|
Post by johndoe on Mar 26, 2012 1:46:46 GMT -5
I agree about the ladder.
Why make one when you could get them from lots of places - including stealing them from building sites?
And such a strange ladder at that, that's a big gap between the rungs.
There are aspects of this scenario that look staged.
The FBI statistics on child abduction overwhelmingly point to family involvement and these days the family are always treated as suspects.
I don't know if that is the case with rich and influencial people though.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 26, 2012 6:42:46 GMT -5
I would be more inclined to believe one person was involved if a regular ladder was found.
I have never understood the idea that the ladder was a prop or the crime "staged" in regard to the ladder. No one would leave a ladder like this as a prop.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 26, 2012 8:17:14 GMT -5
But why would any kidnappers think they needed to make a special ladder?
The ladder was not even fit for purpose seeing as it supposedly broke. Just looking at it you know it's flimsy.
Proper ladders were not exactly rare items.
The manufactured ladder is a puzzle.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2012 8:41:51 GMT -5
I believe there were several reasons which led some Investigators to believe it was possibly a "blind."
The totality of the evidence concerning the entire crime scene. Next, the idea that only 2 sections were used and its impossibility for someone to go in and out with only those 2 employed.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 26, 2012 12:20:38 GMT -5
its not impossible mike ive seen it done with the two sections
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 26, 2012 13:45:07 GMT -5
its not impossible mike ive seen it done with the two sections You have seen someone get in and out of a window with 2 sections? Or have you seen someone climb up two sections partially?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 26, 2012 14:01:48 GMT -5
i saw someone go to the near top of the second section, and could have easily climb through the window
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 26, 2012 22:05:45 GMT -5
Whether two sections were used or all three, it's seems pretty clear that whoever made the ladder custom built it for that house, as they seem to have been familiar with the dimensions of things (the height of the nursery window, the width of the shutter louvers). There's no reason, I suppose, why they couldn't have gotten those dimensions on a previous reconnaissance run to the house, but my question now is why bother building a ladder at all when it would've been much easier to buy, steal, or borrow a less traceable generic one? The only explanation I can come up with would be ease of transport (lightness, compactability). But at the same time, if a ladder (or any other piece of evidence) is as unique as this one was, why leave it behind? My guess is it was probably made to be used only once, and whoever built it wanted to get rid of it as quickly as possible and didn't think the wood could be traced, so he/they just dumped it. I realize I'm answering my own questions here, but I'm just thinking out loud. Does anyone else have any alternative ideas?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 27, 2012 5:39:16 GMT -5
That doesn't mean anything. Why? Because the ladder was re-inforced. The ladder was in the wrong position near the Nursery Window. And the ladder was higher then it should have been.
So yes, you could have seen people from the Biggest Loser going in and out of that window under those circumstances. Unfortunately it doesn't mean anything in relationship to this case.
How about I take a smaller ladder, set it lower then it should be, place it further to the right then it should be, then take pictures to show it proves it doesn't even go past the 1st floor?
I guess, by your argument, it shows it doesn't work. I suppose that will make us even then we can start talking about the real situation again.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 27, 2012 6:33:35 GMT -5
what re-enforced? its a replica ladder i saw with my own eyes somebody could enter and exit that window. i never said it was easy. further to the right? of course you cant get in
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 27, 2012 7:24:05 GMT -5
Steve, did anyone climb up to and stand the very top rung of section 2 without anyone below holding the ladder?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 27, 2012 16:58:39 GMT -5
When the Police found the ladder they had Hulfish try to identify it. He couldn't. So they eliminated it as a ladder originating from the Estate.
It just reminds me of Ho-age's theory insofar as here are ALL of these clues leading you to the conclusion of an outside invasion.
If you are going to replicate a situation then you have to replicate it - not do what you like then say it did.
That's my point.
Your replica ladder wasn't a real replica. Your ladder was higher on that wall then it was in '32. Your ladder was further to the left then it was in '32.
So what you saw under these circumstances doesn't prove anything.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 27, 2012 17:16:52 GMT -5
Yeah, that's part of what I mean: On the one hand, we have the Ho-age theory which suggests staging and heavyhanded telegraphing of a supposed intruder scenario at the crime scene. The points made there do make a lot of sense, but, conversely, we also have the lack of proof or hard evidence as to who would need to stage/fake things and why. I dunno, I'm still missing pieces here...
