Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 3, 2017 16:18:12 GMT -5
I thought I would start this thread as a means of attempting to pull together any and all valuable information regarding the events which took place on Tuesday, March 1, 1932 and which might have proven relevant towards the kidnapping of that evening. I have used many different sources for my own timeline. Actual times of events listed may be approximate based on one source against another and of course should be questioned where they need to be clarified.
I realize that we may initially end up with a number of conflicting elements here, based on individual persuasions and theories, but I don't discount the possibility that ultimately through "cross-pollination," all observations here may ultimately be helpful towards establishing the most coherent explanation yet for what actually happened. And I think we could have some real fun with this.
For what it's worth, here are my thoughts to kick things off, with some further personal impressions presented in (brackets). It certainly doesn't satisfy everything in my mind at this point, but it's a lot closer than it was ten or even five years ago and I just thought I would throw it out there:
10:00 am: Lindbergh neighbor Joseph Kuchta sees a large, dark blue touring car with curtains drawn coming down the road very slowly towards Lindbergh’s driveway. The driver had a stout face and the passenger a long slim face. (Possibly Duane Baker in this vehicle. According to witness Stowe Studley, Baker had access to a large, dark blue touring car at the time of the kidnapping, which may have belonged to his cousin in New Jersey.)
1:00 - 2:00 pm: Betty Gow arrives at Highfields, to help Anne look after the baby, as she recovers from her cold. Betty and Ellerson, the chauffeur, eat lunch together and he drives back to Englewood.
3:00 - 4:00 pm: Anne goes for a walk along the length of the Lindbergh driveway and returns to the house. She walks along the east side of the house in order to get the attention of Betty Gow and CALjr at the south-east corner window or the French window at the rear of the house.
3:30 pm: Carrie Conover and mother-in-law, Mrs. Henry Conover, see a dark sedan, with a ladder across the top of the seats, driving towards Wertsville. No description of the driver was given.
4:30 pm: Mrs. Henry Wendling, from her farmhouse on Zion-Wertsville Rd., sees a vehicle of the same description given by Ben Lupica, (see 6:00 pm) as it was heading west toward Hopewell-Wertsville Rd. (now Hopewell-Amwell Rd.) No description of the driver given, and she did not notice whether or not a ladder was in the car. (This vehicle would have been heading from the general direction of Skillman.) 6:00 pm: Ben Lupica sees a black or dark blue Dodge sedan coming around the bend at Lindbergh’s driveway on Hopewell-Wertsville Road, (now Hopewell-Amwell Rd.) with ladders across the top of the seats. The driver of the Dodge pulls to the far left side of the road, as Lupica gets closer. (Richard Hauptmann is the driver of the Dodge sedan. Lupica is driving his father's old car, which the driver of the Dodge, through his action of pulling to his extreme left, apparently believes to be the vehicle being driven by his accomplice(s), whom he had planned to rendezvous with. I have previously seen a description of the car Lupica was driving and feel reasonably confident it was an older convertible style (touring) vehicle.)
Lindbergh neighbor John Kristofek sees a large, dark coloured touring car with curtains drawn, heading in the direction of Skillman. (If this was one of the kidnappers, he was heading away from Highfields, and could have taken a wrong turn at this particular time. Perhaps he should have been in the area Lupica was, which is why the driver of the Dodge might have thought that Lupica was his accomplice.)
6:30 - 6:45 pm: Henry Conover and other family members arrive home and see the lights of a vehicle on Featherbed Lane, which they consider very unusual given the time of day and that the road is almost impassible at this time of year. When they turn on their house lights, the driver extinguishes his vehicle lights leading them to believe his actions may have been suspicious, so they decide not to offer any assistance. (This is the vehicle seen earlier by Lupica, it's driver having taken a wrong right turn shortly afterwards, believing the entrance to Featherbed Lane was the entrance to the Lindbergh estate or a passable access route. He's either heading into or out of Featherbed Lane when the Conovers see him; there seems to be some debate here as to which one it is.)
7:40 pm: Archie Adams, Office Manager of the State Village for Epileptics in Skillman, sees two speeding vehicles that almost force him off the road, one he believed to be a Dodge and the other a sedan, turning onto Hopewell-Wertsville Rd. (now Hopewell-Amwell Rd.) and head in the direction of the Lindbergh estate. (Both kidnapper vehicles have rendezvoused by this point and I believe Adams may have been mistaken about the sedan, and that it was actually a touring vehicle.) 8:05 – 8:10 pm: Anne Lindbergh thinks she hears the sound of car tires on gravel. (This is the vehicle, driven by Richard Hauptmann, who has just dropped off the ladder and other equipment at a staging point near the driveway.)
8:23 pm: Wilmer Moore sees a vehicle with mud on it’s front fenders speeding by his home (Same vehicle seen by Lupica and the Conovers and the same vehicle heard by Anne, this is Richard Hauptmann hurrying back to the Bronx.)
8:25 pm: Charles Lindbergh arrives home and honks his horn, a sign for Ollie Whateley to open the garage door. (This time of arrival appears to be unanimous among all witnesses.)
8:30 pm: Charles and Anne go upstairs to their bathroom for 5 minutes where he washes his hands.
8:35 pm: Charles and Anne eat dinner in the dining room. (I estimate their dinner would have taken them about 15 minutes.)
8:45 pm (The kidnappers, with fabric coverings over their feet, would have been approaching the area under the nursery window by walking along the east wall of the house from their staging area, at about this time.)
8:50 pm: Charles and Anne enter the living room and, according to Anne, sit by the fire for between 1 and 5 minutes. During this time, Lindbergh hears a noise which he attributes to the slats from an orange crate falling to the kitchen floor. (This was the sound of the splitting ladder suddenly striking the first floor shutter, which investigators discovered had been dented by a sudden impact. I realize the time of the noise (approx. 8:50 - 8:55 pm) does not agree with other statements, including that at trial, which attribute the noise being heard between 9:00 and 9:15 pm, but this time is based on a statement given by Anne on 3/11/32. It also makes more sense, given the time it would have taken the following additional events to occur prior to 10:00 pm.)
