|
Post by Michael on May 19, 2012 21:55:16 GMT -5
I don't understand why one could leave by way of the Access Road but not approach that way. Why is it safe one way but not the other?
My "no worries" comment comes from past observations. The indications are slow and methodical. Then they leave making sure everyone knew they were there. Why? No one falling in the mud, etc. I believe the ladder was left behind to show haste but falling would have proven it. Nope. Just footprints in stocking feet no less, and as sure footed as a Snow Shoe Rabbit in the Rocky Mountains.
Good old Cemetery John does it again!
Featherbed Lane was rocky and bumpy too. Just look at the Conover's eyewitness account about what happened. Not only that, I walked it once from Featherbed to Highfields and I can tell you it was no easy jaunt. Very "hilly" and "rocky." If I had walked it at night I surely would have face-planted more then a few times.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 19, 2012 23:49:33 GMT -5
I think anything's possible. The access road could certainly have been the route in and out. The only thing that would've worried me about using it for the approach would've been having to get that close to the house with the car and have the motor heard or the headlights seen, or, even worse, possibly getting stuck on what was (I would think) an even rougher road than Featherbed. Or, rather than driving up the access road, do you think they walked up it from the gatehouse/chicken coop area? There were footprints leading from the main house and down the access road to the gatehouse/chicken coops, but nothing going the reverse direction to indicate an approach that way, correct? As to another comment you made: I think it's very possible (in fact, fairly common) to plan something methodically, then let adrenaline take over on completion and get sloppy in the effort to get the hell out of Dodge. And as for the Featherbed-Highfields hike--hasn't the terrain changed completely since 1932? I mean, it used to be open country and now looks like pretty dense forest. Certainly, it may still have been a hard walk, but maybe easier then than now?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 20, 2012 6:46:02 GMT -5
I honestly do not know whether Featherbed Lane was less worse or not. The sign said it was "impassible." I agree about the headlights, just like I do about the flashlights. Apparently, these people didn't use one, need one, or weren't seen using one, therefore, if you are walking around the house, the yard, the woods without a light then you certainly know your way around and/or aren't worrying about being seen in the first place.
Correct. So where'd they come from? If you could approach without leaving evidence of it why not leave in the same fashion? Panic? Haste? Walking through that east yard, in the slick mud, with socks on, in the dark, carrying many different things - and you are in a hurry - but don't fall?
This point is what lead many to conclude a Local was involved having been familiar with things. But even a Local wouldn't walk through that mud if it wasn't necessary. Their approach proves it wasn't, and their sure footedness proves it wasn't in haste.
I certainly agree. But I don't see anything which represents getting outta there - in a hurry - aside from things meant to show it but not actually represent it. They walked through the mud - they didn't run. They put the ladder where it was found - they didn't "drop it." They put the chisel where it was found, etc.
It's indicative of exactly what Leon Ho-age alleged.
The woods weren't there, but the boulders, and hills always were. For me, the trees weren't the problem. If it were dark, even if I am looking at the house lit up, I would fall, in fact, I tripped and stumbled during the day carrying only a briefcase with for my notes I was taking. Sounds like I am embellishing in order to support my theory, however, I said the same thing back then when I actually believed that Road was where they set out. I am sure those who remember can back me up.
