|
Post by john on May 28, 2017 1:52:48 GMT -5
That was what I was aiming at, LJ, though I actually didn't intend to write exactly as I did. More like a "catalogue", a listing of events and possibilities, and then it dawned on me that something else was happening, too,--there had to be--and we still don't know exactly what it was..
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 28, 2017 12:19:50 GMT -5
No, we don't know exactly what happened, not fully. I think I know broadly; it all seems to dovetail, but that's not conclusive proof of anything, I admit.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 28, 2017 20:40:08 GMT -5
I think you hit the nail right on the head, John. The crime was hardly planned at all. The kidnapper probably took an afternoon to make sure he could find the Lindbergh home, had no idea when the family was normally home, but went on a Tuesday night because that's when Anna was working. The crime reeks of amateurism from the poor ladder to the many notes and payoff of known bills. Hauptmann's last ransom bill exchanges were so unprofessional that they quickly got him caught.
So the big thing most don't know about the Lindbergh Crime is that there isn't any more!
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on May 28, 2017 23:47:29 GMT -5
I think you hit the nail right on the head, John. The crime was hardly planned at all. The kidnapper probably took an afternoon to make sure he could find the Lindbergh home, had no idea when the family was normally home, but went on a Tuesday night because that's when Anna was working. The crime reeks of amateurism from the poor ladder to the many notes and payoff of known bills. Hauptmann's last ransom bill exchanges were so unprofessional that they quickly got him caught. So the big thing most don't know about the Lindbergh Crime is that there isn't any more! Meanwhile, he was able to walk on the narrow boardwalk on a dark & stormy night, to the one window which happened to be unlatched/unlocked, without causing a single footprint on the way to the house? Given this lack of foot print evidence, by the way, he somehow knew which window would be the child's nursery and risked everything because he had no knowledge whether the baby's room would be full of Anna and Betty or empty? You couldn't see anything from the boardwalk vantage point, he would have had to back away at least 10" to see in - except we know he didn't. Even Anne's own testimony had her stepping well back into the mud to throw pebbles at the room so that she could get the attention of the occupants. Pretty sure a "kidnapper" isn't going into that room blind. Never mind all the other craziness that simply just doesn't make sense - like why on the way out wouldn't he just move the chest away from the window for a far easier escape? Why shimmy over a suitcase and toys twice, risking much noise? None of this goes to mention the total silliness of kidnapping at dinnertime when most of the people are home and awake. A real kidnapper would wait until at least midnight or after while everyone was asleep.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 29, 2017 2:24:35 GMT -5
If he'd have planned ahead and had some knowledge of the place he'd have never done it because this house had two dogs. Also a little thinking and he'd realize that it wouldn't be just the Lindbergh fortune which would be paying, whatever that was, but the substantial Morrow holdings as well so ransom would more realistically be a half million or so.
It seems he probably had a light on his hat as miners do, so he could get around in the dark room. Why move furniture around - now that makes noise. If it was Hauptmann, he was an agile guy who just would have gotten the job done. The family is probably lucky they didn't interrupt him because I'd be very sure he'd have a gun. That would be exit B.
If the kidnapper didn't know which room the nursery was a little time in the woods watching would tell him, and the faulty window was the one with the open or partially open shutter.
As to footprints the only ones that could belong to the kidnapper(s) are sock covered shoe or foot prints and a man's dress shoe print near where one would go up the ladder. If that print belonged, as some say, to the footprints going away (2 sets) with galoshes on, why did he take his galoshes off to go over by the ladder. It seems by the prints, the police and Lindbergh are simply following themselves around - kinda like Bornmann checking out his own fingerprint with the BOI.
We don't know who was or how they were wandering around on the boardwalk with the ladder, so why not treat it as an unknown instead of some new kind of evidence.
True, on paper it's unlikely that the crime could have happened, but it did. But if, for example, as one of the scenarios goes that Lindbergh knew he was being extorted for his money and the baby was dead, why didn't he let search parties look for the body - if it was found the extortion would be over. Instead he seemed to feel it was more important keeping people out of the area if he could.
Lindbergh saw right away that it was a crime by idiot and truly felt snookered. He did his best to keep his chin up, but I bet it wasn't easy.
"Dinnertime - silliness"? is someone forgetting that that particular time of day worked?
