|
Post by Michael on Jul 14, 2017 7:56:33 GMT -5
So in asking his good reputation be restored it's implicit that his account was questioned? You lost me here. At the end of the report it says: " Respectfully request that in view of the above explanation and Mr. Ashton's local reputation this matter be considered closed." This, to me, shows he had a good reputation.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 16, 2017 8:17:09 GMT -5
I think as a general rule, most people in the business of kidnapping, would want to leave behind a minimum of forensic evidence, to eliminate or minimize the likelihood of it being used to identify them. While I agree that walking alongside the house to get to the area under the nursery window is very direct and not discrete, neither is the act of kidnapping the Lindbergh child. It's not even considered without a high level of involved risk, ie. someone coming out the front door, or an household occupant entering the nursery while a kidnapper is in there. I believe real kidnappers approached the area under the nursery window from their staging area, probably used the walkway as a rough guide to get them there, but I don't believe for a minute they would have been able to stay on the walkway the entire time while they raised the ladder, especially while perched on the last 6" piece of tongue-and-groove flooring.
Regarding their approach from what I consider to have been the staging area off the driveway, I believe it's also quite possible the kidnappers could have scaled the low whitewashed stone wall to get to a position alongside the house in order to prevent a more circuitous route around it via the driveway.
Getting back to your own theory, they also walk alongside the house, careful to stay on the 6" - 12" walkway, (for some reason that seems very vague to me) so I believe you really need to ask yourself the same question, if one posits this was a staged kidnapping: Why would they have wanted to give the "impression" of having acted so brazenly, when they could have simply approached from the east side of the house, ie. footsteps approaching and footsteps retreating?
In your scenario, there seems to be a lot of activity happening here on an either 6" or 12" wide walkway for two guys in the dark, trying to raise a two-section ladder, which due to the nature and pivot of its dowel hinge, must be kept in a back slanted or firmly-held position to prevent it from suddenly scissoring. Their feet are going to be moving constantly (forward, backwards, sideways) while they maintain their balance and continually adjust their centre of gravity through a strictly coordinated team effort. They have a flashlight sitting on the walkway which at that distance, is going to be shining a relatively narrow beam of light at ground level. How is this going to help them more than having it provide a potentially disorienting effect or even present a stumbling block? Most importantly, you have them maintaining their balance on the single and narrow piece of tongue-and-groove flooring which makes up the walkway under the nursery window, all this time not having stepped off even once into the moist, fresh dirt, which you imply would have shown footprints, if they had have done so. At this stage, one of them still has yet to climb the ladder while the other holds it positioned (again balanced on this single piece of flooring) and possibly receives the child in a bag. And all we are left with for investigators, is one forward facing foot impression and the impression of what might have been a burlap bag to the right of that. I think you need to seriously question how this would have been even remotely possible, in either theory or practicality.
My apologies if I misquoted you. Regardless, the general cleanliness of this boardwalk tells me a lot about the soil type, condition and moisture level of that specific patch of ground it covered on that specific date, and it's general non-ability to register telltale signs of people having walked over the ground near it. And its clear to me that specific patch of ground around the walkway did not readily register footprints.
Returning to the kidnappers and their use of this walkway - after leaving the nursery, what are your thoughts as to why they would suddenly have abandoned the apparent need for carefully staying on the walkway, (to avoid stepping onto ground you claim would have shown footprints) based upon the fact they then walked away from the house in a direct easterly direction, leaving a telltale trail of footprints behind them? In other words, why be so careful to stay on the walkway to not leave footprints, when they later seem to have no issues leaving footprints?