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on May 20, 2012 7:53:29 GMT -5
What else do the kidnappers see as they look at that East side of the house? The answer is the major flaw with the explanation of why they didn't use 3 sections. - Kevkon
There are two windows with shutters open on the top floor. Is this the flaw you mean?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 20, 2012 8:05:51 GMT -5
LJ, if you had planned to kidnap this child from this location you would have to determine what method to use. Now if we assume that the method chosen was a 2nd floor entry via a ladder I think it's reasonable to believe that assumption would be that the windows would be locked ( especially at this time of the year). Even if you believe that they had an insider who could leave a window unlocked, you would naturally prepare for the contingency that the insider was unable to do this. In any case, it's only a window sash lock. Now you have a three section ladder that you have constructed which can reach up almost 20', two sections give you around 12'. This gives you options regarding how to attack the windows. However, closed shutters pose a real problem. The 3 section ladder is out and even with the 2 section placed directly below the window, defeating those iron slide bolts would not be easy. But so what? There are 2 more windows to the right with the shutters in the open position. So why not go in that way? What I am saying in a nutshell is this; anyone who is inclined toward a ladder/ 2nd floor entry as opposed to the more traditional abduction methods, does so for a reason. This is their comfort zone. When faced with an obstacle, they will think along the lines of that comfort zone. If you are thwarted at one pair of windows, simply move to the next. But that's not what happened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2012 9:35:10 GMT -5
Kevkon, I think I understand what you are getting at. When the kidnapper looked at the house he didn't choose an easier point of entry. It seems they built a ladder that was for unshuttered nursery windows, therefore, making three sections necessary to gain entry into the room. It makes me think that when they were planning this snatch the ladder builder did a lot of observing of the house in the daytime when the windows were not shuttered. Three sections are built. When they go at night to actually commit the kidnapping they are confronted with shuttered windows. They can't use all three sections of the ladder, only two. Moving to a window allowing easier entry makes perfect sense if you don't have anyone helping you from the inside. I think choosing this window only proves that someone (household or otherwise) was giving assistance to the kidnappers.
As to why Tuesday night was chosen over any weekend night or even Monday, the night before, suggests that the inside person needed to be at the house to give assistance. Who made Tuesday different than the other nights the Lindberghs spent at Highfields? Not the Whateleys. So that leaves Betty Gow. I have such trouble accepting that she would do something like this. I would much rather that an outsider gained access to the inside to assist.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 20, 2012 10:16:01 GMT -5
I agree. That is if you are going into this thing blind. I think its pretty obvious that I do not believe this but I'd like to think I'll listen to arguments which show otherwise.
Next, Gow said the shutters were closed to keep them from flapping. I thought the shutter dogs did this...? Not to digress, but don't those windows "seal" when locked? And so, by the same argument, why weren't those windows locked?
That's the thing of it. If you have an insider then you know these shutters are warped.
I don't recall where it says these shutters were open, but regardless, I agree the target window with no deviation is important. This was a well planned event.
Two great points. First is one no one mentions, and the second is the reason why they don't. Getting past the 2nd, for each and every personal bias is how to get directly to the solution. Don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,654
|
Post by Joe on May 20, 2012 10:16:01 GMT -5
While I can’t rule out someone entering the house via an unlocked or jimmied first floor window, I think the evidence tends to conclude entry by the nursery window. We have the mud prints which by their observed trail, indicate a source just inside the window. If the inside perpetrator had entered on the main level, would there not have been more than adequate evidence of his presence elsewhere inside the house, based on what would be at that point, only residual marks left in the nursery? Also, if anyone has ever considered Wahgoosh to be a high strung dog attuned to strangers afoot, but who missed his grand moment on the night of the kidnapping, would he not have been more likely to detect a stranger on the very same level?
Regarding the nursery shutters, I don’t believe the kidnapper would have simply bypassed them, assuming they were closed and therefore locked. From the testimony and the poorly gathered evidence at the time, I see no indication that this can be presumed. In fact, both Anne and Betty mainly talk about their efforts to pull the shutters closed as opposed to trying to throw the bolt into a locked position, once they were closed properly. And I wonder why the kidnapper would have chosen to bring with him, a ¾” chisel. Perhaps he intended to break a few of the shutter louvers in the area of the bolt to slide it back, if need be? Based on the white painted background of the stone he would have been viewing, I believe he would have been able to detect that the shutter was not closed fully and therefore unlocked. Perhaps he used two sections of the ladder to open the shutters fully before ascending with three sections. And I assume he would have had a flashlight as well, in order to effect a relatively lighted and silent entry into the nursery. As far as the nursery window being left unlocked, this is where I think he just got lucky but at the same time would have been prepared to defeat the window lock mechanism, perhaps with a glass cutter and masking tape.
As far as the kidnapper having had inside help of some sort, I don't believe that anyone in the house that evening had a clue as to what was to happen to their worlds. It seems reasonable to me that at the worst, Violet Sharp, because of her relationship to Tom McKelvie of the Daily News and the information she provided him about the Lindbergh household, contributed not only to her savings, but also her ultimate suicide based upon her fears she may have inadvertantly contributed to the death of the child.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 20, 2012 11:37:50 GMT -5
Glad to see you back Joe, it's never easy to go through that.