It was a perfect crime - now it did get screwed up long after it was completed, but it was, and possibly still is a perfect crime.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on May 29, 2017 2:55:13 GMT -5
If he'd have planned ahead and had some knowledge of the place he'd have never done it because this house had two dogs. Also a little thinking and he'd realize that it wouldn't be just the Lindbergh fortune which would be paying, whatever that was, but the substantial Morrow holdings as well so ransom would more realistically be a half million or so. It seems he probably had a light on his hat as miners do, so he could get around in the dark room. Why move furniture around - now that makes noise. If it was Hauptmann, he was an agile guy who just would have gotten the job done. The family is probably lucky they didn't interrupt him because I'd be very sure he'd have a gun. That would be exit B. If the kidnapper didn't know which room the nursery was a little time in the woods watching would tell him, and the faulty window was the one with the open or partially open shutter. As to footprints the only ones that could belong to the kidnapper(s) are sock covered shoe or foot prints and a man's dress shoe print near where one would go up the ladder. If that print belonged, as some say, to the footprints going away (2 sets) with galoshes on, why did he take his galoshes off to go over by the ladder. It seems by the prints, the police and Lindbergh are simply following themselves around - kinda like Bornmann checking out his own fingerprint with the BOI. We don't know who was or how they were wandering around on the boardwalk with the ladder, so why not treat it as an unknown instead of some new kind of evidence. True, on paper it's unlikely that the crime could have happened, but it did. But if, for example, as one of the scenarios goes that Lindbergh knew he was being extorted for his money and the baby was dead, why didn't he let search parties look for the body - if it was found the extortion would be over. Instead he seemed to feel it was more important keeping people out of the area if he could. Lindbergh saw right away that it was a crime by idiot and truly felt snookered. He did his best to keep his chin up, but I bet it wasn't easy. "Dinnertime - silliness"? is someone forgetting that that particular time of day worked? It was a perfect crime - now it did get screwed up long after it was completed, but it was, and possibly still is a perfect crime. Lots of explaining must be done to explain away the improbabilities that happened in the commission of this crime. Nobody believed it was a lone wolf - ever - until Hauptmann was arrested, at which point they risked losing the death penalty so all evidence to the contrary must be done away with. The simple matter is if one is to believe this was done by a "lone wolf" you must believe he hours in a terrible storm, somehow made his way around a boardwalk, magically saw into a room for which no line of sight existed (without stepping off the boardwalk, which we know didn't happen) that could have been filled with any number of people then magically left the property. As to not moving the drawer and the making of noise, remember there was a suitcase on top of the chest with tinker toys on top of that. If the objective is to get out ASAP, the quickest way is to move the chest. If it's about not making noise, the swiftest way is to move the tinker toys. Neither were done. To quote Gardner: "Inside the window was a chest of drawers, and on top of that a suitcase, and Tinkertoys. But nothing had been disturbed. There was no sign that the chest had been moved an inch, yet to avoid it someone entering would have had to launch himself across three feet and then down to the floor... If the kidnapper got in without disturbing anything, thought Wolfe, he could hardly have exited without moving that chest. He had to get closer to the window in order to get out with the child. 'The culprit would have pushed it around [aside] in order to gain a secure foothold [on the ladder],' and 'he certainly would not have taken time to push the chest back in place, especially as he had the baby in his arms and was in the act of a desperate crime. But bear in mind—the chest had not been moved.' Wolfe’s thoughtful examination of the undisturbed chest, perhaps the best clue inside the house, was not paid much attention. ”
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 29, 2017 14:05:31 GMT -5
Just like the boardwalk, we don't know exactly how the kidnapper did it but he did it. As far as the chest goes, excellent clue, maybe, but we know the room has been entered under those conditions and that it has been done. Ask me and I'll tell you who to talk with regarding that.
As far as all the talk of bad weather and difficult location and on and on in that vein, those are all things that a man determined to accomplish something will overcome. All in all they are just more BS that fills pages on this and other sites and puts many pages in books.
Speaking of books, the one this site is concerned about claims a witness stated that two cars and multiple people drove in the area of the Lindbergh estate every day at about the same time on the week or so prior to the kidnapping. The writer and the witness are implying that those people were the kidnappers. That defies logic and should be thought about some. Why would kidnappers broadcast themselves like that? You tell me and I'll accept the sightings as more than just tourists with nothing to do or other harmless folks.