They may not have known all conditions for certain and I certainly wouldn't have expected them to. I would have to assume though that anyone undertaking a crime involving the preparation this one would have demanded, would have at the least, been aware of the potential effects created by a roof overhang, weather reports from that day and the leeward effect itself, and how this might impact the the ground they knew they would have to walk on.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 16, 2017 9:05:52 GMT -5
I have to admit I'm having a tough time understanding your points here. I find it far more helpful to return to the bottom line points in order to minimize any misunderstanding. - I believe the kidnappers would ideally, have wanted to leave a minimum of footprint evidence behind. This would lessen their chance of being apprehended. They knew what they were getting into with regards to the fact this was a newly constructed house and therefore the surrounding grounds would not yet have been fully landscaped. They needed to get to the area directly under the nursery window to raise the ladder. They approached this area by walking alongside the house and probably used the walkway as a "guiding path" in the dark.
- They would not have been able to stay on the walkway during the entire process and particularly while they raised the ladder in the dark for the reasons I posted in response to Amy's question earlier today.
- I believe the boards would have been placed alongside the house to generally allow a more dirt or mud-free traverse between the front and back of the house for workers and household occupants. I do not assume that the specific path of ground around the walkway was of the exact soil type, consistency and density as well as moisture content, as the ground everywhere else around the house. Therefore, I do not assume it's potential to demonstrate footprints would also be the same here as for the ground everywhere else around the house.
- The police also walked along the walkway and raised a ladder to the nursery window in the dark, climbed it while one waited at the base of the ladder, and they managed to do so without stepping off the walkway even once? This is news to me and I believe you'll have to provide the reference to back this up.
- Anne, by her testimony, walked alongside the house away from the walkway and "in the mud" between the nursery window and the French window to attract the attention of Betty Gow and the child. Was there a clear trail of Anne's multiple footprints to demonstrate the fact she claimed to have walked back and forth a number of times?
- The fabric coverings would not necessarily have made their footprints "invisible," but they would certainly have assisted in leaving less of an impression vs. regular footware, with all other variables being equal.
- Any specific patch of ground will show a footprint impression based also, upon its potential to do so, independent of the type of footware used. This takes into account a number of variables, which include exact soil type, consistency and density as well as moisture content.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 16, 2017 11:47:14 GMT -5
Footprints were secondary concerns for a kidnapper. The main thing was not getting caught in the act. For that reason it doesn't seem he/they would be taking off and putting on galoshes. It seems that positively the prints with socks over the feet or shoes would have been entering the nursery, socks to lessen noise. Possibly the socks would be pulled off en-route away, but after the ladder broke with its noise there would be a tendency to quickly get outta Dodge.
We've been over the print stuff a lot and I still go by Gardner's use of DeGaetano's report of seeing a man's shoe and a sock covered print at the house. Man's could have been Cal, Ollie, Wolfe, Williamson, Bornmann, or Wolf, but the sock covered print was definately kidnapper. But hey, no galoshes, yet the prints being described as two kidnapper's prints leading away have galoshes on. So did the kidnapper(s) stop and put on galoshes on their way out of the area so he/they didn't wreck their shoes? And did one of the kidnappers take his galoshes off earlier to approach the house? Why? Personally I don't think so.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 16, 2017 12:48:33 GMT -5
And isn't it interesting Jack, that by the time the NJSP made their official observations, all that showed up in the way of prints in the ground directly under the nursery window, was one forward facing print and what looked like the impression of a burlap bag. It seems pretty clear that specific patch of ground was quite a bit firmer than most folks here seem to think.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 17, 2017 2:11:04 GMT -5
Yes, Joe, it seems to me it must have been firmer. The lack of footprints was one reason the NJSP was criticized (for not finding them) but seems just as likely that they weren't there in the first place.
There's supposed to be a picture somewhere (I've never seen it) that Amy told me about which is below the nursery window and has a sock print that even shows the toes. If someone has that maybe it could be posted on here. That I suppose would have been the sock print which DeGaetano mentioned in his report. I don't believe he was referring to the deep sock print.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 17, 2017 4:16:30 GMT -5
Timeline looks great, Joe. Don't forget to add when Anne ran out of tooth powder.
