jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 29, 2017 11:38:47 GMT -5
Thanks Kate:
Ya, I knew Lupica couldn't identify Hauptmann, although Fisher wrote that Lupica identified BRH in the lineup, but from his notes of that I can't figure out where he got it. Things should be verified if possible so we don't start making stuff up - AKA newspaper coverage. In a very later interview Lupica said he stated that he did identify a similarity between the laddercar driver and Hauptmann - they were both white guys!
Lupica did come up with a general description of Richard (middle-aged white man in a Dodge car with extension ladder which fit into the car and a slouch hat and overcoat) long before anyone ever heard of Hauptmann. The reason the prosecution didn't use Ben L. was that the car didn't quite match Hauptmann's and Lupica had sold his story to a magazine which is a no-no prosecution-wise (I don't agree with that). He wound up being used by defense which, if you think about it must have really hurt them with the jury.
What threw me was your statement that Lupica said the laddercar driver resembled CAL - which, as you've restated, he never did.
Good job finding that stuff, Kate!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jun 29, 2017 12:14:46 GMT -5
Or perhaps Lindbergh was purportedly upset as a result of having been up all night, and attempting to sort through the details of a life-altering event. How do you know it was Lupica's presence and statement that upset him, or it was as a result of some upsetting news he had received two minutes earlier? The simplicity of your cause and effect logic into rock solid pronouncement here, is pretty astounding.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 29, 2017 12:54:33 GMT -5
Hi Amy,
Regarding the tree stump, could this be what you are trying to remember?
It’s not a tree stump per se, but it is tree related.
In his ‘Memorandum of Henry Breckinridge Re: Berritella Séance’, Breck says: “She (Mary) stated that near the Lindbergh house is a tree broken over. (There is such a tree in the rear of the house.)”
This “broken tree” reference seems to have caught Breck’s attention.
Of course, you have to wonder how many farmlands of around 500 acres don’t have tree stumps or broken trees.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 29, 2017 15:22:36 GMT -5
Kate: wasn't Lupica interviewed late in life, said he was unhappy with how the trial went? I remember reading that somewhere. From what I recall, Lupica seemed lucid, with a good memory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2017 15:45:42 GMT -5
Hi Amy, Regarding the tree stump, could this be what you are trying to remember? It’s not a tree stump per se, but it is tree related. In his ‘Memorandum of Henry Breckinridge Re: Berritella Séance’, Breck says: “She (Mary) stated that near the Lindbergh house is a tree broken over. (There is such a tree in the rear of the house.)” This “broken tree” reference seems to have caught Breck’s attention. Of course, you have to wonder how many farmlands of around 500 acres don’t have tree stumps or broken trees. Thanks Wayne. That is definitely the source I recall. When I saw that letter Michael posted, it did make me remember reading about that tree in the Lindbergh's backyard. Mary Cerrita really believed that Hauptmann was not the kidnapper. So it started me wondering if that letter to Fisher might have been generated by Cerrita to try and help Hauptmann. Of course, I don't know enough about the letter to know if that were possible. I am hoping that Michael will have something to share about how and when this letter made its way to Fisher.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 29, 2017 18:06:50 GMT -5
Kate: wasn't Lupica interviewed late in life, said he was unhappy with how the trial went? I remember reading that somewhere. From what I recall, Lupica seemed lucid, with a good memory. Absolutely. In 1992 by Gregory Ahlgren and Stephen Monier for their book. He had retired after 37 years as a research chemist. At the time he had Parkinson's Disease but memory was very clear. He was disgusted by the trial especially Lindbergh sitting at the prosecution table as well as press misquoting him. He was a witness for the defense and knew Hochmuth and Whited, both whom he stated testified for the money.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 29, 2017 20:14:18 GMT -5