The crime did happen and to determine more of a conspiracy is stating that Charles Lindbergh killed or had eliminated his first and only son, and do you really want to say that? Every fact points right to Hauptmann and the reason he didn't talk when he had the chance was that just as if he was innocent, he did it alone (he even commented on talking if someone did it alone - said they wouldn't confess) and the reason the crime has seemed so unsolvable is there was no one to rat Hauptmann out.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 29, 2017 14:47:08 GMT -5
I think that the reason the crime has been so difficult is that it interrupted an ongoing "situation" which Lindbergh was then trying to cover up.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on May 29, 2017 15:07:01 GMT -5
Just like the boardwalk, we don't know exactly how the kidnapper did it but he did it. As far as the chest goes, excellent clue, maybe, but we know the room has been entered under those conditions and that it has been done. Ask me and I'll tell you who to talk with regarding that. As far as all the talk of bad weather and difficult location and on and on in that vein, those are all things that a man determined to accomplish something will overcome. All in all they are just more BS that fills pages on this and other sites and puts many pages in books. Speaking of books, the one this site is concerned about claims a witness stated that two cars and multiple people drove in the area of the Lindbergh estate every day at about the same time on the week or so prior to the kidnapping. The writer and the witness are implying that those people were the kidnappers. That defies logic and should be thought about some. Why would kidnappers broadcast themselves like that? You tell me and I'll accept the sightings as more than just tourists with nothing to do or other harmless folks. The crime did happen and to determine more of a conspiracy is stating that Charles Lindbergh killed or had eliminated his first and only son, and do you really want to say that? Every fact points right to Hauptmann and the reason he didn't talk when he had the chance was that just as if he was innocent, he did it alone (he even commented on talking if someone did it alone - said they wouldn't confess) and the reason the crime has seemed so unsolvable is there was no one to rat Hauptmann out. We know the crime happened nobody would grab the child not move the chest back to climb out the window. It doesn't make logical sense and much explaining must be done.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 29, 2017 16:20:14 GMT -5
Lindbergh had many sons, some we may not even know about.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 29, 2017 17:15:14 GMT -5
If the kidnapper didn't know which room the nursery was a little time in the woods watching would tell him, and the faulty window was the one with the open or partially open shutter. First of all, in my opinion, each point you are shrugging off needs it's own thread to discuss. But let me address a few here while I have a chance.... Whether they are in the woods watching or not, a Kidnapper could not see through the shutters. So what's behind them? Dog? Nursemaid? Butler? So that doesn't work. Next, the shutters were closed - not open or partially open - at the time of the crime. They were pulled together but could not be locked. Gow herself said she closed the shutters to stop them from banging in the wind (page 35 TDC). So the shutters are now closed, but the set in question cannot be locked. Once the Cops get there those shutters are now open. So like I ask on page 56: Why didn't anyone hear these shutters banging in the wind once the "Kidnappers" opened them? Next, how would these guys know they were warped, and if they didn't, how did they plan to get past them without making any noise once they were locked? As to footprints the only ones that could belong to the kidnapper(s) are sock covered shoe or foot prints and a man's dress shoe print near where one would go up the ladder. If that print belonged, as some say, to the footprints going away (2 sets) with galoshes on, why did he take his galoshes off to go over by the ladder. It seems by the prints, the police and Lindbergh are simply following themselves around - kinda like Bornmann checking out his own fingerprint with the BOI. Two sets leading away from under that window to where the ladder was found. No one claimed to have walked through that yard prior to Wolf getting there. And who would with all of that mud? Oh right, the Kidnappers - the one's who knew the shutters were warped, knew about the boardwalk, but didn't know the yard was filled with slick mud. We don't know who was or how they were wandering around on the boardwalk with the ladder, so why not treat it as an unknown instead of some new kind of evidence. There are only certain ways it could have been done and none include a Stranger with that ladder walking on it without a light source.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 29, 2017 21:11:12 GMT -5
You say that "I ask" that question about the shutters banging around on p. 56 of my book. I'd remind you that Reilly asked the same question at the 1935 trial and I and many others have since mentioned it. Further, check the timeline - the shutters weren't closed until long after dark so the kidnapper could even have figured out where the nursery was even on the night of the kidnapping. The closed shutters must have looked different from the ones which would latch from the ground. If not, the kidnapper would have broken into the window which was not locked. That was the "accident" which Anne was talking about in her letter - not locking the window (but people rarely did and do with upper story windows.)
Well a stranger (why would a not stranger be any better with ladder handling?) wandering on the boardwalk with a light on his hat is as good as any other answer.
