actually shows Highfields under construction if you look closely. Yes, about 1/2 mile 9 a little more I think). What's important is how well it stood out at the time, especially at night. I recently saw a night shot taken right after the kidnapping and as the locals would say, it glowed like a pumpkin.
I don't think that would change anything. It still was designed and built for economy of weight, regardless if that was Featherbed Lane, Lindbergh's driveway, or something else altogether. If we take Joe's theory as fact, then the $50000 question is where was it built for?
|
|
|
Post by zerohunter on Feb 19, 2012 13:58:50 GMT -5
From: Beneath the Sycamores by Jim Bahm
Chapter four: Building a ladder in November, 1931
(This scenario takes place at Lindbergh's new, nearly completed home in the Sourland Mountains near Hopwell.)
p 33
“The Great Aviator peered into the well shed, and then slowly walked around the woodpiles. He studied the assortment of wood, and after careful thought selected several different sizes including two by fours, two by sixes and milled five quarter floor planking. Carefully, he lifted each, and with one eye closed and one eye open, he ogled the boards to make sure they were straight. He shook them with an extended arm as if to weigh them. Most of the selected wood was basic yellow pine. Lindbergh was not a master wood worker, but he was not a stranger to carpentry. He had made ladders as a kid on the Minnesota farm, as a vocational student in school, and even last summer before he and Anne left on their three-month adventure to Asia, he had constructed a small light weight telescoping ladder. It was small enough to keep on board the plane, and to assist Anne as she climbed into their Lockheed float plane the Sirius, the plane they used for their epic trek to the North Orient.
p 34
… He was unsure of the width of a standard ladder, but whatever that might have been; he wanted to make sure it would not be too narrow for him to descend quickly if carrying at least thirty pounds. And the Great Aviator did not want his long legs to be impeded by ladder rungs that were not spread far enough apart.”
The book is based upon the Arthur Jones letter. Jim Bahm’s father worked as a guard at the Trenton State Prison and was the person that Arthur Jones gave his statement to. After his father passed away he found the letter in his father's dresser. Ten years of research allowed Jim put all of the pieces together, so that they closely fit with what we know today. Is it 100%? In my mind not a 100%, but it is absolutely in the right direction. Nonetheless the book is a really great read and presents startling elements of cooperation between “conspirators” that had previously been unlikely in my mind.
Lindbergh certainly had; motive, experience as a ladder builder, expertise as a designer, time and plenty of opportunity, and a place that had all the needed materials and tools. Of course this doesn’t prove that he built it, but he certainly could have.
Oliver Whateley is also a potential ladder building suspect in my book. He was a master Jeweler and later worked at machine shop. He easily possessed the skill and knowledge to design and build our infamous ladder and also had all of the same resources mentioned above.
But personally, I think Lindy did it… and also that it may have been constructed solely as a prop.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 19, 2012 14:28:15 GMT -5
Interesting. So I guess Hauptmann must have supplied Lindy with the wood, nails, and some tools.
|
|
|
Post by zerohunter on Feb 19, 2012 14:42:33 GMT -5
I slipped a gear on where this scenario takes place since it was so obvious to me. Sorry about that. This scenario takes place at his new, nearly completed home in the Sourland Mountains near Hopwell.
And no, Hauptman was not around…
I need to edit my post…
z
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 19, 2012 15:59:03 GMT -5
Gotta love it. Even after all these years people are still flinging it to see what sticks ( and make a buck). Like there isn't enough confusion and obfuscation involved in this case.
BTW, what is "standard yellow pine" and why would it be found at a "wellshed".
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 19, 2012 17:24:50 GMT -5
I was very interested to read Beneath the Winter Sycamores when it came out. I bought it last year and--wow. I mean, it was hard for me to follow what was going on because I kept waiting to stumble across the next typo and/or misspelling. There were so many as to be distracting, and the dialog--well, it simply didn't do. Additionally, the author gets so much factually wrong in that book (about the baby's general health for instance) that I don't know where to begin. I don't know if he self-published or what, but it read like a rough draft of a rough draft I'm sorry to say. Anyway, the author says that it's a novel to begin with--i.e. not even intended as a true crime/history book--so even if it was more professionally done, I don't know if it's advisable to use that book as a source the same way you could with, say, the books by Waller, Scaduto, Kennedy, et al.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 19, 2012 17:59:05 GMT -5
The problem is this: If one decides there was an inside connection, then it can exist without that person being behind everything. Certain things may seem to fit while other things might not. Don't force it. Let the facts lead you to the potential role of it all. The other thing is that if a part or a piece happens to be incorrect, that by itself, does not invalidate the entire thing.
