|
Post by Michael on Feb 21, 2012 17:41:51 GMT -5
I agree there would be no need for a flashlight to find Highfields. I don't see how someone makes that walk, in the dark, without taking a few face-plants in the process. It's very hilly, and full of rocks and boulders. I could see, wasn't carrying a ladder, and I still stumbled more then once. I see the exact same problem if they went into that Nursery without a light source, yet, no one heard them knock the stein over, the toy down, fall over the suitcase, walk into the table, or topple the screen or sunlamp. I do that in my own house when the lights are out and I know where everything is! They heard no child scream out, as he was known to do (unless Betty picked him up). Imagine finally getting to that crib and feeling around for the child?
They had to be extremely familiar with that room, or they had something that allowed them to see what they were doing.
Let's say they navigated the entire way without ever falling down. Wouldn't there be mud on their shoes? Hands and feet both wet, and dirty? Where is the evidence of it all?
Well there's the two faint smudges leading towards the crib but none coming back to the window, and the Ransom Note looked like it got a little wet in places.
Why have it at all? Breaking through the shutters and window with a chisel? They might have just rang the doorbell. And if you did bring it along, then did not use it, how does it fall out next to the ladder? The inference is that he had it out then dropped it. Only Wilentz ever addresses this by saying in his summation that Hauptmann hit the child over the head with the chisel....so according to the State (at that time), it was the murder weapon - problem solved.
Actually no - it isn't - is it?
The whole entire thing was risky. Each and every part of it required a monumental amount of risk. What's one more risky maneuver to add to the pile?
Any way you can give a step by step from the South end of the house to under the Nursery window how you think it was done? Like, did they place the ladder onto the boardwalk in front of them or behind them? That is, if they are facing the house, which side is the ladder on - left or right? Or did they place one section to their right and the others to their left?
I am just trying to grasp how this is done under the circumstances.
The evidence we have that this ladder touched the earth is only the two rail indentations in the mud - then the ladder itself on the east end of the yard were the footprints led to. So that means this ladder never touched the mud while it was assembled. Extremely tricky under the circumstances, almost like a team building exercise.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 21, 2012 20:38:11 GMT -5
I believe I know why the chisel was there.
As for erecting the ladder, I would put it together and carry it to the house. When I found where I wanted it I would erect it against the house.
Question; Are you guys saying the kidnappers drove all the way up to the house or that they stopped and backed up at some point?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 21, 2012 21:08:33 GMT -5
I'm thinking that maybe they drove to a point close enough that tires could be heard on the gravel, possibly up to where the driveway opens up into that courtyard area right in front of the house. They unloaded the ladder and stashed it somewhere on the grounds. They could've assembled it right then or done so on returning, just before placing it against the house. And why, in your view, was the chisel there?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Feb 21, 2012 21:47:45 GMT -5
One of the things that really bothers me about this kidnapping is the risk of the child crying. Even if the kidnappers, standing outside, saw the nursery lights go out, there was no guarantee he was asleep. I don’t buy the “chloroform” theory. Even if the kidnapper was equipped with chloroform, the child could have screamed before the abductor got close enough to use it—very risky.
If I was the kidnapper, I’d want a guarantee that kid was “out.” Michael, I know Wayne Jones is far from the best resource, but on page 86 he describes a unnamed figure who visited Mrs. McLean (after the Gaston Means affair) and “told Mrs. McClean that he had delivered dope to Violet Sharpe and Oliver Whateley and that the Lindbergh butler had put dope in the baby’s milk the night of the kidnapping, which accounted for his not awakening as he was taken from house.” Michael, do you know who he’s talking about? I know Nosovitsky was a chemist and eventually visited McClean.
Whatever the merits of Jones’s account, I do believe that doping the baby was the safest means of assuring he wouldn’t cry. There are some loose threads that might go together with the scenario Jones describes: --Betty Gow reported that the baby fell asleep “unusually quickly” (Gardner p.19)—possibly because he was doped? --Sharp and Whateley both went to the Temple of Divine Power --According to the Mancke depositions, Sharp and Whateley met with Isidor Fisch at their ice cream parlor on several Sundays just before the kidnapping -- Sharp, Whateley and Fisch were all dead long before the trial got underway --Oliver Whateley was the only person in the house whose movements were uncorroborated during the alleged time of the kidnapping --For whatever it’s worth, in John Hughes Curtis’s account, the kidnappers received a “go” signal from a confederate inside the house
I am reminded that Elsie Whateley took Betty to see her new dress in the Whateley’s bedroom—that bedroom was over the garage, as far from the nursery as possible. I just have to wonder if Elsie was trying to pull Betty away from the crime scene.