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 27, 2012 18:29:39 GMT -5
your nitpicking mike, it proves the ladder is very doable with two sections and the ladder wasnt held by anybody. i will say this ladder wasnt made for people over 160 pounds. what did hauptmann weigh then?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2012 16:04:01 GMT -5
It's not "nit picking" to insist the true situation be replicated before boasting any claims about it.
His DL in '32 was 175 I believe. I can look this up if need be. The earlier Reports were saying 130 lbs. then 150 lbs. But after Hauptmann was arrested they were saying 180lbs.
In the absence of a "smoking gun" you have to build your case using what you do have - the totality of the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 7, 2012 8:46:58 GMT -5
Here is a 3D sketch of the Floor Plans. It gives you a better idea of the situation in my opinion. Also notice the Pantry near the front door. It was supposedly the pantry door Curtis told Lindbergh the Kidnappers communicated to him they locked in order to utilize the front door as a method of escape. Lindbergh knew the key had been in that very door and facing front door side. This would allow someone to do this - thereby convincing Lindbergh whoever told him this had been in the house. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 7, 2012 10:44:27 GMT -5
So... Curtis wasn't making it all up?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 7, 2012 11:04:56 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael, for another valuable post.
Your mention of Curtis reminds me that there were elements of his story that seemed credible to me. Entry through the window and exit through the front door was one of these.
Looking at the floor plan that appears in Gardner, the baby’s nursery was virtually adjacent to the stairs. The stairs led to the foyer which led to the front door. It would make a very fast path of escape. If I was escaping with the kid, I’d sure prefer that route over the ladder—but only if I had some guarantees.
One of those guarantees could have been the locked pantry door. Earlier in this thread, I theorized (for whatever it’s worth) that the kidnappers struck while the Lindberghs were dining. The kidnappers could have seen them through the uncurtained windows, and it was likely the Lindberghs would be stuck there for a while once they sat down to eat.
Looking at the Gardner floor plan, it is evident that, had the Lindberghs been in the dining room, and heard a suspicious sound in the foyer, the fastest route to the foyer would have been through the pantry. Going around through the living room would have been more circuitous. So locking the pantry door DOES make some sense—and I wonder if it might have been beyond Curtis’s imagination to invent that detail.
There is, in fact, a very obvious reason why a WINDOW ENTRY and DOOR EXIT might make sense, one I never even thought of before. If the front door was locked, you can’t ENTER it, but it’s no problem to EXIT it. (Duh!) So the kidnappers had to get in by some other means, but leaving through the door would be easy.
However, if I was going out that front door, I’d want more guarantees than a blocked pantry door. I’d require a guarantee that the child wouldn’t cry. So either the kid would have to be dead or doped. There’s no way I’m going to kill him before I make my escape—if I’m caught before I leave the house, I’m guaranteed the electric chair. But if the kid is alive when I abduct him, I’m not facing a capital charge if I’m caught. So my money is on CAL Jr. being doped, not dead—unless you want to get into one of the “the Linderghs had already killed him” theories, which bring their own sets of problems.
Besides a locked pantry and a silenced child, I’d want a third guarantee if I’m going out that front door—that Wagoosh wouldn’t bark. If, as Curtis said, there was a confederate inside the house, and if that confederate was Whateley, we might have our answer—Whateley restraining Wagoosh.
One question, Michael. Betty Gow took that phone call from Red Johnsen. Do we know in which room of the floor plan that phone was located? Earlier in this thread, I proposed that possibly Red called during the kidnapping in order to pin Betty down and make sure she would not venture toward the nursery. With the Lindberghs pinned to the dining table, Betty pinned to the phone, and Wagoosh pinned to Whateley, the front-door escape route becomes doable.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 7, 2012 12:01:06 GMT -5
It's one of those million mysteries found within this great big one. It's hard to argue against a hoax when Curtis had Miss Gay call the room to pretend to be one of the Kidnappers. Yet, when faced with this evidence above AND what Stout brought back to the State once HE jumped from the Defense to the State - then there was obvious problems with the case that he made it ALL up.
It's why it went from "Hoax" to "Obstruction". I think this was the first time both Herr and Fisher saw such underhanded tactics and were completely blindsided with this move. Their entire Defense was prepared against a "Hoax" with which they were extremely confident they'd beat.
The key is that Lindy bought into it. (When I ever get to my "Crime Scene" Chapter I will make your knees buckle with what I've discovered).