So the person presenting it AND the person evaluating it must both look at everything with an open mind. The degrees of certain things need to be considered.
It's not always all or nothing - much lies in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 19, 2012 18:28:06 GMT -5
Which is why I always felt that Violet Sharpe, for instance, may well have been involved. Not that she has to be some sort of mastermind behind the whole thing because of this; rather, I think her potential involvement was, if anything, inadvertent.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 20, 2012 17:44:00 GMT -5
She is an obvious choice that no one seems to like to consider for one reason or another. If you are looking for something in particular about her let me know and I will see what I can dig up for you.
BR: Since you liked Lloyd's most recent Blog I thought I'd upload one of the Reports he refers to.....
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 20, 2012 19:10:54 GMT -5
I'm not sure why Violet's potential connection is not pursued more. Maybe there just isn't much of anything solid to pursue. I can't think of anything specific, but do you know of anything tangible that might connect her to all this? Also, what are your thoughts on the approach to the house (two kidnappers to drop the ladder off, then one driving from Featherbed to meet the other as he walked down the drive, after walking from Featherbed to the house)?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 20, 2012 20:15:58 GMT -5
As with any point, theory, or angle - there are mysteries within mysteries. Violet Sharp exemplifies this more then anyone.
She is the one who took the call, therefore, she is the first to know (outside of Highfields) officially. Next, she has given information up in the past. Then she lies - more then once. Finally, she kills herself over, what appears to be, from the questioning concerning the kidnapping.
So it is reasonable to consider a connection. Both Inspector Walsh AND Col. Schwarzkopf thought so too. And even after Hauptmann was arrested, the fear was a connection would be established between them by the Defense.
However, a case could be made that she is mentally unstable. Then as a "wild card" there's the theory she had been murdered because she was on the verge of "cracking".
I've always said that sometimes what someone does during the Investigation may have to do with something else. It isn't always because of THIS crime. It could be she was hiding something completely different but the attention she was getting was aggravating the situation, perhaps even making it worse.
An "accidental" disclosure could have easily happened but without any evidence for us to ever find about it. The problem for me is that if it was accidental, I would think, Sharp could have helped solve the crime instead of creating an obstacle to its solution.
So in the end, all of these things should be weighed and factored in before drawing any rock solid conclusions about her. There is much to think about.
The approach to the house.....
Let me ask you and everyone else this: You carry the ladder North to Highfields from Featherbed. So your approach is North from South. Do you walk straight to the house or some other way? Are you carrying and using a flash light? How do you set the ladder up, and where are you standing when you do it?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 20, 2012 22:14:36 GMT -5
My thoughts on the approach were more or less the same as Joe's, in that timeline he posted: The kidnapper(s) drive to the house and leave the ladder somewhere on the grounds, near the house. Even if anyone notices it, the house is still partially under construction, so there's nothing odd about seeing a ladder lying around. The ladder is lightweight, true, but it's still cumbersome, so leaving it there ahead of time solves the problem of having to carry it any distance. An early dropoff of the ladder would also explain why Anne Lindbergh thought she heard tires on the driveway 15-20 minutes or so before Charles Lindbergh got home. Anyway, the kidnapper(s) want to wait a little while, until the house quiets down, but they don't want to press their luck and have their car be heard on a second approach, so they park on Featherbed. At that point, one of them (not needing a flashlight because he's using the fully illuminated and clearly visible house as a guide) cuts north on foot across the open country to Highfields (it's dark in a sparsely populated area, so he shouldn't be seen). Meanwhile, the other kidnapper drives back toward Highfields and parks somewhere on the shoulder of what is today Lindbergh Rd., near the mouth of the driveway, as the other kidnapper won't be able to find his way back to Featherbed in the dark (they don't want to use flashlights to avoid being seen). The kidnapper on foot reaches the house, waits in a nearby clump of trees or bushes until he's pretty sure the nursery's quiet. He then picks up the ladder, sets it to the side of the nursery window so no one will see it in front of the lower library window, gets into the nursery, gets out, but the ladder breaks under the added weight. The kidnapper then drags the ladder to one end of the backyard and discards it (the breaking wood sound Lindbergh said he heard) to make it look like his escape route was in the opposite direction (accidentally dropping his chisel), then walks down the unfrequented driveway to meet the second kidnapper in the car (if the headlights of any arriving/departing cars appear, he'll spot them quickly and can just duck into the surrounding trees). Somewhere along the driveway, he strips the sleeping suit off the body, losing the thumbguard in the process. He then hooks up with the other kidnapper in the car. I'm not sure, in all this, how the thumbguard later gets into the middle of the drive, though... I dunno. Again, just brainstorming. Setting aside for a moment the possibility that the whole scene was staged in the first place, this seems like a plausible scenario. Either way, please dissect.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 21, 2012 8:44:21 GMT -5
