jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 7, 2017 16:56:43 GMT -5
There's no evidence of hired kidnappers.
Only one kidnapper covered his shoes or feet with socks or burlap. This would have to mean he was going inside and would be less noisy. The covered prints were probably left as uncovered near the ladder away from the house.
If Hauptmann didn't believe it was bad money why didn't he just take it to the bank and exchange it saying he inherited it or found it or something. Why go to a lot of trouble to very nicely hide it in the garage? Why not tell Anna about it? Why carry only one bill at a time with him? Why be exchanging big bills for small purchases?
Hiring multiple kidnappers and, as stated above, having the whole CAL house involved in the crime borders on the aliens from outer space solution. How many people would have to be involved to accomplish the crime then? It seems very blatant that this and other crimes seem unsolved because of a minimum of perpetrators - nobody to talk.
I'm reminded when I hear Ollie and his wife were involved and this giant conspiracy, of an interview I saw with Jim Garrison, DA for New Orleans, about the J. Kennedy assassination. Dick Cavet says to Garrison, "now according to your theory, you believe that sixteen people were shooting at President Kennedy in front of the book depository?" And Garrison said, "yes."
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Jun 7, 2017 17:03:15 GMT -5
Regarding the boardwalk - that fact that the board was actually there indicates a need or purpose for it. To me that shows the ground was not firm or hard-packed, but soft and possibly sloppy, hence the need for the board to walk on.
Regarding the ladder - if it was designed to fit in snugly with the open shutters, why was it not used in this way? The next windows along on the upper floor had the shutters open, and if (and I do mean if) the windows were unlocked then access is so much easier and the ladder can be used in the way is was designed.
Regarding the shutters - I agree with Michael that flapping shutters should create noise by banging against the side of house. Once the shutters were unlatched for access to the room on the night of the kidnap, why is there no flapping or banging conesquently heard on this windy night? OK, Betty, Elsie and Ollie were in a different wing, but Anne and later Lindbergh were in close proximity and should have heard these unlatched shutters flapping. After all, Betty said that's it why they were latched in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 7, 2017 17:04:13 GMT -5
There's no evidence of hired kidnappers. But there is evidence of multiple people being involved. Additionally, with the Whateley confession there is evidence of an inside connection. There were two set of footprints leading away from the window - 2 sets. Unless you believe a Lone-Wolf created one set by walking backward that means at least two people are involved. As far as conspiracies go - how many were involved in keeping CALs German families a secret? Just wondering because as I recall they remained quiet for a long time even after his death.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jun 7, 2017 19:30:01 GMT -5
Are you suggesting the hired kidnappers staged the area prior to dusk? Would this have implicated everyone else in the house within the plan? Do you think Lindbergh was there? IMHO the answer is "yes" to all three of these questions...
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jun 7, 2017 19:36:45 GMT -5
Interesting if Lindbergh actually did hear that crashing orange crate asking " what was that?" and never bothered to investigate. The guy who isn't afraid of anything and needs to know everything didn't look into it, but an Artist immediately does. Perhaps the "Lone Easel" turned out to be braver than the "Lone Eagle"? Or maybe he actually cared about HIS kid...
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jun 7, 2017 20:02:20 GMT -5
If Hauptmann didn't believe it was bad money why didn't he just take it to the bank and exchange it saying he inherited it or found it or something. Why go to a lot of trouble to very nicely hide it in the garage? Why not tell Anna about it? Why carry only one bill at a time with him? Why be exchanging big bills for small purchases? Hiring multiple kidnappers and, as stated above, having the whole CAL house involved in the crime borders on the aliens from outer space solution. How many people would have to be involved to accomplish the crime then? It seems very blatant that this and other crimes seem unsolved because of a minimum of perpetrators - nobody to talk. I'm reminded when I hear Ollie and his wife were involved and this giant conspiracy, of an interview I saw with Jim Garrison, DA for New Orleans, about the J. Kennedy assassination. Dick Cavet says to Garrison, "now according to your theory, you believe that sixteen people were shooting at President Kennedy in front of the book depository?" And Garrison said, "yes." I believe it was illegal by the time he discovered the money to possess more than $100 in gold certificates. Walking into a bank with $14K is going to arouse suspicion and certainly lead to arrest. Notice he hid the money in the garage and not the arguably more secure location of somewhere within the apartment; obviously he didn't want her to know about it or accidentally discover it, so he certainly isn't going to tell her about it. She might have harped on him to give it to Pinkus Fisch or some other "honest" means of dealing with the excess over what Isidor "owed" him, if she was even apprised of BRH's dealings with the Fischs. There are roughly the same number of people required for participation in a conspiracy led by CAL as Wilentz needed to provide false/perjured testimony against BRH. Who do you think would have an easier time assembling their team? CAL and the well-known cast within the household (wife and servants) or Wilentz (Perrone/Whited/CAL/Condon/Hochmuth/Wolf/Barr)
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 8, 2017 0:18:45 GMT -5
Precisely, Amy. It makes no sense whatsoever that Hauptmann (if the perp) was spreading the ransom money like confetti in late summer, 1934. Stranger still is the fact that he was for all intents and purposes creating a paper trail that was leading right to the neighborhood he lived in. A coincidence? I don't think so. In Buffalo maybe, or in Cleveland, but not in New York City.
