|
Post by wcollins on Sept 28, 2006 16:08:09 GMT -5
Yes, very, very carefully. Presumably there were no lights on. He would have little light from the outside given the time of day and the cloudy sky. It seems amazing that he does not disturb anything, does it not? He steps in, stooping over, with the first leg, then has to pull the other one in (something like a hurdler? or not?), then he moves forward and encounters the screen -- unless it had been pulled away, like the window not being latched(?), and reaches the bed. Charlie does not awaken. If he does he is either quickly silenced, or he knows the person lifting him up.
Here we have a perfect crime -- carried out, supposedly, as Kevin notes, not by a big-time gangster but a little amateur who has never built a ladder, and who has found his way to a back road on a dark and rainy night, and discovers (Voila!) an unlocked window.
What odds would one give of success?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 28, 2006 17:22:40 GMT -5
Can we ever know?
I would say more of a controlled slide, feet first. It is hard to describe, but I have actually done it before.
Do you really think so? Perhaps perfection is in the eyes of the beholder. I also wonder, as Michael has so astutely pointed out, what would have been the outcome if the BOI (FBI) had been in charge from the outset.
Do we know Hauptmann never built a ladder before?
That depends on the composition of the deck.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Sept 29, 2006 13:59:08 GMT -5
Ah, yes a deck with all aces!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 29, 2006 15:28:04 GMT -5
Don't forget the eights !
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 29, 2006 19:49:09 GMT -5
Kevin, I agree with your point about the three section use as far as remaining "unseen" and at a preferred elevation for entry. On the other hand, I really don't think the kidnapper would have had much trouble finding himself in a relatively comfortable and balanced position with left foot on the window sill, right foot on a ladder rung and right hand on Rail 16, with the ladder stabilized by another inidividual at its base, if he had come prepared to deal with a locked window.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 30, 2006 8:10:43 GMT -5
Joe, I respect what you are saying and I can't responsibly say it is an impossibility, but I think you have try standing on that third section to understand my doubts regarding this action. I don't think this ladder is remotely capable of providing a "relatively comfortable and balanced position" even with a man at the base. It has such little rigidity and is so narrow at the third section that any prolonged force transmitted laterally and off-center is going to be a real problem. Also I don't see the position you are describing as being conducive to anything other than breaking the glass. In order to have any chance of getting to the window latch and manipulating it or breaking it, you have to be below the meeting rails as the upper sash is outside of the lower sash. With your foot on the sill your working position would place you above those rails which would mean that you would be against the window and somehow be able to reach down to get whatever tool you may have between the sashes. Meanwhile you are holding onto what? Anyway, thats is how I see it, another instance where a re-enactment would be so incredibly revealing.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 30, 2006 10:03:48 GMT -5
Kevin, I hear what you are saying about the implausibility of the ladder being used as a working platform and I agree, but only if you are implying with the full weight of the kidnapper or with overstressing lateral forces were applied. I believe your previous observations about the use of the third section and apparent fit of that section's rails into the recessed area of the shutter are valid and very important towards understanding the overall logistics. And I think you are absolutely correct that a reenactment would not only be revealing but is a necessity, given the many individual contributing factors - physical structure of the ladder, its positioning and balancing, forces applied by the kidnapper, weather variables and surface conditions, etc. Where my observation about the use of the ladder as a temporary working platform lies, is in the shift of the kidnapper's weight and forces relating to his motion, from the ladder to the window sill itself. I've tried this using my table and crate mockup and granted, it's nowhere near representing the real conditions of the night of March 1, but what it does show clearly are the basic physics involved and that the kidnapper could have positioned himself in a fairly comfortable working position to have a go at the locked window, with very little lateral or downward force on the ladder itself. For a good representation of the three section setup and the distances and dimensions involved relative to the two state troopers in the same picture, see The Lindbergh Case, Jim Fisher, page 232, picture 4.Here's what I did, and remember all descriptions are based on equivalent position and motion on a mockup using similar three-dimensional distances and elevations and with a person holding the ladder securely at its base: - Kidnapper ascends to the upper rung of the "double rung" grouping at the top of Section 2, with left hand on Rail 16 and right hand on Rail 17
- Maintain centre position on ladder, lead with left foot and plant it on window sill while at the same time jamming it against left window frame, with left knee bent
- Smoothly shift upper body and left arm and position them against left thigh in "hurdle" position. Left side of upper body and left arm now rests comfortably on left thigh.