Could you elaborate on the dropping off of the ladder? Are you saying they drove down Lindbergh's driveway, parked, got the ladder out, then carried it over some distance and left it? How would they find it when it was dark? Why wouldn't anyone notice this odd ladder ( or the men carrying it)? I'm just not getting this important point. You build a ladder to be lightweight, like an assualt ladder, but then you negate that by risking detection to drop it closer to the house. And why would someone carry an extremely sharp instument, the chisel, around in their pocket? Another point to consider is the assembly of the sections. Sound easy and it is when doing it in full light and on a flat surface, not so in the dark on uneven terrain. How would this factor into the staging?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 21, 2012 11:42:04 GMT -5
I'm suggesting that they cut their lights and drove up to the Lindbergh house, dropping the ladder off around 8:15 (Anne Lindbergh hearing tires on the drive before Lindbergh got home). They quickly got it out of the car, left it someplace near the house, and drove to Featherbed, wanting to wait before making a final, more quiet approach on foot. They didn't necessarily leave the ladder right by the house--maybe near a lumber pile or something, some distance away. They're coming right back, so they'll remember where it is. It's also dark by this time and pretty nasty out, so the chances of anyone going outside and noticing it are slim, and, even if anyone does spot it, the house is under construction, so there's nothing odd about seeing a ladder lying somewhere nearby. The ladder was built to be lightweight, but it's also a very cumbersome thing too, so I don't know that its lightweightness was necessarily for carrying it over a long distance. Instead, that may've been because it was only intended to be used once, so a minimum of materials was used in its construction. As to assembling it: I think you'd have to be very familiar with the ladder's design in order to quickly assemble it in the dark, on uneven ground. That suggests to me that the ladder's builder and its user could very well have been the same person. And as for the chisel, I don't know where or how it was being carried, but I do know that when I'm in a hurry and juggling multiple items in my hands, sometimes I'll stick into my coat pocket whatever will fit, and sometimes it'll fall out.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 21, 2012 15:24:04 GMT -5
The problem I have with the driveway approach is that once you go in, you are committed. Anyone coming or leaving and your done. There's not a lot of opportunity to turn around.Also it is pretty tough to navigate without lights. As for the ladder, I know it sounds hard to believe, but that ladder is not so easy to assemble in the dark and especially on anything but flat ground. I know, I have tried it. I know the chisel doesn't seem like a big deal, but it's the last thing you would put in a pocket especially if you are walking around at night. It's actually worse than having a sharp knife in your pocket since the business end of the chisel is at the end.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 21, 2012 16:45:04 GMT -5
Yeah, turning into the driveway is pretty risky and I wouldn't suggest it but for Anne Lindbergh claiming she heard a car prior to Charles Lindbergh getting home. If there's any truth to this scenario, it would seem the kidnapper(s) missed getting boxed in by Lindbergh's arrival by a matter of minutes, so, yeah, again, it was very risky to turn onto the driveway. But even so, if you're discovered on the driveway before grabbing the baby, you could always say something like "Oh, sorry. We're lost. Must've taken a wrong turn, we'll be on our way now..." I mean, yeah, there's a ladder in your backseat, but it's no crime to have a ladder in your car. If you're discovered with the baby in the car, though, then obviously the game's up, which is why I'm wondering if one of them may've come back on foot to carry out actual snatch. This would cut down on noise and on the odds of being boxed in, as a person could always run off and hide in the woods, whereas a car not only has a license plate, but has less room to maneuver and escape in such close quarters. As to the ladder assembly: I agree that it's not easy to put together on the fly, which is why I think the person who used it could very well have been the person who built it, i.e. very familiar with its unique custom design. It would've also made sense to practice putting it together beforehand a good deal too. But another way of looking at it is that, given the darkness and the weather, the ladder may not have been put together properly after all, and that may've been what contributed (at least in part) to its failing. And as for the chisel: Honestly, I've never seen a picture of it, but I've always pictured as one of those dull, blunt things. Maybe I'm wrong about that, though...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 21, 2012 17:09:36 GMT -5
Here is both the chisel found at the scene as well as the chisel found in Hauptmann's cigar box (not his tool box as falsely testified to at Trial):
|
|