I don't think there was enough money for three kidnappers though. Not really even enough for one to take on that magnitude of a crime, If anyone could be found who would do it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 17, 2017 5:31:15 GMT -5
- They would not have been able to stay on the walkway during the entire process and particularly while they raised the ladder in the dark for the reasons I posted in response to Amy's question earlier today.
Sure they would have. Not under the conditions that normal "sneak-thieves" would have. But here we have evidence they did it so where does that leave us? Certainly not alleging the mud is different from footstep to footstep? I believe the boards would have been placed alongside the house to generally allow a more dirt or mud-free traverse between the front and back of the house for workers and household occupants. I do not assume that the specific path of ground around the walkway was of the exact soil type, consistency and density as well as moisture content, as the ground everywhere else around the house. Therefore, I do not assume it's potential to demonstrate footprints would also be the same here as for the ground everywhere else around the house. I would expect this if and only if those other footprints did not exist in the areas where you assume the dirt was different. But there are prints there, therefore, that mud would show prints so your whole theory is out the window. Its only even possible if you ignore those prints. The police also walked along the walkway and raised a ladder to the nursery window in the dark, climbed it while one waited at the base of the ladder, and they managed to do so without stepping off the walkway even once? This is news to me and I believe you'll have to provide the reference to back this up. When police got there no less then five of them - having never been there before or even knowing the situation - were able to traverse this walkway without stepping into the mud. Why? They were using flashlights and sometimes guided. Next, none mention about the mud being different IN THIS AREA while mentioning that it was different elsewhere. I'd say these are important facts to apply to the situation before conjuring up ideas that contradict the scene. Anne, by her testimony, walked alongside the house away from the walkway and "in the mud" between the nursery window and the French window to attract the attention of Betty Gow and the child. Was there a clear trail of Anne's multiple footprints to demonstrate the fact she claimed to have walked back and forth a number of times? There were two possibly three "small" prints in the exact area you say the mud was of different consistency. Still not sure why or by what document you have that says this, but these prints disprove it. Stepping inside of that board to attract the attention of Betty never made sense to me but that's a whole different discussion, but it is consistent with someone looking up instead of down which would create a situation to walk in the mud, and as we know, leave footprints there. The fabric coverings would not necessarily have made their footprints "invisible," but they would certainly have assisted in leaving less of an impression vs. regular footware, with all other variables being equal. Any specific patch of ground will show a footprint impression based also, upon its potential to do so, independent of the type of footware used. This takes into account a number of variables, which include exact soil type, consistency and density as well as moisture content. I believe this is pure fantasy. It may distort the print but it will leave one if Anne who was light as a feather did. You have men carrying a ladder and you think a sock would have eliminate their prints but not Anne's because of her shoe?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 7:45:51 GMT -5
; believe real kidnappers approached the area under the nursery window from their staging area, probably used the walkway as a rough guide to get them there, but I don't believe for a minute they would have been able to stay on the walkway the entire time while they raised the ladder, especially while perched on the last 6" piece of tongue-and-groove flooring. Well, whether you choose to believe it or not, Joe, the evidence is that they did just that; they stayed on the boardwalk and placed that ladder. They worked carefully and without haste staying on the boardwalk. They had a light source which they kept with them and they raised those two sections of ladder up. Those are the facts Joe! The general cleanliness is proof that the boardwalk was carefully used, avoiding stepping off into the mud and leaving prints. That is why you have prints only where they were intended (prints leading away from window) or absolutely needed (step down print in front of ladder in order to make the climb). The ground was wet and did produce prints when stepped on, even Anne's prints were found where she stepped on the muddy ground. The soil under the nursery window was wet and would create prints when stepped on. According to the Washington D.C. Soil report, the dirt under the nursery window area was of a platy structure. What this means is the soil consists of many thin layers of dirt piled on top of each other. Platy soil when it becomes wet actually retains its surface moisture longer than other more porous soil structures. It takes platy soil longer to absorb the moisture. The platy soil under the nursery window was muddy that night. We know this because of the police reports and most importantly because of the footprints and ladder indentations that were present and photographed.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 17, 2017 8:17:26 GMT -5
Timeline looks great, Joe. Don't forget to add when Anne ran out of tooth powder. I don't think there was enough money for three kidnappers though. Not really even enough for one to take on that magnitude of a crime, If anyone could be found who would do it. (Jack) Jack, I do have Anne getting her tooth powder at 9:45 pm, but I'm not clear from all of the information if she gets it from the nursery or the adjoining bathroom. I've seen both accounts.
