Did Lindbergh’s arrival alter the kidnapping?

[Joe]

Fascinating questions and discussion here now on this subject.

In the ten plus years I've been following this case, I had not realized that Trooper DeGaetano's reporting of the footprints trail leading towards the chicken coop did not end at Featherbed Lane, but near the gatehouse and the driveway entrance off Hopewell-Amwell Rd. This makes more sense to me now given the accounts by Kuchta and Kristofek of their dogs running towards something on the Lindbergh property as this would ostensibly have the kidnapper heading towards their houses. At the same time, there are a number of reports of footprints leading to Featherbed Lane, so the question remains: which footprints were actually made by the kidnappers and were any of these previously existing footprints?

All of this leads me to wonder whether the incident involving the struggling car presumed to have belonged to the kidnapper(s) and which was observed in Featherbed Lane by the Conover's, might have been the impetus to choose a riskier, but more direct route to the house, ie. the old road, highlighted in yellow on Kevin's map.

As for the front door being used to effect any part of the kidnapping, I have no idea how this could even have been considered by anyone whose intention it was to remove the child by stealth from the house. And even if this was a staged kidnapping, and I have absolutely no faith in that scenario for many other reasons, the use of the front door would be an immediate red flag to even a rookie investigator, considering the self-acknowledged level of activity by occupants in that part of the house that evening.

As far as the condition of the ground at Highfields and most notably around the house is concerned, it's consistency would appear to have it incapable of accurately telling investigators exactly what had taken place there. The "one legged kidnapper" scenario, as someone pointed out, underscores this in a big way.

[kevkon]

Yes Joe, that trail makes sense as an exit. I had seen DeGaetano's report years ago but I could never make sense of it until I finally found the photo I posted which it took me years to obtain. That photo is the most important and valuable evidence I have.
As for Featherbed La., I do believe this was the starting point. At that time it was still semi dark and I believe the kidnappers wanted some distance between them and the target.
The reason I believe it's possible that the entry and exit was other than the ladder has to do with a variety of factors some of which I have only recently become aware of. I absolutely don't believe the front door was used.
Here's just one point that has me leaning toward an alternate entry, the shutters on the famous kidnap window. As we know Gow had trouble locking this shutter due to what she felt was warpage. Those shutters are louvered as opposed to the paneled ones on the first floor. All the shutters at Highfields were operational, not decorative. To close those shutters one had to open the window, lean out, pivot the shutter dogs that hold them in the open position, grab the shutters and close them. To lock them in the closed position you have to reach up between the window sash and the shutters and slide a square bolt into a receiver. It's a little difficult due to the fact that the shutter bolt is located in the middle of the shutter and the two meeting rails of the double hung window are in the same location. I don't believe that Betty would have left those shutters un locked or secured as they would bang against the window in the wind thus waking the baby. So what I believe she did when she said "fixed as best as possible" is to slide the bolt only partially into place. That does effectively secure the shutters, though not as well as getting the bolt completely in place. Now the reason I am going on about this is this, from the outside no one would be able to tell that the bolt on that shutter wasn't completely in the receiver. And it wouldn't much matter since to open them you would have to go through the very same process to unlock it from the outside as you would if it was completely locked. Now if we were talking about a first floor situation, I'd say it's possible to do this with a thin blade and some manipulation. However we are not, we are talking about a second floor window with the bolt located almost 5' above the top rung of a rather unstable ladder. The kidnappers would know what they were facing because the locks are right in front of them on the first floor shutters. My belief is that the kidnappers did not expect to face secured closed shutters that night. Who would expect to find louvered shutters closed in the winter? I know I certainly wouldn't.
Anyway, sorry for the long shutter discourse but this is just one of several reasons that I believe the kidnappers entered the house somewhere on the East wing first floor.
Michael, I can't explain the actions ( or lack of) by Wagoosh that night. My guess is that his location near the kitchen was overpowering his scenting. I have 5 Jack Russell Terriers ( yes I am certifiable) and they all seem to have different abilities when it comes to detection. Sometimes they don't even acknowledge the mailman at the front door. Who knows?

