|
Post by fireballemc on Dec 16, 2013 17:07:27 GMT -5
The reasons for the ransom note on the window sill & not in the crib are varied, mine I think the best, in my book "The Lindbergh Baby Kidnap Conspiracy" that they had already LEFT the room out the window, forgot to leave it so reached back in and laid it there. But there might be a personal "revenge message" connected to it, that a literary man like James Warburg might use. The most Anti-Semitic line published in 1920 was in fellow banker T.S. Eliot's poem "Gerontian" - "And the jew squats on the window sill" using the lower case "j" for an extra dig. Perhaps James Warburg's revenge/anger could have also incorporated this element of payback.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 17, 2013 7:43:08 GMT -5
Leon Ho-age, who's best work was done on insurance fraud claims, asserted the note on the sill was purposely done by someone (an amateur/novice) attempting to set-up a "bread crumb" trail. A purposeful "they went this way" clue.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 17, 2013 13:37:25 GMT -5
A trail of absent fingerprints in the nursery, in places an intruder entering and exiting by the SE corner window would've had to touch; a ransom note on that windowsill; impressions of ladder footings in the mud below that window, with a chisel found nearby (to jimmy the window open from the outside); footprints leading away from this spot; a ladder; more footprints, which are ultimately replaced by tire tracks--all this does indeed sound very much like a bread crumb trail, and a pretty heavy handed one at that, one which was trying very hard to telegraph the notion of an outsider having to break in, without insider assistance of any kind.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Dec 17, 2013 21:28:48 GMT -5
I do agree with Fireball’s belief that the note was put on the sill because it was initially forgotten. I think the perp intended to leave it in the crib. But in the terrible and tense moment of smothering Charlie, perhaps with ether, and gathering up the child, the note step was forgotten. Then as he stands atop the ladder—or perhaps even after he’s descended it with the child--he suddenly realizes his error. But there’s no way he’s risking going back into the room. He takes the note from his pocket, lays it on the sill, and closes the window.
It is credible to me that the note was missed on the first search of the room because what they’re initially looking for is Charlie. They’re not totally sure he’s been kidnapped yet—they’re wondering if he somehow got out of the crib. The initial focus of their eyes is “little boy” rather than “crime clue,” and the note, while out of place, was probably not a glaring attention-grabber.
I think when CJ told Condon the note was left in the crib, he may have misspoken—recalling his intent rather than the actual outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 18, 2013 17:18:35 GMT -5
I do agree with Fireball’s belief that the note was put on the sill because it was initially forgotten. I think the perp intended to leave it in the crib. But in the terrible and tense moment of smothering Charlie, perhaps with ether, and gathering up the child, the note step was forgotten. Then as he stands atop the ladder—or perhaps even after he’s descended it with the child--he suddenly realizes his error. But there’s no way he’s risking going back into the room. He takes the note from his pocket, lays it on the sill, and closes the window. It's certainly an option when looking at the situation. However, I for one think its at the bottom of the list. The ability for someone to map out and pull this whole thing off, like it was, cannot be expected to remember everything excepting the 2nd most important (or the 1st equally along with the child) part of the plot. It is credible to me that the note was missed on the first search of the room because what they’re initially looking for is Charlie. They’re not totally sure he’s been kidnapped yet—they’re wondering if he somehow got out of the crib. The initial focus of their eyes is “little boy” rather than “crime clue,” and the note, while out of place, was probably not a glaring attention-grabber. I think I'm at the same place on this as I am above. The child was missing and Betty immediately believed Lindbergh took him. Another "prank" she confided, and perhaps a 3rd to the previous 2 knee-slapping "jokes." And so, looking at it through this lens, if she is being truthful then she always believed the child had been "kidnapped." I think when CJ told Condon the note was left in the crib, he may have misspoken—recalling his intent rather than the actual outcome. He mis-spoke a TON during his conversations with Condon didn't he?
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Mar 8, 2014 19:38:10 GMT -5
Michael, Did LE check the Lindbergh house (office/study) for a paper/stationary or envelope match to the ransom note?