You could be right with Hauptmann as lone wolf, and that dark blue touring car and Duane Baker could ultimately be irrelevant. Something sticks with me though, a thread that goes all the way back to the Plymouth Apartments, and where this whole thing could have been hatched. It's a bit like a dream you had the other night, but you can't quite put your finger on it because when you try to, it sort of evaporates. I believe its possible that there was involvement by two others, including Baker and possibly even a plan to keep the baby locally near Hopewell, assuming Lindbergh would not call the police. When the baby was killed and police had been notified, only Hauptmann was gutsy enough to proceed with the ransom negotiations and payment, so he ended up with the lion's share. Fisch would have been more of a minor player, as both a cemetery lookout and money launderer.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 17, 2017 8:55:01 GMT -5
Yes, Joe, it seems to me it must have been firmer. The lack of footprints was one reason the NJSP was criticized (for not finding them) but seems just as likely that they weren't there in the first place. There's supposed to be a picture somewhere (I've never seen it) that Amy told me about which is below the nursery window and has a sock print that even shows the toes. If someone has that maybe it could be posted on here. That I suppose would have been the sock print which DeGaetano mentioned in his report. I don't believe he was referring to the deep sock print. (Jack) Jack, the soil had to have been much firmer in the area under the nursery window and during the approach, than is being made out by some folks on this discussion board. To imagine two kidnappers, or even just one, coming along that walkway in the dark, even with a flashlight, raising a two or three sectioned ladder with it's finicky dowel hinge, while balanced on a 6" wide piece of tongue-and-groove flooring, all from a position between the ladder and wall, not stepping off even once into the surrounding ground? And they haven't even gone up and back down the ladder yet, with one of the kidnappers keeping the ladder steady. Can you see all of this activity happening without a lot of footprints all around that narrow walkway, if the soil actually had been soft and impressionable enough to readily show footprints?
And what do you make of the general contention here that the faux kidnappers would have been told (ostensibly by mastermind CAL) to stay on the walkway as they approached the area under the window to make the climb? Do you see any sense in this instruction, ie. why would they be so careful to do this when, minutes later they go walking off through mud further east of the house, which actually does show their retreating footprints? This is usually where you get someone chiming in that, according to Leon Hoage's theory that this kidnapping was staged, the kidnappers were required to leave a "breadcrumb trail" for police to follow.
What's your read on the general lack of footprints under the nursery window and alongside the house?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 17, 2017 10:05:30 GMT -5
Read is a couple of things:
Initial landscaping (the land after a building is built before it's grounds are finished over) leaves the ground higher for a space at the edge of the building. This creates a drier area outside very near the building walls. I've noticed it as I've worked around houses. The purpose is to create a natural flow for water away from the house and so water doesn't tend to puddle near or by the foundation. Of course the overhang of a structure's roof also contributes to the dryness near the structure.
As far as CAL is concerned I proved in an earlier post that he had nothing to do with the crime. I don't know who else would benefit from a "faux" kidnapping - remember, somebody named Richard Hauptmann ended up with the only recovered ransom money so where would the "faux" come in?