[Michael]

As far as the condition of the ground at Highfields and most notably around the house is concerned, it's consistency would appear to have it incapable of accurately telling investigators exactly what had taken place there. The "one legged kidnapper" scenario, as someone pointed out, underscores this in a big way. (Joe)

While Kevin is right about the various conditions, by all accounts the East yard was as it was. If you step in the mud you left behind a print. Obviously some prints were better then others but the Police took note of them regardless. It's just as it was in the Nursery - they saw them so it was reported. So for me, if there's one print next to the ladder that cannot mean two feet went into the mud while only one made a "good" footprint or that the Police disregarded one because it wasn't as "good" as the other. To me, and call me stupid if you like, it means one foot went into the mud there. Therefore, it doesn't mean the person who made it had only one leg - it means only one foot went into the mud. I also don't know which print was casted, in fact its possible more then one was, but I would think it was the best one there.

Now after these prints leave this yard then all bets are off because there are a million variables to consider.

Sometimes they don't even acknowledge the mailman at the front door. Who knows? (Kevin)

I am willing to guess they have his schedule down. As you know they are too smart for their own good. Anyway, except Lindbergh, EVERYONE was saying that Wahgoosh was a "barker" and couldn't understand why he didn't hear anything so I apply it accordingly. Even in Anne's Diary she mentioned how he'd been barking before the event and ever since.

My belief is that the kidnappers did not expect to face secured closed shutters that night. Who would expect to find louvered shutters closed in the winter? (Kevin)

The problem is they seem to be aware of everything. So why not the "warped" shutters too?

The NJ Supreme Court in deciding Hauptmann's appeal made this point in their decision (October 9, 1935):

There is no significance in the selection by the kidnapper of the unlocked southeast window. The shutters, because of warping, could not be completely closed, and it is fair to assume that the intruder selected this unlocked window by pure chance, or when he found the other windows barred.

Do you buy this?

But I want to ask you whether or not (you may have answered this in the past but I am attempting to get an updated opinion if it's changed) the shutter was actually "warped" despite Watson's conviction that it could not have been.

[kevkon]

Michael, there's really no way to say whether the shutter was warped or not without inspection. I would say that it seems very unlikely to me, it's not obvious in any photos. What's more likely is that there was a slight misalignment of the bolt latch. This is common and because of the location at mid window it's tough to adjust. In any case my point is it may be irrelevant. What is relevant is that Betty and Anne would not leave the shutters in a condition in which they wold move and wake up the child. That tells me that they could at least partially latch the shutter and that is something that could not be ascertained from the outside. So in essence as far as the kidnappers were concerned, all the Nursery shutters were closed and secured. So how do you defeat the bolt latch with the very shaky kidnap ladder when it's over 5" above you standing on the VERY TOP step? If that's not bad enough, then you would have to assume the windows were locked as well. I can tell you that i have done some crazy things on a ladder over the years, but I wouldn't even give unlatching the shutters at Highfields a shot with the kidnap ladder. Now, if I weren't too concerned with noise and destruction, a pry bar would do the job. But we know that didn't happen.

[mairi]

.....but an "insider" perp would have no trouble at all with opening window and shutters, huh?

[Deleted]

When thinking about the windows in the nursery from inside the room starting with the windows on the southeastern side of the house we have Betty and Anne closing and bolting the shutters on the window located on the left side of the fireplace. Then they close the window and lock it. Moving to the window on the right of the fireplace (window used for kidnap entry) Betty and Anne close and secure the shutters as best they can and then lock this window as they did the one on the other side?? The final window is the one on the southerly side of the house which is the French window. The shutters are closed and bolted on this window. Since this window would be used for ventilation Betty does not lock it. It is left open partially. Moving to the outside and the kidnapper's viewpoint of the nursery what do we have? All the windows appear shuttered. If he has been waiting on the old road, seeing the windows secured like that tells him that the baby has been put to bed. With no inside help how would he know what window to use? Were there any ladder marks found on either the ground or the exterior walls of the house to suggest that he tried to gain entry through any of the other nursery windows first? If not and without any inside help I have trouble with why he chose this window only. From the outside they would all look the same to him. How could he have known that this particular window would be the one to use???