You know, the entire issue with the "warped shutter" just doesn't seem to go away. Here's my take; neither Anne or Betty are very tall. To close the shutters you must open the window and lean out to pivot the shutter dogs which hold them in the open position. Now the window in question has a table in front of a radiator cover and the table has a suitcase and a toy on top of it. This means Betty must move some of those objects out of the way in order to get out the window. Why go through all this trouble if you know the shutters can NOT be secured or closed all the way? What you are going to have is a banging shutter and that means a waking child. So what's the point? Now I look at the sunscreen shielding the crib and I wonder if it isn't possible that Anne and/or betty decided to forgo the closing of that particular shutter all together then upon their horrific discovery they covered each other less CAL find out. Just a possibility for this scenario that doesn't require an inside accomplice. Personally I don't think the ladder was ever intended or used for the primary entry and exit, but that's another story. Finally, if I had to pick an insider it would be Ollie hands down. He benefits from Tuesday, he has periods when he is alone, he is the man in charge of Highfields and that shutter.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 20, 2012 12:12:33 GMT -5
Just brainstorming here, but what if, to avoid having to carry the lightweight-but-still-cumbersome ladder any great distance, two kidnappers are driven up the gravel lane and dropped off at the house by a third (no approach footprints to the house and the tire sound Anne Lindbergh said she heard then being explained). But they don't want to leave their car right by the house and risk having it spotted during the commission of the crime, so the driver immediately heads back down the lane and parks on the main road near the gatehouse/chicken coops--an easy-to-spot landmark and pickup point which that access road behind the house leads right to. Meanwhile, the other two kidnappers wait by the house, then one of them gets in however he gets in--if not through the nursery window, then maybe through a ground-floor basement window, removing his shoes to quiet his footsteps and giving them to the other kidnapper, who sets the ladder up outside, by the nursery window. The first kidnapper makes his way through the house and into the nursery, but maybe, as has been suggested, two kidnappers were required to be in the room, so the second kidnapper climbs up and through the window to assist. Now, even though this second guy has socks on over his shoes, he's tried to stay on the boardwalk outside to avoid leaving prints, but he's already left a partial near the ladder footings and is now leaving smudges on the nursery carpet. Either way, the second kidnapper then exits the nursery window, the baby is passed off to him as the first places the note and climbs out, maybe dropping down onto the boardwalk below the windows and/or knocking the ladder over and causing it to fall on the walk (would either or both of these explain the wooden-crate-falling sound Lindbergh said he heard?). They then make their escape on foot by way of the access roads, not wanting to bring a car back up to the house again or risk walking down the more frequented, out-in-the-open driveway now that they have the baby. They dump the ladder in the backyard on their way to the mouth of the access road, stopping for a minute for the stockingfooted kidnapper to put his shoes back on. The driver, meanwhile, is waiting for them at the end of the access road, near the gatehouse/chicken coops. I don't know how or why the ladder broke--what kind of stresses or weight-placement those kind of breaks would've been consistent with--or where that chisel came from (or even if had anything to do with the crime; the house was still a construction site after all). Now, there was that chest and suitcase with the tinkertoy on top just below the nursery window. Could this have been moved earlier by an insider and then replaced afterwards, maybe when Betty Gow went in to check on the baby and found him missing? Was there any indication (mud smears or whatever) to show the suitcase or chest had been stepped on? As to Gow's assisting the kidnappers--I just don't know. Amy makes a good point that she was the only thing "different about Tuesday", but what would her motive have been to betray the Lindberghs like this? Gardner suggests she was unhappy and felt isolated, but still... Also, I'm still a little unclear about some things regarding footprints: A) were they running or walking prints (I think this can be determined based on spacing) and B) were the tracks just down the access road, or was there also another set that went a half-mile away to Featherbed Ln.? If so, that's why I think Featherbed comes up as having been some sort of starting or staging area in all this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2012 13:25:28 GMT -5
So, Joe, do you think that Violet tipped Tom of the Daily News that the Lindberghs were staying over on Tuesday night and somehow thats how the kidnappers found out? I am not sure I understand what you mean. Kevkon, Betty did have about a half hour of time alone in the nursery area to provide whatever assistance was agreed upon with the kidnapper(s). Anne left the nursery around 7:30. Betty goes into the livingroom where Anne is around 8 p.m. to tell her that the baby is sleeping soundly. She is alone with Charlie for a half hour. I agree that that shutter would be very difficult for the women to do themselves. I wonder if those shutters were routinely closed on the weekends when Charlie was there. The statements of Betty and Anne make it sound like it was a routine thing to do. If it was, then, I would think that Anne would have had Ollie closing them on the weekends when she was there putting the baby to bed herself. So why not have him close them on Tuesday night instead of Anne and Betty struggling with them? ? Good question about the footprints, LJ. Could they have been made running from the scene to the car waiting by the gatehouse? I never thought about that.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 20, 2012 13:51:23 GMT -5
I dismiss Gow as an insider. The woman would have to be certifiable to be involved in this way and she has the most to lose on a Tues night kidnapping.