One has to add to the equation that the baby was dead, thus Hauptmann knew that if apprehended he'd likely be charged with murder. Obtuse he may have been in some respects, stupid he was not; and streetwise he was. If he was also engaged in criminal activity generally, in America, I mean, he'd be thanking his lucky stars, not tempting fate, knowing how bad he'd look if he was arrested for any crime, let alone the Lindbergh kidnapping and, now, murder as well.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 8, 2017 0:55:40 GMT -5
Whatley didn't confess to anything, so there is no "evidence of an inside connection." And if he had any evidence regarding what he claimed was Betty Gow's illegal involvement in TLC I have yet to see it. More to the point I guess, what is it? You keep bringing that whatley near death statement up and what evidence against Betty did he have?
I suspect, and what so far you've said, is he had a hunch as did the rest of the world, so what's the big deal about that?
No, I believe the kidnapper created one set of footprints and then either Charles, Ollie or one of the Hopewell police officers or the first of the NJSP created the other set. You've stated that there are two sets of footprints going away from the house to Featherbed Lane and to a car. Those prints are each with galoshes on. So if you're correct and there are two kidnappers, then one of them took his galoshes off to go near the house then put them on again to leave the area???
One of the sets of prints by the ladder had on normal men's shoes and the other had his feet covered by socks or burlap. As far as the normal men's footwear goes, it would seem that the only people who would be out that muddy evening without foot protection would be Charles or Ollie who had come out quickly in search of the kidnappers. Each was untrained regarding crime scene preservation, though Lindbergh thought he knew lots about fingerprints.
I don't know much about CAL's German families. I'd be interested in learning about them - know of a book?
O know there had to have been an awful lot of temptation for him which he seemed to mostly weather well.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jun 8, 2017 8:35:42 GMT -5
Pzb, I believe your generalized conclusion is flawed because it does not consider the ground conditions which were present on the day / night of the kidnapping, and which are the only ground conditions which are relevant here. The lack of readily-discernible footprints all around that very narrow 6 inch walkway, and which should have been far more present for anyone raising that ladder regardless of light or wind conditions, is very revealing. That area of ground was clearly firmer and of less moisture content than the area further west of the outer wall which showed the retreating footprints. Check the area of ground under the eaves of your own house after it's been raining during the day and note if it is generally drier and therefore firmer, than the ground beyond the overhang of the eaves.
Perhaps you or anyone else can then explain why the purported problem of "banging shutters" that seems to exist on this board only, was never an issue to anyone within the house, including the light-sleeping baby who was the nighttime occupant of that room, from the time the Lindberghs first started staying at Highfields in late October 1931.
Michael, we have an account from someone else about Whateley's alleged opinion, that's all. If you're claiming this type of "evidence" is conclusive of anything other than this, that is the only thing here to take notice of. To quote Lincoln: "thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death."
Scathma, if you're implying Hauptmann actually had no idea what was in the mythical shoebox until the closet-drenching rain of August 1934, consider that he also claimed to have separated the wet bills once he found them and dried them before re-assembling them in his hiding places. Yet, it was revealed in the FBI Summary Report 1, well before his arrest, that the bills of a sequence close to those discovered by Hauptmann within the shoebox, were essentially being passed in the same order, up to and after the date he claimed to have discovered the shoebox. This is where Hauptmann blew it, as he would have had no reasonable possibility of re-assembling the dried bills in the same basic order. In actuality, he just pulled out the bills from their originally assembled order and passed them. The papers had previously been asked in early 1934 to kaibosh the publicity for discovered ransom notes from that point forward. Hauptmann was bold enough by August to start passing them again and not long after he was caught in the sting. The Fisch Story is now just a fish story.
John, the odds that Hauptmann had no idea he was spending ransom money in the late summer of 1934, when considered in tandem with the totality of the physical circumstantial evidence against him from the beginning of this crime, I believe makes this discussion pointless. Hauptmann was very cunning and an extremely adept liar but actually quite stupid, especially as it relates to the stridency within his general belief he was somehow "untouchable" by spending the money in his garage.