[Michael]

I've got to say that I agree with Joe. This is a great discussion! The diversity of thoughts & perspectives was what I had in mind when I started this board.

Betty and Anne close and secure the shutters as best they can and then lock this window as they did the one on the other side?? (Amy)

This window wasn't locked. I submit with all of the "rules" that existed in this house that locking the window should have been one of them if the shutter could not be.

Were there any ladder marks found on either the ground or the exterior walls of the house to suggest that he tried to gain entry through any of the other nursery windows first? (Amy)

Great question - the answer in my opinion is no. Both Kevin and Joe make a valid point about the ground (I don't know what the situation was away from the East Yard) - but the walls were the same. The Investigators ALL concluded this window was the target. The NJ Supreme Court is the first place I've ever seen it mentioned they may have tried other windows first which I believe is merely an attempt to rationalize their point. But in doing so it shows they don't "get it." I don't know if there was any other way for the Defense to impress it upon them or not...and it seems to me even if they did it wouldn't have mattered.

If not and without any inside help I have trouble with why he chose this window only. From the outside they would all look the same to him. How could he have known that this particular window would be the one to use??? (Amy)

This is the dilemma. It requires everyone who ever considered Hauptmann to be the "Lone-Wolf" to argue both sides of the stick against the middle. Let me explain..... They will tell you that he was upset at being told he wasn't to start at work when he showed up so he - at that moment - decided: "that's it." He loads up his car then drives of blindly to Hopewell. Supposedly he's desperate. Of course that doesn't work but its how they get around his Majestic Apartments start date. Next they say once he arrives he is watching the house with high powered glasses in order to know what's what. But didn't he already build that ladder to spec? What was that - a lucky guess?

Too many lucky guesses for my blood. Luck does happen once in a while - but not everywhere - all the time.

For my money, if someone doesn't have an inside connection this requires a good amount of time to case the house. To know it completely seems almost impossible yet, they seem to. And not just the house but the entire area. (It's why everyone was sold on a "Local" connection) So for me they would have to do this for a good amount of time. Even so, I keep hearing how this was an Amateur at the helm. Really? They went from Amateur to Professional real quick then. Nothing they did implies speed, or any regard for time. Well, we're told, Hauptmann was an unemotional murderer who had "ice water" running through his veins - but what we don't hear is when he returned to his cell then cried for hours.

Kevin, could he elaborate on your theory that someone may have actually been to the house once before to cause this shutter to misalign? Do you still consider this a possibility?

[bookrefuge]

Kevin, could he elaborate on your theory that someone may have actually been to the house once before to cause this shutter to misalign? Do you still consider this a possibility? (Michael)

Michael, I realize your question is directed to Kevin, not me, and this is not intended to in any way substitute for his answer.

I just wanted to repeat something I said before. The Whateleys were alone at the house every week on weekdays. Ollie Whateley was the caretaker. He would have had plenty of time to tinker with the latching mechanism on the shutter so it couldn’t be closed.

Your comments above seem to suggest you believe in the possibility of inside help. Who better than the Whateleys? I can’t see Betty—she hadn’t been to Highfields much, and of course she didn’t even know that she would be there that Tuesday until Anne called her that morning. While not impossible, I just don’t see her “winging it” in a kidnap plot.

So if it isn’t Betty, and if it isn’t the Lindberghs, who does that leave for inside help? Only the Whateleys (unless it’s the guy who subbed for them on their day off).

As I’ve said before, being alone in that house all week, every week, they could have even given the kidnappers a tour of the house and let them perform rehearsals of the kidnapping.