(The kidnappers, with CALjr, are now heading away from the house in a straight easterly direction across the open field towards their parked car on Hopewell-Wertsville Rd. (now Hopewell-Amwell Rd.) having given up their original intention of retreating in a more discreet fashion, back alongside the house and down the driveway.)
8:55 pm: Charles and Anne go upstairs to their bedroom where they talk for 10-15 minutes, before Lindbergh takes a bath. (CALjr is now gone.)
9:00 pm: Lindbergh neighbours Joseph Kuchta and John Kristofeck both report that their dogs began barking and continued to do so for at least 5 minutes. They seemed to be running towards the Lindbergh estate, near the chicken coops, and according to Kuchta, his dog made sharp yelps as though he was chasing somebody. Dog pawprints and footprints were found to be intermingled in the area near the chicken coops. (The kidnappers were "intercepted" by the Kuchta and Kristofeck dogs but managed to placate them long enough to get to their car and escape.)
9:10 - 9:15 pm: Doc Adams sees a large, Packard or Overland open touring coming south on North Greenwood Ave., which is a southerly extension of the present day Hopewell-Wertsville Rd. The driver, who is speeding, is apparently unaware of the hump at the railway crossing, which causes the vehicle to go airborne. The touring car makes a left turn and proceeds east along East Broad St., in the direction of Skillman.
9:30 pm: Charles has finished his bath and enters the library, while Anne draws her bath.
9:45 pm: After her bath, Anne walks from her bedroom to the baby's room, (baby's bathroom?) where she retrieves her toothpaste. She does not turn on the light and goes right back to her room.
10:00 pm: Betty Gow goes to the nursery to check on CALjr and discovers him to be missing. (All hell is about to break loose..)
Added Note: There seems to be a possible connection within this timeline and the actions of what I believe were the kidnappers, and the village of Skillman. I have to wonder if Skillman might have been the original meeting up place for the kidnappers on the morning of March 1. And also, if it represented the place where CALjr might have been kept, pending a quick "snatch and return" of money for child, within 2 - 4 days as the nursery ransom note indicated. Of course, once Lindbergh called the police in, all bets would have been off in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jul 3, 2017 18:33:12 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 4, 2017 8:18:16 GMT -5
There are so many sources for this piece of information and I decided upon the 3:00 - 4:00 pm time frame in my own timeline for the following reasons:
- Anne, on 3/11/32 and 3/13/32, stated that she went for a walk down the driveway and back between 3:00 and 5:00 pm, and Betty Gow, on 3/3/32, stated Anne was in the nursery at 2:30 pm but doesn't say what time Anne leaves for her walk. Betty, in her 1/4/35 testimony states that Anne was in the nursery with Elsie Whateley sometime after 4:00 pm, and by her 3/10/32 statement, that Anne left the nursery at 4:30 pm and went down to the living room for tea, where the baby joined her. Both Elsie, on 3/10/32 and 1/4/35, as well as Betty on 1/4/35 and Elsie Whateley, appear to agree with this.
- There seem to be more accounts of Anne having returned from her walk closer to 4:00 pm than not, although Anne herself, does state on 3/11/32 and 3/13/32 that a number of events happened at 5:00 pm, including her having returned from her walk. I tend to believe she has related a number of singular events and that these were all recorded together within those statements.
- I can't imagine why Anne, feeling the effects of a cold and achy, would want to be out for more than an hour on this type of day, despite the fact the weather had cleared and it wasn't raining by this time. The temperature was beginning to drop though and the wind was starting to pick up. The driveway was only 6/10 of a mile in length, which she should have been able to cover down and back, even at a very leisurely pace, in under 40 minutes. I think if you add in some pebble tossing at the window, she would be back inside within an hour.
- At the end of the day, I don't really see how this makes much difference, as by 6:00 pm the baby is now being fed dinner and by 6:15 pm or so, both Betty and Anne have begun preparing him for bed. It seemed to have been a pretty normal and leisurely afternoon and early evening, with not much different happening, aside from the arrival of Betty Gow at Highfields sometime between 1:00 and 2:00 pm. It doesn't surprise me therefore, that there are so many mildly-conflicting statements regarding the times at which these events actually took place, and I tend to believe the house occupants on this particular day would not have been overly mindful of the time.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jul 4, 2017 13:58:59 GMT -5
There are so many sources for this piece of information and I decided upon the 3:00 - 4:00 pm time frame in my own timeline for the following reasons:
- Anne, on 3/11/32 and 3/13/32, stated that she went for a walk down the driveway and back between 3:00 and 5:00 pm
If Anne herself states this so proximate to the event, then this would seem to be the most accurate accounting of her time, regardless of the other sources to choose from after the fact and yet supported by Gardner's research. Why truncate it an hour based on personal beliefs? As for "how this makes a difference", you then have a two hour block of time that Anne is away from the house and the baby that afternoon, which is relevant to alternate theories that differ from the "official narrative". In a modern investigation, the whereabouts of the parents leading up to the crime is important; we also don't have any substantiated timeline for CAL on that entire day until almost 830pm when he purportedly arrived home from work. Why not add the time CAL called home supposedly en route from NYC but only an hour or so before he arrived, which means he didn't call from NY but somewhere along the way. This would've happened approximately the same time as the Skillman vehicle sightings. Also, why not add to the timeline the time window Ellerson and Gow arrived from Englewood, since Ellerson encountered a car at the end of the Lindbergh drive on his departure. These event times are arguably just as important to the timeline as the pebble throwing incident, dinner and bathing...
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jul 4, 2017 21:07:09 GMT -5
Joe,
I greatly enjoyed reading your initial post here. I'm sure it will prompt some interesting comments, etc., and I look forward to reading them. I like your direct approach to this case, and you always seem to see through some of the smoke and mirrors that every criminal investigation generates. Although every individual aspect needs to be critically analyzed and pursued, I have always believed that the failure to apply Occam's Razor (or as I heard many instructors say "follow the KISS method of investigation") will in most cases take you far astray. That straight line between two points is normally the correct route.