I'll look into it for you and when I find it I will get back to you. I think I know but I want to make sure.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 7, 2012 13:03:53 GMT -5
Michael, elsewhere you mentioned that there is a “blockbuster” related to the front door. I assume, then, that you think the child was taken out the front door? And yet that in itself wouldn’t be a blockbuster, so you’ve apparently discovered something beyond that. Wouldn’t happen to have anything to do with Betty Gow, would it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 9, 2012 7:29:48 GMT -5
I checked most of the places I believed I would find the answer to this although I did not go to the Trial Transcripts. Here's what I found:
What you have is a house built with "Servants" areas. The back stairs, the Dining Room (Sitting), and The Pantry was more like a "Butler's Pantry" so that section of the house was dedicated to them.
Betty says she was in the "Sitting Room" listening to the radio when Whateley came in to tell her about the phone call. She went to the phone, took the call, then when going back to the room stopped at the Kitchen to tell Elsie about it.
Whateley said he was in the Kitchen when he heard the phone ring. He answered, then went to "Our" Sitting Room where Betty was listening to the radio.
Also, they all said they ate in the Sitting Room.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 9, 2012 7:42:05 GMT -5
Remember this is me saying its a blockbuster. Some people don't always agree with my take on things. Anyway, its something that isn't in any book, its real, and I believe it turns the Case on its ear by way of all the questions it will raise.
The whole idea of my "book" is to bring out new material. However, there is so much that its almost overwhelming. Lloyd's book is a perfect example of all the material there is out there yet to be explored. Imagine that someone explored it. I am pretty sure I have. I am at the point now where each time I add a new fact to my brain an old one drops out.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 9, 2012 11:38:11 GMT -5
)
So we know the phone was not in the sitting room and the pantry is out. Whateley heard the phone when he was in the kitchen. It could mean the phone was in the kitchen, or that he heard it ringing elsewhere. Since it was primarily the servants who spent time in the kitchen, I am guessing the Lindberghs did not install one there. There may have been a phone in the dining room, but I can’t imagine Betty engaging in her extended conversation with Red right there while the Lindberghs were eating, so she must have taken the call somewhere else.
If I were the Lindberghs, I would have definitely put a phone in the living room. This could easily be accessed from both the dining room and study. However, the Lindbergh were wealthy, and they may have had phones in all three.
Still, since it was the servant’s duty to answer the phone, I’m going to guess there was a phone somewhere else—Whateley couldn’t very well barge in on the colonel and his guests to answer calls. I’m going to guess there was a phone in the foyer. From this central spot Whateley could easily go and knock on the doors of the library, living room or dining room to announce a call.
So my best guess is that Betty took that 8:45 call from Red in the foyer. If she did, then she had a direct view of the front door, and ain’t nobody going out that door without Betty seeing them. If that was the location of Betty’s call, it shoots down my theory about Red “pinning down” Betty with the call to keep her from seeing the abduction—unless it was all done by ladder, or (to highly speculate) she was an accessory, standing in the foyer as a lookout, perhaps with her eye on that key that could lock the pantry door.
Just a couple of random thoughts. It looks from the floor plan as if there were large closets on either side of the foyer. I suppose someone could have been hiding in one of these closets waiting for “the right moment.” Also, Elsie’s chief alibi is Betty Gow, correct? But during the phone call to Red, I believe Elsie was unobserved and had a free hand. All meaningless, just throwing out ideas here.
I sure wish I knew what your “knee buckler” was about the front door.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 9, 2012 12:52:15 GMT -5
There are quite a few problems with the front door entry. The wind is blowing from the North, the Kitchen windows face it, it opens into the service corridor, it doesn't explain the mud on the suitcase and Nursery floor ( or the lack of in the foyer), but the one I think most important is that such an entry is a radical departure from the mo of using a ladder. Entering through the front door is representative of a personality prepared for confrontation. You would have to have assessed the risk of encountering someone in the hall or stairs and be prepared for it. Using a ladder is almost the opposite. This is a stealthy operation and though possibly it could lead to a confrontation, the risk is far lower. Two entirely different criminal profiles.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 9, 2012 17:07:01 GMT -5
I agree with those good observations, kevkon, but what Michael and I were primarily talking about in the preceding posts was front-door exit, rather than front-door entry. Once I’m inside with that ladder, that staircase next to the nursery, leading directly to the front door, does looks pretty tempting—provided that had I some of those bases covered that I mentioned.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 9, 2012 17:33:25 GMT -5
Ok, then the child would have to be dead or immobilized . Also, if you made it in with a ladder, why wouldn't you go out that way? I agree it's a possibility, but the risk of discovery that was reduced with the ladder entry is now offset with a highly risky exit.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 9, 2012 18:07:11 GMT -5
What I wrote above totally agrees with you:
The basic reason I think one might choose a front door exit, after making a ladder entry, is this: Getting in through the window via the ladder is one thing. But to go down that ladder with the kid is (1) more unwieldy than going up solo; and (2) more likely to exceed the ladder’s weight limit.