I REALLY don’t like that Elsie pulled Betty into the Whateleys’ bedroom that evening to show her clothing she’d bought. That room was over the garage, and was the furthest point from the nursery. And Ollie is the one person alone and unobserved during the kidnapping, and has control of Wahgoosh?

[kevkon]

Kevin, could he elaborate on your theory that someone may have actually been to the house once before to cause this shutter to misalign? Do you still consider this a possibility?

Not a theory really, just threw it out as a possibility. The more I think about it, the less likely I think it happened. Playing around with that latch would be asking for trouble if it were done by someone on the inside. I also wonder if Betty Gow wasn't exaggerating the situation with the shutter latch. You know it was a pain to do and that window has the table and suitcase in front of it. Perhaps she didn't feel like moving those out of the way and hence the " fixed as best I could" was the result. Under the circumstances, I'm sure Anne would cover her on that.
I think I have said this before, but if I were targeting that room from the outside my absolute first choice would be the casement (french) window on the South wall. Three good reasons; it's easier to break the lock, it's a nice wide and full height opening, and because it's over the terrace the height from the ground to the sill is almost perfect for the ladder.

[Joe]

The diversity of thoughts & perspectives was what I had in mind when I started this board. (Michael)

This discussion thread certainly supports that, and I hope it continues. What are being pursued here are clear and tangible paths from some of the most important building blocks within this case and that should identify some better answers.

This window wasn't locked. I submit with all of the "rules" that existed in this house that locking the window should have been one of them if the shutter could not be. (Michael)

Michael, I recall from the trial testimony that it was common practice to lock the lower floor windows but not to lock the upper floor ones; perhaps someone can tell us who that testimony was attributed to. In addition, Lindbergh testified that the library window shutters were open on the night of the kidnapping, so I would surmise the lower floor shutters were not routinely locked at night.

Specifically noting Anne’s nonchalance at the appearance of the wild-eyed local man in the living room window at night, it appears the Lindberghs within their home environment, believed that a general sense of safety and security were theirs for the asking in their move from the city. Having lived a very private and non-descript existence at the rented farmhouse near Rosedale for the previous year plus, might well have contributed towards the same sense of wellbeing at Highfields.

I don't believe that Betty would have left those shutters un locked or secured as they would bang against the window in the wind thus waking the baby. (Kevin)

I can understand Betty’s desire to ensure the shutters didn’t make any noise and your point Kevin, about the possibility of the bolt being even partially thrown. Here is what Anne Lindbergh and Betty Gow had to say at the trial.

Trial testimony of Anne Lindbergh:

Q. When you left that room at about 7:30 o'clock, did you observe whether or not the east window, that is the casement window I think it is referred to, was closed?
A. All the windows were closed when I left that room at 7:30.
Q. At 7:30. And there were shutters on the outside of the windows, were there not?
A. Yes.
Q. Were they drawn and closed?
A. Miss Betty Gow and I closed all the shutters on all the windows before I left.
Q. With particular reference to the east window, was it possible to lock it in addition to closing it?
A. It was not possible to lock it. We both pulled on it and tried to lock it.
Q. But the window and shutters of the room in that nursery were closed, as I understand it?
A. Closed when I left.

Trial testimony of Betty Gow:

Q. Well, finally the child was ready for bed, I take it, and you left the room?
A. Yes, the child was ready for bed, I put him in his bed, Mrs. Lindbergh and I went around the windows, closed the shutters, we closed all the shutters tight except the one at the window, the southeast window; this one we couldn't quite close, it had evidently warped, so we closed it as best we could and left it that way.
Q. Now, that was about what time, then, that you left?
A. This was about half past seven.

Anne’s testimony in particular would seem to indicate no locking of the southeast shutter was possible and Betty’s testimony seems to back this up and further states that the shutters were just left in a closed position. At the same time, I have seen no indication that the shutters were actually free to swing back and forth in the wind and I suppose this would depend almost entirely on the freedom of movement within their hinges and wind velocity.