It is interesting that in all of the testimony and accounts that I have read by both Betty and Anne they both go into great detail about all of their actions in the Nursery that night. Yet neither mentions moving anything out of the way to reach the shutters and both are rather vague on the whole shutter issue compared to the rest of their actions. It may seem trivial, but the consequences are great especially if you believe the ladder was used to gain entry through that window.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 20, 2012 14:06:39 GMT -5
Sorry, I’ve been sidetracked, so these posts are running a little behind the immediate conversation. I may be mistaken, but I think Kevin’s view (which I am starting to agree with) is not necessarily that a CAR used the access road. I think the view is that the PICKUP was across from the abandoned house/chicken coop on the Hopewell-Amwell Road. (Granted, this would entail the kidnappers crossing the access roads on foot.) I understand what you are saying that the car on Featherbed Lane (seen by the Conovers) may have simply been killing time before making a closer approach. What makes me think Featherbed Lane was the actual launch site was the tracking of footprints there by Oscar Bush (Gardner pp. 30-31). The combination of the Conover observations PLUS Bush’s tracking make me think this was indeed the Launch site…UNLESS both Gardner and Bush confused Featherbed Lane for the access roads in their language. Do you think that’s what they did? Regarding a pickup near the abandoned house, I quote Gardner, p.26: Next I quote Falzini: njspmuseum.blogspot.com/2008/02/march-1-1932-timeline.htmlMichael, it sounds as if the fresh dog prints were those of Kuchta’s dog, that he was chasing somebody wearing boots who was picked up on the Hopewell-Amwell Road. The 9PM time frame should make it POST kidnap and therefore the PICKUP. It is certainly true that the access roads on Kevin’s aerial map look like the ideal place both for launch and pickup. I think this would have been the best way to do it. But I am going to guess that maybe the kidnappers themselves weren’t aware of this—maybe their recon of the area fell short. Also, maybe these roads were less drivable at the time of the kidnapping than we assume? Maybe they were afraid of getting stuck in the mud when trying to drive out of those access roads (it had been raining hard earlier in the day, so things were of course muddy). And finally, because the entrance for the access roads was also the entrance to Lindbergh’s long driveway, I am going to guess that maybe they didn’t dare venture a car into this zone for fear of running into Lindbergh’s car on the way out. LJ, I do think there was more than one car. One was certainly the one-man vehicle with the sectioned ladder, seen by Lupica around 6PM. Another suspect vehicle is mentioned by Falzini (same site as referenced above): Here’s a longer quote from Falzini that Joe posted on Kuchta: Of course, Kuchta and Kristofek are also the neighbors whose dog appeared to chase the fleeing kidnappers near this same entrance to the Lindbergh estate. My guess is that the “ladder man” seen by Lupica was heading for a rendezvous with the men in the touring car, the idea being to meet just after dark and commence the operation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2012 16:23:37 GMT -5
Kevkon, what do you mean by certifiable? What criteria is used to detemine that? How does Ollie Whateley meet those requirements verses Betty Gow?