I believe that a thin layer of mud from one of the kidnapper's feet, was deposited upon the nursery floor rug, but fully disagree that the foot imprint was made prior to getting onto the ladder. It was made following the descent from the ladder and represented a firm step down. Look closely at the picture showing the relative placement of the narrow piece of tongue-and-groove flooring where according to your theory, two kidnappers supposedly balanced to raise the ladder, the forward-facing left footprint and the ladder rail imprints, and please explain to me how what you just said, was actually accomplished in reality, ie. the foot imprint being made on approach to the ladder. I'm really not belabouring this unnecessarily Michael, but I would like to get to the root of a major conundrum, as one of us is overlooking or ignoring something absolutely critical here. The ladder is assembled in two sections in the driveway. They carry it with one at the front and one at the back. They raise it sideways, let it hit the wall, push it up the wall (explaining the scratches being BELOW where the top of the ladder comes to rest), then place it in the ground. The man on the right either loses his balance a little and steps off the board with one foot. Or he steps off the board with one foot into the mud on purpose. From there that man steps onto the rail with either foot the steps onto it with the next. Yes, agreed that we have a double set of footprints leaving the area and that there were probably two kidnappers involved here. More importantly, do you know the approximate distance between the ladder rail imprints, and the point at which those retreating footprints first begins? No. None of the pictures give us this. All of the reports say or imply they began under the window and lead to where the ladder was discovered. The Police sketch that I included in my book on page 190 is a perfect example of this. It certainly appears that from most accounts Lupica was a strong and believable witness in this case. It appears that he did not waiver from what he first stated, and even under great pressure did not try to identify the driver of the vehicle-maintaining that he did not get that good of a look at his facial features. If you believe his account of what occurred, then he saw a kidnapper with the ladder, and he saw that kidnapper make a very unusual maneuver with his vehicle. That maneuver had only one reasonable explanation. I believe that in his book, Michael indicated that a researcher by the name of Lehmann first offered the explanation, and I think Lehmann nailed it. For that kidnapper (just hours before the crime, and that close to Lindbergh's place) to pull in front of Lupica's oncoming vehicle and cross to the opposite side of the road and stop, thus allowing Lupica to pull up along side, well it can have no rational explanation other than the kidnapper wanted to speak with the driver of Lupica's vehicle. Agreed. He proceded slowly then crossed over in front of him giving him full view of the ladders which immediately caught Lupica's attention. It was the ladders, and the action of crossing over in front of him that made this car stand out. Kind of like when a Russian MIG tilts it's wings to show other planes they are armed. Here, he's showing Lupica he has the ladder and that he is the the right party. All of these movements were very obvious and suspicious acts. Seems logical to assume he was prepared to get out of the car to meet with whoever he believed Lupica was supposed to be. Once Lupica drove by, this car slowly pulled away. Why? Perhaps he was looking to see if Lupica stopped or backed up. Certainly debatable, but since there's clear evidence of more then one person involved I can't see it being dismissed outright. The reason the prosecution didn't use Ben L. was that the car didn't quite match Hauptmann's and Lupica had sold his story to a magazine which is a no-no prosecution-wise (I don't agree with that). He wound up being used by defense which, if you think about it must have really hurt them with the jury. I have to disagree with this. They didn't use him because he would not say it was Hauptmann. Wilentz tried to coerce him but he would not do it. Despite this, the State still issued him a subpoena and paid for his expenses for being in Flemington ($17 up front and $34 after the trial was over). My guess is Wilentz either held out hope he could convince him to change his mind, or it was an effort to dissuade the Defense from calling him. Michael - Since you posted this letter, do you know anything about where it was mailed from and when Fisher came in possession of it? Is there any date associated with this letter? He received it on April 8, 1936 and doesn't say where it was mailed from. He sent it to Hoffman thinking it " might check in with something" he had in mind.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 30, 2017 1:28:42 GMT -5
You could be right about Lupica's not testifying against Hauptmann as being the "real" reason he wasn't called by the prosecution.