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Mar 8, 2014 21:10:57 GMT -5
A trail of absent fingerprints in the nursery, in places an intruder entering and exiting by the SE corner window would've had to touch; a ransom note on that windowsill; impressions of ladder footings in the mud below that window, with a chisel found nearby (to jimmy the window open from the outside); footprints leading away from this spot; a ladder; more footprints, which are ultimately replaced by tire tracks--all this does indeed sound very much like a bread crumb trail, and a pretty heavy handed one at that, one which was trying very hard to telegraph the notion of an outsider having to break in, without insider assistance of any kind. I'd be surprised if anyone actually used the ladder to leave the house that night.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 8, 2014 23:33:22 GMT -5
Agreed. I think the ladder was a prop. But since the ladder was so unique and at least a part of one section pretty clearly came from Hauptmann's home, what I don't know is why someone would need or risk building such a customized and therefore easily traceable prop. Were the others trying to frame Hauptmann for the whole thing? Either way, Hauptmann was no dummy, so why would he build something that could be so definitively tied to him? Did he not know what the ladder was for? Money and gain seemed to be the overriding factors for Hauptmann, so was his involvement only to the extent of, "Just cobble together a ladder, no questions asked, and we'll give you $15K?" And as for leaving his figurative fingerprints all over the ladder by using wood from his house in its construction, could it simply be that, whether he knew the ladder's purpose or not, Hauptmann thought he was safe because it never occurred to him that the wood could be traced (forensics still being pretty rudimentary at the time)?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2014 11:36:13 GMT -5
Michael, Did LE check the Lindbergh house (office/study) for a paper/stationary or envelope match to the ransom note? I have never seen any evidence they had. The only thing I have ever found, along these lines, is that Sgt. Gardner discovered a dowel in the corner of Col. Lindbergh's Library of identical size and quality as that used in the ladder.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Mar 9, 2014 12:23:46 GMT -5
Michael, Did LE check the Lindbergh house (office/study) for a paper/stationary or envelope match to the ransom note? I have never seen any evidence they had. The only thing I have ever found, along these lines, is that Sgt. Gardner discovered a dowel in the corner of Col. Lindbergh's Library of identical size and quality as that used in the ladder. WOW! What if anything came from this? Was this just completely ignored? Did CAL get a free pass?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2014 13:34:13 GMT -5
WOW! What if anything came from this? Was this just completely ignored? Did CAL get a free pass? I found it during one of my first trips to the NJSP Archives. I remember saying to myself " it can't be this easy." Unfortunately it is the one and only place I have ever seen any reference to it whatsoever. I don't think I've ever shared this before but I couldn't see how I could properly answer your question truthfully without doing so. So its a piece of the puzzle perhaps. Or perhaps not. But without any follow-up or additional information available to consult its simply something I look to either add or take away from other things that do. Know what I mean? I consider all the possibilities. First, does it represent evidence that Troopers were closely searching the house - room by room - or was it stumbled upon harmlessly and/or accidentally? Next, what could be the possible explanations for it being there? Finally, what explanations can I come up with as to why there is no further mention? I could get a couple of pages, just from this one thing, all worthy of consideration. As an example, if you remember during the Schindler Investigation the Police wanted to know where a certain blanket that had been seen in Highfields had disappeared to. They spent a considerable amount of time investigating this which led no where. So it could have been something important that someone was trying to get rid of, or it could have been something as simple as it being taken by a Trooper who needed a blanket for his cot at Skillman but was afraid to say anything about it for fear he'd lose his job once seeing all the fuss that kicked off over it.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Mar 9, 2014 19:22:13 GMT -5
He mis-spoke a TON during his conversations with Condon didn't he?