I believe that if one can make reasonable sense of all of the vehicle sightings of March 1st, it could reveal quite a bit of what really occurred that night. Your inclusion of Doc Ashton's sighting in your timeline is interesting. Ever since I read about that, I have felt that (if he is to be believed) it could be a revealing event. If a vehicle hit that hump on the railroad bridge that night at any speed in excess of 15 mph, it would have been a stranger to the area, and Ashton certainly would have noticed it. That "hump" was known to all locals, and most 17 year old kids in Hopewell (including yours truly) with a brand new driver's license would try to impress their girlfriend by hitting that hump fast enough to get all four wheels off of the ground at once. The resulting contact with the pavement was quite jolting! The driver of the "touring" car that Ashton saw certainly didn't know about that hump. One can definitely leave Lindbergh's residence, turn left and get to the road that becomes Greenwood Avenue southbound into Hopewell. As I am sure you know, if a vehicle continues from the railroad bridge to Broad Street and turns left (eastbound), the second right is Princeton Avenue which becomes the Hopewell-Mount Rose-Princeton Road (Carter Road). About one mile out of town is the location where the child's body was found. If you continue on this road it takes you to Princeton where Route 1 can be taken northeast to NYC. When living in Hopewell I took this route to NYC many times. Although this route from the Lindbergh house to NYC is certainly not the most direct, perhaps if you have the child's deceased body in the vehicle and are panicked into finding a good spot to dispose of it before any trip back to NYC is made, one would not want to travel an obvious route. The location on Mt Rose Hill was very remote in those days, it had a pull over, and it was south of Hopewell and out of the Sourland Mountains immediate area. The facts that I have read thus far tell me that the child was most likely deceased from the beginning of the kidnapping, and therefore an extreme liability to the kidnappers. They did not need a deceased child, and certainly had no reason to risk a trip back to NYC with the body, in their vehicle. It may not have been the best location but in fact it worked. Thus far, the facts that I have read leads me to believe the child was placed at that location on Mt. Rose Hill that night, and if Allen had not inadvertently discovered it, the body would have further decomposed to the point of possibly not ever having been discovered. I believe Dr. Mitchell stated that the body had been deceased since the time of the kidnapping and that the state of decomposition was consistent with 8 to 10 weeks of exposure. I have read the theories about the child being elsewhere and then brought to the Mt Rose location later. If one believes that this was a true kidnapping, then this makes no sense to me. I can see no reason for that kind of risk and exposure. Perhaps too much of Occam's Razor in me! Just some of my thoughts as to why Doc Ashton's vehicle sighting around 9 P.M. may hold some significance. If my mother was still living, I would love to ask her about the credibility of Ashton. She certainly had her opinions on the character (or lack thereof) of the two "eye witnesses" at the trial.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 4, 2017 21:16:19 GMT -5
I'd be curious to know if Lindbergh's whereabouts were ever ascertained that day. He said he was at work at NYC, at an airline office, at a dentist appointment, but he was always pretty vague--probably because no one dared question him further. Was his dentist ever interviewed? Did anyone see him in NYC that day?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 4, 2017 21:49:28 GMT -5
I'd be curious to know if Lindbergh's whereabouts were ever ascertained that day. He said he was at work at NYC, at an airline office, at a dentist appointment, but he was always pretty vague--probably because no one dared question him further. Was his dentist ever interviewed? Did anyone see him in NYC that day? They didn't even bother to look into why he missed the NYU dinner and what he did instead: “At a May 17 meeting in Trenton, where FBI representatives met with state police to discuss lines of investigation, Colonel Schwarzkopf informed the group that Colonel Lindbergh “tells me that unintentionally he completely forgot that talk and returned home. The people expecting him got in touch with Colonel Breckinridge [Lindbergh’s “confidant and legal adviser"] and asked him where Colonel Lindbergh was and Colonel Breckenridge in turn called Colonel Lindbergh.” An FBI agent asked Schwarzkopf, “Was there a typographical error in the letter from the bank [sic] where Col. Lindbergh was scheduled to talk?” It was an important question, but Schwarzkopf’s answer seemed equivocal: “We have not gone into that.”
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 5, 2017 6:38:43 GMT -5
I believe it's more a matter of finding the truth among the many contradictory statements, so regardless of what my timeline might imply from a personal theory standpoint, it still has to work free of major conundrums. Therefore, I'm not sure why I would selectively identify upwards of a three hour window for Anne's walk down and up the length of a 6/10 of a mile driveway in relatively-inclement weather, as she suffered from the effects of a cold, when the majority of household statements and testimony indicate this was not the case? Interesting too that Anne, by her own testimony on 1/3/32, claims she was walking under the nursery window at 3:00 pm and throwing pebbles at it, so we have some rather contradictory statements here from her as well. I also have to believe some of the general contradiction within the statements arises not only from the fact it was an otherwise, very normal kind of a day until 10:00 pm, but that the blunt trauma within the realization that the Lindbergh baby had just been stolen from his crib on a cold winter night, also would come into play.
What you say is valid to a point, and I realize I could make my own timeline much more detailed. I've tried to keep it relevant within the general scope of of my own theory, which I might add is anything but a done deal at this point. I'd be interested in seeing your own timeline, as I do feel that even with clearly different viewpoints, any one event may have equal or even more significant application elsewhere.
For what it's worth, I believe CAL, quite coincidentally may have had an appointment relating to the general health of his son on March 1, but that he felt it would become fodder for the tabloids and distract him from getting back his son. His failure to satisfactorily account for his whereabouts on that very day, is very unusual for someone so meticulously organized, and suggests there was something here he didn't care to go into detail about here. Do I think his actions here had anything to do with the kidnapping? No.
