|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 16, 2013 18:54:20 GMT -5
Hi BR. I've discussed the front door with others on the board--that it stuck and made a noise if opened--and my guess would be that whoever the potential insider was left the front door unlocked or even slightly ajar. It would seem, too, that some internal doors could be closed which essentially blocked the front door off from the rest of the house, while leaving a clear path up into the nursery. But it could very well be that the kidnappers gained access through a lower window or something. I've considered this, but, barring someone pulling themselves over to the windowsill from the ladder, getting directly into the nursery this way (in the dark and in a gale), it would seem that the front door offers the quickest and most convenient access to the nursery, without having to pass through too much of a house with people moving about. But Michael, do we know just how sticky or loud the front door was and if it would've been prohibitive as an access point? As for the ladder: Well, it got to where it was found--in the backyard, 75 feet or so from the house--somehow, and, to me, it looks like a breadcrumb a trail: A ransom note on the nursery windowsill...ladder-foot impressions in the mud below that window...footprints away from the house...a chisel...more footprints...the ladder itself...more footprints...the entrance to a construction access road...more footprints, which cease near the driveway entrance, replaced by car tiretracks. It's like someone was trying to say, in a very self-concious, neon-arrow kind of way: "WE CAME IN AND LEFT THROUGH THE WINDOW WITH THIS LADDER BEFORE MAKING OUR ESCAPE AND DRIVING OFF." As far as all this goes, then, it looks like things were staged to me. And this begs the question of why. Now, it might also beg the question of, if they were staging things this way, why not leave footprints to the house as well? My answer to this would be that I think things needed to be kept as clear as possible, and prints heading in one direction helped achieve this. Also, knowing they were going to leave it behind during their escape, they could've been trying to remain as unencumbered as possible and were avoiding having to carry the ladder any distance, which is why the ladder and kidnappers were probably driven up to the house, in my view.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 16, 2013 19:25:07 GMT -5
Hi, LJ. I don’t think they would have left the front door ajar with that gale blowing.
As far as staging goes, there’s nothing in the evidence that really jumps out at me as smacking of “staged” except for that note on the windowsill. I mean, if you had real kidnappers, how would their footprints have differed from those that you think were staged? Granted, we are lacking approach prints, but whether the kidnappers were real or actors, they had to approach the house, at least to get the ladder there. I suspect the footprints give us an incomplete picture. Perhaps sometimes they stepped on rocky terrain that didn’t lend itself to prints? But this is just a guess—I know nothing about the soil around Highfields then.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 16, 2013 19:47:25 GMT -5
Hey BR. I've thought of the door being left open and blowing in that gale too. It might be that if an insider left the door open, they didn't know about the storm coming that night, and, in any case, it might also have been left open in such a way that it wouldn't blow all the way open, but rather was left just open enough--kind of resting in the doorframe so that all it would require was a push. If the door was sticky anyhow I can see how it could've stayed in place, especially since it was sort of set back in a kind of vestibule, perhaps protected from the wind. At any rate, barring direct access to the nursery through the window--which seems very awkward, especially given the weather and darkness (inside and out)--I can't think of another way into the house besides the front door. We've talked about a lower window, but how do the kidnappers then maneuver through the house without being seen? But the front door: You step in, and right there, at the top of the steps, is the nursery. But even so, I do see your point, which is why I'd like Michael's opinion on just how that front door worked. In terms of staging, I guess the main thing that jumps out at me and smacks of staging is the fact the ladder was left behind. Seems like an awfully unique and therefore incriminating piece of evidence to leave behind under any circumstances, unless this was done as part of a plan.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 16, 2013 20:17:30 GMT -5