There was an incident in the big O.J. Trial however, where a woman witnessed Simpson leaving the area of Nichole's residence shortly after the murders would have been committed in his Bronco and speeding and driving very erratically. She was not called by the prosecution and they gave the reason as because she'd sold the tale to the Enquirer. Because of that and the Lupica conflict I figured the prosecution wouldn't take on self-preservation witnesses.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 30, 2017 10:10:50 GMT -5
amy you think for one minute with all the evidence against Hauptman that luplica would have made a difference? he wasn't that great a witness
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 30, 2017 13:44:27 GMT -5
Regarding my post above which makes it very unlikely that the kidnapper was "waiting for an accomplice," it seems the guy in the car with the ladder got himself into a bad spot. To continue he'd have to pass a local (Ben Lupica) driver window to driver window with his head and face uncovered and there'd be a solid identifier witness to The Lindbergh Crime unless he wanted to look more suspicious by hiding his face, so he took his only option of driving to the wrong side of the road which made him least observable with the ladder even partially hiding him. His doing that is the reason Lupica could never identify him.
To reexplain this as you always do Amy, you might throw in the kind of car which ladderman drove (same as Hauptmann's) and maybe his hat.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 30, 2017 13:48:16 GMT -5
Regarding my post above which makes it very unlikely that the kidnapper was "waiting for an accomplice," it seems the guy in the car with the ladder got himself into a bad spot. To continue he'd have to pass a local (Ben Lupica) driver window to driver window with his head and face uncovered and there'd be a solid identifier witness to The Lindbergh Crime unless he wanted to look more suspicious by hiding his face, so he took his only option of driving to the wrong side of the road which made him least observable with the ladder even partially hiding him. His doing that is the reason Lupica could never identify him. To reexplain this as you always do Amy, you might throw in the kind of car which ladderman drove (same as Hauptmann's) and maybe his hat. He said he definitely saw a New Jersey license plate. By the amount of numbers it was local.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 30, 2017 14:38:05 GMT -5
License plate is the easiest thing to switch for a B&E crook. Just about always done.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 30, 2017 14:51:30 GMT -5
For what it's worth, Joe, I was walking my dog at the park the morning after a heavy rain. Parts of the field were soggy mud and other areas even just a couple of feet away were hard dirt and would not show a footprint. So I think you are correct that the dirt under Charlie's window was hard and unyielding except for the heavy step down and the ladder marks from the weight of the kidnapper. Still baffles me that there were no footprints leading to the crime scene observed though.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2017 16:57:30 GMT -5
For what it's worth, Joe, I was walking my dog at the park the morning after a heavy rain. Parts of the field were soggy mud and other areas even just a couple of feet away were hard dirt and would not show a footprint. So I think you are correct that the dirt under Charlie's window was hard and unyielding except for the heavy step down and the ladder marks from the weight of the kidnapper. Still baffles me that there were no footprints leading to the crime scene observed though. Here is Cpl. Wolf's observation: " For a distance of about 90 feet on the east and south the grounds have been levelled [sic] off with fresh dirt which was wet at the time of crime and showed footprints etc." So while I agree that certain situations, as the one you encountered, could yield various results - the circumstances here do not allow for it. I've said earlier that nearer to the wall under the window would probably be the firmest possibility, yet, we have the small footprints (attributed to Anne) that are there which proves this area would also have been soft enough. Exhibit S-35 is a great example.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 17:00:04 GMT -5
Michael - Since you posted this letter, do you know anything about where it was mailed from and when Fisher came in possession of it? Is there any date associated with this letter? He received it on April 8, 1936 and doesn't say where it was mailed from. He sent it to Hoffman thinking it " might check in with something" he had in mind. Thanks Michael for sharing that date. Sadly, Fischer didn't get it until after Hauptmann had been executed. If anything important could have been generated from this note it would have been too late to help Richard. I think it is an interesting letter though and can see how it might have played into certain aspects of the kidnapping.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 17:03:40 GMT -5