Lindbergh, Ollie, Chief Harry Wolfe, and Officer Williamson were all under the window and at the ladder before Corporal Wolfe, NJSP arrived.
"When they (Wolfe and Williamson) went outside with Lindbergh the two policemen could see plainly where a ladder had been placed against the wall somewhat to the right of the windows of the library and nursery." They (still only four) then observed the ladder. Gardner, CTND pp 25.
|
|
|
Post by john on May 30, 2017 3:24:32 GMT -5
The thing is, Jack, and I think I know where you're coming from, while I could, as a hypothetical Hauptmann as the lone kidnapper Wilentz claimed he was, with his single-minded Lindbergh obsession, his unyielding nature, he just crashed through.
There was a lot of luck on his side, and luck does exist; and whatever really happened on the night of 3/1/32,--the wrong and the right of it--again, from Hauptmann's perspective, favored him every step of the way but for maybe, just maybe, his wanting the baby alive, having it die, whether by blunder, accident, also didn't in itself provide any evidence at that time.
Lucky as Hauptmann the Perp was, early on, he seemed unable to "build" on it, which is to say it was more blind luck that luck due real cleverness. To put the matter another way, Hauptmann was no criminal mastermind. Yet even allowing for Hauptmann being a low normal functioning criminal, he appears to have messed up royall in mid-1934, and this begs the question why.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 30, 2017 5:13:53 GMT -5
You say that "I ask" that question about the shutters banging around on p. 56 of my book. I'd remind you that Reilly asked the same question at the 1935 trial and I and many others have since mentioned it. I don't get this Jack. You ignore the point by saying others have mentioned it before me? But what about the point itself? They would have heard those shutters banging AFTER they were opened by the "Kidnappers." Yet, no one mentions it. Of course Lindbergh heard an "orange crate" sound but not what causes Gow to close the shutters in the first place. So let's not get into a pissing contest about who may have brought up this fact first and instead address it. Further, check the timeline - the shutters weren't closed until long after dark so the kidnapper could even have figured out where the nursery was even on the night of the kidnapping. The closed shutters must have looked different from the ones which would latch from the ground. If not, the kidnapper would have broken into the window which was not locked. That was the "accident" which Anne was talking about in her letter - not locking the window (but people rarely did and do with upper story windows.) I don't need to address the timeline. Once those shutters are closed there is no way for anyone on the planet without inside information or help to know what's behind them. And they would have "looked" different? How's that? They were pulled shut and stayed shut but they could not lock them because the slide bolt didn't match. No one in the family (supposedly) knew that themselves up until they actually tried to close them. Yet someone in the woods sees the 1/16" difference as they hung? And again, people did lock those windows because the locks, by design, sealed them from the weather. Instead add the rattling to the mysterious facts since no one noticed that, to include Charles Jr., who slept through it. And they would have broken the window? So that was the plan then? Well a stranger (why would a not stranger be any better with ladder handling?) wandering on the boardwalk with a light on his hat is as good as any other answer. So we both agree here that a light source was absolutely necessary. Lindbergh, Ollie, Chief Harry Wolfe, and Officer Williamson were all under the window and at the ladder before Corporal Wolfe, NJSP arrived. Right. But they did not walk through the yard - they walked around it. And to get under that window they used a flashlight to navigate the boardwalk. Wolfe and Williamson were both from Hopewell and wouldn't have been able to do so without a light. And they weren't carrying a ladder or anything else. And, as I wrote in my book, if those female prints actually were Anne's which were found between the boardwalk and the house, then Anne couldn't seem to do it in the daylight (see page 149).