- Right foot only remains positioned on ladder rung with majority of weight and force now being applied towards and into window sill and relatively little weight and force applied to ladder
- Right arm and hand are now free to move over and work on window lock or slide window up
What I find most revealing about my recent experiments is that they continually point towards the importance of the "double rung" grouping as the critical launch point not only for entry into the nursery but also for any activity that might be needed to defeat a locked window or slide up an unlocked window. And because this was a point of relative reinforcement, it stands to reason this was part of the intent on the part of the designer. More and more it seems apparent the design of this ladder was extremely well thought out in advance, despite some of the potential structural shortcomings.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 30, 2006 10:28:24 GMT -5
Excellent Joe!
I will try my own "experiment". I will be replacing a couple of double hung windows on Monday and I want to try a few things out.
I really wish we could all pool our resources and try a re-enactment. I know from Mark that Highfields is out because of liability. However, a mock-up set could be made quite easily which would duplicate all of the dimensions of Highfields. That would also allow for some safety precautions.
ABSOLUTELY Anyone who even considers this ladder to be a "prop" or a last minute construction has no experience with it and probably no interest in it as well. Amazingly, there are still more secrets it can reveal.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Sept 30, 2006 13:50:54 GMT -5
Kevin, it could be of real value to group brainstorm as many potential variables before doing an actual reenactment.
If one can position themselves in a way that they have side and lower access from the ladder, for safety considerations, the "hurdle" position could be attempted on the first story windows from an extension ladder. Of course this wouldn't duplicate the undulating effect of the fully extended kidnap ladder, but it might provide some added insight into the actual forces that played out on the ladder and why for so many years most people have been amazed at how the climber / kidnapper was able to do what they did on this supposedly ramshackle structure.
I look forward to your experiences and any other observations and insights following your window installation.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 1, 2006 9:12:10 GMT -5
Joe, if "brainstorming" would be helpful , by all means let's go. As for the ladder, I think only an actual replica will do. There are just too many differences between it and a traditional extension ladder. Anyway my offer still stands and I would do all that I can to provide an accurate re-enactment. I think it is the only way to settle the whole issue. It is either that or endless "theorizing".
|
|
|
Post by Deester on Apr 22, 2007 14:41:51 GMT -5
Just playing devil's advocate.
Hauptmann builds the ladder, using scraps of wood he's got lying around. He's only got enough for a certain amount of rungs, so he decides it'll be OK that they're too deep: he'll be careful. Another advantage to the wide spaces between the rungs is that he might need to crawl "through" them, into the window -- he isn't quite sure of the height of the window.
He screws up sawing the last rail -- it's too short. He needs another piece of wood, but he doesn't have one long enough. He remembers the attic floorboards, and goes up there and saws one plenty long enough, which he can then shorten to work.
He gets to the house. He doesn't need all three ladder sections, only two (though this is a tad short). He's wearing gloves. The window is surprisingly open, so he doesn't need to break in. He grabs the baby. He crawls back out the window, leaving the ransom note.
The top rung breaks, and Hauptmann almost falls, but grabs a hold of the shutter. But the baby is dropped onto the boardwalk, without making a single sound. He quickly gets down the ladder, and sees that the baby is very injured, possibly dead. Oh, no! All is lost. Now he'll never get the money.
Still, he runs off with the baby under one arm, the ladder under another. Now the ladder is almost impossible -- he has to stop several times, because he drops one section, then another. Finally, after dropping two sections, he thinks to himself "it's over -- I won't get the money, the baby is probably dead, so I'll discard it somewhere, and it won't matter if I leave the ladder here, because it can never be traced to me anyway." He leaves the ladder in the yard, 75 feet away from the house.
In the car, the baby isn't breathing. He looks for a good place to bury the baby, with the idea that it will be found very quickly by police dogs.
Then he realizes -- he's the only one that knows the baby is dead. He could still go ahead with his ransom plans, but he needs some evidence. He removes the sleeping suit, and finds a place by the river where he digs a small hole and dumps the baby into it. He forgets that there are animals that will find it good, fresh food.
P.S. I don't think the ladder was a prop. It was used, put up against that house, and used. And it was used by one person, who wasn't able to carry it back to the car. If there were outside accomplices, the ladder would not have remained there.