Point taken on the arrival of Gow and Ellerson at Highfields, and I've added that to my timeline to establish Betty's presence there.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 5, 2017 7:48:13 GMT -5
Lurp, smoke and mirrors seems to be a bustling enterprise here at times, but I think most of them get burned off in the "cold, grey light of reason.." I very much appreciate your thoughts and also about the "hump" at the Hopewell railway crossing.. there always seems to be one of those in every young driver's recollection! As you say, something a local would know about and appreciate for it's element of thrill, but I tend to believe Doc Ashton would have recognized this particular vehicle if it was local, and he appears not to have. And on a cold, windy Tuesday winter's night after 9:00 pm? I have to wonder how many locals would have been out there trying to impress their friends under those conditions. From your Hopewell experience, can you comment on that thought? Yes, I believe it's possible the kidnappers disposed of the body that night as you mention, based on the apparently very rough treatment CALjr received during the abduction, and also that the face seems to have been fairly well preserved from it's discovered, face-down position. I also consider that the essential dynamics within sphere of those involved, changed quite dramatically that night, through the action of Lindbergh bringing in the police right away and the ultimate death of the child, where there may have been an original plan in place to keep it alive (or dead) during the ransom negotiations, at a place relatively nearby, ie. a "quick snatch and return." A Mt. Rose "burial" is a powerful indicator of a need on the part of the kidnappers to dispose of the body asap and that plans had changed. This could also explain why the delay in providing the sleeping suit, a move that would have required it be removed from the corpse, at great risk. (I don't buy Wilentz's theory it was ripped off the body while the kidnappers made their getaway) One thing seems clear to me though, in that Hauptmann assumed the role of main player for the ransom negotiations and his main accomplices essentially dropped out for fear of losing their lives if they continued, basically saying to themselves, "What was I thinking about getting involved in this?!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 14:51:08 GMT -5
Very nice effort, Joe!! It is not an easy thing to put together a working theory of March 1, 1932. There is so much to consider (along with backup documentation) that must be reviewed before deciding what might belong and what doesn't.
I do need to spend more time going over what you have presented so, right now, I only have a couple of questions:
1) How many cars do you really think were involved with the kidnapping?
2) I do have concerns about the Charles "Doc" Ashton car sighting. The detailed sighting you use comes from a 1977 recollection. In the past Michael posted two reports of interviews done with Doc Ashton in 1932, one in March 1932 and one in December 1932. Ashton never mentioned this car sighting to the authorities even though he was asked if he had any information he could share about the kidnap night. So my question is, Why do you consider the 1977 recollection as being credible; so much so that you make adjustments to the time (earlier) when CAL and Anne were sitting in the living room and CAL supposedly heard the orange crate slat noise coming from the kitchen area??
I like your thought about the Skillman area as possibly involved in some way. It is the direction that the ladder car seems to have come from that night.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 5, 2017 19:21:34 GMT -5
The location on Mt Rose Hill was very remote in those days, it had a pull over, and it was south of Hopewell and out of the Sourland Mountains immediate area. The facts that I have read thus far tell me that the child was most likely deceased from the beginning of the kidnapping, and therefore an extreme liability to the kidnappers. They did not need a deceased child, and certainly had no reason to risk a trip back to NYC with the body, in their vehicle. It may not have been the best location but in fact it worked. Thus far, the facts that I have read leads me to believe the child was placed at that location on Mt. Rose Hill that night, and if Allen had not inadvertently discovered it, the body would have further decomposed to the point of possibly not ever having been discovered. I believe Dr. Mitchell stated that the body had been deceased since the time of the kidnapping and that the state of decomposition was consistent with 8 to 10 weeks of exposure. I have read the theories about the child being elsewhere and then brought to the Mt Rose location later. If one believes that this was a true kidnapping, then this makes no sense to me. I can see no reason for that kind of risk and exposure. Perhaps too much of Occam's Razor in me! Just some of my thoughts as to why Doc Ashton's vehicle sighting around 9 P.M. may hold some significance. If my mother was still living, I would love to ask her about the credibility of Ashton. She certainly had her opinions on the character (or lack thereof) of the two "eye witnesses" at the trial. Dr. Mitchell testified at the Gaston Means trial that the child died within 48 hours of the kidnapping. Of course his testimony changed in Flemington but that was because the State's theory absolutely needing the child to have been dead immediately (Full citation to come in TDC V2). Next, both locals and police had believed the child had been moved there later (e.g. Hurley TDC page 29 as just one example) because they believed that area had been walked over before the discovery. The other suggestion came from Keaten who told Agent Sisk that he believed they may have come back and "checked" the spot prior to the ransom payment to make sure it was still there (TDC 343). Here is the effort, in my opinion, to make sense of a body laying where it should have been discovered while Kidnappers were negotiating a ransom. It makes little sense but under the circumstances, if "going with" the kidnapping for ransom theory - what other recourse do they have? But in reality, Keaten believed the corpse was not there originally and later moved (TDC page 352).