While nothing is certain, if there was treason in the household, I have always tended to suspect the Whateleys more than Betty. Betty didn’t even know she would be at Highfields until the morning of the kidnapping. The Whateleys were usually alone at Highfields every week, Monday through Friday, and could have even entertained the kidnappers, shown them the nursery, and allowed them to make dry-run rehearsals of the kidnapping.
I’m NOT saying this is how it went down, I’m just thinking out loud as we all do. But I if was the kidnapper, that’s how I’d want it—the baby doped, and the kidnapping as well rehearsed as an Olympic event--high speed with no glitches.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 22, 2012 12:04:31 GMT -5
Or the baby's vitamins were doctored before hand-paregoric, maybe. He was dosed and he spit it up or out. Was he then dosed again? Child was teething - paregoric commonly used on gums. It may have been on hand. In any case, if a child is soundly sleeping, I don't know that it would scream out just when someone entered the room. Unless it was dead or drugged it certainly would, being dragged out from the bottom of the blanket. I doubt if Elsie would have been involved. I have doubts that Gow was either.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 22, 2012 16:27:31 GMT -5
I agree with Mairi, I don't think the child would have neccessarily screamed. But, are all of you assuming that the intention was to abduct the child alive? I can't get that position due to the total lack of any evidence that points to a "caregiver" involved with the kidnapper(s) or any such place to provide the care required for a 20 month old child. In fact, the evidence I see points to the opposite. The use of that ladder as the method of abduction doesn't make me believe that the child's welfare was a consideration. If you do believe the child was meant to be taken alive, who do you think was going to take care of it?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 22, 2012 17:54:17 GMT -5
"The use of that ladder as the method of abduction doesn't make me believe that the child's welfare was a consideration." Kevkon
I guess I can't see that lack of a caregiver or special place to keep the child would be any different from the above. Welfare just not being the focus. Since I'm inclined to think there was more than one perp, lack of caregiver/place evidence fades into one of many mysteries in the case, for me.
If the child was killed in his crib - was it spur-of-the-moment (?) or planned all along(?) If the latter, what in the world would be the reason? Input welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 22, 2012 20:27:40 GMT -5
Only one of Arthur Koehler's conclusions appears debatable and this may be a matter of interpreting his findings that, "It (the ladder) showed poor design and workmanship..." Somewhat to the contrary is the reviewer's opinion that the ladder was fashioned ingeniously. Although not nicely finished, it was made with some precision for a purpose: The relatively short sections enabled easy automobile transportation and the dowel fasteners permitted quick assembly and disassembly. [Col. Pagano, Report, 3-2-81] This is something I don't think the Colonel would have added to his report if he didn't feel strongly about it. I know you are currently working on something so if my questions intrude upon it then just disregard them..... Here are my follow-ups to this: Which side of the house do you do this? Once you erect the 2 sections, do you carry it back to the 3rd to then assemble that? How do they avoid stepping off of the board walk while carrying the assembled ladder? While erecting it - not once - but twice (maybe even 3 times)? I am just counter-punching a bit to see where it leads. I think its pretty important that Anne heard a car. Either we believe her or we don't. If we do then its damn important because it was just before Lindbergh officially got home. I think, if we believe her, its a safe bet that it was One or more of the Kidnappers. We then have to ask: What were they doing, and where did they go? It could have been the child had been medicated. I have read so many different rumors about everyone being a dope fiend. Elisabeth was a favorite for these types of stories. Doesn't ring a bell. I'll look into it for you to see if I can figure it out. We have a limited amount of Suspects if there was an Inside Connection. Whateley isn't one many hitch their wagon to. It's good that you favor him, if there was an "Insider" because it gives him some much needed attention. A big reason I don't "like" him as a Suspect is because he immediately told the Press he suspected an Inside Job. Certainly, if that is HIM, why would he do this? Especially since Lindbergh wanted no hint of such a story being told? But that's just my reasoning. Thanks for pointing out the 500 pound gorilla in the room Mairi. Sometimes we all need that. No attempt to un-pin the child. No fumbling. Snatch and grab. No fuss. No mess. And certainly no concern for the child indicated. Who in their right mind believes the ransom notes knowing he manner in which the child was abducted? Still scratching my head over how someone, who has never been in that room, walks over to the crib and does this without a light source. The female member of the gang of course. Excellent question. I'd like to hear what everyone thinks about this too.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 22, 2012 22:45:51 GMT -5