Just one person's theory.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 24, 2007 5:31:30 GMT -5
I just don't think this scenario is very likely for numerous reasons. He certainly did not go into his attic and saw that board.
You may want to review all of our posts in this thread and pay careful attention to Kevin's observations concerning this ladder design. The 3rd section was built to fit into the louvers of those shutters to add stability, and no one could utilize 2 sections only without it scissoring on itself. The designer above all would know this.
Glad to see you posting and keep your ideas coming so we can hash this out.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 24, 2007 7:23:38 GMT -5
In that case I doubt we would be considering a carpenter, even a bad one. When making multiple or mirrored pieces SOP is to use a layout template or in this situation, another rail to make the rest of the rails. Even a novice carpenter would know this. This would be even more important if a limited quantity of straight usable pieces were at hand and some of those boards had already been "worked". One thing we do know from firsthand accounts is that Mr Hauptmann was extremely good with plans and numbers, making the possibility of such a major error even less likely. I also don't buy the theory that rail 16 ( the attic floorboard) was damaged due to nailing. It's possible for this to happen, especially with such heavy common nails, but you can feel this happening as you hammer and once again even a novice carpenter would know to stop before the situation worsens. Also, Hauptmann was experienced with these materials and nails as can be readily seen in his garage. I won't even comment further on the absurd process of going up into that attic for the wrong size wood except to say that this was probably a police invention.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 25, 2007 5:16:26 GMT -5
I think the idea of someone grab hold of the shutter wouldn't be possible once their actually on the ladder. The other thing is - the top rung didn't break.
|
|
|
Post by Deester on Apr 25, 2007 21:28:06 GMT -5
I'm happy to know somebody's reading my post -- thanks!
The thing that's always bugged me is -- why is there only one piece of the ladder from that attic? If he planned the ladder, needed wood, knew he could use some from the attic, why not build the whole thing from the wood pieces in his attic?
Additionally, why would the remaining part of one board remain in the attic (226)? Why wouldn't a carpenter pull up the boards he needs, all of them, take them outside or wherever he's making the ladder, to do the measuring and sawing?
I can only come up with a theory that one board didn't work, somehow, and so he had to find another, and thought of his attic.
I don't believe the board 16 was a police plant; as others have stated, it is just impossible to believe the police could plan and carry out a deception so complete as that.
I don't really believe in conspiracies overall. I believe Hauptmann certainly wrote the ransom notes, received and spent the money, and I think that part of the ladder came from his attic, and the reason it was left on the Lindbergh property is because the kidnapper was only one person, and he wasn't capable of carrying it away, as well as the baby. The "one person" theory clearly points to Hauptmann.
If it wasn't one person, then many other theories work very well to explain the events of that night, including a theory suggesting that the child didn't die at all, but was spirited away.
But if Hauptmann was involved in a conspiracy, it doesn't make one bit of sense that he didn't implicate others before his execution. He didn't mention Lindbergh, or anyone else, as being primarily responsible; just proclaiming his own innocence.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 26, 2007 5:34:21 GMT -5
If Rail 16 is the other piece of S-226 and S-226 was original to the attic floor then I'd say the Klein-Purdy Theory is 100% correct. Therefore, this explains the entire scenario without any crazy idea that Hauptmann cannibalized his attic floor and did so in a way which was not indicative of someone who was a carpenter or familiar with wood-working of any kind. Koehler got it right when he said a Carpenter would never have left the end of S-226 hanging over the joist but would have sawn it "flush."
People tend to get scared when they hear the word "conspiracy." Overall, this is a "buzz-word" usually associated with Martians or Aliens, etc. But in reality, conspiracies happen all the time. We have the normal ones which under Federal Law send a good 1/3 (by my estimate) of our Prison population to jail. This is public information and can be easily looked up if you don't believe me.
Then you have the type like a Marine being ordered not to tell the truth about friendly fire in Afghanistan, the Jessica Lynch lie about her emptying her clip before being captured, or the bright idea to plant a painting of Hitler in Noriega's office....etc. etc. The lists go on and on. We know of these things because people talked but what don't we know about?
Sometimes people do keep their mouths shut and its usually those who get the fullest brunt of the law because they won't talk. It's how they broke most of the OC out there, which by the way is yet another enormous example of conspiracy. It used to be they got arrested, went away for a 1-1/2 year(s) and came back to start breaking knees again. No more. Get clipped and don't talk nowadays then we're talking at least 20 years or more. Most flip before the trial even starts.