A couple of things occured to me, one is that Bette Gow could easily have communicated the baby's "do not disturb" hours to Red Johnson, just conversationally. Maybe she was complaining about how strict CAL was about bedtime rules or just telling him what her days consisted of generally. Another was that the ladder could have been dropped by the kidnappers when CAL pulled up to the house, they had already kidnapped the baby, became frighteneed that they might be seen just 75 feet away so they dropped the ladder and hurried down the path toward Featherbed Lane where their car was waiting. I've never been too surprised that there were no fingerprints at least of the kidnapper's as it was very cold and windy and likely wearing gloves. I've also thought CALjr. may have been put into a backpack to make it easier to go down the ladder.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 16, 2013 20:50:41 GMT -5
Interesting. While I sometimes wonder about this since he seems, at least on the surface, like an awfully good suspect, I do believe that Red Johnsen was pretty conclusively cleared of any involvement. As to dumping the ladder: Again, that's just not something I can see leaving behind under any circumstances, even panicky ones. I mean, if it was me, and especially after I'd already gotten it that far from the house, I'd hang onto that ladder at all costs until I could get it home and destroy it myself--unless, of course, as I said, the plan was to leave it behind all along. But as to fingerprints: Like you, I don't think there's anything strange at all about the kidnappers' fingerprints not being in the nursery. I think they certainly would've worn gloves. To me, what's odd is that while household members' prints were lifted from certain parts of the room later, there were no fingerprints ever found in certain other places in the nursery--not the family's, the servants', the baby's, nobody's. And apparently, these places were areas that a kidnapper entering by the window, going to the crib, and exiting by the window, would have to have touched. This is why I suggested a wipedown of those key areas--a breadcrumb trail similar to what was also found outside, but, in this case, left in the nursery. A trail of absent prints to indicate the window as the entry-exit point, and since whoever was in there obviously couldn't leave his own fingerprints to telegraph this trail, the only remaining option was to erase existing prints with a wipedown of those spots where no prints were ultimately found. Just my feeling for now though. Either way, why this trail had to be communicated, if this is indeed what happened, is the question for me. As to a backpack: I think it was pretty well determined that, at least at one point, CAL Jr. was in the burlap bag found by his body. Of course, that doesn't necessarily prove that bag was also used the night of his disappearance, so I can see where a backpack would've been a reasonable option that night.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Jul 16, 2013 21:05:05 GMT -5
In response to Fireballemc....."March 1 is tied-in to the Skyway murder of Harrison", do you have any other information about this? Also.. Michael, you had mentioned "Harry Mack, from Hartford, who is in the FBI files concerning the Purple Gang and Leavenworth angle of this case". Do you have any more info on that?? ....In theory, to the thoughts above, this kidnapping was all prepared in advanced, controlled. Charlie Jr., was brought to another home, a sick and dying child took his place in the NJ woods, Anne had another child. No one ever imagined that the general public would go into a frenzy.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Jul 16, 2013 21:12:13 GMT -5
Bookrefuge, you could be right about Bruno casing the place well in advance. The records for Robert Kierstead from my research showed him living next door from the Lindberghs in April of 1930.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Jul 16, 2013 21:33:10 GMT -5
This ladder thing is really bothering me. I kind of could see a real kidnapper trying to get his (their) ladder out of there. (Get rid of any evidence) But if the kidnapping was staged, then why move the ladder? Why not leave it at the window to "prove" the kidnapping was through the window?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 16, 2013 21:44:23 GMT -5
Lightningjew, I'm not sure about Henry Johnson either but driving around with the Junges never seemed like much of an alibi to me, and then he was so quickly deported. BR, I was wondering if you believe that Hauptman acted alone and was also Cemetary John, what you think Condon's level of involvement was. Could he really have been just a publicity-seeking-do-gooder that got in over his head?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 22:29:06 GMT -5
I must admit, trying to figure out the footprint evidence is challenging. Add to that the confusion caused by road names and it makes it even more difficult to figure out that scene.