There was something in the final ransom note about the child being on a boat, looked after by two women. I think I've said this before, but I've always had the feeling that this was the plan of what was supposed to happen, but the child's death rendered all that moot. This is something which makes me lean towards an accidental or spur-of-the-moment death for the child, because I still can't see anyone willfully murdering such a high profile hostage, who, at 20 months old, could never identify you (unless the kidnapper/murderer was somehow mentally unstable or psychotic, and I'm not sure who, in all the gallery of legitimate suspects, fits that bill). At that point, you've needlessly set yourself up for the electric chair. And I don't know that a kidnapper would've been totally unfamiliar with the layout of the nursery. Whateley conducted tours of the house during the week while the Lindberghs were away, so anyone could've gotten in and done a reconnaissance run beforehand. I think this aspect dropped below the horizon because of Whateley's sudden death. As for the baby being pulled out from under the blankets by the head, I still don't see why he couldn't have been chloroformed or accidentally smothered or something along those lines.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 23, 2012 6:29:49 GMT -5
I like your way of thinking here. It may or may not be true but its important to consider these types of angles. I can see it if the murder was supposed to happen in the first place. These tours never happened, in fact, the Reports all indicate that Whateley was turning people away, chasing them off the property, or limiting the deliveries to the most minimally invasive places in the house as possible. Here's a little of my old research into this: They both seem like options to me too. However, the Police discounted the chloroform because they didn't smell it and the Household all claimed they didn't after they noticed CJr. missing.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Feb 23, 2012 8:49:09 GMT -5
Michael, I recall my own response when I read that Whateley had said this—I got the impression that he was trying to deflect suspicion from himself. If I recall correctly, the idea that it was an inside job was already getting noised about by Mrs. Morrow and others. This was bound to cast some attention in Whateley’s direction. So by joining the chorus of voices saying “inside job,” Whateley made himself look less guilty. As they say, during a fox hunt, the fox stays safest if he’s dressed as a hound.
I’m probably dating myself, but the Oscar-winning film Stalag 17 was about a POW camp where the Germans planted a spy among the prisoners. William Holden played a GI who was wrongfully accused of being the spy. At one point, everybody in the barracks gangs up on Holden and beats him in his bunk. Afterwards, Holden says the real spy must be the one who hit him the hardest. Perpetrators, of course, try to conceal their guilt by doing things that deceptively make themselves look innocent—they try to act the opposite of what you’d expect.
Of course, I don’t insist on Whateley. One of the great difficulties of figuring out the LKC is trying to discern whether someone was being transparent or trying to mislead. The ransom notes are a perfect example—was the writer crude or trying to look crude?
I wonder if we should turn the LKC into a board game—sort of a combination of Clue and Monopoly. There’d be a token to represent each suspect—a little plane for Lindbergh, a sowing needle for Betty Gow, and a saw for Hauptmann. For game money, we could have fives, ten and twenties, including gold certificates. “Park Place” and “Boardwalk” would become “Highfields” and “Next Day Hill” while "Mediterranean Avenue” would become Fisch’s flat. And watch out for those Chance cards—they might say “Collect Ransom” or “Go to Jail and Get Beaten with Hammers.”
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 23, 2012 9:13:07 GMT -5
Definately all 3 at once. In fact, if I were to only use 2 it would be sections 2 &3 as they are more rigid. The downside is section 3 is so narrow (11"). Given we assume this happened when it was dark out, it would be very easy to loose one of those dowels.
And where is there any evidence of this person?
LJ; I missed your question about the chisel, I believe strongly that it was used with the ladder sections while being carried.
BR; Great idea about the board game!