amy you think for one minute with all the evidence against Hauptman that luplica would have made a difference? he wasn't that great a witness Steve, Ben Lupica was honest in his testimony. You can't do any better than that as a witness. There was a lot of lying and manipulating of the truth on both sides of this trial. Lupica took the high road and told the truth about what he saw.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 30, 2017 17:44:32 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, could the lights from the house have provided enough light to illuminate the narrow walkway?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 30, 2017 18:17:20 GMT -5
License plate is the easiest thing to switch for a B&E crook. Just about always done. Rural county....did anyone report a stolen plate? On a wet night it's surprising mud didn't cover it. The picture shows a large and easy to read plate.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2017 19:07:51 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, could the lights from the house have provided enough light to illuminate the narrow walkway? I don't want to talk anyone out of an alternate theory but there's just nothing out there from anyone who said this area wasn't muddy. It's not a knock on Joe, he's thinking outside the box, but if this were the case then it would have come up somewhere. It is exactly why the boards were there - because it was muddy. Now other areas outside of this yard weren't like this. Take the abandoned road - the Kidnappers' prints showed there, but they could have walked in an area that did not show them. In fact, there was a patch of land where these prints disappeared before re-appearing. So this area and the road would fit the criteria Joe suggests. But that yard was a whole different situation. Of course everyone is free to disagree but I think it would be unconscionable for me to stand mute on this subject knowing what I do. I believe if the shutters were open and the lights on - it would cast some light on a section of a board immediately in front of it - but to walk the entire lengths would require a flashlight at a bear minimum in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2017 19:11:43 GMT -5
License plate is the easiest thing to switch for a B&E crook. Just about always done. Agreed. Only problem is we have an example of Hauptmann spending ransom money: 1. Without a disguise.
2. With his real tag on his car.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 30, 2017 19:59:26 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, could the lights from the house have provided enough light to illuminate the narrow walkway? I don't want to talk anyone out of an alternate theory but there's just nothing out there from anyone who said this area wasn't muddy. It's not a knock on Joe, he's thinking outside the box, but if this were the case then it would have come up somewhere. It is exactly why the boards were there - because it was muddy. Now other areas outside of this yard weren't like this. Take the abandoned road - the Kidnappers' prints showed there, but they could have walked in an area that did not show them. In fact, there was a patch of land where these prints disappeared before re-appearing. So this area and the road would fit the criteria Joe suggests. But that yard was a whole different situation. Of course everyone is free to disagree but I think it would be unconscionable for me to stand mute on this subject knowing what I do. I believe if the shutters were open and the lights on - it would cast some light on a section of a board immediately in front of it - but to walk the entire lengths would require a flashlight at a bear minimum in my opinion. I was thinking about this and I think somewhere I read the door to the study was closed and that room and a quest room overlooked that end of the house where the nursery was. I don't think there would have been any light coming from those windows at the time of the kidnapping. I've never heard of any kind of flood lights on the house and the garage was at the other end. Just my thoughts here.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 1, 2017 1:35:01 GMT -5
Sure, Michael, Hauptmann flawed when he was spending ransom money - we were talking about a criminal doing an actual burglary, or more specifically Lupica's visitor about to do one. Regarding what Kate said about tracking the NJ plate down, etc. there just are some things we'll never know. I'm not a burglar but I've known a few and they're pretty creative at their business. They'd have a way of getting a plate off of an abandoned car which wouldn't be reported right away, junkyard, long-term lease, etc. Perhaps even returning the plate when they're done.
