kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 14, 2006 15:53:43 GMT -5
Just wondering if any of you out there know how many times ( if ever) a kidnapping was carried out with the use of a ladder for entry and exit.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 15, 2006 17:39:56 GMT -5
I have done a lot of research on this topic in the past. The 1st kidnapping on record in America was Charley Ross which took place in Philadelphia during the summer of 1874. Charley and his brother were lured by an offer of candy. His brother was let go. Many ransom notes were written (I've read as many as 24), and in the 2nd note a demand of $20,000 for his return was made. These notes also had some gross misspellings which looked as if it was intentional...as exemplified below in the first note: Mr. Ross- be not uneasy you son charly bruster he al writ we as got him and no powers on earth can deliver out of our hand. You wil hav two pay us befor you git him from us. an pay us a big cent to. if you put the cops hunting for him yu is only defeeting yu own end. we is got him fitt so no living power can gits him from us a live. if any aproch is maid to his hidin place that is the signil for his instant anihilation. if yu regard his lif puts no one to search for him you money can fech him out alive an no other existin powers don't deceve yuself and think the detectives can git him from us for that is one imposebel
yu here from us in few day Another kidnapping I have been interested in was the Coughlin Kidnapping. This occurred on June 1, 1920 in Norristown, PA sometime between 11-12 midnight. The child was 13 months old, in the nursery on the 2nd story, and a ladder was used which was left behind. Yet another matter I have been interested in is the Yonkers Ladder Murders. In 1927 someone used a 3 sectioned ladder to enter the second floor apartment. The Police believed the intruder was burglarizing the bedroom when discovered by 48 year old Leslie Rein. She was shot twice and her son was supposed to have rushed to her aid where he was gunned down as well.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 15, 2006 17:55:05 GMT -5
The Yonkers Ladder Murders seems quite interesting, have you gotten far with it? So I guess historically the use of a ladder for kidnapping is relatively rare.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 15, 2006 21:33:33 GMT -5
I became interested when I saw it referenced a few times in the source material. I have some newspaper articles as well.
I hesitate to say using a ladder was rare in kidnapping cases but I haven't seen many examples of it where I have looked so far.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 15, 2006 21:57:57 GMT -5
Yes, but do you see where I am going here? A kidnapper has to be concerned with more than just access and egress, he naturally and primarily must be concerned with the abduction of a person. Now whether that body is male or female, adult or child, dead or alive doesn't change the fact that the removal of that body is required. A ladder is not the first choice for such an action for obvious reasons. A thief, on the other hand, would have no issue with a ladder. A murderer, a rapist, or any other criminal would not be constrained by a ladder, but a kidnapper would. So why does Hauptmann choose this method? I know that may sound odd but surely even the Lindbergh child was vulnerable to being snatched by means other than involving a ladder. You know what we have been discussing regarding this issue, something is very wrong here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 17, 2006 6:46:43 GMT -5
Someone suggested this may have been intended to be a robbery but the Perpetrator saw the child and decided to take advantage of the situation. But that doesn't explain the note.
Rab has suggested both the note and the ladder were "generic" and prepared for a crime that hadn't been determined at the time. But that doesn't explain the apparent knowledge these guys knew before-hand concerning the inner workings, layout, etc.
People who believe Hauptmann pulled this solo suggest he had observed from the woods and therefore obtained all the information he needed himself. But that doesn't explain the choice of day, the 8-10 routine especially considering Anne had violated it the night before, knowledge of the surrounding area, and especially the dog. Of course there are more but we all know them... The dog is most interesting. Why didn't he bark? Oh - well he was conveniently in the opposite side of the house at the time being entertained by the someone. The Intruders never seem to be concerned with the possibility of the dog barking his head off if it happened to be anywhere besides where he was at this exact time. Lindbergh of course then lies in Court to neutralize everyone else's assertion this dog barked at everything.
Additionally, they risked the child screaming like a banshee when they entered and approached him - but he didn't. It's uncanny. It's a matter of record that CharlesJr. did so unless Betty was picking him up, although there is evidence he was warming up to Anne and may not have acted out if it were her - but anyone else....
So I guess my point is that IF you are to kidnap CharlesJr. then this would have to be the best means, method, and opportunity to do so.