The way I am seeing this at the moment is:
The access road and Hopewell-Amwell Road are used. Two cars are involved. The ladder car and the access road car. I believe it was decided after the two cars first meet up that only two sections of the ladder will be needed. The third section goes into the car that proceeds to the access road. The other two sections stay in the car that parks on Hopewell-Amwell Road. The ladder is carried up the driveway and the catwalk is used to place two sections of the ladder against the house. There is an inside assist. This person hands Charlie out the window to the person on the ladder. The ladder person carries the bulap bag in one hand and the two piece ladder in the other. He walks the 70 feet to where he drops the ladder. There is a person waiting there who has tossed the third section of the ladder onto the ground already. The two sets of prints proceed along the access road to where a car is waiting. One person gets into that car with the burlap bag. The other person continues on foot to the car parked on Hopewell-Amwell Road. Both cars leave the scene.
I believe all this occurs before Lindbergh officially arrives home.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 16, 2013 22:32:28 GMT -5
Hi kdwv. Again, I think the ladder was moved to be something of a breadcrumb in a trail, along with the note on the sill, the ladder-foot impressions in the mud below, and the chisel--all connected by footprints leading to and down an access road off the backyard. So rather than just leaving the ladder against the house, transporting it and leaving it at a point further away cuts down on the odds that this trail will be lost, bolstering and strengthening the route I believe these guys wanted to communicate for whatever reason. But again, this is just my take for now. And Stella, Red Johnsen would be one of my number one suspects, but, again, he seems to have been cleared. His sudden deportation, while sketchy in appearance, may've had more to do with some information I've heard that he and Betty were previously caught in a compromising situation, which Lindbergh wanted kept under wraps, so he arranged for Red to be spirited off back home and out of the picture before any of this came to light. Red was an illegal anyway, so this wouldn't have been too difficult to work out. And I know you asked BR about this, but as to Condon: Personally, I think the kidnappers were Bronx-based and knew (or at least knew of) Condon, a local celebrity of sorts. So he was approached by the kidnappers after they'd taken CAL Jr. and, initially unaware CAL Jr. was dead, Condon was unwittingly used as a pawn to blackmail Lindbergh for the $50K ransom, which I don't think was originally meant to be paid, but which the kidnappers subsequently decided to go for. I think they were using Condon for this purpose, and, once he discovered the baby was dead, realized he was in way over his head. And Amy, this is an interesting scenario. Out of curiosity, how far do you think the second car got up the access road, and how do you account for the car Anne said she heard on the driveway a few minutes after 8pm?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 16, 2013 22:44:26 GMT -5
Stella7, I hadn’t thought of that angle before. The 75-foot distance has always bothered me. If they’re trying to make it LOOK like an outside job, why move the ladder at all? If they were afraid of the wind blowing it over and attracting attention, they could have moved it 10 feet and laid it down. At 75 feet, it sounds like they were really trying to get it out of there, but got interrupted. I had been guessing that when the Lindberghs went upstairs at 9:15, that maybe the sight of lights turning on upstairs caused the ladder to be abandoned at that moment. But I’m interested in your angle—that it was Lindbergh’s horn and headlights that caused them to panic and abandon the ladder. This would move the snatch to an earlier time frame. Betty Gow said she last saw Charlie at 7:50. Anne heard a “car on gravel” at 8:05 to 8:10. Lindbergh beeped his horn at 8:25. If they are already moving the ladder at 8:25, it means they have executed the snatch with truly remarkable speed.
My own position has transitioned over the last 2 years from “Hauptmann innocent” to “Hauptmann part of a gang” and is inching closer to the possibility of “Hauptmann alone.” My own feeling until recently has been that Condon’s gross lying was indicative of guilt—especially when combined with the speed with which he was selected as go-between. I thought that he was promised no loot, just the fame and fortune that would go with returning the baby alive to Anne Lindbergh. And then, when he realized the baby was dead, and that he could become indicted as accessory to murder, he tried to throw the police off the trail with dozens of phony leads and his constantly changing stories. (Oops--I see LJ has just posted a similar take; a lot of people posting tonight, which is great.) HOWEVER, if Hauptmann did act alone, there would have to be another reason for Condon’s constant lying. Did he buy CJ’s story about a “gang” and fear for his family’s safety? I don’t know. Because my position on Hauptmann is in transition, my position on Condon may be in transition too, because it swings on the same hinge.