Jack, I'm still divided on whether or not there were two kidnappers. And by your point, if one of the retreating kidnappers was wearing galoshes (the other footprints not being those of a kidnapper) as you state, doesn't that mean the kidnapper who went in the nursery in sock-like coverings, still had to have put his galoshes back on? I tend to believe more than not there were two kidnappers and both were wearing some kind of sock-like covering the entire time. They didn't leave tell tale prints right under the window because the ground there was firmer and less moist there, therefore the one who went into the nursery left only a few traces of mud. The one footprint facing the house was a result of stepping down from the ladder with some force, possibly due to the ladder rail suddenly splitting. Both kidnappers then altered their retreat from a path that would have run alongside the house to a path 90 degrees directly away from the house, which is why we now see the retreating footprints imprinted in the softer mud farther away from the house.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 8, 2017 11:27:38 GMT -5
Precisely, Amy. It makes no sense whatsoever that Hauptmann (if the perp) was spreading the ransom money like confetti in late summer, 1934. Stranger still is the fact that he was for all intents and purposes creating a paper trail that was leading right to the neighborhood he lived in. A coincidence? I don't think so. In Buffalo maybe, or in Cleveland, but not in New York City. One has to add to the equation that the baby was dead, thus Hauptmann knew that if apprehended he'd likely be charged with murder. Obtuse he may have been in some respects, stupid he was not; and streetwise he was. If he was also engaged in criminal activity generally, in America, I mean, he'd be thanking his lucky stars, not tempting fate, knowing how bad he'd look if he was arrested for any crime, let alone the Lindbergh kidnapping and, now, murder as well. (1) Makes no sense that Hauptmann "was spreading the ransom money like confetti"? Not exactly. If it's the only money he has and he can't exchange it for other currency, he doesn't have any other realistic option other than to go back to doing carpentry. (2) Hauptmann was not leaving a paper trail that led "right to the neighborhood he lived in." The neighborhood where the bulk of the ransom loot was passed in summer 1934 was Yorkville, a heavily German area on Manhattan's Upper East Side. Hauptmann lived in the Bronx. It was Yorkville that was the geographical focus of law enforcement immediately up until Hauptmann passed the ransom bill at the gas station, which ultimately sealed his fate. (3) I can't see how Hauptmann would have thought he would "likely be charged with murder," IF he had no role in the physical abduction of the baby and had never even seen the baby. Hauptmann was no legal scholar, and could never have imagined how Wilentz and friends eventually contorted the law and the facts to convict him of murder.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 8, 2017 16:06:44 GMT -5
Whatley didn't confess to anything, so there is no "evidence of an inside connection." And if he had any evidence regarding what he claimed was Betty Gow's illegal involvement in TLC I have yet to see it. More to the point I guess, what is it? You keep bringing that whatley near death statement up and what evidence against Betty did he have? He confessed to having knowledge of an inside job. If you don't think that's important then I don't know what is. Perhaps you or anyone else can then explain why the purported problem of "banging shutters" that seems to exist on this board only, was never an issue to anyone within the house, including the light-sleeping baby who was the nighttime occupant of that room, from the time the Lindberghs first started staying at Highfields in late October 1931. It wasn't a problem. When the wind blew, according to Betty, that was the reason they closed them - to prevent them from flapping - which would cause them to bang. Closed no banging. Michael, we have an account from someone else about Whateley's alleged opinion, that's all. If you're claiming this type of "evidence" is conclusive of anything other than this, that is the only thing here to take notice of. To quote Lincoln: "thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death." We have much more then that Joe. We have all of the instances that point to Whateley being a source for knowledge that he wants to disclose, or in the case of the Humes actually did. We have what Robinson wrote proving the story concerning Whateley talking was known. We have the Dr. Belford statement to Stockton which proves the State heard about it as well, and were preparing for rebuttal. And finally we have Dave who not only heard about it himself during the years he actively researched but Betty herself told him Whatelely suspected her. So no, it's not just a simple case of one person saying they heard something. It's the totality of the many facts and circumstances. If anyone thinks they are going to teleport back in time to hear it themselves or else it did not happen well I cannot help them with that. All I can do is lay out everything I have - and it all conclusively points to Whateley implicating someone in that house. Now who is up for debate - one could even argue that he may have implicated himself, but to say he never said anything ignores a host of information that is there and is real.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 8, 2017 19:38:07 GMT -5
If Hauptmann didn't believe it was bad money why didn't he just take it to the bank and exchange it saying he inherited it or found it or something. Why go to a lot of trouble to very nicely hide it in the garage? Why not tell Anna about it? Why carry only one bill at a time with him? Why be exchanging big bills for small purchases? Hiring multiple kidnappers and, as stated above, having the whole CAL house involved in the crime borders on the aliens from outer space solution. How many people would have to be involved to accomplish the crime then? It seems very blatant that this and other crimes seem unsolved because of a minimum of perpetrators - nobody to talk. I'm reminded when I hear Ollie and his wife were involved and this giant conspiracy, of an interview I saw with Jim Garrison, DA for New Orleans, about the J. Kennedy assassination. Dick Cavet says to Garrison, "now according to your theory, you believe that sixteen people were shooting at President Kennedy in front of the book depository?" And Garrison said, "yes." I believe it was illegal by the time he discovered the money to possess more than $100 in gold certificates. Walking into a bank with $14K is going to arouse suspicion and certainly lead to arrest. Notice he hid the money in the garage and not the arguably more secure location of somewhere within the apartment; obviously he didn't want her to know about it or accidentally discover it, so he certainly isn't going to tell her about it. She might have harped on him to give it to Pinkus Fisch or some other "honest" means of dealing with the excess over what Isidor "owed" him, if she was even apprised of BRH's dealings with the Fischs. There are roughly the same number of people required for participation in a conspiracy led by CAL as Wilentz needed to provide false/perjured testimony against BRH. Who do you think would have an easier time assembling their team? CAL and the well-known cast within the household (wife and servants) or Wilentz (Perrone/Whited/CAL/Condon/Hochmuth/Wolf/Barr) Maybe he was ashamed/embaressed and didn't want Anna to know he'd lost so much money...and that was a lot of money then. When the gas station guy said something about the gold note he didn't say, whoa, that's not ransom money, he thought he of illegal bills. The bills were soaking wet and they needed to be separated. Imagine there was that much room in an upstairs apt. for that. As for the single bill, maybe he'd passed several more earlier in the month; $20 went a lot further in those days.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 8, 2017 23:17:48 GMT -5