I always found it interesting authorities were so ready to deal with CJ when he really didn't show a lot of knowledge about the crime scene.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 9, 2014 23:48:01 GMT -5
Everything we know about CJ's words comes from Condon, so I think it's really more Condon who displays a lack of knowledge of the crime scene--which would make sense, since he assuredly wasn't there and is reporting the second-hand words of someone who ostensibly was. But I think he was putting words in CJ's mouth. I think their actual conversations were very different from what Condon subsequently told police and wrote in that ridiculous book of his. After all, if you read Condon's book, the Woodlawn/St. Raymond dialogs sound like just that--dialog. Bad dialog at that; something you'd hear on a radio serial of the day or something--in short, totally false and made up. So given this kind of thing, rather than CJ, I think the question becomes why were the police so willing to deal with Condon? I think the answer to that is, who was running the investigation and insisting Condon was legit?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 11, 2014 11:02:07 GMT -5
While it would seem no further investigation done on this matching dowel (shocker), it seems we have a ladder that has sections built at both Highfields and Hauptmann's home... What does this signify?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 13:26:32 GMT -5
It really is a let down that no follow up was done on that wood dowel but not surprising because it was found in Lindbergh's home. In Adam Schrager's book The 16th Rail, he mentions that before Hauptmann was in the picture he was suspicious of Condon. Koehler's examination of the dowels showed they were made of yellow birch which is much stronger that white. He also felt that the shiny finish on the dowels was from handling, possibly handling by sweaty hands. He felt the birch dowels could have been part of a gymnastics apparatus.
Perhaps Koehler's reasoning could signify a possible source for the dowel wood? Michael, have you ever come across such a report by Koehler? Schrager does not have footnotes for his book. UGH! He talks about this on page 131 of his book.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 11, 2014 16:24:07 GMT -5
I remember reading that the dowel found in the ladder could've come from a gym apparatus of some sort, yeah. Makes one think of Condon being an athletics instructor... That being said, I don't think he had anything to do with the ladder or its construction. I think he was approached by the kidnappers after CAL Jr. was taken and unwittingly used as leverage to get more money out of Lindbergh--the $50K ransom mentioned in the nursery note. I don't think Condon found out until later, at Woodlawn, that CAL Jr. was dead. I say this because, if he knew from the very beginning, it would've been insanity to have gotten involved in the case. But anyway, the ladder dowel... If it matched a dowel found at Highfields and wood from the ladder also matched a lumber pile in Hauptmann's home--I mean, this is pretty astonishing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 16:53:10 GMT -5
Along those lines, do you happen to know when they found the ladder if they recovered one dowel or two? The reason I am asking is because the two sections of ladder that were used had the wood dowel still attaching them together. The third section of ladder which was found at the scene would have reguried a second dowel to be used if the ladder had all three sections together at anytime while at Highfields. Do you know if the second dowel was recovered at the scene?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 11, 2014 17:56:14 GMT -5
I don't know. I think I remember just one dowel being found outside, connecting the bottom two sections, but I could be wrong about that. If I'm not mistaken, I think only that separate top section contained wood from the Hauptmann lumber pile, and I don't think that section had a dowel that attached it to the rest of the ladder. If all this is true, it might be said that that top section was unnecessary to the rest of the ladder, only brought and planted at the scene to implicate Hauptmann. But this assumes that those who sought to frame him knew that wood could be traced to an individual. And I could be wrong about another dowel not being found there to begin with. Michael?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2014 20:53:05 GMT -5
Michael, have you ever come across such a report by Koehler? Schrader does not have footnotes for his book. UGH! He talks about this on page 131 of his book. I have them all Amy. I will have to search but I know I have it. But this assumes that those who sought to frame him knew that wood could be traced to an individual. And I could be wrong about another dowel not being found there to begin with. Michael? Okay here it goes.... There are several accounts of finding the ladder. The one I believe is accurate belongs to Trooper Bornman who said: In picking the ladders up I noticed that one section was split. The other section had a dowel through it. There was a dowel and a wood chisel laying near the section that was farthest away, in other words, the third section. So there's one still in the ladder section and another laying near the chisel. 1 + 1 = 2. I believe those who said they saw only one counted only what they saw laying near the chisel and didn't account for the one in the section. What backs this up is Kelly's Report concerning sending the ladder, chisel, and dowel pins (plural) to Washington D.C. to be analyzed. Once at the Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, it was here that the Ladder first got it famous numberings from Brush & Betts for its parts: The Steps were 1-11, the Rails 12-17, and the Dowels 18-19.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 11, 2014 22:44:58 GMT -5
Okay, so there were actually two dowels--that is, the whole ladder was found outside. But, in any case, what we have here is a ladder that contains wood from Hauptmann's house and a dowel identical to one found at Highfields. What's the explanation for this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2014 11:41:31 GMT -5
From what I can understand, Squire Johnson was the first person with wood knowledge to examine the ladder. Johnson was Assistant Director of Construction with the New Jersey Division of Architecture and Construction. He identified the wood dowels as being maple. He is also the person who discovered the wood dowel in the Highfields house and claimed it was the same as the wood dowels of the ladder. Johnson also claimed that the rungs in all three sections of the ladder were white pine lumber and all the side rails to be shortleaf yellow pine. These are Johnson's initial findings. His final report to Col. Schwarzkopf would read differently.