We've watched and occasionally commented on this one for a long time Joe. Have you honestly ever seen anything get so friggin complicated?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 17, 2017 10:37:33 GMT -5
Additional:
Baker is a candidate for CJ & kidnapper. For one thing there's no evidence. Baker managed a building that was close to the address Faulkner wrote on the gold note exchange slip. As far as I've been able to determine, Baker just disappeared off radar like a lot of people do. The history of the building Baker managed had some stories about him - he upscounded with a months rent for the building, etc. but no provable stuff unless somebody's found out more about him. Building also had the Jane Faulkner residency whose family included that other suicide. Interesting reading, but for me it needs more to tie it into LKC>
Personally I don't think a criminal like Baker would sign on to a crime like that for sixteen thousand six hundred dollars. And I think when he found that a third of the money wasn't any good Hauptmann would have been found at the bottom of that bay he liked to canoe at.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 18, 2017 7:33:07 GMT -5
Read is a couple of things: Initial landscaping (the land after a building is built before it's grounds are finished over) leaves the ground higher for a space at the edge of the building. This creates a drier area outside very near the building walls. I've noticed it as I've worked around houses. The purpose is to create a natural flow for water away from the house and so water doesn't tend to puddle near or by the foundation. Of course the overhang of a structure's roof also contributes to the dryness near the structure. As far as CAL is concerned I proved in an earlier post that he had nothing to do with the crime. I don't know who else would benefit from a "faux" kidnapping - remember, somebody named Richard Hauptmann ended up with the only recovered ransom money so where would the "faux" come in? We've watched and occasionally commented on this one for a long time Joe. Have you honestly ever seen anything get so friggin complicated? Jack, complicated is not the word for it. In over 17 years of studying this case, I don't think I've seen a handspun explanation, in this case for the lack of footprints under the nursery window, that flies so clearly in the face of the laws of physical science, the limits of human agility.. and common sense. And we actually have a photo of that area which strongly suggests the ground was much firmer than is generally being touted here. It's clear this was not a "fauxnapping," but a real kidnapping, and that CAL was not involved. And yes, I agree with you that his refusal to touch the ransom letter, is a major sign of his innocence. So is calling in the police immediately, because if he have known what was in the ransom note and had have been part of a staged kidnapping, he would have dealt with those who wrote the note in private. And for someone so painfully at odds with the press and his adoring public, to then essentially allow "the world to come to his front doorstep" and invade his long-sought privacy, (as part of a scheme to eliminate his son) is pretty much unthinkable. And wouldn't you think if he had have been part of a kidnapping and murder, that after 85 years even the most remotely possible connection between Lindbergh and Hauptmann would have come to light, particularly given his apparent fall from grace within public perception for many of those years? It's evident that even the cops who were closest to this case and who at one time or other might have entertained some thoughts about this being an inside job, had nothing to write about in retirement that implicated Lindbergh. Lindbergh called the police for a very good reason.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 18, 2017 8:34:47 GMT -5
Additional: Baker is a candidate for CJ & kidnapper. For one thing there's no evidence. Baker managed a building that was close to the address Faulkner wrote on the gold note exchange slip. As far as I've been able to determine, Baker just disappeared off radar like a lot of people do. The history of the building Baker managed had some stories about him - he upscounded with a months rent for the building, etc. but no provable stuff unless somebody's found out more about him. Building also had the Jane Faulkner residency whose family included that other suicide. Interesting reading, but for me it needs more to tie it into LKC> Personally I don't think a criminal like Baker would sign on to a crime like that for sixteen thousand six hundred dollars. And I think when he found that a third of the money wasn't any good Hauptmann would have been found at the bottom of that bay he liked to canoe at. Jack, Baker wasn't CJ by a long shot, but I believe he could have been one of the kidnappers and that a brother or cousin was his cohort. There is some great personal insight information on him within the NJSP Baker Investigation Report. And I think he essentially dropped out of the overall kidnapping plan after the baby was killed and he realized with all of the police, press and public exposure, he'd rather be alive and fleecing his tenants, than being rich and dead. Like Hauptmann, Baker had the inclination and smarts to deceive and deflect the police who ultimately caught up with him, but he was far more street savvy than Hauptmann. Throughout the police investigation of Baker, I see many signs of his ability to deceive, which appear to have gone unnoticed by police at large, probably due to the fact that no one specific investigator was assigned to looking him up. Meanwhile, Richard had spent far too many years being gainfully employed and apparently respectable since his earlier criminal endeavours in Germany, before deciding to get involved in the kidnapping because he couldn't figure out the stock market. So he was good at protecting himself from accusation under the cold light of truth, but not great. As far as the genesis of this plan goes, I believe that took place in the basement of 537 West 149th St., (the exact address on the JJ Faulkner deposit slip) the same apartment Baker was superintendent to, under the guise of a card game.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 18, 2017 14:02:48 GMT -5
I didn't remember that the address was exactly the same, thought it was around the corner, but I'll take your word for it.