No matter what scenario we consider, there are obviously a ton of variables that can come into play, but the above is basically why I consider that ladder entry/front door exit is at least plausible. One thing that has heightened my interest in the front door is Michael’s statement that he has discovered something “knee-buckling” about the front door, and I know Michael is not prone to wild claims, although he didn’t specifically state how he believes the door may have related to the crime.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 10, 2012 15:29:25 GMT -5
That's a great picture of the house lay-out, Michael. I've printed it out for closer study. Sue, I also liked seeing the picture you posted of the farmhouse. It seems to me that the butler's pantry would be a good place for the phone. Which side was the lock on? The pantry side or the foyer side? I have big trouble thinking a perp climbed through the nursery window. The scenario I'm rolling around is an "insider" handed the baby out the window, then had time to neatly place the ransom note on the window ledge--time and opportunity to wipe down crib and where ever he touched. I think a handkerchief would do that . And then leave thru front door--same way he came in. Looking at the window and the ladder placement (whether 2 section or 3), I see the ladder perp reaching to the left to receive the child. Maybe upward and leftward or horizonally and leftward. What with the added weight and a leftward reach during the transfer process, would this not put extra stress on that side of the ladder-maybe causing it to break(?). (Kevkon, come on-come on). I can't visualize the descent from that, but am thinking about the one clear footprint there at the ladder. If it's clear then it must be deeper. Does that suggest a heavier landing from a now broken ladder?
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Apr 10, 2012 19:47:23 GMT -5
That's a great picture of the house lay-out, Michael. I've printed it out for closer study. Sue, I also liked seeing the picture you posted of the farmhouse. It seems to me that the butler's pantry would be a good place for the phone. Which side was the lock on? The pantry side or the foyer side? I have big trouble thinking a perp climbed through the nursery window. The scenario I'm rolling around is an "insider" handed the baby out the window, then had time to neatly place the ransom note on the window ledge--time and opportunity to wipe down crib and where ever he touched. I think a handkerchief would do that . And then leave thru front door--same way he came in. Looking at the window and the ladder placement (whether 2 section or 3), I see the ladder perp reaching to the left to receive the child. Maybe upward and leftward or horizonally and leftward. What with the added weight and a leftward reach during the transfer process, would this not put extra stress on that side of the ladder-maybe causing it to break(?). (Kevkon, come on-come on). I can't visualize the descent from that, but am thinking about the one clear footprint there at the ladder. If it's clear then it must be deeper. Does that suggest a heavier landing from a now broken ladder? Mairi - along the lines of your theory, one thing about the footprint I've always wondered about is why it never played a more prominent role in the trial one way or the other. If it was an approximate match to BRH, then you would think the prosecution would have drilled that point home. If it wasn't a match, certainly the defense should have been making that a point of emphasis.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Apr 10, 2012 19:53:01 GMT -5
Whether two sections were used or all three, it's seems pretty clear that whoever made the ladder custom built it for that house, as they seem to have been familiar with the dimensions of things (the height of the nursery window, the width of the shutter louvers). There's no reason, I suppose, why they couldn't have gotten those dimensions on a previous reconnaissance run to the house, but my question now is why bother building a ladder at all when it would've been much easier to buy, steal, or borrow a less traceable generic one? The only explanation I can come up with would be ease of transport (lightness, compactability). But at the same time, if a ladder (or any other piece of evidence) is as unique as this one was, why leave it behind? My guess is it was probably made to be used only once, and whoever built it wanted to get rid of it as quickly as possible and didn't think the wood could be traced, so he/they just dumped it. I realize I'm answering my own questions here, but I'm just thinking out loud. Does anyone else have any alternative ideas? LJ- I wonder about that as well. A theory had been BRH acting alone would have taken the ladder but the fall and the death of the baby made him improvise. I still question how he alone was going to manage carrying both a child and a ladder at the same time.
|
|