Babyinthe crib—I have never heard of Hauptmann living next to the Lindberghs. I don’t recall it’s being mentioned on this board or in any LKC book I have read.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 16, 2013 22:45:39 GMT -5
LJ, I tend to agree with you about Condon, that he agreed to help before he knew the baby was dead.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 16, 2013 23:01:31 GMT -5
I think it was something like that, yeah. I also think the kidnappers were paying him for his trouble--$20K to be exact--and that Condon was the "other person" referred to in the second ransom note, the person who had to be brought in once Lindbergh made this a "world affair" by calling the police. But I don't think this is why the ransom had to be raised. It wasn't because Lindbergh notified the police and stakes were now higher, but rather because this other person, Condon, needed to be paid for his trouble. So his fee was disguised as jacked-up ransom, and later, when Condon discovered the baby was dead--deducing this on his own or getting the jittery and frightened CJ to admit as much at St. Raymond's--he realized he couldn't accept any money, not with a dead child in the mix. So he had no choice but to forfeit his fee, removing the $20K from the ransom packet and returning it to Lindbergh under the guise of altruistically saving him money, supposedly by having talked the kidnappers into lowering the ransom to its original amount. I don't know, that's what it looks like to me.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 16, 2013 23:04:35 GMT -5
BR, it also occurred to me that Hauptman, as a carpenter would have considerable experience climbing ladders, so that aspect may not have been as daunting to him as we are assuming it would be. Also, in his haste to get the baby out of the room, he may have simply forgotten to leave the note in the crib and placed it on the windowsill as he was leaving instead. For the most part, I think there was a gang involved with perhaps one insider.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 17, 2013 8:21:59 GMT -5
I just wanted to say that the exact same thing occurred to me. The logical place to leave the note would be in the crib; leaving it on the windowsill risks the wind blowing it away as you exit via the window. Also interesting that Condon has CJ mentioning the note having been left in the crib.
What occurs to me is: the kidnapper planned to leave the note in the crib. But when he reached the crib and subdued the child—perhaps by a cloth soaked in ether, or even strangulation—it must have been an incredibly tense moment. As he gathered up the child—into a burlap bag, or even a backpack as some have suggested—he must have been filled with tension and fear. I can see how “logic” would have departed from his mind during the excitement of the moment, and he could have forgotten to put the note in the crib. Then, as he’s leaving via the window, it suddenly dawns on him—“Oh, no! the note! I forgot to leave it!” But he’s already on the ladder with the baby--no way he’s going to go back in just for the sake of having the note in the crib. So he pulls it from his pocket and leaves it on the sill.
Perhaps, in the cemetery, when CJ mentioned the note being in the crib, he mis-spoke--and referred to his original plan, rather than the actual final outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 17, 2013 17:14:02 GMT -5
But even so, I do see your point, which is why I'd like Michael's opinion on just how that front door worked. Was there a specific source concerning this door? Or are you referring to Curtis's theory which Lindbergh accepted. I am at a loss for the moment..... ***I see that both BC AND Stella are interested in the "accidental insider" theory. I believe many gave this as a possible explanation when considering Sharp as that person.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 17, 2013 20:26:06 GMT -5
This ladder thing is really bothering me. I kind of could see a real kidnapper trying to get his (their) ladder out of there. (Get rid of any evidence) But if the kidnapping was staged, then why move the ladder? Why not leave it at the window to "prove" the kidnapping was through the window? I've never fully understood why this ladder was moved myself. I've heard the theory that Lindbergh would have somehow seen it if they didn't move it. I don't agree. I believe it could have been placed under the window between the house and the Boardwalk and no one would have seen it until they went outside. So, like LJ, the movement seems more of a "road map" for the Police - or as Ho-age put it in his Report to Gov. Hoffman it was more of an announcement that: " The Kidnappers went this way." So its a staged situation, or they said to hell with it for whatever reason then abandoned the idea of taking it after originally deciding to. Since Stella and BR have suggested they might have been interrupted or frightened by Lindbergh's return, I know this theory was mentioned as a possibility in one of the Police Reports I've read but as of right now I can't seem to recall which. However, like Amy, I believe they were already gone by the time of his official arrival. The way I am seeing this at the moment is: I am interested to know which insider you and Stella think was the culprit? Or aren't either of you ready to "name names" yet?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 17, 2013 20:46:01 GMT -5
Oh, I'm new at this, no where near ready to "name names". I don't know very much about the Junges, where they ever under suspician?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 17, 2013 21:49:09 GMT -5