Yorkville was a heavily German neighborhood at the time and a foolish place for a German national like Hauptmann to have been passing ransom bills. If he was guilty or had any complicity in the kidnapping he ought to have known better.
Hauptmann was aware of all the publicity surrounding the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, the outrage when the child's dead body was found, and that any connection to that would be very serious business.
That he was German would have been by 1934 even more of a liability than previously, what with the rise of the Nazi party in Germany, his having served his country in the world war. In addition to this he had arrived in the States illegally.
There were factors that would have worked against Hauptmann if caught, what with all that ransom money squirreled away, and I find it difficult to believe that he hadn't considered the ramifications. The "Fisch story" was a poor excuse for this.
All I'm trying to suggest here is that I believe that there has to be much more to the Hauptmann story. The man had no safety net (so to speak), he was playing with dynamite by passing the ransom bills, and yet he feels assured that the tale of the shoebox given to him by a friend recently deceased in Germany would explain all!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 9, 2017 2:01:05 GMT -5
The Ollie "death-bed confessional evidence" is not evidence, it's called hearsay. In this instance, it's more like a snitch, but it doesn't sound like he knew anything specific or that would have come out. You might say, well, why would that come out? Well, why would the original statement come out?
Regarding Betty's conversation with Dave which you use as a "proof," Michael, you neglected to mention that she also said she had nothing to do with the kidnapping, and that "it was Hauptmann, Hauptmann, Hauptmann."
I believe Fisher knew of Ollie's death bed statement and chose not to use it in his books.
Regarding footprints near the house there was one set with socks or burlap over shoes or feet, and one set of normal men's footwear. That would mean, the two kidnappers who left with galoshes on, as most on here believe had arrived normally, they would have also had galoshes on. Now one would take his galoshes off to put socks or burlap on, but why would the other take off his galoshes just to go near the house, then put them back on to exit? Doesn't make sense to waste that much time.
I believe the true single kidnapper had socks over his shoes and the other footprints were from an adulterated crime scene. The two sets of footprints heading towards Featherbed Lane were made by police or reporters.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2017 5:32:20 GMT -5
The Ollie "death-bed confessional evidence" is not evidence, it's called hearsay. In this instance, it's more like a snitch, but it doesn't sound like he knew anything specific or that would have come out. You might say, well, why would that come out? Well, why would the original statement come out? I know what hearsay is Jack, and if we were in Court, today, attempting to admit what he said on his deathbed it would not be allowed. But is that what we're doing here? Everytime someone counters what they don't "like" they suddenly become a Lawyer and this Board morphs into a Courtroom. Again, it's the totality of the many facts and circumstances. If anyone thinks they are going to teleport back in time to hear it themselves or else it did not happen well I cannot help them with that. All I can do is lay out everything I have - and it all conclusively points to Whateley implicating someone in that house. Go back to March 2nd when Whateley blurted out to Reporters that it was an inside job because Wahgoosh didn't bark - continue to his death - then onto the trial preparation. Oh right I did that already. So picking one event in an attempt to label it in one way or another doesn't have the effect you are looking for. If it was all alone with nothing to support it then I may not have written about it, I don't know, but it's impossible not to with everything else which surrounds it. Regarding Betty's conversation with Dave which you use as a "proof," Michael, you neglected to mention that she also said she had nothing to do with the kidnapping, and that "it was Hauptmann, Hauptmann, Hauptmann." I didn't neglect anything. Now you may not like it, or you could even believe he was wrong or anything else, but it's another fact which supports that he made this confession to clergy while dying. Are you suggesting Betty's defense against an accusation disproves he said something? It actually supports what I've written. Regarding footprints near the house there was one set with socks or burlap over shoes or feet, and one set of normal men's footwear. That would mean, the two kidnappers who left with galoshes on, as most on here believe had arrived normally, they would have also had galoshes on. Now one would take his galoshes off to put socks or burlap on, but why would the other take off his galoshes just to go near the house, then put them back on to exit? Doesn't make sense to waste that much time. As I've written, the different witnesses described the footprints in many different ways. What we do know was there were 2 sets leading away from the house, one print point toward it, and 1 set leading to the back. That set leading to the back was supposed to have been Anne's who couldn't seem to stay on that boardwalk during the daylight hours. Does that make any sense? Nothing does. In fact "time" is an important factor and when one looks at all that happened, and how it happened, we're faced with the same impression the Police were at the time - inside job. I believe the true single kidnapper had socks over his shoes and the other footprints were from an adulterated crime scene. The two sets of footprints heading towards Featherbed Lane were made by police or reporters. I've already addressed this ad nauseum. If you choose not to believe the source material or to think maybe some reporter got there before everyone then walked away from the house then I can't debate it any further. No police walked in that yard before the evidence was found. Police guarded that yard. Reporters weren't even there yet. The evidence wasn't trampled by Reporters until the late forenoon of March 2nd.