I still see nothing that shows any indication that the child was intended to be taken alive. In fact the all important first note claims " the child is in gut care" which is a red flag. Note that the more common ransom note parlance, if you want your child back alive ........... is not employed. Another way to think about this is to use a method Michael employs, look at the alternatives to kidnapping the child, especially ones that would pose little risk to his well being. What type of resistance would a group ( or even one) of armed men have against that household? How about a ambush on the backroads leadind to Highfields? Kidnapping at that time had enough history to show how to do it correctly and using this ladder at an akward position is not how it's done.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 23, 2012 13:22:11 GMT -5
In terms of Whateley conducting tours of the house, I was relying on the FBI Summary Report. If this information is inaccurate, I wonder where it came from? I mean, who came up with this notion of Whateley conducting tours if he didn't? And kevkon makes some good points about this whole ladder business just not being how it's done in terms of kidnapping (an ambush on the back roads or some other kind of armed assault being alternatives), but I'm a little confused about something (and this is primarily for kevkon): You seem to think that the ladder was used, while simultaneously saying that's not how it's done--implying that the ladder was a blind and the whole thing was staged. Could you clarify a bit? Also, what exactly do you mean when you say that the chisel was used with the ladder sections while being carried? And (this is for Michael) I've heard it may be there were no chloroform fumes in the nursery because the window was open a crack. And also, I'm very curious as to what exactly makes you think it was intended to be a murder all along? Again, it just seems so unnecessarily dangerous: At the time, if you kidnapped someone (even someone high profile) and got caught, you'd go to jail for awhile. By contrast, if you killed someone (especially someone so high profile) and were caught, that's it. At least, that would be my logic if I were to abduct someone, so I'd want to make sure my hostage stayed in the best possible health, however this was managed. Unless it wasn't an abduction at all, and was intended to be a murder, as you say. Then that begs the question of who would benefit from the baby's death? Do you have any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 23, 2012 17:25:27 GMT -5
I understand your logic. I do believe Whateley made the comment before Elizabeth Morrow did, and that to me, makes all of the difference. Whateley brought up Wahgoosh too, having not barked, as part of his reasoning. Lindbergh himself tries to neutralize this EXACT point during cross examination in Flemington saying, while everyone else claimed otherwise, he wouldn't expect that dog to bark.
If you are going to CYA you don't make the case against yourself before anyone even suspects you. The crime had already been set up to indicate outside intruders....why go through all of that trouble if you are going to introduce the Inside Job theory?
Anyway - that's where I am coming from. I will keep an open mind concerning whatever ideas you have especially since Whateley isn't at the forefront of suspicion over the years.
All (3) at once would be even harder to carrying without stepping off of that board-walk wouldn't it? In our previous discussions/debates/conversations you've impressed upon me that 2 sections were used to open the shutters, then the 3 to climb to the window having been designed to fit into the louvers of those shutters. How does all of this work out if they are assembling the ladder before negotiating the board-walk? (Again - I know you are working on something so only if you can say without infringing upon your current research)
Some years ago, I read this myself in the FBI Summary and thought it was rather important. And so, I spent a considerable amount of time at the NJSP Archives focused on it. As you can see from my old post....it isn't true. They identified, very early in the investigation, who was inside of Highfields and under what conditions - then investigated each and every person.
It's why I am so hard on Jim Fisher's books. You can't take everything at face value. You have to cross reference to ensure its accurate. I think Fisher spent like 8 days or so at the Archives researching his first book, and I can tell you I spent that just on Whateley alone. And as a result, I can absolutely say with 100% conviction I have everything with Whateley's name on it that is at that Archive. I also have a ton from the College Park Archives too.
As far as where it came from.... It came from one of the (4) Special Agents who had input in assembling it. Now, where'd they get it? The FBI wasn't given a lot of intimate information, and the NJSP kept much close to the vest. Sometimes they shared information. Sometimes they lied. Sometimes they lied to other Law Enforcement, like NY for example, who then shared it with the FBI. From T-Man Wilson's Summary Report. Sometimes they got it from the Newspapers (I've search out other information besides this point and discovered it had come from a newspaper article) or Reporters. Sometimes Informants and sometimes Private Investigators, etc. etc.
During the course of my research, I've discovered later Summaries, Supplements to the Summaries, as well as Summary suggestions made by other Agents - such as SAC Harvey of the Philadelphia Division making points as to what should be added to that report.
I know its hard to understand, but the FBI didn't even have certain basic information when this Summary was written.
When the FBI located "Ernie" instead of being happy, the NJSP were highly PO'd about it. They wanted to be the one's to have found him - if anyone did. And so this made the situation even worse between the two Law Enforcement Agencies.
Just off the top of my head ... I've got a Sisk report where Keaton lies to him about many facts and this was at a time when things were okay between them.
As one last example, Hoover asked to see the ransom note and was never given access to it. That scene in "J. Edgar" in spirit is correct - but in reality never happened. Hoover would ask specific questions about evidence or investigations which would be evaded or he would be lied to on many occasions.
I don't know. You could be absolutely correct here. I only base it upon the NJSP reaction to this information.