BR, do you think that the touring car is the car that was seen by the Conovers? In your quote above, John Kristofek sees the touring car at 6 p.m. headed in the direction of Skillman which is, I think, going away from Featherbed Lane. Not sure how that would work.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 20, 2012 17:15:51 GMT -5
I mean that Gow would have to be a few fries short of a happy meal to participate in a kidnapping given all the circumstances. Especially if one considers the many opportunities she would have as the child's nanny. As I have said, I'm not inclined toward the insider theories.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 20, 2012 17:20:10 GMT -5
"The combination of the Conover observations PLUS Bush’s tracking make me think this was indeed the Launch site…UNLESS both Gardner and Bush confused Featherbed Lane for the access roads in their language. Do you think that’s what they did?"
This was my question too, Bookrefuge, since, towards the top of page 31, Gardner describes Featherbed Ln. as running roughly parallel to the driveway (which is actually what the access road seems to do, while the road called Featherbed Ln. is a half-mile away from all this). Considering the footprints that head down that access road and stop at the end of it by the gatehouse/chicken coops where there seems to have been a car--I don't know, it looks to me like the access road was their escape route (and I guess a neighbor's dog must've been chasing them on the way to the gatehouse pickup point). The access road could've been the entry route as well, but for the fact that there were no footprints on that road (or apparently anywhere else) that led towards the house, only away from it. But again, I don't know if the discovered footprint trails were leading to and down the access road AS WELL AS to Featherbed Ln., or just to and down the access road, which has has gotten confused and conflated with Featherbed Ln. in some sources...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 20, 2012 19:43:16 GMT -5
A couple of comments on my end....
The footprints appear to have been a "walker." When you run in the mud, in stocking feet, you slide or at the very least the print will show more movement. On top of that no report I've ever seen suggests someone was running.
I read a couple of reports a night, and I noted one that said the shutters, because they were warped, actually stayed in place once pulled together. I believe that was coming from Lt. Keaton.
Next, I believe there were more then one "Kidnapper" out and about. I believe there was more then one car too.
The Kutcha "Dogs" have always been an interesting supplement to this evidence. Unfortunately, there are all kinds of wild life roaming the area. They may have been chasing Deer then hit on the scent of whoever had been there for all we know. There were also many dogs on all of the various farms nearby. Next, no one "out runs" a dog, so that couldn't have happened, and if one of the Kidnappers was pinned down or attacked I am quite sure a shot or two would have rung out. I've seen pictures of the Bull Dog known to the Troopers as "Highfields Sue" and I have no idea what this was all about. I've seen pictures of Horses too. Were the Kutcha Dogs known to chase Visitors to Highfields or even the Family? The other thought that races through my mind is why these Dogs, a good distance away hears someone but Wahgoosh doesn't hear a damn thing.
I guess what I am saying is that I don't know what it proves.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 21, 2012 0:59:08 GMT -5
Michael, it is very interesting about the footprints suggesting a “walker” not a “runner.” The implications could be powerful. But do you know if this is generally true of all the footprints? I can see how if, immediately after the snatch, a man in stocking feet was carrying the ladder that 75 feet from the house, he would be going slowly. And of course, I would expect any footprints from the APPROACH to the house to be slow as well. But once the ladder is discarded, and they’ve got the kid, it seems to me they would want to “get out of Dodge” as people here have been putting it. I suppose the tough, muddy terrain, and the necessity of carrying the kid, might have necessitated a slower pace than a sprint.
Also, regarding that clear “stockinged” footprint that shows up on Kevin’s video—isn’t that something the police should have made a cast of? Seems like a great ID opportunity.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 21, 2012 8:18:54 GMT -5
That would make sense as opposed to leaving them ajar. It also means that the kidnappers would have no way of knowing it was not locked from an outside view. I know you guys are focused on the footprint paths, but honestly there just isn't enough properly recorded evidence available to go much further. BR, I am amazed as well at the lack of a cast or even a good still photo. Anyway, I do think we can assume the shutters were all in the fully closed position. We know that at least one unsub had stocking feet. So what happens when these kidnappers approach the house? Was their plan altered ?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,654
|
Post by Joe on May 21, 2012 9:31:48 GMT -5
Thanks Kevin, and yes the shutters are a sticking point. I like your idea about Anne and Betty possibly not closing them that evening due to the difficulty of doing so but I wonder how they would have then ended up in the semi-open position in which they were discovered by Lindbergh after 10 pm. I wouldn’t make any assumption at all that the shutters appeared to be closed from the outside, had Anne and Betty actually done their best to pull them tight, as they testified. This kidnapper knew exactly where the child was and I cannot think of a reason why, even if they did appear closed, he would not have at least checked them out before opting for another avenue into the house. After all, he did bring a ¾” chisel, which would make short work of wooden shutter louvers. But, regardless of how the shutters ultimately might have appeared from the outside, how does one explain the nursery floor mud tracks that emanate from the southeast window, other than entry by that point?