It would be interesting to hear some of the stories you must have about criminals Michael. On the ID channel they've run a couple of times about the same bank robbers robbing the same bank three times. The robbers turned out to be current police officers doing it in their spare time. Maybe you've seen it - they caught 'em by the video of the pattern of one of their shirts which they found in a home search.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 1, 2017 7:36:59 GMT -5
Sure, Michael, Hauptmann flawed when he was spending ransom money - we were talking about a criminal doing an actual burglary, or more specifically Lupica's visitor about to do one. I think if someone is smart enough to conceal their identity by switching plates before committing a burglary, that would be a misdemeanor at the time, they certainly follow that pattern before passing ransom which could lead to the death penalty. To me - it's not a goof or a flaw but shows a glaring difference to consider because I would expect this pattern to continue if it's the same person. All the more reason in this situation. Regarding what Kate said about tracking the NJ plate down, etc. there just are some things we'll never know. I'm not a burglar but I've known a few and they're pretty creative at their business. They'd have a way of getting a plate off of an abandoned car which wouldn't be reported right away, junkyard, long-term lease, etc. Perhaps even returning the plate when they're done. Schindler's car is a good example having been found with a stolen plate. The only thing that concerns me is if this happened here, and I agree with Jack that it definitely could have, it is risky swiping it in (Mercer County) because now you have to worry about being seen doing that. Or being shot by someone. So is there preparation in locating a "safe" tag to steal? For me everything should be looked at then considered. Maybe I am over thinking this but if it's Hauptmann we cannot forget he's an immigrant carpenter from the Bronx so driving around looking for a tag to steal might draw attention from the locals as well. It would be interesting to hear some of the stories you must have about criminals Michael. On the ID channel they've run a couple of times about the same bank robbers robbing the same bank three times. The robbers turned out to be current police officers doing it in their spare time. Maybe you've seen it - they caught 'em by the video of the pattern of one of their shirts which they found in a home search. I haven't seen that one yet. He probably hit the same bank because he was successful in the past. Eventually though the FBI will get you. There's no outsmarting them and anyone who thinks they can learn differently in the end.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 1, 2017 8:32:15 GMT -5
Eric Rudolph almost did! A stolen license plate wouldn't have surprised me but a local one caught the attention of, a local. Enough to assume a first he was a window washer and how odd that was in the horrible weather that time of the year!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 1, 2017 9:00:49 GMT -5
I just don't see your explanation happening in real life and I'm wondering how you can continue promoting this description of events. - The walkway, more accurately a narrow piece of tongue-and-groove flooring, is between the house wall and ladder imprints, correct? You're claiming they remained on this piece of flooring while raising the ladder, not wanting to step off it for some reason only you seem to be aware of? Considering the fact they later walked away from the house leaving a trail of footprints, why the prior secrecy, ie. not wanting to show their footprints near the house? Thereto, the lack of approaching footprints towards the house, clearly eliminates any other possibility than that they approached alongside the house from the driveway.
- Next, while perched on this piece of flooring, in what direction are you claiming they faced, while raising the ladder? Their feet would then have had to have been overlapping this narrow piece of flooring in that area. Where are those footprint traces in the adjacent ground, that you firmly claim would have easily shown telltale prints? How are they even accomplishing this, without stepping entirely off this narrow piece of tongue-and-groove flooring in some places during the ladder raising?
- Finally, how does one of them at that point, from a position between the ladder and wall, then somehow manage to plant his left foot facing towards the house, before stepping onto the ladder?