In terms of the front door, I've heard it was sticky and/or loud like BR suggested, so it therefore couldn't have have been used as a point of entry. Just wondering if this was in fact true. If not, I'm thinking they very conceivably could've entered through the front door, left unlocked by someone inside.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 18, 2013 5:19:32 GMT -5
In terms of the front door, I've heard it was sticky and/or loud like BR suggested, so it therefore couldn't have have been used as a point of entry. Just wondering if this was in fact true. If not, I'm thinking they very conceivably could've entered through the front door, left unlocked by someone inside. I was just trying to discover where you heard this and/or where we may have discussed it before. Sometimes things immediately flood my mind, while on other topics I need a "kick-start."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 18, 2013 5:23:56 GMT -5
Oh, I'm new at this, no where near ready to "name names". I don't know very much about the Junges, where they ever under suspician? That's totally understandable Stella. Even if you come up with someone its possible over the course of time you'll change your mind... As to your question.... It's hard for me to say the Jung's were "suspected" however, they were interested in what they had to say. That much is for sure. And the Cops pulled the old "Christian Burial" tactic with Mr. Jung while they had him in the car.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2013 10:44:23 GMT -5
Who do I think the insider is?
I am assuming that when you ask me this you want me to name who I think handed Charlie to the "kidnapper".
Let me start out by telling you who I don't think handed Charlie over:
I do not believe that Ollie or Elsie Whateley gave up Charlie. I do not believe that Anne gave up Charlie. I also do not believe that Betty Gow handed Charlie over.
I believe that someone did enter the house that evening. I even think this person used the front door. I believe there was a problem with the front door being difficult to open/unlock and needed to be done just the right way to avoid making noise and causing Wahgoosh to bark.
I believe the person who entered the house wasn't a stranger. His quiet footfalls were known to Wahgoosh. No need for him to bark. He recognized the quiet steps of his master.
I believe Lindbergh went up the front stairway and into the nursery and handed Charlie to the hired "kidnapper". I don't think Lindbergh would have entrusted this aspect to anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 18, 2013 11:53:24 GMT -5
Amy, I am considering this as well. And it begs the question, who killed Charlie?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 18, 2013 14:52:18 GMT -5
Quick question on this. Wouldn't a dog typically get up to GREET his master, especially after an absence? Now if Wahgoosh was a CAT...
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 18, 2013 18:33:50 GMT -5
Amy, do you think Lindbergh came home secretly, participated in a handoff, left, then returned again at 8:25-8:30? Also, as to the dog: my understanding is he was a random barker; sometimes he'd bark at nothing, sometimes at something. So I don't know if his silence or his barking can tell us anything about the timing of the crime or identity of the kidnappers, one way or the other. I mean, given the dog's disposition, the only thing that occurs to me which his silence might give away is the potential mindset of the intruder: "I know there's a dog. If he doesn't bark when I go in, so much the better. But if he does, well, no one's going to think anything of it or get up to investigate, because he barks randomly, often at nothing all. Either way, I'm safe, at least as far as the dog goes." I think this would require day-to-day insider knowledge of the household, so, at least circumstantially, I think Wahgoosh's silence could point to an insider knowing that he or she doesn't need to worry if the dog barks, which it happens that he didn't.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Jul 18, 2013 21:21:04 GMT -5
I believe Lindbergh went up the front stairway and into the nursery and handed Charlie to the hired "kidnapper". I don't think Lindbergh would have entrusted this aspect to anyone else. [/quote] OMG amy35! you are seriously blowing my mind (as the kids used to say, do they still?) by now i usually can get a sense of which suspect a member who posts regularly has their eye on. i didn't know you were suspecting CAL so much. i do not disagree necessarily, but would like to hear more of your theory. what would CALs reason be, and unhealthy non-perfect child, joke gone wrong etc.? was BRH just contracted to build the ladder and got caught spending his & Fisch's part of the ransom? really this case reminds me of another Agatha Christie story (fiction, i know, but the parallels are interesting) "The Disappearance of Johnnie Waverly" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poirot's_Early_Cases#The_Adventure_of_Johnnie_Waverly the father in that story sacked all the servants, which in fact made the kidnapping easier. like CAL with the watch man.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 18, 2013 22:06:39 GMT -5
I too believe Lindbergh had something to do with this, some sort of foreknowledge. Interesting point about him firing the guard. I knew vaguely that there was one and that he had been let go, but it never occurred to me it could've been to leave the property that much more vulnerable. Do we know exactly when Lindbergh got rid of the guard?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 19, 2013 5:55:56 GMT -5
Lots to think about since my last post!