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jul 5, 2017 19:57:48 GMT -5
Lurp, smoke and mirrors seems to be a bustling enterprise here at times, but I think most of them get burned off in the "cold, grey light of reason.." I very much appreciate your thoughts and also about the "hump" at the Hopewell railway crossing.. there always seems to be one of those in every young driver's recollection! As you say, something a local would know about and appreciate for it's element of thrill, but I tend to believe Doc Ashton would have recognized this particular vehicle if it was local, and he appears not to have. And on a cold, windy Tuesday winter's night after 9:00 pm? I have to wonder how many locals would have been out there trying to impress their friends under those conditions. From your Hopewell experience, can you comment on that thought? Joe, I would certainly agree with you on this point. Even when I was growing up in Hopewell in the late 50', early 60's, everybody knew everybody. Any stranger or strange vehicle in town would stand out immediately. I'm certain that this was even more so in the 1930's with far fewer vehicles. It was just a different time that has long ago disappeared. If Doc Ashton truly observed this vehicle that was traveling too fast when it hit the outrageous crown at the apex of the railroad bridge (and Ashton did not recognize this vehicle), I would firmly believe that an "outsider" was driving it. Obviously, the apparent fact that there is no record of Ashton having related this incident to anyone at that time does call for some suspicion. However, it is interesting that this alleged sighting of a "touring car" convertible in the Hopewell area on March 1st would be the third reported sighting that day. It is probably far too late in time to ascertain the credibility of Ashton.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 6, 2017 6:43:42 GMT -5
I do need to spend more time going over what you have presented so, right now, I only have a couple of questions: 1) How many cars do you really think were involved with the kidnapping? 2) I do have concerns about the Charles "Doc" Ashton car sighting. The detailed sighting you use comes from a 1977 recollection. In the past Michael posted two reports of interviews done with Doc Ashton in 1932, one in March 1932 and one in December 1932. Ashton never mentioned this car sighting to the authorities even though he was asked if he had any information he could share about the kidnap night. So my question is, Why do you consider the 1977 recollection as being credible; so much so that you make adjustments to the time (earlier) when CAL and Anne were sitting in the living room and CAL supposedly heard the orange crate slat noise coming from the kitchen area?? I like your thought about the Skillman area as possibly involved in some way. It is the direction that the ladder car seems to have come from that night. Thanks, Amy. I feel that if events of March 1 are focused on, when they were much more visible and essentially came to a climax, it will possibly illuminate additional events of the day, and may even fill in some gaps in the days before and after the kidnapping. All in all, perhaps a clearer jigsaw puzzle picture? As I said earlier, I still see some issues with my own timeline, and basically for the reasons you mention above, but let me add some more personal thoughts here: 1) Two cars were involved on March 1. A dark blue 1930 Dodge Model D sedan and an older (approx. mid 20's) large, dark blue touring car, similar to a Packard or Overland. The Dodge was driven by Richard Hauptmann, and he was there to deliver the ladder and other supplies to the staging area just off the main driveway near the house. He did not participate in the actual abduction. As a side note, it's interesting that Ben Lupica believed the Dodge was a 1929 due to the winged emblem on the radiator, remarking it was the first production year for that emblem. Ben is correct when it comes to describing the Dodge Model RA sedan, as it did undergo that change from 1928 to 1929. But the identical winged emblem also continued into 1930 for the newly-introduced Model D sedan, the same one owned by Hauptmann. Even considering the actual conditions of the time of day and the circumstances, it would still have been a challenge for Ben to accurately determine if the car he saw was actually a 1929 or 1930 model year. As far as I know this discrepancy has never been previously and adequately addressed, and I should have more on this later. The large, dark blue touring car was driven by Duane Baker, who had an accomplice with him for the actual abduction. Possibly his cousin or a brother, who lived in Jersey City and whom he had once described to a Mrs. Beck, as a "tough character." 2) Regarding the Doc Ashton account. I thought I would include it for now, because I do feel there is something to it, although I do understand the concern you mention. I feel this observation by Ashton, may be in the same light as Lindbergh's recollection of the sharp noise that he thought might have come from the kitchen. During questioning by the NJSP, CAL failed to mention this detail, even though he had done so with Deputy Williamson upon his arrival at the house. Perhaps one of those memories, that only surfaces in a kind of random way, because it is not consciously perceived to be relevant towards events that were learned about until later. To summarize, Doc Ashton would have thought the speeding touring car was an unusual occurrence but he did not actually connect it with subsequent news of the kidnapping, until much later and possibly not until he felt it was no longer relevant to the investigation. When the Princeton Recollector in 1977, was looking for local accounts from the time of the kidnapping, Ashton may have thought it was a good time to share a memory, which by then was one that had resurfaced and that he'd been contemplating for a long time. A possibility? I do believe the Lindberghs were in the living room earlier than the time given by Lindbergh at the trial. Yes, it does fit more in line with the Kuchta and Kristofeck dogs incident, as well as the Doc Ashton account, and I was consciously aware of this when I created my own timeline. But it also makes more sense to me, given the fact that after they sat in the living room, both Charles and Anne went upstairs to their bedroom where they talked for 10 - 15 minutes, before he took a bath, which was probably drawing while they talked, but that he would probably have enjoyed for at least ten minutes, before getting out, drying himself off and doing anything else he needed to in the bathroom. (maybe getting into too much information here!) Bottom line, if he's also back downstairs in the library by 9:30 pm, then I don't see how he could have heard the noise in the living room as late as between 9:10 pm and 9:15 pm.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jul 6, 2017 20:01:36 GMT -5
Joe,
I have looked through some of my Hopewell keepsakes from the past to see if I had anything that mentions Doc Ashton. I did not find anything pertaining to his alleged sighting on the night of March 1st, but I have a book that does mention him. The book is "Be it Ever so Humble" by Dean Ashton (no know retation to Doc). It was written in 1947 to pay tribute to all of the men and women of the Hopewell Valley area who served during World War II. Dean Ashton was a Hopewell resident, graduate of Columbia University, and a press reporter for many years with Camden and Trenton newspapers. His final chapters in this book pertain to the Hopewell homefront during the war, and under the heading of "Railroads, Taxi and Auto" he writes three paragraphs that mention Doc (Ed) Ashton. I thought I would write out those paragraphs for you so you can at least get a slight glimpse of Doc:
★★ "Ed Ashton (the taxi operator who says that a doctor told him "better take things easy until I see you again," and then the doctor died, so Ashton still follows the doctor's advice) lost a wheel from his taxi while passing the Presbyterian Church. The taxi swerved around close to the wall on the other side of the street but a crash was avoided. Shortly thereafter, he obtained a new car. He has promised that he will drive just as slowly as ever even if it is safe to go over 25 miles an hour! (APRIL 1943)
★★ Ed Ashton has given up his taxi business. Anybody who has seen him dozing while waiting for business in front of Gebhart's hotel could tell that he was plenty tired, and that seems to explain why he has quit his old stand. Instead, he is working as a Crossing Watchman at Skillman, a job that he held several years back. Actually, he grew weary of staying in his taxicab to meet the last train about 1:38 A.M., probably taking a trip some distance from town with a patron snatching a little sleep and then getting up before daybreak to start someone else for the city. Once you've been in the taxi business, it isn't as easy to get out and stay out as you might think. Ed Ashton, who believes that nothing should be done hastily, even killing mosquitoes, has learned that. He still gets calls for taxi service, although he's been a Crossing Watchman near Skillman for a couple of months or more. The other night about 3 A.M., a lady called in distress. She said she was at Marshalls's Corner on her way to Trenton and her car had broken down. Ed Ashton explained that he was not only out of business but was home sick. With some difficulty, he persuaded her that she must look elsewhere for assistance. Taxi service is now being provided by Jose Carballal of Railroad Place. (JANUARY 1944)
★★ About once a week, Sam Little boards the 12:57 p.m. train in Hopewell and rides to Skillman. Then he walks back to the Zion "Hollow" Road to sit down for a chat with Ed Ashton, Crossing Watchman at that point. Sam used to like to ride with Ed Ashton when the latter drove a taxi around town, so the new plan permits him to keep up with his chats.