Michael, I've read your explanation in TDC, but unless these guys were contortionists from another planet, it can't be true. LE had it right from the start. The left footprint was a step down and it showed in the ground, due to the relative exertion of force on that specific patch of ground, perhaps a sudden misstep and regaining of balance due to the ladder rail splitting. I'm not saying that misstep was enough to break his leg, so we don't need to get sidetracked down that path. Obviously he was able to walk away. What LE didn't do within their investigation and reporting of events and conditions, was that the clay-based ground under the nursery window, likely due to it being relatively sheltered from the elements, (eaves overhang, leeward effect from the north-western winds and rains of that day, etc.) would not have readily produced clear footprints compared to the area of ground further east of the house, which clearly demonstrated the retreating footprints. The fact that the kidnappers wore some kind of "softening" foot coverings, would only have made their footprints less apparent in that area. If you can't reasonably address the above points from a logical, Newtonian viewpoint, please just say so in the interests of advancing this discussion without bias.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 1, 2017 9:35:01 GMT -5
Stella, in the nuclear industry, we're constantly building new permanent and temporary structures at site. Basically it's one very large construction site, so it can get pretty messy at times. Being located by the lake, we're always exposed to harsh elements. Our ground is predominately clay-based as was the Highfields ground, and the site was originally selected for that reason among others. At work, I'm often in those areas well exposed and not exposed to the elements, and I've made the same observation you make above many times, ie. a clear trail of footprints and suddenly, very little or nothing. We may say the ground is "generically muddy" that day after a rain, and someone may report it that way, but it means relatively little, based upon the exact composition, density and moisture content of any one specific patch of ground someone is walking on. I believe it's primarily for these reasons that the kidnappers footprints didn't show (or show clearly enough to notice) as they approached the nursery window from a position alongside the house. They had no logical reason to stay on that narrow walkway approaching the nursery window, given the fact they walked off some minutes later leaving a telltale trail of retreating footprints. The overhang of the house eaves and the leeward effect on the east side of the house from the effect of rain, would only have contributed to this effect moreso. Given the lack of training and experience the first LE on site possessed during their investigations and through their reporting, it's little wonder we're seeing such great diversity of opinions and conclusions today.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 1, 2017 9:56:09 GMT -5
I just don't see your explanation happening in real life and I'm wondering how you can continue promoting this description of events. I am not surprised since it's apparently not what you want to believe. I've considered everything, to include information found in reports no one ever bothered to consult before I did. So you'll have people (on other venues) telling other people what's true and what isn't when they've never even laid eyes on those reports. It's like a magic trick. But upon learning about this new material, I think, most of us here consider it then try to factor it into the equation. I am not saying you're not but I believe you are trying to get "around" them. The walkway, more accurately a narrow piece of tongue-and-groove flooring, is between the house wall and ladder imprints, correct? You're claiming they remained on this piece of flooring while raising the ladder, not wanting to step off it for some reason only you seem to be aware of? Considering the fact they later walked away from the house leaving a trail of footprints, why the prior secrecy, ie. not wanting to show their footprints near the house? Thereto, the lack of approaching footprints towards the house, clearly eliminates any other possibility than that they approached alongside the house from the driveway. To be most accurate, they were different from plank to plank. Some having widths from 6" while others 12" and in between ( TDC 143). They had to approach the window by way of this boardwalk because there are no other prints to suggest otherwise. So it's either from the driveway or the back of the house. I say they came from the driveway but of course it's a challengeable position. The lack of prints in the mud facing that house is what it is: A clue. Why didn't they want to step in the mud before the crime occurred? Since you don't know that means it wasn't the true situation? Yet, the evidence proves they didn't except in that one spot. Or, if you like, upon descent but then one has to "make up" evidence in order to explain the mud in the nursery. In fact, it must contradict the observations of Bornmann who explained this situation to the Governor when there is no motive to suggest otherwise to him at the time. Next, while perched on this piece of flooring, in what direction are you claiming they faced, while raising the ladder? Their feet would then have had to have been overlapping this narrow piece of flooring in that area. Where are those footprint traces in the adjacent ground, that you firmly claim would have easily