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Jun 9, 2017 5:44:58 GMT -5
I believe your generalized conclusion is flawed because it does not consider the ground conditions which were present on the day / night of the kidnapping, and which are the only ground conditions which are relevant here - Joe
Joe, it may be a flawed opinion, but it also a considered opinion. My point was that it seems reasonable to suggest the board was placed there for a reason, and that likely the reason was to have a firmer walking surface, indicating that the ground was softer and muckier along that side of the house. If this is not a reasonable conclusion I'd like to know why not. I agree I do not know the conditions of the ground on the night in question, but there was Anne's footprint and the "covered shoe" impression, so it was soft enough for that to show.
Perhaps you or anyone else can then explain why the purported problem of "banging shutters" that seems to exist on this board only, was never an issue to anyone within the house, including the light-sleeping baby who was the nighttime occupant of that room, from the time the Lindberghs first started staying at Highfields in late October 1931 - Joe
The reason Betty gave for closing the shutters was that they flapped. This itself raises some questions. My query was this: at some point during that night, the shutters were opened and then left unsecured. Why then did they not flap and make noise and alert those in the house that the shutters had somehow loosened or opened. Why did they even "fix the shutters as best we could" as Betty stated? Why not secure them in place against the side of the house as all the other shutters appear to be in the photo's - that would stop them flapping. If they flapped and had to be closed as Betty said they did, why was no noise heard after the were "un-fixed". Did they really make noise or did they not? If they did not, what does it matter if they do flap? Let them flap all they like if it bothers no-one.
I don't know that the issue is a "problem" necessarily. It may even be trivial or unimportant to some. To me it's just a "why" thought I had as I guess we all have at times when looking at aspects of this case. It just seems to me it's another thing that's not quite right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 8:11:49 GMT -5
Michael, Is it known when the boardwalk was laid down on that side of the house? Was it for workman or just for family use? When looking at the picture you posted on page 4 of this thread that shows the ladder impressions in the ground, the board looks dirty but not heavily. Also there was some sort of ladder that was laying across the entryway to the cement patio area on the back of the house. What kind of ladder was this and was any explanation given to why it was there? Is this ladder mentioned in any of the reports as being present in that position when authorities arrived on the scene? I am thinking about Anne making that trek down the board walk the afternoon of March 1. If that ladder was there and in that position she would have had to negotiate it to get onto the patio. If it wasn't there in the afternoon, why is it there the morning after the kidnapping? Here is a link to a Getty image picture of the ladder I am referencing above: www.gettyimages.com/license/107416255
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 9, 2017 12:37:17 GMT -5
I just don't think something should be called evidence if it's speculation.