In that case, hindsight here, it's too bad that with Baker, the police had a true criminal suspect which they didn't really go after. It's funny he would put his true, or recent correct address on the exchange slip. Is Baker thumbing his nose at the world?
More must be known about Baker - maybe even on here in is it millions of pages yet> - than I remember coming across. He's the favorite suspect of a researcher on another site, and no matter what's been learned (new stuff implicating Hauptmann) he sticks by his Baker did it guns.
Is that investigation report about Baker on here somewhere? He has always sounded like the kind of guy who could come up with that horrible crime.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 19, 2017 7:37:36 GMT -5
I didn't remember that the address was exactly the same, thought it was around the corner, but I'll take your word for it. In that case, hindsight here, it's too bad that with Baker, the police had a true criminal suspect which they didn't really go after. It's funny he would put his true, or recent correct address on the exchange slip. Is Baker thumbing his nose at the world? More must be known about Baker - maybe even on here in is it millions of pages yet> - than I remember coming across. He's the favorite suspect of a researcher on another site, and no matter what's been learned (new stuff implicating Hauptmann) he sticks by his Baker did it guns. Is that investigation report about Baker on here somewhere? He has always sounded like the kind of guy who could come up with that horrible crime. Baker was the superintendent of the Plymouth Apartments, owned by Payne Kretzmer, at that very address. I don't think it was Baker who cashed in the $2990 in Lindbergh gold notes on May 1, 1933, but someone else (like Jacob Nosovitsky) who had had occasion to be in the basement of 537 West 149th St., during a card game and what became a kidnapping plan. When pressed for a name for the slip, I believe the depositor came up with an alias based on his recollection of the name Faulkner on the basement dumbwaiter and that same address. BTW, Baker absconded with the mid-month rent on April 15, 1932, just a couple of weeks after the ransom payout and I have to think he either got none of it, or just "disappeared" with all of the heat, keeping himself fed while he waited for a share. Also, a guy by the name of Jimmy Faulkner, about 40 years of age was a big spender in Montreal and Ottawa in the summer and winter of 1932, before leaving town flat broke and racking up a string of IOU's. Clarence Honey, the manager of the Ottawa hotel saw him as late as November of 1935 outside a Broadway night club, and had previously heard he was looking for work in Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa. Nosovitsky was also know to frequent those Canadian locations looking for work.
I know Bob Mills on Ronelle's board is also big on Baker, but I believe he somehow puts Capone at the helm of the kidnapping plot, which sounds like pure fancy to me. As far as Hauptmann goes, no question that he's dead to rights, but something about his protestation of his innocence of the crime for which he was convicted rings true for me and I believe he may have been saying in other words, "Okay, I built the ladder, wrote the notes, yada yada.. yeah I was in this thing up to my neck, but it wasn't me who took CALjr out of the nursery."
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 19, 2017 11:52:21 GMT -5
Ya, in a way it doesn't matter, but would be nice to know if anybody else was involved. I think people mostly assume more than one perp because it just doesn't seem possible that one could do it.
If you notice that report on Baker I'd be interested in reading it - also, I've never even seen a pic of the guy.