But of course even if it is the best, your chances are nil, so I submit the best and only situation is if you cheat.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 17, 2006 8:02:15 GMT -5
Personally I am not as pre occupied with the whole issue of timing in this case and how everyone feels compelled to explain it. There are many other factors which come into play here which could either bolster or destroy the notion of inside information or help. For example you have brought up the dog, but what is more relevant is the other dog the Scottie, which was not asleep under the crib that night as it had been left in Englewood. What was our intrepid ladder climber's intentions regarding this dog had it been there? What if the windows were locked? Was our kidnapper really so sophisticated that every possibility had been thought out and planned for? My basic point is why a ladder? Unless this perp was overly comfortable with that means of entry and exit , I doubt it would be the first choice of a kidnapper. Now, we have people making posts regarding gangs and conspiracy, if there are a number of people involved here then why didn't they do the tried and true method. Put on masks, enter the house, ove power the occupants, abduct the baby, tie everyone up , and escape? They would have gained as much lead time, safely removed the baby, and not left much evidence in their wake. The use of a ladder here reveals that the kidnapper probably had prior experience with this method of entry and that prejudiced his decision making process. Did he really think he could get out that window and onto that ladder with a live squirming and screaming child?
|
|
|
Post by kathy for michael on Feb 17, 2006 8:42:03 GMT -5
michael you have to remember that that night people were in and out of the nursery and the bathroom next door. there is really a small window of time that someone wasn't very near to the baby's room. He should have cried out. if he were killed in the room, he might as well have been tossed out of the window but there was no indication in the mud of that. i think the answere lies in that night. things just don't make sense. If the neighbor dogs barked with the wind howling why didn't waghoosh?
|
|
|
Post by rick for kathy on Feb 17, 2006 12:13:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kathy for rick on Feb 17, 2006 15:17:34 GMT -5
thanks rick, there were probably wealthier girls in the school with constance as well. wasn't she in school in Conn.?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 18, 2006 0:49:42 GMT -5
To all Does everone agree something else happened, and not a kidnapping? The placement of the ladder would have made an impossibility to carry the child out the window, and besides that placement of one foot on the distant ladder would have made sideway marks on the sideing. The kidnapper had to be able to silence the child with chloroform, and at the same time ready to subdue anyone hapening onto the scene in this busy house with a club or gun, and maybee even a garrote for the dog perhaps. By bringing all this equipment the kidnapper would find it necessary to have an equipment belt like the one used by Schwartzeneger in his movies.If things realy got rough he could have brought along that 50 cal. machine gun and shot his way out the front door.
Lindbergh used his friendship with Schwartzkopf to cover events and blatant miss-representation of facts. CJ was reported to have said to Condon that he left the ransom note on the crib, and this in itself indicates that Lindbergh was not looking for a kidnapper. CJ had no way of knowing the room was cleaned of evidence, and that the note was on the window sill, but that was not of importance to placeing blame on another. Why would anyone that wanted a large count of payoff money ask to have it placed in a deep narrow box that was nearly impossible to estimate even a rough count? It seems that after seventy years if there was more than 15-20k ransom money in the box it would have been found by now, and think the Mersman table note of burying the money was an after though to explain away why no other money was found.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 18, 2006 8:06:01 GMT -5
"Why would anyone that wanted a large count of payoff money ask to have it placed in a deep narrow box that was nearly impossible to estimate even a rough count? " Yes, why indeed?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 18, 2006 17:13:33 GMT -5
None of the ransom notes axed for any "Box"! one would think after 75 years someone would admit how dumb this was? Not a cardboard box or a cigar box or even a Wooden Box was required. This Wooden Box fiasco was merely a figment of Jafsies imagination and a futile effort to kill some time while CAL searched the Eastern US for Charlie. The extortion gang axed for a packet! No Wood no hinges no lock no 3-day delay....just a packet 6 x 7 x 14 inches. I think wrapped in newprint would have dont just fine? Just to show how brilliant this was...either Condon or CJ discarded the wooden box into the bushes at St. Raymonds and someone came back and picked it up later. This wooden box joke was about as good as withholding the extra $20K of ransom at the 11th hour. Very cute but very dangerous for Charlie huh? Oh yes, but apparently CAl/Condon and Breck did not belive the BRonx Bombers even had Charlie? Why did they pay?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 18, 2006 17:23:24 GMT -5
So what is the significance of requesting the very specific "packet" size? Forget about Condon's interpretation of packet. Why does the author of this note make such a demand even going to the trouble of providing a drawing?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 18, 2006 17:59:00 GMT -5
IMHO I think that CJ wanted the smallest "package" possible for concealment purposes when he left St. Raymonds. [If someone would have followed him we would know where he was headed] If he was headed to a local home, of a relative, or going to take public transportation home, then he would not want a gold plated leather Breifcase that everyone could easily spot. AND he probably did want to get ripped off in a dangerous city. he likely wanted it to fit "under his coat"? Condon wasted a good $3 bucks on the ballot box approach. But at least we learned about Samuelson/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 19, 2006 0:07:34 GMT -5
All very well but it still does not explain the demand for a specific size packet. Why is Hauptmann making this demand for a 14"x6"x7" packet to the degree that he feels the need to provide a drawing with dimensions??