If Ollie had this famous evidence against someone in the house why didn't he go to the police? Must not have been so famous.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jun 9, 2017 13:41:48 GMT -5
I don't have much difficulty believing Ollie said something like this on his deathbed and there are enough corroborating sources to back that up, although I would automatically discount any sources that simply repeated a previous source. I have no doubts though that if it was Betty Gow or anyone else within the Highfields household that he implicated, he was absolutely wrong. Just because someone is dying and feels they need to relieve their burden, doesn't equate to them knowing the truth or telling the truth. They may actually believe they're telling the truth, but if it's not the truth, it means nothing more than the fact they were wrong. Ollie's deathbed account is dramatic and poignant, but also quite meaningless in the final analysis with nothing further to back it up.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2017 16:49:08 GMT -5
Joe, it may be a flawed opinion, but it also a considered opinion. My point was that it seems reasonable to suggest the board was placed there for a reason, and that likely the reason was to have a firmer walking surface, indicating that the ground was softer and muckier along that side of the house. If this is not a reasonable conclusion I'd like to know why not. I agree I do not know the conditions of the ground on the night in question, but there was Anne's footprint and the "covered shoe" impression, so it was soft enough for that to show. Exactly. The prints leading to the back of the house along with the print facing the house are in the area that Joe suggests may not have shown prints or other impressions. The reason Betty gave for closing the shutters was that they flapped. This itself raises some questions. My query was this: at some point during that night, the shutters were opened and then left unsecured. Why then did they not flap and make noise and alert those in the house that the shutters had somehow loosened or opened. The answer is clear: They would have. Because of this it is ignored if one doesn't like the inside job theory. Michael, Is it known when the boardwalk was laid down on that side of the house? Was it for workman or just for family use? When looking at the picture you posted on page 4 of this thread that shows the ladder impressions in the ground, the board looks dirty but not heavily. Also there was some sort of ladder that was laying across the entryway to the cement patio area on the back of the house. What kind of ladder was this and was any explanation given to why it was there? Is this ladder mentioned in any of the reports as being present in that position when authorities arrived on the scene? I am thinking about Anne making that trek down the board walk the afternoon of March 1. If that ladder was there and in that position she would have had to negotiate it to get onto the patio. If it wasn't there in the afternoon, why is it there the morning after the kidnapping? The boardwalk was put down by the workers so they did not have to walk in the mud. I don't exactly remember the source, but I believe this was a construction worker's ladder that I think was in the garage then brought to the veranda sometime later by police and was actually used to climb up to that window at some point (as part of their investigation). I just don't think something should be called evidence if it's speculation. If Ollie had this famous evidence against someone in the house why didn't he go to the police? Must not have been so famous. You are going to have to make up your mind. Either you believe Betty or you don't. Pointing to Betty's denial means you believe he said something. Next as I wrote throughout the book, Whateley was letting certain things slip. These things are in line with this confession. Now each time whether to Garsson, the press, Thayer & Rosner, he realizes what he's doing then stops. Look specifically at what he told Garsson. He stops because he's afraid to continue. The real question is, when the times arise that he contradicts Lindbergh or Police by injecting these thoughts, why isn't he terminated? Think about that. Was Lindbergh the type to tolerate the contradicting voicing of these thoughts? I don't have much difficulty believing Ollie said something like this on his deathbed and there are enough corroborating sources to back that up, although I would automatically discount any sources that simply repeated a previous source. I have no doubts though that if it was Betty Gow or anyone else within the Highfields household that he implicated, he was absolutely wrong. Just because someone is dying and feels they need to relieve their burden, doesn't equate to them knowing the truth or telling the truth. They may actually believe they're telling the truth, but if it's not the truth, it means nothing more than the fact they were wrong. Ollie's deathbed account is dramatic and poignant, but also quite meaningless in the final analysis with nothing further to back it up. I think anything coming from Olly, Elsie, Betty, Anne, or Lindbergh are extremely important. If, for example, Hume died making this confession it's hard to assign any weight to it. But it was Whateley himself. He was there at all stages, before, during, and after. He's indicating inside job the very morning after the crime.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2017 20:41:56 GMT -5
Michael, Is it known when the boardwalk was laid down on that side of the house? Was it for workman or just for family use? When looking at the picture you posted on page 4 of this thread that shows the ladder impressions in the ground, the board looks dirty but not heavily. Also there was some sort of ladder that was laying across the entryway to the cement patio area on the back of the house. What kind of ladder was this and was any explanation given to why it was there? Is this ladder mentioned in any of the reports as being present in that position when authorities arrived on the scene? I am thinking about Anne making that trek down the board walk the afternoon of March 1. If that ladder was there and in that position she would have had to negotiate it to get onto the patio. If it wasn't there in the afternoon, why is it there the morning after the kidnapping? In the book I quoted Keaten as telling Sisk that ladder was lying on the veranda the night of the crime (page 339). If that was the case I still cannot say it was exactly where that picture shows it because I am positive the police used it for a climb. If I find the other source that I mentioned in my previous post I will make sure to quote it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 23:59:27 GMT -5
In the book I quoted Keaten as telling Sisk that ladder was lying on the veranda the night of the crime (page 339). If that was the case I still cannot say it was exactly where that picture shows it because I am positive the police used it for a climb. If I find the other source that I mentioned in my previous post I will make sure to quote it. Thanks Michael for referring me to your book. I found the veranda reference on page 349. I think the picture I am posting here is probably the position the painter's ladder was found in. This picture looks like it was taken early on March 2 before they started experimenting with the kidnap window. The shutters are in the position that they were found when police first arrived on the scene. www.nj.gov/state/archives/images/slcsp001/SLCSP001_07.jpg