Bottom line though is that it's hard to believe more that one person would agree to such a hairbrain scheme. Sooner or later it would surely seem to fail because the government has plenty of money and will never quit going after you.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 19, 2017 12:18:49 GMT -5
Ya, in a way it doesn't matter, but would be nice to know if anybody else was involved. I think people mostly assume more than one perp because it just doesn't seem possible that one could do it. If you notice that report on Baker I'd be interested in reading it - also, I've never even seen a pic of the guy. Bottom line though is that it's hard to believe more that one person would agree to such a hairbrain scheme. Sooner or later it would surely seem to fail because the government has plenty of money and will never quit going after you.
It still shocks me that even one person could have conceived this scheme without it dying a quick death during next morning's hangover and even more so, that it actually got carried out. But I believe it started with what was a very personal motive.
Michael doesn't appear to have a section on his board for individual police reports, but I can see if Ronelle will upload the Baker Investigation to her site. Stay tuned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 15:40:51 GMT -5
Baker wasn't CJ by a long shot, but I believe he could have been one of the kidnappers and that a brother or cousin was his cohort. I would certainly be willing to give some consideration to Baker's involvement. The John Donnelson Guinness car sighting is one of the reasons I have an interest in Duane Baker as possibly being linked in some way with this kidnapping. The car in that sighting might have had Union County plates which is where Baker's family lived. I would need to know additional information about him, however. I do hope that you can get that report from Ronelle and post it.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 19, 2017 20:48:56 GMT -5
I'm not sure where to post this, but I’d like to take Joe’s excellent TIMELINE and advance it to March 3, 1932. For all of those who believe that CAL had nothing to do with the kidnapping, please explain this to me (and if this has been posted before, my apologies). On March 3, 1932, the New York Times posted this photo – The caption under the photo reads: Picture of His Missing Son, Given Out Yesterday by Colonel Lindbergh to Help in the Search. It Was Made About Two Weeks Ago.Okay, so on either March 2 or March 3 CAL hands a photo to the NYT and says something to the effect “In my effort to help in the search for my missing son, here is a photo taken of him about two weeks ago. This is what he looks like now.” It's there in black and white. So far so good. But then, note where the photo is cropped on the right-hand side...cutting the toy horse in half. At Yale University, I was able to find a series of photos and here is the rest of that photo – Anyone notice the lit birthday candle, showing everyone that Charlie was celebrating his first birthday? You don't see that in the NYT article. The photo that CAL claimed was “about two weeks old” was almost 8 months old! Can anyone here see someone like John Walsh or Beth Halloway making that kind of mistake or lie? No, because they were/are seriously looking for their missing child. Can anyone see someone like Susan Smith or Scott Peterson making that kind of mistake or lie? You bet, because they were certainly not looking for their missing child and/or spouse. What was CAL trying to do? And you can't say it was an editorial mistake because CAL could have corrected it the next day.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 19, 2017 21:15:00 GMT -5
Yup. This whole issue perfectly encapsulates what I'm talking about. The strange lack of recent photos of the child, indicating something about his health and/or appearance, coupled with Lindbergh's strange, dishonest behavior, indicating he had something to hide.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 20, 2017 7:48:45 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 8:40:14 GMT -5
Joe, I believe the photos used on that wanted poster are stills from Alice Morrow's filming she did of Charlie during the summer of 1931 while the Lindberghs were on their Orient flight. These stills were also used in news paper articles at the time of the kidnapping. You would think they would have had more current photos of their son to share in helping to find him. Plus they should have told the police and the newspapers that Charlie's hair had been cut short only a week before the kidnapping. Everyone was looking for a child with a head of golden curls. Those curls had been cut off. njspmuseum.blogspot.com/2014/ Lindbergh allowed all sources to believe he looked just like those photos. He obviously did not.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 20, 2017 8:47:49 GMT -5
Excellent question Joe. The missing poster was going to be my next post.
I find 3 things disturbing about the missing poster:
1) In answer to your question, the 2 photographs of Charlie are 6 months old! (These are in the Yale collection, dated August, 1931 by Mrs. Morrow at New Haven).
Also, at Yale we found 3 photos dated October 1932. I believe these were that last photos taken of Charlie. Why didn't CAL at least use these?