Just a quick look at Ashton, who appears to be quite the character and well liked. He was born in Somerset County, N.J. and lived most of his life in Hopewell, passing away there in 1950 at the age of 76. This would have made him 58 years of age in 1932. He was married with one son who died in ihis first year of life. If Doc was operating that taxi service in little Hopewell in 1932, the NJSP would certainly have interviewed him as to any strangers or strange vehicles in the Hopewell area in the weeks/months prior to the kidnapping.
I have also located a five part series of articles from March/April of 1992 in the Hopewell Vally News by Douglas Shaffer concerning the Lindbergh case on the 60th anniversary. It also has interviews with some Hopewell residents who were in Hopewell at the time of the kidnapping. Most, if not all of those older residents are now deceased. I will look through it for any mention of Doc Ashton.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 23:16:25 GMT -5
(The kidnappers, with CALjr, are now heading away from the house in a straight easterly direction across the open field towards their parked car on Hopewell-Wertsville Rd. (now Hopewell-Amwell Rd.) having given up their original intention of retreating in a more discreet fashion, back alongside the house and down the driveway.) Joe, do you have any thoughts on why the kidnappers would have given up their original intention of leaving by the driveway? If they didn't want to leave approaching footprints why would they want to leave a trail of departing prints? Why didn't they just leave the ladder lying on the boardwalk and head down the driveway with the child?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 9, 2017 5:58:21 GMT -5
Joe, I have looked through some of my Hopewell keepsakes from the past to see if I had anything that mentions Doc Ashton. I did not find anything pertaining to his alleged sighting on the night of March 1st, but I have a book that does mention him. Thanks, Lurp. Those are great accounts of Doc Ashton, and they remind me of the type of story I would have read in the local newspaper I subscribed to when I lived in a small village. Based upon the fact there are no known contemporary reports of Doc having reported the sighting of the speeding touring car on the night of the kidnapping, it would be difficult to attach a lot of importance to it at this time. There's just nothing there that really jumps out at you other than he was well known and well liked within Hopewell. I just wish someone had probed him a bit more during his recollection for the Princeton Recollector in 1977. It's such an unique memory, especially in relation to the night of the kidnapping and I'll keep it in my own timeline though as I still believe there may be something to it. Michael, I'm not sure I've seen these two reports which included statements by Doc Ashton, and which Amy previously mentioned, those being March 1932 and December 1932. I may actually have them in my files but can't locate them. Can you repost them, please? I'm particularly interested in when Doc first heard about the kidnapping.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 9, 2017 6:47:50 GMT -5
(The kidnappers, with CALjr, are now heading away from the house in a straight easterly direction across the open field towards their parked car on Hopewell-Wertsville Rd. (now Hopewell-Amwell Rd.) having given up their original intention of retreating in a more discreet fashion, back alongside the house and down the driveway.) Joe, do you have any thoughts on why the kidnappers would have given up their original intention of leaving by the driveway? If they didn't want to leave approaching footprints why would they want to leave a trail of departing prints? Why didn't they just leave the ladder lying on the boardwalk and head down the driveway with the child? (Amy) That is such a great question, Amy and it's one everyone here should be asking. I believe there is a very logical answer to this, which I've been trying to impress here. First of all, it seems quite clear that the kidnappers approached the area under the nursery window, by travelling alongside the house from a staging area located off the driveway, ie. the lack of approaching footprints from anywhere else. They would have wanted to make their approach discrete, knowing that the ground nearest the house and under the eaves overhang, would be the firmest and therefore less likely to leave footprint evidence behind. Wearing the fabric coverings over their feet, again is an indication of their original desire to not leave any footprint evidence behind. The photo of the specific area under the nursery window which shows the very narrow "walkway," ladder imprints and only one forward facing footprint, tells me clearly this clay-based ground was relatively firm ground which would not have easily supported the production of normal-pressure footprints.I know Michael has asserted that this was a staged kidnapping, the kidnappers walked along and remained positioned on the narrow walkway while they raised the ladder, in order to avoid leaving footprints. I see two major problems with this: 1) The walkway was only between 6" and 12" in width on approach and the area under the nursery window where they would have to raise and plant the ladder, was made of up of a single piece of narrow tongue-and-groove flooring. I don't understand how, while standing on this narrow perch, they would have been able to raise and climb the ladder from a position between it and the wall, at the same time not leaving even one trace of a footprint in the ground adjacent to and all around this "walkway." Surely they would have had to have stepped off here and there, during the relatively involved process of first raising the ladder on a walkway that appears to be no more than 6" in width! Are we both perhaps missing something here that requires an independent perspective to answer, (?) and I'd certainly appreciate your thoughts on this specific point. 