But there still are those who won't - even under these circumstances. Does that mean they aren't in the Mob?
And from what I understand, because Hauptmann kept his mouth shut, this is supposed to be evidence he acted alone. Well, the other evidence points clearly to multiple participants. For me, if you are going to seriously research this case, you must consider all facts, variables, and circumstances then decide where the greater weight of the evidence falls.
Now the Jone's letter is interesting. Of course no one likes it because it contains some factual errors and makes both sides of the debate look foolish....but it does eliminate the idea that Hauptmann didn't talk. I personally believe he did confide, before his execution, in Lloyd Fisher.
|
|
|
Post by Deester on Apr 26, 2007 12:12:43 GMT -5
I'm not a researcher, just someone who takes a keen interest in the case. I haven't read every post, here and everywhere online, so I'm just relating what I'm familiar with, and I'm certainly interested in new twists or...evidence.
I'm not familiar with the Klein-Purdy theory -- perhaps you could point out a thread where I can read about it?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 26, 2007 18:57:40 GMT -5
Hey Deester The theory is simply this; the attic board which would become the famous rail #16 was removed prior to and without connection to the building of the ladder. This was done by someone, most probably an electrician, in order to access the second floor wall which lies directly below and runs parallel to the floorboard. After removal the board may have ended up in the basement of the Raush house with other wood scraps. Hauptmann would have used this board to fabricate rail #16 without the knowledge of its origin.
|
|
|
Post by Deester on Apr 26, 2007 19:37:52 GMT -5
Oh, makes total sense. The ladder was obviously made of scraps of wood of all different types. Though one wants to say to Hauptmann, um, oops.
|
|
|
Post by Deester on Apr 26, 2007 20:01:27 GMT -5
The ladder is completely fascinating to me, and I think, the main clue and/or the best held secret.
If Hauptmann built the ladder, here are some "theories":
1. It was built in a hurry. Why? Perhaps March 1 was the deadline date, and couldn't be changed.
2. Why not just buy a ladder? This must be because the ladder should be versatile, but also Hauptmann may have considered that buying a ladder could be traced (to the store, etc.)
3. Why build a ladder so crudely, yet expertly? Just like the ransom notes, it is possible that Hauptmann was trying to "disguise" the ladder, or disguise that it was built by a trained carpenter, calling attention to himself. Yet, still the ladder needed to "work," needed to hold weight without collapse, and needed to rise to a needed height, and needed to be transported in a car. So, the ladder was expertly built, but in "disguise."
4. Why couldn't a carpenter make a ladder that wouldn't break? I think Hauptmann used available wood to make the ladder, and probably tried it out several times. He knew that it would hold him. He forgot that he would be carrying something else, which added some 30 lbs. to the weight.
5. I don't believe Hauptmann varied the wood because of worries about fingerprints. The ladder could be wiped down after it was made. But it didn't occur to him (or anyone else) that the wood itself might be traced, since wood hadn't been used as a forensic tool before this case (I could be wrong about this). He wasn't trying to "vary" the wood at all. It was made of scraps of wood that he found around his house and garage, though he did steer clear of wood he had bought himself, since he worried that that might be traced to him, with an eyewitness (someone seeing him buy the wood).
6. Did Hauptmann or the kidnapper intend on leaving the ladder at the crime scene? Of course not, but they knew it was a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 27, 2007 5:20:53 GMT -5
By coming here and kicking around ideas, processing them, and then formulating new ideas - for me this is research. (What I don't consider research is blatantly making things up, pretending to know something you don't, or ignoring things on purpose to simply try to look right).
And so, I consider you to be a Researcher. ;D
I have never seen any evidence this was built in a hurry, in fact, since Kevin's observations have been made public I think this proves it wasn't....that is if you agree with him which I do.
A store bought ladder couldn't do what this ladder was designed to do. I'll let Kevin answer these if he sees fit because it was his research that clearly explains all of this.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 27, 2007 8:51:00 GMT -5
I wouldn't make the assumption that the ladder was built in a hurry. There really is no evidence of that. In fact one might considerthe slight variations found in the layout and tooling as evidence of a progressive build.