shown telltale prints? How are they even accomplishing this, without stepping entirely off this narrow piece of tongue-and-groove flooring in some places during the ladder raising? While standing in place, it was raised sideways, out, then once the top hit the wall they raised it upward creating the scratches (another clue) that existed below where the top of the ladder came to rest - even after it had sunk down into the mud ( TDC 201). Their feet never left the board, excepting possibly the one print facing the house. They used the wall to help stabilize and raise that ladder. I don't think one person could have done this by themselves under the circumstances but two could have. Finally, how does one of them at that point, from a position between the ladder and wall, then somehow manage to plant his left foot facing towards the house, before stepping onto the ladder? There are no facts to indicate which foot so I'll have to disagree with you there. Otherwise, I've explained it already. Michael, I've read your explanation in TDC, but unless these guys were contortionists from another planet, it can't be true. LE had it right from the start. The left footprint was a step down and it showed in the ground, due to the relative exertion of force on that specific patch of ground, perhaps a sudden misstep and regaining of balance due to the ladder rail splitting. I'm not saying that misstep was enough to break his leg, so we don't need to get sidetracked down that path. Obviously he was able to walk away. Again, I do not agree with you. The chunk of mud on the top of the bottom shutter came from somewhere and since there's no other approaching footprint it cannot be explained away when considering the mud in the nursery and Bornmann's observation. Otherwise it's all an obvious plant. And by the way, that "chunk" of mud shows how muddy the situation was having come from that one step into it. What LE didn't do within their investigation and reporting of events and conditions, was that the clay-based ground under the nursery window, likely due to it being relatively sheltered from the elements, (eaves overhang, leeward effect from the north-western winds and rains of that day, etc.) would not have readily produced clear footprints compared to the area of ground further east of the house, which clearly demonstrated the retreating footprints. The fact that the kidnappers wore some kind of "softening" foot coverings, would only have made their footprints less apparent in that area. You keep saying this but no one other then you draws this conclusion. It was muddy and showed prints. In the spots where it wouldn't, that was listed as I wrote above, Police mentioned it, but that wasn't in the yard. So if it occurred or could occur in the places you want them to it would have been noted. Besides, again, the small prints existed in the spot that should have been the least receptive to prints and there they were. And if you believe it was Anne, she was light as a feather and certainly wasn't jumping around.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 1, 2017 10:58:56 GMT -5
Micheal this such an interesting discussion and it helps visualize what could have happened.. I'm wondering if this was omething orchestrated by CAL if perhaps the ladder was set up before that night and maybe even rehearsals done of the "kidnapping. The rain could have ruined any trace of foot prints from the days before....just a thought.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 1, 2017 21:01:13 GMT -5
It does look like more than one person. I'm not saying Hauptmann did it alone, I'm saying he could have done it alone and there is some evidence towards that. Fisher gives a breakdown of where the ransom bills were spent in "Ghosts," and that looks like Hauptmann. If there was a NJ car it didn't show up again. It was a very juicy crime story and nobody ever confessed to being a part of it. Hauptmann didn't have any friends or associates who really qualified as co-kidnappers. The fact that Hauptmann was free on 3/1/32 evening is just an example of how things tend to arrow towards him. There was a ladder and look who that points at. Lots of money was spent and look at where and by whom.
On and on as we know, but there's really not a good candidate for kidnapper #2, legal evidencewise anyway.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 2, 2017 2:05:55 GMT -5
It does look like more than one person. I'm not saying Hauptmann did it alone, I'm saying he could have done it alone and there is some evidence towards that. Fisher gives a breakdown of where the ransom bills were spent in "Ghosts," and that looks like Hauptmann. If there was a NJ car it didn't show up again. It was a very juicy crime story and nobody ever confessed to being a part of it. Hauptmann didn't have any friends or associates who really qualified as co-kidnappers. The fact that Hauptmann was free on 3/1/32 evening is just an example of how things tend to arrow towards him. There was a ladder and look who that points at. Lots of money was spent and look at where and by whom. On and on as we know, but there's really not a good candidate for kidnapper #2, legal evidencewise anyway. As a hypothetical: has it been ruled out, Jack, that Hauptmann absolutely/positively did not know Isador Fisch in the winter-spring of 1932? I believe he supposedly came to know Fisch later. As Hauptmann and Fisch had had many business dealings he'd make a likely candidate, but I can't recall right now whether Fisch has been/hasn't been ruled out as a potential accomplice in the 1932 kidnapping.
|
|