2) Why all the secrecy and care to avoid leaving footprints on the approach, while balancing themselves on the walkway, when minutes later, they go walking off in an easterly direction, leaving a telltale trail of footprints behind, something they supposedly did not want to do under the window? You made a very good point as well a while ago that the walkway in itself was virtually mud-free, so this tells us a lot about the relative firmness of the ground around it, and that this specific patch of ground around it was not "mucky mud." My own conclusion is this was a real kidnapping. To support this, I believe the kidnappers originally intended to approach and retreat alongside the house, using the main driveway to get to the house from their vehicle (staging area was near the driveway) and again the driveway to get back to their vehicle. This all changed when the ladder rail split unexpectedly, causing it to impact the first floor shutter with a bang. (the noise heard by Lindbergh) One of them also stepped down harder than he would have liked as a result, (the forward facing print) while also dropping or bringing down the burlap bag unexpectedly as well. (the larger fabric print) Now in a state of relative panic, they hurriedly decided they could no longer retreat the same way they approached (for fear of meeting someone coming out of the house to investigate) and instead the kidnappers made a beeline for their vehicle, retreating directly to the east across the open field. They would now be in an open area, well exposed to the rains of the previous morning and afternoon, so the footprint trail would have been relatively easy to follow for investigators. This clearly, was not the case for the specific area of ground nearest the house and under the nursery window.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jul 9, 2017 10:30:21 GMT -5
Now in a state of relative panic, they hurriedly decided they could no longer retreat the same way they approached (for fear of meeting coming out of the house to investigate) and instead the kidnappers made a beeline for their vehicle, retreating directly to the east across the open field. Yet gripped in this panic they decided to take the time and effort to move the still-assembled ladder across the yard, footprints be damned? The lack of approaching footprints but the presence of departing footprints is just another of the staging breadcrumbs that were intended to lead investigators away from considering anyone in the household to be participants... Just like the placement of the note on the windowsill, having departing footprints but no approaching footprints and moving the ladder afterwards indicates a lack of "thinking through" what a real crime scene would look like, which also accounts for the overzealous wipe down of the nursery. Didn't Ellis Parker say a staged crime scene is obvious because it is too perfect? Had he been able to see this scene fresh and in it's entirety, perhaps he would have made the same conclusion here? Minimal mud on the boardwalk can also support the scenario of staging since approaching from the driveway with daylight would make traversing it with the relatively lightweight ladder far easier to achieve than later in darkness and minimize the likelihood or need to step off from the boards. The few footsteps and burlap impressions may have been unintended and not part of the plan, but once created there was no erasing them so what choice was to be made but to leave them and hope for the best...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2017 20:22:44 GMT -5
Joe,
I appreciate your detailed answer to my question about the prints. I will need to give it some thought and get back to you.
In the meantime, I have another question for you about your theory:
I was wondering why you have chosen the Archie Adams sighting for your timeline. Although I have given it consideration in the past, I no longer do. As you pointed out, Archie reports seeing a sedan as the second car. We just can't change things to fit a theory. The other reason I have more or less put this sighting aside is due to the possibility that these two cars could be part of a car theft ring that was operating out of Blawenburg (close to Skillman) at the time of the kidnapping. These speeding cars could be attached to that gang. Making the turn onto Hopewell-Wertsville Rd. (now Hopewell-Amwell Rd.) does not mean they are kidnapper cars. I just don't feel there is enough detail provided by Adams to connect these vehicles to the kidnapping.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 10, 2017 8:05:11 GMT -5
Joe, I appreciate your detailed answer to my question about the prints. I will need to give it some thought and get back to you. In the meantime, I have another question for you about your theory: I was wondering why you have chosen the Archie Adams sighting for your timeline. Although I have given it consideration in the past, I no longer do. As you pointed out, Archie reports seeing a sedan as the second car. We just can't change things to fit a theory. The other reason I have more or less put this sighting aside is due to the possibility that these two cars could be part of a car theft ring that was operating out of Blawenburg (close to Skillman) at the time of the kidnapping. These speeding cars could be attached to that gang. Making the turn onto Hopewell-Wertsville Rd. (now Hopewell-Amwell Rd.) does not mean they are kidnapper cars. I just don't feel there is enough detail provided by Adams to connect these vehicles to the kidnapping. Amy, you make a good point about the possibility of these two vehicles being part of the Blawenburg car theft ring. I realize it might seem I'm taking liberties here for the benefit of my personal timeline, but I do believe those two vehicles were involved with the kidnapping. Here are some additional thoughts which I took into consideration before including this account and speculating that Adams may have been mistaken about the second vehicle: - According to Adams, both vehicles were speeding and almost forced him off the road so his attention would probably have been foremost, to staying on the road. I think it's also important to note here that the drivers may not have been speeding intentionally, but that they were unfamiliar with the road conditions and due to the darkness, ie. overdriving the present conditions. (As an aside, we really know nothing about Adams' personal driving habits and there are no independent witness account of the dynamics that shaped this encounter, ie. was Adams entirely accurate in saying the two vehicles nearly forced him off the road? Adams might have been a terrible, white knuckled driver for all we know!)
- Adams believed one of the vehicles was a Dodge, so this tells me he was probably more focused on that specific vehicle, (and possibly the lead vehicle) so I speculate that he would have been paying less attention to the second vehicle. We do know a Dodge, as well as an unfamiliar dark touring vehicle was seen in the area that day by a number of witnesses.
- It was 7:40 pm on a moonless night, and unless the area where Adams passed the two vehicles was well lighted, I believe general visibility and discernment could well have been compromised for any witness.