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 30, 2017 8:16:23 GMT -5
Regardless of who walked along that narrow walkway to get from the front of the house to the window, they managed to do it in the dark while leaving a minimum of telltale prints during their approach. Would anyone, agile and adept enough and with a flashlight, not have been able to do this equally well, regardless of their motivations and intent? Would a kidnapper hired by Lindbergh really have an advantage here? No. Would a hired kidnapper have been told ahead of time to take care negotiating the walkway, so as to minimize any telltale footprints? Quite feasibly, and at the same time, a real kidnapper could have reasonably assessed the advantage in doing so, having approached the house from a staging area near the driveway. But then, for some strange reason, whoever it is goes radical and leaves a telltale footprint trail while retreating from the house. That the kidnappers did not leave via the same route they got there, indicates a possible change in plans. Would the unexpected breaking of the ladder really have been a concern to a hired kidnapper? Very doubtful. The footprints, heading directly eastward from the house and through the mud, point to someone suddenly in a hurry to get away, and this being a very real kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on May 30, 2017 8:48:19 GMT -5
well one of the neighbors commented that the house at night was like a goldfish bowl you can see in the house because of the lack of curtins
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 30, 2017 10:18:47 GMT -5
Those two shutters on the southeast corner window would only have "banged around" if they were mobile enough on their respective hinges and the wind was strong and swirling enough to facilitate that action. Period. It's straight Newtonian physics. Let's not get hung up on what Betty Gow said in a very general sense and apply it like some kind of mantra, rigidly and specifically to those shutters on this particular night. The right hand shutter was found at 10:00 pm to be in an open position, the left hand one in a closed position. Neither shutter was "banging around." How much sleep would that baby have had with a "banging shutter" issue over the more than a dozen weekend visits to Highfields, without some significant effort having been made towards resolving this before the night of March 1? It's pretty clear that those shutters were not nearly as much of a problem as they are continually made out to be here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 30, 2017 12:27:53 GMT -5
Steve, the lack of curtains at night would have been a great opportunity to gauge the movement of people around the house. I have to believe though, there was some kind of inside information that lent itself to knowing exactly which room was the nursery, but that no one within the immediate household would intentionally have provided that information towards any thought of it resulting in a kidnapping. As for the Morrow household, I'd say that would be a tougher call to make for certain.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 30, 2017 14:24:54 GMT -5
The kidnapper(s) would know which room was the nursery because it was the only one with the shutters closed.
As Joe says, the shutters must not have flapped around or someone would have fixed them by 3/1. The place must have at times been full of contractors, so funny things like the door and window were left undone at all.
The crime was done by a very determined individual(s) so what looks impossible to most is really not correct.
How does anyone know where anyone walked? There's no video of this crime. Whose were the men's dress shoe imprints in the mud under the window? Joe, who do you think?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 30, 2017 14:47:07 GMT -5
One more point about that. It seems that a kidnapper would either be in socks (over shoes or feet) - that done if he was going into the window to deter footprints, and deter noise, or in galoshes - why would he take the galoshes off to go near the house?
So IMO the kidnapper was the footprints with the socks on (could be just a single person) and the other footprints are who knows who?
This includes the two sets of prints going away - who knows who? But, if there were two, why not take the ladder and chisel?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 15:53:18 GMT -5
The crime scene footprints are truly one of the most contentious aspects of this case. It just seems that no matter how many things we discuss, we always end up back at the crime scene and those footprints. Thinking back over the times these prints have been discussed and written about, I have seen them described as barefoot, sock covered feet, socks over shoes, burlap covered, large, small, a foot with an overlapping small toe, the prints of a woman's feet, boot covered feet, dress shoe prints and I am sure there may be other descriptions I have missed. It is hard to believe we are talking about just two sets of prints. It sounds like a whole army of people. Is it even possible to extract from the reports a true description of those two sets of prints? Is it even possible to know if any of them were made by a woman? (excluding those Anne said she made) According to Michael's book (page 34), Betty Morrow claimed the shutters were warped as far back as Oct. 31, 1931, the first weekend the Lindberghs stayed at the Hopewell house. It does seem unbelievable that those shutters were not addressed before March 1, 1932. Because they apparently weren't, I think Joe's point that the shutters would close well enough that they would stay in place when pulled together makes sense. It could be why no one was bothering to address this issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 15:59:10 GMT -5
I have to believe though, there was some kind of inside information that lent itself to knowing exactly which room was the nursery, but that no one within the immediate household would intentionally have provided that information towards any thought of it resulting in a kidnapping. As for the Morrow household, I'd say that would be a tougher call to make for certain. Do you know how many people from the Morrow household (other than Morrow family members) were ever to the Hopewell house before March 1, 1932, that they would know the interior and which room was the nursery?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 30, 2017 16:18:19 GMT -5