From the testimony of Anne and Betty, it appears that it was possible to close the shutters and be satisfied that they would remain in place, hence they still might have appeared to be in a locked position to an observer from the outside. On the other hand, it seems entirely possible that the southeast corner shutters had the appearance of being askew to the degree that the kidnapper would have immediately recognized the most likelihood of success through that window, and one that he also knew led directly to the child.

[kevkon]

Compare the trial testimony with the various Betty and Anne statements given in March 1932, there are some big discrepencies as there are with the various police reports regarding the shutters and windows.
In any case, I would say that unless the shutter(s) were completely askew ( in which case they would have been knocking around in the wind) I doubt anyone would be able to tell from the outside at night that they were not properly latched. Black shutters in an unlit room, that's tough to see at night. So what was the plan from the intruders point of view? If the ladder was 3' longer I could see climbing up and trying to manipulate the latch ( or even just breaking it) and then attacking the window. Problem is the ladder's top rung is 30" down from the sill and 15" to the right. You can's stand on the top rung for any period of time and you really are in no position to work on either the shutter or the window. All I can think is that the shutters were obviously ( from the outside) not closed, in which case they would be knocking or that the kidnappers gave it the old college try and got lucky.

[Joe]

Kevin, do you know if the shutters had the kind of freedom of movement on their hinges to bang against the window frame in the wind? I’ve never seen a direct reference to this anywhere in the evidence and can only surmise that this would relate directly to the stiffness within the hinge pieces and the velocity of the wind. And if the shutters could not be bolted, then there really is little that could have been done, at least according to all accounts we have that indicate the problem had not been rectified up to the night of the kidnapping. And I would think that if banging shutters had have been a problem then something would have been done before that point, even some kind of temporary fix such as a length of wire securing them.

Here’s another source of information, from a letter written by Anne Lindbergh to her mother-in-law on March 2, 1932.

At 7:30 Betty and I were putting the baby to bed. We closed and bolted all the shutters except on one window where the shutters are warped and won’t close. Then I left and went downstairs and sat at the desk in the living room.

Here, Anne makes specific reference to the closing and bolting of the other shutters and seems to be noting that the southeast corner shutters were left in position which did allow them to be closed properly. From this account at least, my best read would be that for whatever reason, the shutters would not close into a position to allow the bolt to be thrown at all. It seems to me quite possible that the actual positioning of these shutter(s) then could have provided some indication to the kidnapper of their vulnerability as he viewed them from the ground against what would have been a background of whitewashed stone.

[kevkon]

Joe, I know Betty Gow mentions the shutters swinging and banging in the wind in one of her statements. They are set on pintle hinges and all that stops their movement is the wall and the window. The odd thing to me is the effort of leaning out the window to undo the shutter dogs if you already know the shutters can't close. I wish I could find a photo I have somewhere which shows both shutters closed. Apparently the ritual of closing the shutters was performed twice a day when the child was there, which makes it only stranger.

[Deleted]

So, Anne Lindbergh, in her trial testimony affirms that all the window shutters were closed that night. Going back outside, the kidnapper approaches the house carrying the ladder. He has no inside help so he doesn't know whether the shutters are locked or if the windows themselves are locked. Since it is a cloudy, moonless night being able to evaluate from the ground if any of the shutters are vulnerable would require some type of assistance like a flashlight maybe. And also not knowing what he might have to do to the shutters and the window itself he would also need to have some type of tools besides that chisel to aid him in gaining entry to the nursery wouldn't he? He also would have the burlap bag with him that would be used to carry out little Charlie. Alot of things to carry up that ladder. I suppose he could have put the tools in the burlap bag. That would make it easier to do. The footprint evidence tells us that the kidnapper had socks over his shoes so I assume he went up the ladder with the socks over the shoes. Would this have any affect on his footing as far as the rungs go. I am thinking about slippage when I ask this. Of course, I realize that if one of the shutters had opened a bit because of the weather conditions things would have become less complicated for him. He still would not, however, know if the window was locked on the inside. He still would have needed a plan to deal with that. Ends up he got lucky with that too.