I can’t pick anyone as an “insider with ill intent” from the house that evening. Were they all piously righteous and blameless people? Certainly not. Were any of them capable of murder, deception or conspiracy at this kind of level? Absolutely not.
Amy, Tom McKelvie of the Daily News made a statement to Inspector Walsh that Violet Sharp had leaked information to him regarding the sex of the first Lindbergh child that enabled his newspaper to scoop the competition by 5 hours. She had also provided some additional information but I’m not sure in which timeframe and how soon before the kidnapping. I have my doubts though that it allowed the kidnappers any distinct advantage and think it probably had more to do with relatively insignificant but titillating secrets of the Morrow and Lindbergh households. While the police never really put a lot of stock in Violet’s disloyalty to her employer, she definitely had the type of high strung personality which would have been stretched to the breaking point, given CALjr’s disappearance and subsequent events.
Michael, you’re right that it could have been any combination of scents and sounds the Kuchta and Kristofek dogs had originally picked up, but we definitely have very specific account and individual accounts within a time period and some observed paw print / footprint evidence that strongly suggests kidnapper and canine having made an unexpected rendezvous that night. When you say this couldn’t have happened because “no one outruns a dog” I think overlooks a much higher probability, supported by the evidence, that whoever it was in this scenario, basically stood their ground and showed less fear than these dogs were expecting in order to continue their game of pursuit and aggression.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 21, 2012 10:07:01 GMT -5
For me the shutters are either fully closed or fully open, I can't see anything in between as being reasonable since flopping shutters are just what Betty and Anne were trying to avoid ( as per trial testimony). I'm going with fully closed since there is no evidence to the contrary. In that case the kidnappers would not be able to tell they were not bolted. I agree that you could break the louver slats with a chisel. However, that's easier said than done with the kidnap ladder at night with an out of view lock. Why not just go over to Gow's room where the shutters are open? And why the stocking feet? I don't know what to make of the mud in the Nursery since everyone seems to describe it differently and not a single image of it exists. So much went on immediately after the discovery of the missing child that I would not place too much value on the mud. And why some would be on the suitcase but not the sill or radiator cover is very odd.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 21, 2012 15:42:38 GMT -5
It's certainly a reasonable question. All that I can base my opinion on is what I have both seen and read. Obviously there are pictures of those prints I haven't seen yet. I plan on searching for more once I get back to the Archives to look. But for now, I am confident no Report states anything otherwise. This I know because I have all of those that exist in West Trenton.
This is another problem. As first reported to us by Lloyd in his book, a cast was made of one (or possibly more) of those footprints. Once the Governor found out about it, he ordered it/them to be turned over to the Court of Pardons. Unfortunately, once they were retrieved they were deemed "ruined" and therefore considered of no evidentary value. This is all I know. We don't know "how" they were ruined or "why" it might have happened. I could not find anything else in any of the Governor's files to explain it.
But the fact remains the cast(s) were made despite the denials and the testimony to the contrary.
I was satisfied with it. However, I do want to mention that while Keaton is a good source, he did purposely mislead the FBI about certain facts he didn't want them to know about. He also was incorrect about some things at differing times too. I mention this only for peace of mind because obviously no one is 100% reliable 100% of the time.
I know this is going to come to a shock to you Joe but.....I disagree.
While I agree its an option to consider, I do not agree with the word "strongly" to compliment it. Were those paw prints belonging to the Dogs in question? I don't know. If so, were the Dogs there first, at the same exact time, or after? I don't know. Had anyone been there earlier with a Dog? There were more then one "Kidnapper" so which one are we talking about? The report suggested the Dog(s) were "chasing" something. No human being can outrun a dog so if they are chasing a person - then they catch him. Did the Kidnapper come with a biscuit or two meant for Wahgoosh?