The murder is just a theory based upon many differing things. But to start with...what Kidnapper is concerned about a child if they yank him from under his covers by his feet because he was pinned under those blankets? In gut care? I think not. The crime-scene proved it. Next, there is no evidence of a fall - so where did this child get injured?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 23, 2012 18:02:57 GMT -5
Lj; Yes I definitely believe the ladder was used. However, I think someone would have to be a lunatic to plan to safely convey a hostage down it. Michael; give me a few days to put this together. Oh yeah the chisel, it can be used to lock the sections together if you are carrying it around.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Feb 23, 2012 18:58:18 GMT -5
hi kevkon, well kevin keraga made a replica ladder, and i saw him put it together. you dont need a chisel to do anything with the ladder that includes carrying it around
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 23, 2012 20:25:14 GMT -5
Oh, I didn't realize he carried it a 1/2 mile thru the woods. How did he carry it alone all that distance?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Feb 23, 2012 20:38:11 GMT -5
he could have stopped, but it dosnt mean he had help. i carried the replica it isnt heavy at all
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 23, 2012 20:52:08 GMT -5
So did you guys carry it over that terrain or do you think Hauptmann drove up to the house with it? How high did you climb it and how did it hold up?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Feb 23, 2012 21:29:56 GMT -5
well, in hopewell they let us put it against the lindbergh house at the window. i know being over 200 pounds i couldnt go up all the way. i think you had to be 165 or under to have i steady climb to the window. asfar as carrying it from featherbed lane to the window, i dont feel its and issue, only to my fat old ass. i guy in the 30 years of age or mid to upper 30s could have done it
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 24, 2012 6:33:59 GMT -5
Steve,
You are basing this on a ladder that wasn't built exactly like the original ladder. I think if you are going to conduct an experiment in order to prove something then you do it under the same circumstances.
The ladder Kelvin built wasn't the same. Additionally, the yard is higher now then it was, and it's firm when back on March 1st it was muddy, windy, rainy, and pitch black outside.
Circumstances and variables must be considered.
It cannot be done with 2 sections, but Kevin has proven (to me) that it can with 3 sections, and in fact, was designed for that purpose.
Kevin has proven that if someone stepped on that top rung of the 2nd section, if only 2 sections were used, then the ladder would "scissor" by folding into itself away from the wall. Doesn't matter how much you weighed. Can't be done.
Going half way up on a reinforced ladder under absolutely different conditions proves nothing.
When I walked it, with a briefcase, it was not easy. And I did it during a nice summer day while in the best shape of my life.
I am not saying it could not be done, but what I am saying is it wasn't as easy as you are trying to make it out to be.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Feb 24, 2012 7:45:36 GMT -5
its not easy, but easier for somebody in there thirties. im 57 it would be harder for me.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 24, 2012 8:24:54 GMT -5
Steve, did anyone climb Kelvins reinforced ladder at Highfields, I mean up all the way?
|
|
|
Post by jack9 on Feb 24, 2012 9:39:16 GMT -5
Hi - Lordy - havn't been here in a long while and you're still arguing the same junk. Steve comes on about once every three months fyi, kevin. Me not even that often. Couldn't even get on as my real self this time - could be a terrorist I guess huh, Michael. Your (everybody's) whole view of the crime is missing the salient points. Michael nudges on it above. It doesn't matter if he could stumble through the woods or if the ladder worked or if the child screamed or didn't. The crime happened. The why is what needs to be solved. So btumble along but read Rick's and my ongoing notes. There's really obviously only one answer. Who would want the Lindbergh child kidnapped (or dead)? You come down to a wako or the NSDAP. Wako has been explained above - albeit weakly. If I think I should be President of the U.S.A. instead of Franklin Roosevelt am I gonna go and try to dust him? The second scenario is if somebody tells me to do something and I will carry out that mission. Think about that Kevkon and Michael!
|
|
|
Post by jack9 on Feb 24, 2012 10:11:34 GMT -5
Interestingly, Hitler did not meet with Lindbergh when he, L, visited Germany in 193-?. Scruples? The Hitler program of terrorism was similar to what we think of terrorism today. Very seperate people in vague locations doing what they wanted to do in quasi support of the Reich and not necessarily supported buy Reich funds. Loosely this could be determined to mean almost anything and anyone with an ideal of Greater Gerrmany. So now you have a motive (new!) and if you work backwords from the motive you've solved the perfect crime.