I do appreciate the input on some of my questions. I am not as knowledgeable as all of you about this case so if I appear to be nitpicking about such basic aspects I do apologize for this.

[kevkon]

You are absolutely correct, Amy. These guys would have to be extremely lucky because you're not going to get to either the shutter lock or the window sash lock with the kidnap ladder located as it was. In fact, even if it were directly under the window it would be pretty tough to do, at least quietly.
As you said, if the shutter(s) were flapping in the breeze or obviously open and you had a flashlight ( I believe they did) then you might see that the window was slightly open. If it was closed, You would not be able to see if the window was locked from the outside, though.
I don't think the socks over shoes would impede climbing the ladder, it would be the least of your worries.
Btw, if one of these guys was wearing socks over shoes would that not be for stepping silently? If so, why would that be a concern if you are entering from the outside via a ladder and crawling through a window and over a suitcase? It would be a concern if you planned to walk around in a house and use wooden stairs.

[Joe]

Amy, you seem to have great instincts for this case and the observations and questions from you and others who have recently joined this board will be a real asset here.

It’s difficult to conclude exactly what the kidnapper came prepared with as all we have really are the items he left behind. For example, if he had fully expected the nursery window to be locked, would he have been prepared to use a glass cutter and piece of tape to remove a small section of glass by the sash lock? And would he have had a length of rope to lower the child from the window in a sack, as opposed to the extremely awkward maneuver of removing the child through the window in any other manner, even with an assistant?

We can probably conclude the chisel was brought to deal with some aspect of a “manual” entry, but I don’t think we can overstate the significance and enormous fortune that was the kidnapper’s when he discovered a much easier-than-anticipated access through the southeast window that evening.

There have been some diverging opinions on where entry and exit were gained and I would agree with Kevin that the wearing of shoe coverings probably wouldn’t have impeded the climber’s progress. I think it would simply involve exercising the caution required, given a predilection that they would assist him in keeping his footsteps quieter. At the same time, I do not believe any kidnapping activity within the house occurred outside of the nursery.

[bookrefuge]

I suppose if there was an inside helper—meaning either a servant, or (as Kevin has suggested the possibility of) a waiting kidnapper who had already sneaked into the house earlier—then the issue of the “warped shutter” and the unlocked window might become rather meaningless. The inside accomplice could make sure both the window and the shutter were open, and then signal to the outsider(s) with a light, leaving no doubt as to which window to access with the ladder.

[kevkon]

So why are these guys walking around with stockings over their shoes? Were they afraid of scaring the deer?

[Joe]

What I'm saying is I believe the southeast corner window of the nursery to be the route of entry and exit and that no other room or area of the house interior was accessed by the kidnapper. The mud evidence seems to bear this out, as fresh evidence of it appeared on the suitcase, the floor directly below the window and possibly on the window sill itself. Although there is no recorded evidence of mud tracking or deposits in any other area of the house, it doesn't mean they didn't exist, but if the kidnapper had come in through the first floor, would the signs of his route from first to second floors not have been very obvious, given the fresh mud conditions of the nursery? And I have great difficulty even conceiving how the kidnapper, who in the scenario of having come through the southeast window, would have chosen to walk through the house with the child in tow, to find an alternate exit point.

[kevkon]

I'm just trying to make sense of this, Joe. I don't get the point of covering the shoes unless it was strickly a rubber for the mud. Fabric would make walking a nightmare.
Also, I am not suggesting the child was removed without the ladder, just that one of the abductors went inside to get to him. I know it's a lot to consider, but isn't it as feasible as the whole process of getting into and out of that small window opening with all it entails?

[Joe]

Kevin, I agree with your point about a cloth covering. Unless they were absolutely snug fitting to the shoe or feet, they would have been more trouble than they were worth. I have seen shoe rubbers or galoshes with a fine weave pattern on the undersoles and perhaps this is what was worn, I don't know.