When Kelly took the ladder, chisel and dowel pins to Washington D.C. for analysis by the Bureau of Chemistry and Soils (Michael mentions in his post), the senior engineer H.S.Betts sent wood samples to the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin. The director there had Arthur Koehler examine the samples. Koehler's finding were quite different from Squire Johnson's. Briefly, Koehler found that the rungs and rails came from several different wood, Douglas Fir, Ponderosa Pine and Yellow Pine. He found dowel #18 to be paper birch and not maple. Koehler only mentions evaluating the one dowel sample. I guess that they only sent one sample of dowel wood and it came from the #18 dowel. It is to be assumed that the #19 dowel was the same wood as #18.
If both dowels are of the same paper birch wood then it makes the maple wood found in Highfields house of no significance. It also makes Johnson look like he doesn't know one wood from another. Not good for him!
I do have a question though. How many dowels did the prosecution offer for identification and to be received as evidence during the Hauptmann trial?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 13, 2014 14:00:17 GMT -5
From what I can understand, Squire Johnson was the first person with wood knowledge to examine the ladder. Johnson was Assistant Director of Construction with the New Jersey Division of Architecture and Construction. This depends on what one considers "wood knowledge." I know you aren't using the word "expert" but even here, it was this case that created the term which would be attached to Koehler. But as to those who claimed "wood knowledge" several people looked it over before March 7th. He identified the wood dowels as being maple. He is also the person who discovered the wood dowel in the Highfields house and claimed it was the same as the wood dowels of the ladder. Johnson also claimed that the rungs in all three sections of the ladder were white pine lumber and all the side rails to be shortleaf yellow pine. These are Johnson's initial findings. His final report to Col. Schwarzkopf would read differently. Squire Johnson made a visual inspection and took measurements. It was the most detailed prior to its complete inspection at the Bureau of Chemistry and Soils. "Ponderosa Pine" was known to many people as "White Pine." So, for me, its easy to see that Johnson never checked the for Douglas Fir after noticing the rungs he looked at were white pine. As far as attempting to identify lumber, it shows his examination doesn't come close to the level Koehler would eventually undertake. When Kelly took the ladder, chisel and dowel pins to Washington D.C. for analysis by the Bureau of Chemistry and Soils (Michael mentions in his post), the senior engineer H.S.Betts sent wood samples to the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin. The director there had Arthur Koehler examine the samples. Koehler's finding were quite different from Squire Johnson's. Briefly, Koehler found that the rungs and rails came from several different wood, Douglas Fir, Ponderosa Pine and Yellow Pine. He found dowel #18 to be paper birch and not maple. Koehler only mentions evaluating the one dowel sample. I guess that they only sent one sample of dowel wood and it came from the #18 dowel. It is to be assumed that the #19 dowel was the same wood as #18. Koehler made a detailed study of these pieces in the Forest Product Laboratory. That's a huge difference compared to the situation concerning Johnson's inspection. I know that Koehler made invasive study at times to be certain to the identity of specific pieces of wood. So while I would certainly agree that Koehler was more knowledgeable about wood then Johnson was, I would say its impossible to say what quick observations he might have made under the circumstances Johnson found himself under when visually inspecting this ladder. If both dowels are of the same paper birch wood then it makes the maple wood found in Highfields house of no significance. It also makes Johnson look like he doesn't know one wood from another. Not good for him! Let me say first that I am not a wood expert of any kind. What I've learned I've done so by researching this case. Now, Koehler says these dowels are "paper birch" after his original examination where he had the benefit of his Lab. In his 3-4-33 examination, he says the dowels were " probably white birch...." Remember, this is after his 2nd and even more detailed study. On March 17, 1933, Koehler and Bornmann went to Kneeland, Morrill Lumber Company. Here he was told the Birch Dowels were "yellow birch" and not white birch. Koehler doesn't argue but appears to consider this could be the case. Now use this information when considering Johnson claimed the birch dowels, both the ladder dowels and the one found in Lindbergh's Library, were all "Maple." I have consulted wood experts who tell me that visual differences of maple vs. birch aren't big and it isn't impossible they could be