You see this can take on a life of its own so I look at it with extreme caution. What we have are footprints and paw prints at a certain point. We have a Neighbor saying his Dogs were barking and running toward that area at a certain time. We also have Wahgoosh, the high-strung Fox Terrier - that barks at everything but completely silent despite an Intruder inside the home spiriting away his play-mate.
If they are blind to the situation. But they obviously weren't concerning much, so for my money they knew of the warped shutters before hand. At the very least one has to consider they had the proper Intel before the crime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2012 17:59:37 GMT -5
Michael, the stocking foot prints that Bush followed showed that the foot had an overlapping small toe. We also know that Charlie had overlapping toes. Would you happen to know which side of the family Charlie would have inherited this characteristic from?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 21, 2012 18:17:39 GMT -5
Great question, Amy. I am not sure exactly where the residence of Kuchta and Kristofek is on the map, but it does sound as if the touring car is heading south on the Hopewell-Amwell Road, and therefore most likely is heading away from Featherbed Lane.
Michael, correct me if I'm wrong, but at the very same time (6PM) Lupica is driving slowly NORTH on Hopewell-Amwell, when he encounters the car with the sectioned ladder, which is going SOUTH. I am not sure where this encounter occurred compared to Featherbed Lane.
In any event, it seems that at 6PM, both the TOURING CAR and the LADDER CAR are moving in the same direction (SOUTH) on the Hopewell-Amwell Road.
The Conovers did not spot the car on Featherbed Lane until 6:30 PM—about ½ hour later. Therefore I have to wonder if the two cars had a rendezvous, then one or both headed back north and turned onto Featherbed Lane to begin the crime.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 21, 2012 22:50:06 GMT -5
I'm intrigued by this possibility you mention, Michael, of someone in the house being capable of murder and deception on this scale. I know Lindbergh was kind of a cold fish, very stolid and closed off, so I can see why it's easy for some (a little too easy in my view) to say he killed the baby. And Anne Lindbergh--well, I once heard a vague story that she drowned the baby accidentally-on-purpose in some sort of depressive fit, but, again, I've never seen anything to support this. That leaves the servants: Betty Gow seemed genuinely fond of the baby, so I can't say I lean toward her being a part of anything to endanger him. And, honestly, I don't know the first thing about the Whateleys, one way or the other. All I know about Olly is that he died suddenly about a year or so after the kidnapping, so many questions he might've been able to answer seemed to kind of drop below the horizon. And I don't know anything at all about Elsie. I do know of another servant who I've heard mentioned as being around that weekend. Root, I think her name was. But other than a brief glimpse of her in the background of some home movies made of the baby, I don't know anything about her either.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 22, 2012 6:24:28 GMT -5
WHOOPS! I just realized I must have mixed up North and South in my previous post. On the Google map, it looked to me like a car headed from Featherbed Lane toward Skillman was moving South on the Hopewell-Amwell Road. But according to the orientation Kevin gave us of his aerial map, Featherbed Lane is to the South of the Lindbergh estate.
According to Gardner, Lupica definitely saw the laddered car heading SOUTH on Hopewell-Amwell, so it must have been headed in the direction of Featherbed Lane.
As far as the touring car Kristofek saw heading “toward Skillman,” I’d better let Michael or Kevin define what “toward Skillman” would mean in terms of direction on the aerial map, and whether it was headed toward or away from Featherbed Lane.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 22, 2012 10:47:46 GMT -5
I've been open to the idea of Featherbed as a staging point, but now I'm starting to wonder A) why there were no footprints from there to Highfields and B) if there were houses along Featherbed, why would the kidnappers use that road as a staging area and risk being seen? Also, as Michael's pointed out, Featherbed to Highfields seems like a quite a rough hike, particularly carrying a ladder (even a lightweight one). That, coupled with the lack of approach footprints coming from Featherbed (or from anywhere else) makes it seem like the kidnappers approached in such a way as to not leave prints, which is why I suggest that they were driven up the gravel lane. I know headlights were seen and a car was spotted stuck in the mud on Featherbed that evening, but I don't know if that's really all that significant; could've been anybody, really. Does anyone know if the car seen on Featherbed matched either Lupica or Kuchta's descriptions of the cars they saw earlier that day? And as to the question of inside help, it occurred to me that the list of potential suspects is maybe far too short. So far, only Charles and Anne Lindbergh's servants have been mentioned. But the Lindberghs also lived at Next Day Hill in Englewood (in fact, were spending most of their time there), which had a staff upwards of, what, 30 people?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 22, 2012 12:45:28 GMT -5
LJ, what makes me think Featherbed Lane was a staging point was (A) the somewhat suspicious activity, seen by the Conovers, of a vehicle on that road (headlights going on and off), only ½ hour after Lupica spotted the laddered vehicle; and (B) the footprints between Featherbed Lane and Highfields, REGARDLESS of direction. Concerning (A), true, it could be a coincidence—just some other vehicle on Featherbed. But I don’t get the impression that Featherbed Lane was a well-populated road, and I believe it was a dead end. Why DOES someone park on this road unless they’re visiting someone? It doesn’t sound like a “Lovers' Lane.” The timing in connection with the kidnapping, combined with the footprints, make this vehicle more than a “coincidence” to me. Regarding (B) is it true that footprints are generally leading AWAY from Highfields, rather than toward it? Michael could probably best answer this.