What I'm having trouble understanding, and maybe you can clarify, is what the purpose of another kidnapper (not a member of the household) on the inside of the house would be, given the apparent entry by at least one kidnapper through the southeast window, and as evidenced by the mud tracking. Can you suggest a scenario that involves another person from start to finish in the actual abduction and how his presence on the inside would be additive to the process?

[mairi]

Hi Folks,

How was the mud in the nursery described? I thought I had read "traces". Was some of this on the rug? Was mud on the suitcase clearly confirmed? Sox over shoes(?) Hmm-m(?) Any chance that was the burlap bag accidentally being stepped on?
Somehow I can't fully R/O Anne's shoes. Oh well, I'll keep studying on the matter.

Great discussion going on here!

[kevkon]

Ok, how many forums have discussions on such fascinating subjects as mudprints, stockings, shutters and latches, and dogs that don't bark

Mairi, I'm a little confused by the issue of the muudy prints in the Nursery as well. Here is what Trooper DeGaetano writes in the 3/9/32 statement;
"The three of us (Degaetano, Lindy, Bornman) entered the the room. I saw a note or envelope laying on the window sill through which the baby was taken. I also noticed yellow clay footprints on the window sill, radiator, and floor. These appeared to me to be made by a stocking foot."

Now, notice he doesn't mention the suitcase. Also notice he describes yellow clay. That's not what's present by the ladder. I have never seen a photo of these footprints and I could never make out any indication of them in Kelly's crime scene photos. However, if the color was indeed yellow, they would not show up well in a b&w photo.

Joe, I'm suggesting that you need two people to pull this off regardless of what ladder configuration or what means of entry one care's to propose. I believe it's very possible that the kidnappers realized the difficulty of getting through closed shutters and windows and one of them entered the house at some point.

[Joe]

Mairi, there are so many sources for the presence of mud in the nursery and from what I can best determine from reports I have read and trial testimony, there were traces found on the bedding in the crib, a couple of prints on the floor, including one just below the window, as well as one on the top of the suitcase. Lindbergh also testified that he believed there was one print on the window sill itself.

Anne had just finished her bath around 10 pm when Betty came into her room asking if she had the child. Anne, who was not dressed, immediately went into the nursery. From there, Elsie Whateley accompanied her back into her bedroom, where she dressed and began searching the house. Anne had visited the nursery twice before this time, once right after her mid-afternoon walk when she went to see the child while Betty and Elsie were there as well. The last time she saw the child was at 7:30 when she left the nursery after having helped Betty prepare him for bed. I wonder how likely it would have been for Anne to have been wearing muddy shoes in the house and then to have tracked mud through the house on the way to the nursery rather than removing her shoes at the door. And still, even if she was responsible for the traces on the floor, how does this explain the traces on the suitcase?

[Deleted]

I have read that the mud outside the nursery window was described as "soft red" jersey mud. If we move the time of the snatch to between 8:15 and 8:45 could the mud have dried sufficiently to appear yellow?

I, too, have problems with the single kidnapper scenario. I am not saying it didn't happen but with a difficult entry into the nursery from that ladder and then not distrubing anything like the suitcase, beerstein and toy ark roof sitting on top of the suitcase. That seems almost unbelievable. He would have needed to get up onto the window ledge and scan the room before trying to enter. He would not have known how the interior of the room looked before entering to know that he had items right below the window plus that beerstein on the windowsill. After managing to get in, putting little Charlie in the burlap bag, he then needed to get back out the window without disturbing anything either. Had it been me I would have found it necessary to lower the child down first and then try to get down myself. It couldn't have been easy getting your footing back on the ladder just so you could get down. I guess there are no reports of marks on the whitewashed walls from the kidnapper's muddy feet trying to get back onto that ladder.??