confused. So for me, Johnson misidentifying birch for maple appears both consistent and in good faith. That doesn't invalidate the find in the Library as far as I am concerned. Finally, and I believe this is important, Koehler claimed in his 3-4-33 examination that these dowels " might have been cut from the same piece although the annual rings did not show perfect matching, yet there is nothing to make it appear impossible." However, in January 1935 he wrote: " The two dowels for fastening the ladder sections together are 3/4" in diameter. The grain of the two matches end to end showing thereby that they were cut from one piece at least 2-1/2' long." Here he changes his mind after Hauptmann's arrest AND 2-1/2' is pretty close to a piece measuring 3'. So we have many things to ponder about this. I do have a question though. How many dowels did the prosecution offer for identification and to be received as evidence during the Hauptmann trial? I believe S-33 was just one of the dowel pins.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2014 15:46:18 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for bringing more detail to this wood issue. I find this to be the most difficult part of this case to understand so your comments are most helpful to me.
Would you know why only one wood dowel was entered as evidence? They entered all 3 sections of the ladder, why not both dowels?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 13, 2014 15:55:48 GMT -5
Would you know why only one wood dowel was entered as evidence? They entered all 3 sections of the ladder, why not both dowels? I made a mistake Amy. S-33 and S-212 were dowel pins - so both were entered. Michael, have you ever come across such a report by Koehler? Schrader does not have footnotes for his book. UGH! He talks about this on page 131 of his book. I've been doing some searching for you but haven't been able to locate this one. I thought it was in the Trial Transcripts but at 2329 he is saying "mop handles" as a common size for the 3/4" birch dowel. One of the last things Koehler wrote that I possess says this: Efforts were made to determine the possible origin of the birch dowels used in fastening the ladder sections together. Toy stores, 5- and 10- cent stores, department stores, mail-order houses were visited to see for what kind of handle or other article 3/4-inch dowels are used. That the dowels in the ladder had been used for a handle or similar article was indicated by the smooth glossy surface that had been worn on them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2014 16:31:02 GMT -5
You are right, of course, about the Library wood possibly being misidentified as maple instead of birch. It is something I never even thought of and I should not have been so quick to dismiss it. Perhaps there was a sheen on that Library dowel that made it appear to look more like maple.
If the wood dowel in the Library was actually found by a trooper, do you know if Lindbergh was ever asked about it? Would this dowel have been retained by the officers or does something have to be considered evidence in order for it to be kept by police officials?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 13, 2014 19:09:39 GMT -5
If the wood dowel in the Library was actually found by a trooper, do you know if Lindbergh was ever asked about it? Would this dowel have been retained by the officers or does something have to been considered evidence in order for it to be kept in police officials? It's possible its in a crate somewhere in the old barracks, but then again, the shutters are gone, the chisel is gone, so it isn't promising. Mark would be the only guy who would know the odds of it. I have nothing else to offer. I do know that Squire Johnson spoke with Defense. It's where Pope got the information to ask Koehler about the piece found in the Library, and referred to the dowel pins as being maple during cross. (I am pretty sure his job was threatened if he testified which would explain why he didn't.) Koehler denied any knowledge about the dowel found in the Library and once again asserted the dowels were birch. SJ was also friendly with the Governor, and I believe he assisted with the Snook Ladder Report rebuttal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2014 19:40:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2014 20:17:38 GMT -5
Michael, I always thought it was Lindbergh's idea not to open the nursery note until the fingerprint officer arrived at the house. It seems some else says it was their idea We know that Lindbergh did say that. It's one of those things where all the sources should be pulled to see who said what - and when. It could be Williamson is turning it around, or that he did tell Lindbergh, then Lindbergh told somebody else. It could be Lindbergh said it first, then later asked Williamson what he thought. Many combinations could have occurred that night, and even if we did examine each and every source it's possible we wind up where we started.
|
|