Regardless of who walked along that narrow walkway to get from the front of the house to the window, they managed to do it in the dark while leaving a minimum of telltale prints during their approach. Would anyone, agile and adept enough and with a flashlight, not have been able to do this equally well, regardless of their motivations and intent? Would a kidnapper hired by Lindbergh really have an advantage here? No. Anyone hired by someone on the inside has an immeasurable advantage over some random and complete stranger to the situation, area, and home. Would a hired kidnapper have been told ahead of time to take care negotiating the walkway, so as to minimize any telltale footprints? Quite feasibly, and at the same time, a real kidnapper could have reasonably assessed the advantage in doing so, having approached the house from a staging area near the driveway. But then, for some strange reason, whoever it is goes radical and leaves a telltale footprint trail while retreating from the house. That the kidnappers did not leave via the same route they got there, indicates a possible change in plans. Would the unexpected breaking of the ladder really have been a concern to a hired kidnapper? Very doubtful. The footprints, heading directly eastward from the house and through the mud, point to someone suddenly in a hurry to get away, and this being a very real kidnapping. Are you really suggesting that a "real" kidnapper would choose to approach the house from the front in the driveway? And leaving a different way isn't radical if the idea is to make sure there's evidence of an outsider. Also, if someone is in a hurry why did they carry both the ladder (in 2 parts) AND chisel while carrying the child then leave them in the yard anyway? There is zero evidence of a fall - either off that ladder OR in the yard covered in slick mud where two people SHOULD have been running like hell with all of their equipment in tow. To me, there's no evidence of anyone being in a hurry anywhere. Those two shutters on the southeast corner window would only have "banged around" if they were mobile enough on their respective hinges and the wind was strong and swirling enough to facilitate that action. Period. It's straight Newtonian physics. Let's not get hung up on what Betty Gow said in a very general sense and apply it like some kind of mantra, rigidly and specifically to those shutters on this particular night. The right hand shutter was found at 10:00 pm to be in an open position, the left hand one in a closed position. Neither shutter was "banging around." How much sleep would that baby have had with a "banging shutter" issue over the more than a dozen weekend visits to Highfields, without some significant effort having been made towards resolving this before the night of March 1? It's pretty clear that those shutters were not nearly as much of a problem as they are continually made out to be here. So let's not get caught up in the evidence? Why were those shutters closed? Answer: "Oh, never mind why." Really Joe? " one of them was flapping in the wind; that's the only reason we close the shutters." That's "very general?" The wind was heavy during that night - do I really need to quote someone about that? We don't know if they were or were not banging around after police arrive. Why don't we? Because no one records it. Or did I miss something? If I did please give me a source that says this. The absence of a source for your point is not proof of it. Steve, the lack of curtains at night would have been a great opportunity to gauge the movement of people around the house. I have to believe though, there was some kind of inside information that lent itself to knowing exactly which room was the nursery, but that no one within the immediate household would intentionally have provided that information towards any thought of it resulting in a kidnapping. As for the Morrow household, I'd say that would be a tougher call to make for certain. Again, once those shutters are closed there can be no way to know who is behind them. First of all, there had to be a plan for both dogs. Not seeing a dog you would expect isn't cause to assume it's not there either. It's cause to abort because he's supposed to be and you cannot find it. If Gow was telling the truth, now the shutters are closed and that wasn't expected either. They are now blinded by another obstacle. Abort. According to Michael's book (page 34), Betty Morrow claimed the shutters were warped as far back as Oct. 31, 1931, the first weekend the Lindberghs stayed at the Hopewell house. It does seem unbelievable that those shutters were not addressed before March 1, 1932. Because they apparently weren't, I think Joe's point that the shutters would close well enough that they would stay in place when pulled together makes sense. It could be why no one was bothering to address this issue. Don't forget what Lindbergh testified to. And also don't forget that he was on the phone trying to get something else fixed.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 31, 2017 7:03:20 GMT -5
Jack, I'm very interested to know what type of ongoing "situation" you feel Lindbergh might have been trying to cover up. Are you referring to evidence like the lack of fingerprints / useable fingerprints in the nursery and that it might have been wiped down for a reason other than a real or staged kidnapping? Perhaps a "sideline story," totally separate and unconnected that might have proven to be highly embarrassing for someone in that house, if uncovered and revealed during the course of a normal police investigation into the kidnapping?
That this crime was perpetrated by someone very much "out of the criminal mainstream" I think is a pretty big understatement, and I understand what you're saying here. The individual who went up and down that ladder, given the intended target, the remoteness of the location and the weather conditions of that night, had the same level of determination, resolve and ability to overcome seemingly impossible odds as someone, who might for example, fly the Atlantic by himself, having gone 60 plus hours without sleep to do it, or perhaps stow away on three different ships while virtually living in a coal bin for a week on the final one. These two individuals share some very unique qualities but only one of them was capable of drawing strength from the more demonic reaches of the unconscious mind. Sorry if that sounds a bit Schoenfeld and far out folks, but I can assure you there's a lot of truth there.