Now if there are two kidnappers might it have gone something like this: Kidnapper number one with socks covering his shoes goes up the ladder and enters the nursery. Kidnapper number two then climbs the ladder. He receives the child from kidnapper number one in the nursery and goes back down the ladder. Then kidnapper number one climbs out, gets his footing on the ladder and somehow manages to place the kidnap note on the sill and closes the window? Would this really be doable since the ladder is not directly under the window and not quite tall enough?

Having a kidnapper leave the nursery room with the child and leave by the front door without knowing the layout of the interior of the house doesn't seem like an option to me. Now if he knew how to get to the front door then he could have removed the socks covering his shoes, stuffing them into his pocket, and left the nursery leaving no footprints behind. These are just some ideas that have gone through my head.

[Michael]

I find the testimony/statement that there was mud on the blankets in the crib highly suspicious. It's not mentioned anywhere in any of the crime scene reports written by many different people.

Why would they mention everything else but them?

Also, it's not mentioned in anyone's statements at all who were interviewed in early March. It's not mentioned in anyone's stories, or recollections anywhere until this story turns up just before the trial in Gow's Pre-Trial Preparation Statement. Even then there's nothing about muddy hand prints anywhere else in the Nursery - even in the later situation.

This I really have a problem with this and quite frankly I just don't believe it. I would like to, believe me, but it just looks like BS to me.

Like DeGaetano, Bornmann said that he saw "smudges" that appeared like they could be footprints. He said he saw a graze mark on top of the suitcase, a "print" at the base of it, and the last print was on the rug about half way between the window and the crib. He claims these prints were made moving from the window towards the crib and ended there. He claimed NONE went from the crib to the window.

[Deleted]

So Michael, then none of the smudges are really footprints? And they don't go all the way to the crib? How did they ever get Charlie out of the crib then? I really have to think about this.

[kevkon]

Ok, but in any case why the stockings? You certainly don't want to climb this ladder if all you have is stockings on, very nasty. And if they are coverings over the shoes then for what purpose? As far as noise goes, you are going to make much more during a head first entry through the window. One possibility is that they are not footprints but hand/glove prints. Once again the lack of proper recording of these clues/ evidence by the NJSP means no conclusions can be made.

[zerohunter]

I have seen it suggested that socks were worn over the shoes so that once they were removed, one would immediately have clean shoes eliminating the need of otherwise having to scrape the mud off, possibly also to make shoe imprints very difficult to identify. This sounds good, but I would think that one would pay a hefty penalty for doing this, since the mud would stick to the socks and pretty quick you would have 15 lbs clumps of mud stuck to the bottom of your feet hampering your mobility. You could more easily just bring a second pair of shoes that could later be ditched. In my mind the only thing that makes sense is that socks were put on shortly before ascending the ladder with the objective of eliminating the audibility of footfalls once inside. Likely after putting on the socks, only one or two step were made in the mud, leaving only a very slight residue of mud on the socks which is responsible for the "smudges" that were found...

It still doesn't all add up though...

[kevkon]

Socks are not going to last very long on the trip over the terrain there either. This is just another example where I say to myself, did anyone ever try this? I wouldn't bother because I know already what will happen and I see no need to ruin a pair of socks.
The idea that they were disguising their footprints is equally ridiculous to me. What, were they wearing Bruno Maglis?
There seems to be only one logical answer and that is they were concerned with muffling shoe steps. The problem I have with that is that the only way to get in that window with two sections is head first and crawl. It's only a couple of feet to the crib and they can see that the room is very small, so would there really be a concern with shoe steps considering the other operations they are going to undertake? Maybe, but it seems to me that the issue of muffling ones shoe steps would only come about if one were planning to be moving around in the house.
For fairness sake I will suggest two other possibilities. One, the climbers shoes were so caked with mud that he decided to remove them and climb stocking foot. Not a good idea since the rungs are square edged and relatively sharp. Also the rung itself would be the perfect place to scrape off the mud. Nothing of this sort is evident in the photo of the ground. Second, the ladder was used in three sections and the climber stepped onto the ledge and into the window. Fine, but the shutter must be in the open position to do this. Also, once again, why the socks?