- Again, the time 7:40 pm, which would suggest both vehicles were now near and heading in the direction of the Lindbergh estate. We know that Anne heard what she believed to be the sound of car tires at about 8:10 pm.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 10, 2017 13:06:44 GMT -5
I'm curious, does anyone know when CAL dropped off the radar on March 1st?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jul 10, 2017 18:51:32 GMT -5
That depends on whose radar you're asking about and whose testimony you're willing to accept...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 11, 2017 18:28:29 GMT -5
Michael, I'm not sure I've seen these two reports which included statements by Doc Ashton, and which Amy previously mentioned, those being March 1932 and December 1932. I may actually have them in my files but can't locate them. Can you repost them, please? I'm particularly interested in when Doc first heard about the kidnapping. Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 20:59:31 GMT -5
First of all, it seems quite clear that the kidnappers approached the area under the nursery window, by travelling alongside the house from a staging area located off the driveway, ie. the lack of approaching footprints from anywhere else. They would have wanted to make their approach discrete, knowing that the ground nearest the house and under the eaves overhang, would be the firmest and therefore less likely to leave footprint evidence behind. When you say the kidnappers wanted to make their approach "discrete" and not leave approaching footprints, why would outsider kidnappers have such a concern? Using the driveway to stage the ladder and then walking over to the boardwalk is not exactly discrete. It seems rather bold to me with a lack of concern that someone might have looked out the kitchen window and noticed people in the court area. Why didn't these kidnappers approach from the east side of the house. That side of the house was dark and they would not have run the risk of being seen. Aren't they wearing socks over their shoes to minimize their foot impressions? How would the kidnappers know that the ground nearest the house and under the eaves overhang would be the firmest ground? When would they have made this assessment of the ground conditions to know this if they only used the driveway approach? Was one of them at the house in the daytime? Or did someone communication this to them before they came onto the scene? I think that only two persons were on that boardwalk. Since the two sections of ladder are already assembled, they carry the ladder down the boardwalk, one on each end. The front end man has the flashlight. When they are near where they want to position the ladder, it is raised vertically resting on the boardwalk just to the right of the nursery window above. Resting the flashlight on the boardwalk behind the ladder the two men lift and then swing the bottom of the ladder outward causing the top of the ladder to drop downward where it causes two scrape marks on the whitewashed stone. They then move the bottom into position in the mud in front of the boardwalk and rest the top of the ladder against the house. I do think this is possible with a minimal amount of moving around on that boardwalk. Since the bottom of the ladder is near enough to the boardwalk, I do think it is possible to have swung one leg to the front of the ladder and stepped onto the ground, then bring the other leg around and place it on the first rung and then start climbing. I didn't say it was virtually mud-free. I said there was not a lot of mud on that boardwalk so I was asking Michael if he knew when the boardwalk was placed there. My guess would have been it was placed recently. I think because there was not a lot of dirt on the boardwalk it lends itself to the kidnappers walking carefully to avoid stepping down into the soft ground. This was moist, fresh dirt. It would have been conducive to the creation of footprints and ladder indentations which this crime scene contained.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 11, 2017 23:38:03 GMT -5
The kidnappers were told not to leave approach footprints, to stay on the boardwalk as best as they could, in order to keep things as clear as possible for investigators and not muddy things up (sorry) with a lot of confusing footprints in the yard. The organizers behind this just wanted a clean, easy-to-follow trail leading out, to telegraph what happened. If any eyebrows were raised as to why there were no approach prints ("That must mean they drove up, and if they drove up, why didn't they drive out...?)--meh. The kidnappers obviously got to the house somehow, and the point is that they clearly left this way--oh, and here's a ladder and chisel along the trail of these prints, to reinforce that this was just what it appeared to be: A kidnapping. If there were still suspicions or questions, they could be shut down, the investigation steered away from any anomalies. Granted, you'd need someone with a lot of sway to do this...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 12, 2017 16:30:46 GMT -5
First of all, it seems quite clear that the kidnappers approached the area under the nursery window, by travelling alongside the house from a staging area located off the driveway, ie. the lack of approaching footprints from anywhere else. They would have wanted to make their approach discrete, knowing that the ground nearest the house and under the eaves overhang, would be the firmest and therefore less likely to leave footprint evidence behind. Wearing the fabric coverings over their feet, again is an indication of their original desire to not leave any footprint evidence behind. The photo of the specific area under the nursery window which shows the very narrow "walkway," ladder imprints and only one forward facing footprint, tells me clearly this clay-based ground was relatively firm ground which would not have easily supported the production of normal-pressure footprints.It seems to me you are saying they did NOT want to leave prints above while at both of your points #1 & #2 asking why they wouldn't want to. If they did not want to leave prints then it doesn't matter by which method they employed. But for me, if anyone walking near a muddy situation does not want to leave prints they avoid the mud. Here, there is a walkway that was laid down for just this purpose yet you have them deciding to walk somewhere they've never been knowing it's less muddy. So what were the boards for and why were they placed there in the first place if what you say is true? Each time I read your position it becomes less realistic to me. They used the boards that were meant for that purpose. Next, you wonder why they didn't step off. Exactly! Creating an "innocent" scenario for criminals in order to explain away things that should have occurred doesn't make sense to me. There's nothing "innocent" about this crime. They walked the board, with a light source, and without haste. It could be done because the police themselves did it. Without a light source there's no way. So these men had a light source and weren't in any particular hurry. And again, under the eaves overhang it was a situation where someone would leave prints as Anne's (or another woman) from earlier in the day prove. Those prints absolutely prove it. So one could not walk there without leaving any. Finally, the shoe coverings were, according to police, used to "deaden" the footsteps of someone walking around the nursery. What evidence do you have that, not only that it was their intent, but that it actually did make their feet invisible when contacting the mud? Fact is, someone weighing more than Anne walking there, no matter what's over their shoe, would still leave a print of some kind to evaluate.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 13, 2017 6:44:59 GMT -5
I don't understand about the theory of dry ground next to the house. This was the first of March and snow over the winter, even if melted would have left the ground soft. Maybe this is different in NJ than Michigan but unless the temperature was well below freezing I would make the assumption that the ground would be soft enough to leave an impression near the house. Also, no one disputes there were footprints but they don't indicate, in my opinion, who placed them there. A kidnapping or a staging. The fact the ladder was removed makes me think it was part of a staging.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 13, 2017 6:49:50 GMT -5
Michael, I'm not sure I've seen these two reports which included statements by Doc Ashton, and which Amy previously mentioned, those being March 1932 and December 1932. I may actually have them in my files but can't locate them. Can you repost them, please? I'm particularly interested in when Doc first heard about the kidnapping. Michael, do you understand why Doc Aston's reputation was in question here?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 14, 2017 6:09:48 GMT -5
Michael, do you understand why Doc Aston's reputation was in question here? That's a common theme when considering what people were telling police. If they had a good reputation it was included as a factor in showing it was believable.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 14, 2017 7:20:25 GMT -5
Michael, do you understand why Doc Aston's reputation was in question here? That's a common theme when considering what people were telling police. If they had a good reputation it was included as a factor in showing it was believable. So in asking his good reputation be restored it's implicit that his account was questioned?
|
|