Regarding the footprints evidence, I don't think Amy could have described it any better in her previous post and I echo her comments. For me, it's also one of the most confusing and convoluted pieces of evidence, regardless of who has tried to make sense of it over the years. I think Michael has done probably the best job to date, but any efforts to do so at the time of the crime would have been hampered by one undisputable fact. The only way to effectively investigate footprint evidence is to first get close enough to it and the moment you do, you've added your own footprints. Despite what has been reported and written about, I have real concerns about the containment of the crime scene under the southeast corner window, starting with Lindbergh himself having first investigated there.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 31, 2017 8:09:26 GMT -5
The first person I think of in that light from the Morrow household is Henry Ellerson, the chauffeur who brought Betty Gow to Hopewell on March 1. He's an interesting character, having had a potential employment connection with Duane Baker and the Armour Packing Company. It was his vehicle that ended up bursting into flames and rolling over a cliff edge at Palisades Park, New Jersey, I believe a day before the discovery of the body of CALjr. Something tells me he had a tour of the house on at least one occasion, but I can't confirm that right now. Or if any of the other regular employees there would have had occasion to visit Highfields, but you could add the former nursemaids to the child, who Michael identifies and discusses in TDC.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 31, 2017 14:55:34 GMT -5
A few things:
What's wrong with Schoenfeld? When, at times experts or people with a lot of savvy look at the crime they're immediately downplayed - I suppose their critics believing that there was a predetermined conclusion which the expert made the facts fit.
It seems to me, not so with Dudley. He didn't care about the Bronx or any other area yet he pinpointed the perpetrators with almost pinpoint accuracy and believable motive.
The footprints are a known thing. There's even pictures. They defy logic of the accepted crime scenario. First, any perpetrator who takes of his outer boots and puts on socks over shoes or just feet is going to enter that house through that window. There's no standing on a ladder taking a hand-off after you've spent valuable time doing the socks. So the character with the socks on was one of or the kidnapper. Second, and along your statements above, have you ever heard of anyone, police or observers admitting to screwing up a crime scene? I doubt it's ever happened. But somebody, from Charles to Wolfe to Wolf to Bornmann had to have walked in the area they were looking at under the window. Again, logic works. So the current solvers believe that two people in galoshes or uuter footwear (kidnappers) walked away from the crime scene to their car or wherever. That meant that they had to have walked into that area under the window as well. Now can you tell me why one of them would have taken off his outer footwear just to walk to the window area? It was still muddy under there. It just wouldn't happen, but the footprints according to this current crime solution it would have had to. Otherwise, someone mentioned above walked in the important area with men's normal or dress shoes on. The police would cover for themselves and I'd bet Ollie and CAL would too.
As far as another incident (perhaps not a crime) happening at the same time as the unfortunate kidnapping it would answer many questions. I won't say what I expect it to be, but I've heard you all have good imaginations. It hinges on why Betty would be called up on that Tuesday and why she would have had to stop at a drug store en-route. Hmm . . . imagination. There was an exceptionally nice cover story - gotta hand it to Charles.
The police knew about Ellerson so I'd guess he didn't have any wicked loose ends. They sure went after a lot of other people in a big way that they did suspect.
So anyway, the footprints and the dogs (the kidnapper(s) had no clue about the Lindbergh house) and the reason it's been so hard to conclude is that Hauptmann wouldn't rat on himself. He even is supposed to have said after the crime and before his arrest, "if the kidnapper never told anyone, how would anyone ever know?" Note that as far as I know he used singular tense.