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 19, 2006 8:20:16 GMT -5
I agree with your observation here Kevin.
It's something that always bothered me. Not only does the Ransom Note Writer ask for a "packet" he draws it on the note. It had to be important for some reason to require it with such specificity.
I am of the opinion however that this box was stashed in the boxwood bush across the street that night. They returned for it a couple of days later. I have no doubt the money had been removed prior to it being stashed.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 19, 2006 9:02:31 GMT -5
Yes I have heard you and others mention this but I have never seen the evidence of it. What is there?
If what you say is correct about the box being stashed with the money removed I am not sure as to what the dimensions signify. It might be possible that it was a quick way to determine the actual money count. Although this is harder to calculate than it might seem as new and used money stack differently and as we know the extra 20k did not fit in the box.
|
|
|
Post by rick for kathy on Feb 19, 2006 14:36:35 GMT -5
Kathy...I dont know about wealthier girls in school but likely Constance foollowed Betty Morrow, Elizabeth and Anne who went to Smith College in Massachusettes. I recall seeing a photo of Constance being escorted to college classes by guards after the kidnap threat.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 20, 2006 3:36:32 GMT -5
Glad to see you have questioned the possible setup of ransom note fabrication by CAL. This ransom container request assumes the hypothetical kidnaper already knows every last detail of the money transaction even though he apparently doesn't yet know how to set up his line of communication with CAL. Doesn't anyone find it curious that ransom notes are being delivered by messenger and cab, and why didn't CAL post a number to call in the newspaper himself? Direct telephone or letter communication would have been most desireable for safe return, if there was a child to return, and didn't CJ know the address he just kidnapped a child from? This story is soo unbelievable I would think a short story publisher would have turned it down.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 20, 2006 9:24:53 GMT -5
Back to this thread. What about the "packet" and it's significance? What did happen to it?
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Feb 20, 2006 18:04:56 GMT -5
rick, i thought the kidnapping threat occurred when she was 15 and attending Milton Acadeny in milton, conn. i 'm probably wrong but it would just be another conn. connection. kathy
|
|
|
Post by rick for kathy on Feb 20, 2006 19:14:54 GMT -5
Good call/ i was obviously thinking about 1932 and/or college. There has been a huge effort employed to focus our attention in the wrong direction, like David Copperfield, so in order to connect the dots we just have to keep digging up these little factoids. The ransom at that time was also $50K so who has $50K on the brain? Which is like asking who had $118K on the brain in the JonBenet Ramsey kidnap case? [Bill Norris suggests Dwight Jr.] Someone snatches Charlie and CAL is trying despirately to find out who it is, and not believing the symboled notes. Why not? He first eliminates Al Capone.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 21, 2006 0:55:22 GMT -5
The box or packet request is putting the cart before the horse in ransom notes, and is doubly unbelievable since he hasn't even developed a line of communication, but has wasted demand or condition space on a drawing. This is not a common preliminary ransom statement before the conditions are set out for exchange.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 21, 2006 6:44:59 GMT -5
What you've said here Rita makes sense and compliments Kevin's point. It had to be important then didn't it?
I plan on putting something together on the box and what might have happened to it soon. I am way behind (still haven't done the post on the burlap bag yet either).
Part of the delay is my filing system (again). Kevin recently asked me a question which indirectly caused me to create a new topic which I am heading "City Island Investigation."
Of course there really wasn't such a thing....just different investigations which brought Investigators to that island. As I have said before, the problem is these investigations touch on so many topics that I had in the past picked what I believed was the most important and then filed it under that subject. I found this to be a huge mistake so I have been going to the various files and pulling these reports and making notations on the cover sheets to look into my new file. (Whew!)
One day I'll get there....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 21, 2006 8:38:44 GMT -5
Exactly right Rita, so why would he bother? Does anyone see anything significant about those dimensions?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Feb 21, 2006 9:00:09 GMT -5
The dimensions are almost bang on to those given by Kloppenburg at the trial, when asked to describe the package he claimed to have seen Fisch bring in to his own going, going, gone party. Pretty much the dimensions of an average-sized shoebox.
Joe
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 21, 2006 9:59:42 GMT -5
Then why didn't Hauptmann simply ask for a shoebox?Why specify something which requires fabrication?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 21, 2006 12:03:15 GMT -5
Maybe CJ/Fisch had a fetish for shoe boxes and wanted to make certain that the ransom money fit inside one?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Feb 21, 2006 13:01:58 GMT -5
Kevin, the ransom note writer didn't specify the "packet" had to be fabricated. I think all he was doing here was ensuring some efficiency of dimensions for what the money was to be delivered in, perhaps even to appear as inconspicuous as possible in carrying it away.
Joe
|
|