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 10, 2017 0:09:33 GMT -5
I think this is a picture taken a few minutes later, which also shows the same ladder lying on the patio. I guess they're using yet another ladder to try the climb, since the one they're using isn't the kidnap ladder.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jun 12, 2017 13:30:03 GMT -5
Joe, it may be a flawed opinion, but it also a considered opinion. My point was that it seems reasonable to suggest the board was placed there for a reason, and that likely the reason was to have a firmer walking surface, indicating that the ground was softer and muckier along that side of the house. If this is not a reasonable conclusion I'd like to know why not. I agree I do not know the conditions of the ground on the night in question, but there was Anne's footprint and the "covered shoe" impression, so it was soft enough for that to show. It's certainly reasonable to conclude the board walkway was placed there to allow traffic without people having to negotiate less-than-desirable ground conditions, and I'm not debating that. What I do find unreasonable is the seeming firm belief by many here that the ground directly under the south-east corner window was of the same moisture content, consistency and condition as the area which showed the kidnappers' retreating footprints, even though from a purely logical standpoint this makes very little sense, given the overhang of the eaves and the apparent relative firmness of the ground there as seen in photos. Then we have Anne Lindbergh, who went for her mid-afternoon walk and walked alongside the house with the intention of getting the attention of Betty Gow and the child at the south-east corner window, by throwing pebbles at it. Apparently we are led to believe the ground was so difficult to manage that even in the daytime, Anne was not able to stay on the walkway! It seems clear that many of Anne Lindbergh's footprints would out of necessity have been well back from the area of the walkway, in order for her to have had a line of sight with the nursery window. And I don't think Anne would have been wearing ribbed shoe coverings either, which were worn by the kidnappers to leave a minimal impression, but rather she probably wore some kind of walking shoe with a distinct heel, which would certainly have made more of an impression than shoe coverings. There seems to be a real desire to continually pump something here, to somehow reinforce the belief that the kidnappers were "familiar with the ground" and an untenable assertion that they were still somehow able to raise a two or three-section ladder while managing to keep focused and centred on the same 6" walkway, even in daylight hours. The absurdity within this should be clear, as the next question would probably be, "Why on earth would they go to all that bother, only to go plodding off through the mud minutes later, leaving all kinds of footprints?" And as Amy pointed out earlier, that same walkway was virtually mud-free, so what does that also tell us about the "muddiness" of the directly-surrounding ground? In my opinion, the conclusion is obvious. The ground directly under the south-east corner window was of relatively firm enough consistency which did not leave telltale signs of the kidnappers' presence there, other than one firm step down and two holes made by the ladder rails. Their path of retreat was made on softer and muddier ground, which then clearly supported their footprints.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 12, 2017 17:33:01 GMT -5
Joe, it may be a flawed opinion, but it also a considered opinion. My point was that it seems reasonable to suggest the board was placed there for a reason, and that likely the reason was to have a firmer walking surface, indicating that the ground was softer and muckier along that side of the house. If this is not a reasonable conclusion I'd like to know why not. I agree I do not know the conditions of the ground on the night in question, but there was Anne's footprint and the "covered shoe" impression, so it was soft enough for that to show. What I do find unreasonable is the seeming firm belief by many here that the ground directly under the south-east corner window was of the same moisture content, consistency and condition as the area which showed the kidnappers' retreating footprints, even though from a purely logical standpoint this makes very little sense, given the overhang of the eaves and the apparent relative firmness of the ground there as seen in photos. In my opinion, the conclusion is obvious. The ground directly under the south-east corner window was of relatively firm enough consistency which did not leave telltale signs of the kidnappers' presence there, other than one firm step down and two holes made by the ladder rails. Their path of retreat was made on softer and muddier ground, which then clearly supported their footprints. This doesn't make any sense. You'd have a good theory was there not a) a footprint found facing the window b) a burlap bag mark below the window c) mud on top of the shutters. Jumping through hoops to prove the opposite of what all evidence shows.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jun 13, 2017 8:51:40 GMT -5
What I do find unreasonable is the seeming firm belief by many here that the ground directly under the south-east corner window was of the same moisture content, consistency and condition as the area which showed the kidnappers' retreating footprints, even though from a purely logical standpoint this makes very little sense, given the overhang of the eaves and the apparent relative firmness of the ground there as seen in photos. In my opinion, the conclusion is obvious. The ground directly under the south-east corner window was of relatively firm enough consistency which did not leave telltale signs of the kidnappers' presence there, other than one firm step down and two holes made by the ladder rails. Their path of retreat was made on softer and muddier ground, which then clearly supported their footprints. This doesn't make any sense. You'd have a good theory was there not a) a footprint found facing the window b) a burlap bag mark below the window c) mud on top of the shutters. Jumping through hoops to prove the opposite of what all evidence shows. What is " what all the evidence shows" and according to whom ? Let's discuss this point by point, before we decide who might be jumping through hoops here to shoehorn fit a pet theory. - We have one relatively distinct print of a sock-covered foot or shoe to the left of the base of the ladder in supposedly "mucky mud," so are you then implying this print was made by a one-legged kidnapper? Where is the equal indication of the other foot, the right one to be precise that went up or down that ladder? Or was he perhaps straddling himself between the left side of the ladder to a position on the 6" board a number of feet away? I'm kidding of course, as there would be no reason for him to do this, if he then walked away minutes later leaving a trail of telltale footprints, in ground that actually supported footprints. Does this then not demonstrate that this specific print was made as a result of some considerable force or impact upon the ground on which the left foot came down, and on ground which did not readily produce footprints under normal step pressure?