|
|
|
Post by jack9 on Feb 24, 2012 10:38:48 GMT -5
I'm tempted to give up everything and write a treatice on this babble. He escaped from Germany - how many have done that, three, maybe? He succesfully landed in U.S.A. and found people to help him. He was a nondescript individual until he suddenly wanted to kidnap the Lindbergh baby. Then instead of getting out of Dodge he blatently passed bad money until he got caught. Then, in spite of overwhelming evidence against him (ladder, etc.) he claimed complete innocense and chaired himself. You are so logical, Kevin, where is your logic here?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Feb 24, 2012 12:27:49 GMT -5
This thread is becoming a board in itself. Anyway---
LJ, since you are familiar with the FBI Files, I want to quote page 388, which references Johnny Torrio, who was Al Capone’s mentor. It says Torrio “expressed his opinion to the Intelligence Unit agents that the Lindbergh baby was not kidnapped for ransom … that the baby was kidnapped and subsequently murdered by someone who had a grouch against Lindbergh and it was purely a case of personal vengeance.”
While many explanations are possible, I do tend to agree with Torrio’s opinion. I cannot believe that the sole purpose of the kidnapping was to earn $50,000, because there were many other wealthy people, who were NOT high-profile like Lindbergh, who would not get the police of the entire nation chasing after you. In this case, the main “benefit” from the baby’s murder might be the satisfaction of revenge. I do want to point out that the Lindberghs had enemies in very high places. Lindy’s father, Charles Lindbergh, Sr., was a Congressman, and bitterly fought against the Wall Street Establishment that engineered the Federal Reserve and maneuvered us into World War I—he was probably their number one enemy. I elaborated on this in the thread “A Theory in Development.” It also may not be a coincidence that 1932 was a critical time politically—Franklin D. Roosevelt (another Lindbergh enemy) and—as Jack has pointed out—Hitler, were both on the threshold of power.
People of great wealth and political influence worry less about the police than regular folks do—but they do still worry. And so, after the murder, it would be ideal to have a patsy (such as a Hauptmann), and a plausible motive for that patsy (ransom). I’m not at all insisting that this is what happened. None of this would shed any light on how the crime was physically carried out at Highfields, nor would it explain the workings of the Condon ransom business, but I think vengeance is one possibility to bear in mind when considering motive, and motive is where a crime begins.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 24, 2012 16:21:24 GMT -5
Interesting. I've considered the revenge motive, but have never been able to find anything solid to back it up, just Plot-Against-America-type speculation. Ironically (since it's ostensibly a work of fiction), I think Philip Roth puts forth a creepily plausible (if somewhat wild) theory in that book: that the baby was kidnapped, taken out of the country and raised in Germany as a Hitler Youth, all by Nazi agents who then used Hauptmann as a patsy (along with the body in the woods, which was another child altogether). Hitler then held the boy hostage, forcing Lindbergh to run for President and clandestinely implement a satellite Third Reich government here in the US. In terms of conspiracy theories, I can see about half of this (stopping short of Lindbergh becoming President, of course) being not entirely outside the realm of possibility--that it was the Nazis who carried out the LK in an attempt to pull off something like Roth describes in his book--but, again, I have yet to see anything more than speculation to back that sort of thing up.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Feb 24, 2012 18:59:42 GMT -5
yes, somebody went all the way with two sections. mike, the test was with the same length and measurements we know the terrain has changed. it gave a good outlook of what the ladder did
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 24, 2012 20:10:34 GMT -5
If someone placed their foot on that top rung, and the ladder was identical with the real one, they would have forced it to scissor.
In order for that to have happened, this ladder would not have been reinforced and would have been built shorter in order to make up the difference due to the grade of the yard now.
There's no point in debating this (for me) because its already been proven to my satisfaction by Kevin that 2 sections weren't used to enter that window. If someone tried to do that they would have, at the very least, broken their leg. The ladder was designed for the 3 sections to be utilized (and if it had been used) that's how it happened. Trying to re-prove theories by fudging things or coming up with outrages explanations is just plain silly.
If something isn't right then there's a reason. Once its properly explained the solution is at hand. Kevin did it with Rail 16 and he did it again with the ladder. Of course if he's right then Kelvin, and all of this "research", "reenactments", and "testing" - are all seriously flawed.
So maybe this is why what Kevin has proven is ignored?
Hearing what you want to hear makes one feel good, but it doesn't make it true, correct, or right.
What Kevin has produced wasn't along the lines of my thinking at the time, but when you really want the truth, you must accept what is staring you in the face.
|
|