This question of the direction of footprints is an interesting matter. If it is really true that most footprints are leading AWAY from Highfields and not TOWARD it, why would that be? One explanation could be--as you have suggested---that a vehicle dropped off the kidnappers near the house, but they made their escape on foot. Another possibility might be that, when one is SNEAKING UP on a house, your feet are apt to make less impact on the soil than when you’re running away.
On the other hand, if they were carrying that ladder toward Highfields, you’d think the added weight might make impressions deeper for APPROACH footprints.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 13:44:22 GMT -5
LJ and BK, I would tend to agree about Feathrbed Lane being a staging point. I don't think they would have used it if there were numberous homes located on it. What would be helpful for me is knowing where the Conover Farm sat in relation to Featherbed Lane. I am not sure it was located right on it. I have not been able to come up with an address for the Conovers. Perhaps Michael or Kevkon could help us out with locating it on Kevkon's aerial map.
Not having any footprints approaching Highfields still bothers me too. If the kidnapers walked along the edge of the driveway where there was gravel then we wouldn't have footprints. Plus I don't think the authorities looked there for footprints. They were focused on the prints leading away during the early part of the investigation. It wasn't too long before reporters and others were showing up and compromising the crime scene.
What we can be sure of is that the car(s) that used that road or even the access road would have been quite muddy leaving the scene. I read an interesting news article posted by one of the other board members. The article is one of the Sidney Whipple ones written about the crime. It talks about Red Johnson and how when the Connecticut authorities went to Red's brothers' house the blue car that belonged to Red was parked outside and was quite muddy! Coincidence? Perhaps. You can find this article on page two in the General Discussion section. The thread is labeled Sidney B. Whipple Series. It is article#3 in the series.
I really like the access road the best though. This road does run parallel to the gravel road. Do you think that this road was being called Featherbed Lane by some of the investigators?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 22, 2012 14:51:57 GMT -5
Personally, I still think Featherbed was involved in some way. Regardless of how it was used, I think the kidnappers were probably there doing... something. But whether they started to the house from there or it was used as some sort of lookout/observation point, I can't say. I was just tossing out some cons about it to see if anything stuck. But as to your last question, Amy: Again, everyone seems to agree there were footprints leading to and down the access road--a road that, according to Kevkon's aerial photo, seems to run roughly parallel to the driveway before connecting up with the main road (or to a point on the driveway very close to the main road). And a rough road running parallel to the drive is exactly what Gardner refers to as Featherbed Ln. on page 31 of his book. But the actual road called Featherbed Ln. is a half-mile away from Highfields, so I'm still wondering if, when it's stated that footprints were leading towards the access road and Featherbed Ln., whether it's meant there were two diverging sets of prints that led to these two separate locations, or if the footprints only led to the access road, which has been confused/conflated with Featherbed in some sources. Either way, I still like the idea of the driveway approach: The lack of approach footprints and Anne Lindbergh saying she heard tires on the drive before Lindbergh got home are both then explained. Also, if the kidnappers are driven to the house and then escape on foot, we then have (at least given the geography here) a roughly circuitous route--sort of an already-on-your-way-out-even-as-you-begin kind of thing, which is pretty much always the most sensible, efficient, smartest route to take.
|
|