You're trying to help find your infant son and you use photos that are 6 months old???
2) We all know the 29"/33" controversy regarding Charlie's height. CAL had to have been the one to tell the NJSP that Charlie was 29" which is what they listed on the missing poster. VanIngen's last checkup revealed Charlie to be 2'9". Was this one more of CAL's honest mistakes or a deceptive lie?
Again, if it is a simple mistake, why didn't CAL correct the mistake when the poster came out and make new ones?
3)We all picture Charlie as the curly-haired cherub seen in the missing poster.
Charlie had a hair cut 2 weeks prior to the kidnapping. A Yale photo shows a very different-looking Charlie when he had short hair -
CAL was in charge of everything, including this missing poster. If he was trying to help find his son, why these discrepancies?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 9:21:12 GMT -5
Great posts Wayne and your pictures are awesome!!
I had never seen the one of Charlie sitting in the stroller that you posted. Are you certain that the photo is Charlie and not of Jon, possibly taken in 1933? Charlie was dead in October of 1932. Charlie and Jon looked so much alike when they were babies.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 20, 2017 9:50:51 GMT -5
Wayne, I echo Amy's comments.. great photo! It gives a better appreciation of what CALjr would have looked like sans the curls. In fact, he looks a lot like I did at that age, (!) but I would also bet that is Jon.
Getting back to CALjr, it is a bit of a mystery as to why there appeared to be no current pictures.. even a Christmas photo with Grandma? Are you perhaps currently searching for a more current one, because if there is one out there, I have a feeling you'll find it!
It's hard to imagine that if there was really something severely abnormal with the child, it would not have been noted frequently by other family, friends (such as the Rogers who visited a week before the kidnapping) or even the servants at next Day Hill. Also, that the child would have been cared for by a full time nurse with a list of credentials as long as your arm well before this time, as opposed to Betty Gow, who was essentially just a nanny. Anne's diary entries just before the kidnapping speak of nothing even remotely close to a child with severe abnormalities.
A thought: Is it possible that due to Lindbergh's almost debilitating disdain for the media and it's incessant pressure for current photos of the "Eaglet," a moratorium of sorts was placed on any photos being taken of the child to prevent them from getting leaked to the press? It should be remembered that Violet Sharp for example, had provided "details of the household" to Thomas McElvie of the Daily News, while she dated him. It seems quite possible that that subculture existed at Next Day Hill and perhaps it had surfaced enough for this precaution to have been taken.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 20, 2017 13:14:57 GMT -5
Amy, it looks like we posted the same thing at the same time. Great minds, huh? And I just wanted to confirm that you are correct as usual -- the Missing Poster photos were stills taken from a home movie reel. The two photos are labeled on the back as: "North Haven August 31st 1931 Aunt Alice Movie" Amy and Joe, as to whether the short-haired photo is Charlie or Jon, good question. Here's another photo - The back says: "Ab. 9 months taken at Princeton" That's Charlie. Something else interesting at Yale is the 2-page listing of all the photos. I'm not sure who typed this list...whether CAL, or Anne, or even Mrs. Morrow, but take a look at the last entry on Page 2. The handwritten one. Does it imply that photos were taken in February 1932 but are missing or not developed?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 20, 2017 13:51:51 GMT -5
Wayne, that's very interesting re: the mention of February 1932 photos and I hope you find them!
Regarding the North Haven photo taken in October of 1931, would this one have been in similar surrounding, same clothes., etc.? shsmo.org/historicmissourians/name/l/lindbergh/images/large/005809.jpg
There is another photo showing him standing on the bench with all four dogs, Bogey, Peter, Skean and Pim, so I would assume that one also would have been from October 1931, as he was walking at 17 months.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 16:03:49 GMT -5
Joe,
I think the dog pictures we have all seen must be the two mentioned on that list Wayne posted. No. 19 on that list. So Charlie would have been about 15 months old in those dog pictures. It is so good to be able to get a more accurate timeline for those photos!
|
|