It's possible that tracing a ladder was a possibility, though I think it could easily be circumvented. I think it's more likely that no commercially available ladder fit the requirements. Weight seems to be a prime factor here and regular extension ladders of the time were wooden and quite heavy. There may also be additional criteria involved which we are not aware of. I have often considered the nesting ability and the overall depth as more important than the often cited length factor for car transport, though as of yet I don't know what gave cause for this.
That's a good thought. My issue here is that I don't consider the ladder "crude" in the context of it's usage. Yes, for a work-a-day ladder it definitely is crude. As a show piece of one's woodworking abilities it is crude. But, as a single purpose, lightweight, one time use ladder made expressly for the commission of a crime, I don't think it is crude at all.
I would have a hard time believing Hauptmann would have overlooked the "passenger" in building this ladder. Personally I think he was more focused on the ladder weight and perhaps the depth. It's very easy to get caught up with one element of design and overlook others. Because the ladder has rails of only 1"x4"( actually 3/4" x 3 5/8") and a dowel hole bisecting it, the ladder strength is wholly dependent on the angle of inclination. If you could set it in the absolute vertical position, it's strength is at a maximum. Once it starts moving away from the vertical there is more force applied across the grain of the rail and at some point it cannot resist this pressure. Hauptmann may not have tried the ladder in anything other than a near vertical position, it may not have been possible for him to do so.
Personally I think fingerprints were nothing short of an obsession with him so I do believe it was a major criteria in the picking of the wood. It's easy enough to say you can wipe down the ladder and I have heard this before. But do you know how to do this with wood? It really is harder than one might think and unless you have your own forensic test kit, how could you be absolutely sure that every trace has been eliminated? I doubt buying one of the most common boards sold in a lumber yard would arouse too much suspicion. I agree that he wasn't trying to vary the woods, it's not good practice to do this.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 27, 2007 9:01:14 GMT -5
Why do you think that the ladder sections were removed from the side of the house to a spot 75ft away and yet there is no sign that they were being put back in the nesting position for transport ?
|
|
|
Post by Deester on Apr 27, 2007 10:56:38 GMT -5
I don't know the answer, but I think it's possible that the kidnapper (a single guy) didn't want to put down the baby on the ground, so he tried to carry out the ladder, in three pieces, under one single arm, with the baby under the other arm. He got pretty far doing this (75 feet), probably in a panic-state, before giving up and dropping all three pieces.
I hadn't considered the vertical angle of the ladder before, but I think this did play a part. Perhaps the ladder could have been more vertical, but the ground below was too muddy -- the kidnapper had to place the bottom of the ladder further out, on solider ground, but this made the angle more acute, and actually further down from the window.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 27, 2007 18:30:34 GMT -5
I don't know the answer, but I think it's possible that the kidnapper (a single guy) didn't want to put down the baby on the ground, so he tried to carry out the ladder, in three pieces, under one single arm, with the baby under the other arm. He got pretty far doing this (75 feet), probably in a panic-state, before giving up and dropping all three pieces. Lord knows I am famous for finding the grey-area in just about every scenario but I've learned there is no grey in a black & white situation. The Lone Gunman Theory is out for several reasons. First and foremost it was impossible. Secondly because you have (3) separate sets of footprints. (2) men and (1) woman. One could argue the woman's were Anne's....I don't believe they were but I acknowledge a possible debate. However, no one has ever raised an issue with the (2) sets of mens, instead pretending later there wasn't (2) sets. But there were. The example you set forth above ignores it was pitch black, extremely muddy, there was a child, either an extended (3) section ladder or an extended (2) and (1) separate section - in addition to a chisel and whatever else we don't know about. What's this guy an octopuss with night vision and webbed feet? Addtionally, how does this guy negotiate the board-walk upon approach w/o any light? This is an action of person(s) familiar with the house. We're supposed to believe Anne couldn't do it in the daylite. There's more of course but you get the picture.