- We have a burlap bag mark below the window. Again, think impact here. Where are the prints of the feet belonging to the kidnapper who picked up the same burlap bag and took it away, or was he dutifully standing on the 6" walkway while doing this as well?
- We have a small bit of mud on the top of the main floor shutter below the nursery window. We have evidence here that strongly suggests the ladder was climbed by at least one kidnapper. The fact that this singular chunk of mud landed where it did, the relative mud-free condition of the ladder rungs, are both good indicators that it had relative firmness and had been picked up randomly by the cloth covering on his shoe or foot.
- As a general comment, and within the area of ground we're discussing, we have one crime scene that might have been relatively well guarded to prevent contamination only, as Michael has documented in TDC, but sadly, this is where the good news ends. The investigation of the footprints by the NJSP was botched, pure and simple. As far as I know, there are no large scale photographs or diagrams noting exactly where each of the observed footprints was found as well as ground condition specifics. No one who attended the crime scene with the purpose of investigating it, was trained, prepared or competent enough to extract the information needed, most notably the variability within the condition and consistency of the crime scene ground close to the house. Sorry, but just generalizing the crime scene ground as "muddy" doesn't fly here, so why would we search for almost-inordinate levels of detail and the truth everywhere else, then just blow by this area? It's a bit like telling a manufacturer the flag you want for your immaculate front lawn is red, white and blue and then being horrified to discover the one you receive is fluorescent red, wimbledon white and powder blue. To say we need to get back to a meaningful level of discernment here is an understatement.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 13, 2017 14:38:56 GMT -5
The only thing which can be determined for certain is that the footprints which were covered by socks belonged to the kidnapper. They weren't covered by the burlap bag because Charlie was in the burlap bag. So any other footprints including those wandering away with a dog or near the house, are speculation. Assuming things is just another way of complicating them from what is known.
"A case is seldom solved by fancy theories." quote from the lead detective in the Clutter murders, 1959.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 13, 2017 15:59:52 GMT -5
What is " what all the evidence shows" and according to whom ? Let's discuss this point by point, before we decide who might be jumping through hoops here to shoehorn fit a pet theory. Joe, although I am sincerely trying, I am having a hard time understanding your position. These prints exist, and you seem to be saying that someone is creating them with a tremendous amount of force? Why? Are you suggesting the two things that prove it was muddy were created by someone jumping or falling? Help me out here. If so, doesn't that ruin Bornmann's position that the nursery showed mud on one foot? Also, I assume you believe Anne's testimony that the smaller prints under the window leading to the back of the house were hers. She was tiny and weighed next to nothing. So we have the board there for a reason along with several items which indicate mud soft enough to show prints.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 17:11:10 GMT -5
Also, I assume you believe Anne's testimony that the smaller prints under the window leading to the back of the house were hers. She was tiny and did weighed next to nothing. So we have the board there for a reason along with several items which indicate mud soft enough to show prints. From Dark Corners, Chapter 12 page 148: "Next DeGaetano sees the female footprint, and is told by Marshall Wolf(who is obviously standing guard nearby) the feminine prints had already been identified as belonging to Mrs. Lindbergh, and Wolfe also tells DeGaetano where the ladder is." (Underscoring is mine) Michael, I am trying to understand and work my way through all this footprint stuff. In the segment of your book that I quoted, the number of female prints changes from singular (DeGaetano) to plural (Marshall). That is why I underscored these two descriptions. How many muddy female prints were actually found along side or near the boardwalk that Anne was supposed to have made? Is there just one or are there more than one female prints in the mud? If you have this in your book somewhere, I apologize for asking you about this.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 13, 2017 18:01:36 GMT -5
Joe stated: "Does this then not demonstrate that this specific print was made as a result of some considerable force or impact upon the ground on which the left foot came down".
I am attempting to attach a piece from Fisher's 1987 The Lindbergh Case. If this information presented by Fisher is correct and has not been subsequently discredited, it is interesting that at least some evidence existed that Hauptmann sustained an injury to his LEFT foot/leg during the time frame of the kidnapping.Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|