The dogs were a big issue. Nobody would climb in that window if they knew about them - consequently the perpetrator didn't.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 31, 2017 20:00:50 GMT -5
I've read that somewhere I Think about the Lindbergh house resembling a fishbowl because it was lacking curtains. Which "neighbors" could have lived that closely to see in the windows? Thought the lane was a half mile or so to the house. Weren't there thick woods around the house?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 1, 2017 6:06:50 GMT -5
The footprints are a known thing. There's even pictures. They defy logic of the accepted crime scenario. First, any perpetrator who takes of his outer boots and puts on socks over shoes or just feet is going to enter that house through that window. There's no standing on a ladder taking a hand-off after you've spent valuable time doing the socks. There is time taken to remove shoes or place socks over them. It also shows preparation and planning if that were the case. So the character with the socks on was one of or the kidnapper. Second, and along your statements above, have you ever heard of anyone, police or observers admitting to screwing up a crime scene? I doubt it's ever happened. But somebody, from Charles to Wolfe to Wolf to Bornmann had to have walked in the area they were looking at under the window. Again, logic works. So the current solvers believe that two people in galoshes or uuter footwear (kidnappers) walked away from the crime scene to their car or wherever. That meant that they had to have walked into that area under the window as well. Now can you tell me why one of them would have taken off his outer footwear just to walk to the window area? It was still muddy under there. It just wouldn't happen, but the footprints according to this current crime solution it would have had to. Otherwise, someone mentioned above walked in the important area with men's normal or dress shoes on. The police would cover for themselves and I'd bet Ollie and CAL would too. One of the things I tried to do in the book was put all of the footprint accounts out there. While there may be differences in how the prints are described, the fact there were two sets leading from the house seems pretty much set in stone. Next, your suggestion above about contamination and cover-up is something that should be considered. However, which prints are you suggesting were made by Cops, Lindbergh, or Olly? There's (1) single print facing the house, and next to that an impression of a "gunny sack." If one believes the mud in the nursery was made by a real kidnapper then it was made by, according to Bornmann, someone with mud on one shoe. Regardless of the possibility of a staged situation, this eliminates this print as some sort of accident. The female prints lead to the back of the home and are claimed to be Anne's. Whether anyone believes this or not it doesn't fit into this category. The final prints are the double set from under the window to the ladder. If one wants there to be Lone-Wolf well there's your excuse. If one wants no Kidnapper at all then they were made by both Lindbergh and Olly. However, since Lindbergh specifically told Bornmann that neither he nor Whateley made those prints then he'd be lying if that were true right? Next, Williamson also saw two different types of prints, and he preceded Cpl. Wolf. So who do we have left? So for me "accidental" prints aren't a likely scenario. So anyway, the footprints and the dogs (the kidnapper(s) had no clue about the Lindbergh house) and the reason it's been so hard to conclude is that Hauptmann wouldn't rat on himself. He even is supposed to have said after the crime and before his arrest, "if the kidnapper never told anyone, how would anyone ever know?" Note that as far as I know he used singular tense. The dogs were a big issue. Nobody would climb in that window if they knew about them - consequently the perpetrator didn't. That's a huge problem isn't it? Yet, these guys did know about that house. They knew where it was. They knew how to navigate those roads to get there then escape. They knew the boardwalk. They knew the shutters. They knew the routine. They knew who-was-where-when. They knew the height of the window so that ladder could be perfectly built to spec. They designed a special ladder to conceal inside of a car. This is all an indicator of planning and preparation. Yet - you don't think they had a "clue" about the house or "didn't" know about the dogs? It's the very first thing any criminal considers before committing a crime. My experiences are that dogs are #1 and people inside with guns are #2. I've read that somewhere I Think about the Lindbergh house resembling a fishbowl because it was lacking curtains. Which "neighbors" could have lived that closely to see in the windows? Thought the lane was a half mile or so to the house. Weren't there thick woods around the house? From where the grave site of the child's corpse was one could actually see Highfields in 1932. At night, if the lights were on I've heard it described as appearing like a jack-o-lantern. This account came with the theory that the Kidnappers saw this, became frightened, then killed the baby and buried him there.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 1, 2017 7:44:56 GMT -5
You're saying the kidnapper(s) knew about the dogs ahead of time? Have you seen any evidence that they were prepared to deal with them? Do you think "insider help," perhaps Lindbergh and Ollie, handled the dog problem?
I believe that the kidnapper made two trips from his car on Featherbed Lane to the house, hence it appears that there are prints of two people.
I doubt the kidnapper would set up his operation by the Lindbergh driveway, especially if CAL was not home.
Anne said to Agent Frank Wilson that the nursery windows were not locked.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 1, 2017 8:26:30 GMT -5
Jack, I have no problems at all with Schoenfeld. He was light years ahead of some of the ego-stoked investigators who ended up tripping over each other for over two-and-a-half years. He had a great take on the guy they would eventually find. I was just trying to take a little page out of his book and warning people about it.. haha.
|
|