|
|
|
Post by Deester on Apr 27, 2007 21:16:40 GMT -5
I'm certainly open to all good theories. Bring 'em on! But I do think the single person theory is pretty good, and it points directly to Hauptmann. Are there pictures of the footprints? Isn't it possible both sets of footprints are Hauptmann's? If there was a "gang," I think it must have been pretty small, perhaps only 3 people, Hauptmann, Fisch, and someone in the house, perhaps Betty Gow. Otherwise, a "kidnapping" for a total of $50,000 makes no sense. Hauptmann built the ladder, Fisch wrote (the first) ransom note, and Betty, obviously, handed over the child and wiped down the nursery. Perhaps the gang thought the death of the baby meant the end of the ransom, but when Condon came in, Hauptmann thought he might be able to get the ransom after all. Fisch feared discovery so much that he left the country, never to return. And Betty was never really under suspicion, surprisingly. Maybe she did share some of that ransom, and was more careful about it than Hauptmann. I'm just...throwing ideas out there. Remember, I'm *not* a researcher.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 28, 2007 6:45:08 GMT -5
We'll have to disagree because there is absolutely nothing I have ever seen which would lead me to believe (1) person did this alone, especially since the casted footprint evidence that existed at both St. Raymond's AND Highfields did not match Hauptmann.
One print at each site was casted. Once Hauptmann was arrested they took all of his shoes from his home then went to his ShoeMaker. They even told him his shoes didn't match their prints which was proven by their omission at trial and failure to turn over this exculpatory evidence to the Defense.
Dr. Hudson, who was working with the State, saw this same type of conduct going on regarding the fingerprints and requested Wilentz to turn over what had been developed to the Defense. Once Wilentz did not, Hudson jumped ship and contacted Reilly's office leading to his testimony in Flemington for the Defense.
Saying the totality of the evidence points to his involvement is one thing but that's much different then saying he pulled this off alone.
That was impossible.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 28, 2007 8:01:23 GMT -5
It's amazing how significant that statement is in this case. I think of it as the LKC Point Break. The fork in the road. This is where so many people make a conscious decision to hunker down with the "lone wolf" theory of go off with conspiracy theories some as extreme as the "hoax". Whatever direction one proceeds from this point there is an ever present danger. That danger lies in the form of prejudice. It's easy to ignore, but it's there and it can skew the very way we see and interpret all of the evidence in this case. It is something anyone seriously interested in this case has to keep in mind and in check.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Apr 28, 2007 9:38:48 GMT -5
We'll have to disagree because there is absolutely nothing I have ever seen which would lead me to believe (1) person did this alone, especially since the casted footprint evidence that existed at both St. Raymond's AND Highfields did not match Hauptmann. One print at each site was casted. Once Hauptmann was arrested they took all of his shoes from his home then went to his ShoeMaker. They even told him his shoes didn't match their prints which was proven by their omission at trial and failure to turn over this exculpatory evidence to the Defense. Dr. Hudson, who was working with the State, saw this same type of conduct going on regarding the fingerprints and requested Wilentz to turn over what had been developed to the Defense. Once Wilentz did not, Hudson jumped ship and contacted Reilly's office leading to his testimony in Flemington for the Defense. Saying the totality of the evidence points to his involvement is one thing but that's much different then saying he pulled this off alone. That was impossible. Michael - have you ever come across any info on how the print at Highfields matched up with the print at St. Raymond's? If I were a betting man, I'd say that those 2 prints don't match one another.
|
|
|
Post by Deester on Apr 28, 2007 10:35:24 GMT -5
I certainly willing to consider all theories, angles.
What I think I meant was this: if one considers this as a single person job, the evidence (such at it is) all points to Hauptmann. The evidence may have been doctored purposely to point to Hauptmann, I don't know. But as a single planner/kidnapper, he fits the information we have, being German, a carpenter, a criminal who used a ladder in a former crime, he had at least some of the marked ransom money and he spent it, and quit his job the day after the money was given to Cemetary John, and he was likely to have seen Condon's note in the Bronx Home News. The ladder was built with wood that matched wood at his house. And the handwriting in the ransom notes was very similar to his (even he admitted that).
And he was a pretty shady character, I'd say.
The only other evidence that points to a "single" person that isn't Hauptmann is that table with the confession and the holes.
If we decide we don't think Hauptmann (who wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, one must concede) did this alone, then I prefer the consider a very small conspiracy, perhaps as small as 2. Hauptmann and Fisch. Or Hauptmann and Gow. But a larger conspiracy involving other members of the household, other shady Bronxian masterminds, or even something involving Lindbergh himself, are simply theories with no evidence to back them up.
The baby's room with no fingerprints isn't evidence -- it's non-evidence. Without a confession, no one will ever know why -- there was no evidence there.
|
|