I am still at a loss for the source of the "sticky" door. Is it in a book somewhere? I am drawing a blank at the moment....
On Wahgoosh: This Dog barked. He was a "Barker" by everyone's account - that is until Lindbergh took the stand and contradicted everyone. These types of Dogs usually learned someone's schedule or tendencies. They were smart. They were loyal. But they are also social Dogs, and like to meet Family at the door to say "hello." I would assume Wahgoosh would either bark or race to see Lindbergh. So for my money he didn't know he was home. In fact, he didn't know anyone was in the house at all outside of who was already there. In my opinion - this Dog was "prepared" for. He was an obstacle that was negotiated. No outsider could have achieved this. One doesn't build a ladder to spec, figure which window and time they need to strike but absolutely throw caution to the wind about (a) barking dog(s).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 10:17:54 GMT -5
This is probably the most difficult question to theorize an answer for. It is one I am still struggling with. Was it ill health, an accident or murder? I am considering all the options at this time.
I am sure that Wahgoosh would greet Lindbergh when he came into the house after passing through the garage and into the hallway. Probably the normal place for him to do so. But then this was not Lindbergh's normal place to enter when he came home. Could Wahgoosh have just been waiting in his basket for Lindbergh to appear so he could greet him?
Yes, I do. Timing is crucial to the success of this snatch. There is a small window of time in which to accomplish it. That is why Betty Gow's presence there is essential. It guarantees that period of undisturbed nursery time when Charlie can be removed from the room.
Wahgoosh was a barker. The family couldn't understand why he didn't bark that night. They were coming up with all kinds of excuses to try and understand why he didn't. Things like the wind noise that night, or the radio playing, or he was too far away. He should have barked but didn't. I have two dogs and they hear things I never hear and they will often hear something before I do. They know the sound and scent of the familiar from the not familiar.
A very good point and something I should definitely give consideration to.
All of the above should be considered when trying to figure out a motive for this crime. I think that Charlie had health issues that were probably affecting his development and appearance. I think that the public image of the Lindberghs was very important. In the eyes of the adoring public they were the perfect family. With a second child now on the way it would put the family under great pressure again. The media would want to see the new baby and the older brother. I think that this was an issue that would need to be addressed before the birth of the second child. I think it might have had bearing on Charlie's fate. Please keep in mind that this is only my theory. I don't wear blinders to anything. I don't think you can if you really want to take an objective look at this case.
I firmly believe that Hauptmann was not in Hopewell on March 1,1932 or any other night. Possession of the ransom money is evidence of extortion, not murder. I think he was brought into this by someone else, possibly Fisch.
Why don't you make this easy for us who think maybe the door had an issue and just tell us one way or the other if it did or did not. There is a thread on this board called Michael's Frontdoor Blockbuster. Something must be up with that front door and you know what it is. I am just venturing a guess on what that blockbuster might be. If this is something that is going into your book then I totally understand that you can't address this directly nor would I want you to give up a unique piece of your research on this board.
|
|